Law as a career is one of the most venerable and respected in society. Endowed with not only a relatively high salary, lawyers enjoy immense prestige in the U.S. Once considered a trade, the legal profession has evolved into a central pillar of democratic governance.
While law is a highly respected profession, it is not particularly accessible or affordable for many communities, particularly low-income communities. During the 20th century, there were a variety of pathways into the legal profession. Whether through self-study (as with Abraham Lincoln), apprenticeship, or attending a more affordable night school for law, attending a law school affiliated with a university was not the only pathway to entering the profession.
It was generally acknowledged that many individuals could not afford to attend university full-time without working. Organizations like the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) offered law school courses in the evening accessible to low-income and immigrant individuals who aspired to practice in their communities, become local judges, or get involved in local politics. While some organizations maintained their independence, others were absorbed by universities (such as Northeastern University and New York University) to become law schools affiliated with colleges.
Inspired by the Flexner report in 1910 on the condition of Medical colleges, the American Bar Association (ABA) requested that the Carnegie Foundation conduct similar reviews on law schools. One report, authored by Alfred Reed, proposed that various programs exist to educate different student populations and suggested that legal education should offer a variety of options. Reed recognized that different types of law schools were designed to prepare students to represent clients of different economic statuses. Elite schools such as Harvard and Yale would be well-suited to represent corporations, large businesses, or very wealthy clients, whereas part-time, non-elite schools would be better suited to training in local law. He even suggested that certain topics, such as criminal law, be practiced exclusively by non-elite schools.
Despite the recommendations of Reed (and other studies), the ABA and the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) rejected these recommendations and partnered to establish regulations that permitted only university-affiliated law schools to admit graduates to the profession. According to at least one historian, these attempts were intended to exclude Jewish people, African Americans, and immigrants from the profession and restrict the field to only the social elites. With these sweeping regulations, many accessible and affordable alternatives to university-based law schools ceased to exist.
The ABA's reforms have sustained. Today, colleges and universities accredited by the ABA remain the main entry into the legal profession. The economic chasm that bifurcated law schools based on applicants' economic status has turned inward. Prestigious corporations are dominated by graduates of elite law schools, mostly attended by highly affluent students (and are likely to be above the new federal loan caps).
Law schools remain segregated, both by income and parental education attainment. Today, only 37% of law students received Pell grants (the government's proxy for low-income status) as undergraduates. Similarly, over 54% of law school students have parents with a graduate degree, compared to only 22% who are first-generation college students.
Cost is not the only exclusionary factor. The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is also rooted in elitism and exclusion. Originally conceived by an administrator at Columbia University in 1945 (again, an elite university), the test remains the most widely used (and often most heavily weighted) admissions criterion for law school admissions. The test was originally conceived as an aptitude test, not one to be studied for. In fact, test administrators did not think students could be coached for this exam, despite preparation courses developed by individuals such as Stanley Kaplan, who was viewed as a pariah for this idea.
The LSAT, while it can predict success in law school and bar passage rates, multiple studies assert that the correlations are modest. Other factors, such as bar preparation courses or remediation services, can also affect students' academic success.
One alternative to the LSAT is the JD-Next assessment.
JD-Next is an online, 8-week course that not only provides admissions offices with an assessment but also exposes students to key legal concepts and skills that can help them gauge their interest in law before committing to a program. The test is a prep course and exam rolled into one. It costs $399 and covers all materials. The test is modeled after actual law school exams, making the test a more accurate assessment of a student's potential performance in a law school class.
In order for ABA-Accredited law schools to accept this test instead of the LSAT, they must file a 503 Variance with the ABA. Over 60 law schools currently use the test, including prominent law schools such as Georgetown, Texas A&M, Richmond, and Boston College. More law schools should allow this course for admissions as an alternative to the LSAT, and the ABA should make it easier for colleges to obtain variances.
This moment presents a rare opportunity to realign the legal profession with its democratic obligations. If lawyers are to remain credible stewards of democracy, the profession must once again be open to multiple pathways. Justice is strongest when those who uphold it come from not only the privileged elite, but from all socioeconomic echelons.
Leadership Brainery is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing access to graduate school for students from limited access backgrounds.