The largely anticipated jump in those retaking the LSAT is a result of the ABA’s recognition of the highest test score, as opposed to the average scores of those who take the test more than once. In contrast, the number of prospective law students taking the LSAT for the first time fell by 2%.
Some law school professors opposed the change, questioning the logic in inflating scores and increasing profits for testing agencies. William Henderson, associate professor of law at Indiana University School of Law – Bloomington called the rule a “zero sum game” that will simply increase overall LSAT scores, thereby resulting in no real change at all. Furthermore, Henderson said that “A higher LSAT score is not as good a predictor as the average.”
Sam Stonefield, associate dean for external affairs and a professor of law at Western New England College School of Law also criticized the new rule, claiming that it will hurt minorities and lower income students who are less likely to spend the time and money necessary to retake the exam.
However, Allen Easley, both dean of the University of La Verne College of Law and chairman of the ABA’s questionnaire committee explained that the move resulted from pressure felt by law school deans to report high LSAT scores for ranking purposes. Many were concerned that that competitors manipulated average LSAT scores. “If we let everybody report the high score, everybody is on the same level playing field and we eliminate that concern.”