The shift that many law schools are taking towards admissions – giving greater weight to non-GPA/LSAT factors for prospective JD students – is erecting additional barriers for lower- and middle-income students wishing to study law in this country. The pivot towards factors such as graduate degrees and CVs not only erects classist barriers, but also does a poor job of selecting for the best students. To boot, this direction is being taken without any serious discussion or endorsement of such a policy by the legal community at large.
The first problem with the new focus is that it makes access to legal education that much harder. If preference is going to candidates with graduate degrees, then they are going to be giving wealthier students easier access to law school to the detriment of students from less privileged backgrounds. While law schools go to great lengths to stress that socio-economic diversity and access to legal education for those from lower- and middle-income backgrounds is important, the greater focus on non-GPA/LSAT factors should give us pause to question whether the these concerns are taken seriously.
Graduate degrees are not inexpensive: a Master’s degree in public administration at Queen’s costs $10,467; a degree in global affairs at Toronto’s Munk School costs a plush $17,496; and a graduate degree from Harvard costs a staggering $40,924.
When compounded with the cost of living and the opportunity cost of not holding a job for one to two years, the cost of graduate degrees is significant. Re-jigging law school admissions to favour non-GPA/LSAT factors – whether they are MAs or internship experiences that look good on a CV but are inaccessible to lower-income students – only acts as a another barrier to keep out those with less wealth and less privilege.
Moving away from undergraduate academic records and LSAT performance does not mean that schools will be getting better students. The UV survey on OCIs does not show any positive correlation holding a graduate degree and doing any better in the fall recruitment process.
While we have been told from a young age that more well-rounded candidates are, on balance, better candidates, the truth is that these additional criteria are not only poor indicia of who is more desirable to Bay Street but that they are good at better selecting students who are white, wealthy, and the children of professionals themselves.
The startling discovery that students of under-represented minority and lower-income backgrounds were at an even greater disadvantage when medical schools required interviews, lengthy entrance essays, and held preferences towards graduate degrees and volunteer and internship experiences had actually led the Netherlands to do away with many of these additional admissions criteria and factors when conducting its own medical school admissions.
While an MA from an ancient university in the British Isles or an (unpaid) internship experience at a leading NGO on a CV does sound impressive, we have to bear in mind that they are generally only accessible to those with the financial means and connections to access these opportunities. If these people are the strongest candidates, their undergraduate GPA and LSAT should suffice. Looking to non-GPA/LSAT factors allows students with inadequate undergraduate academic records and LSAT scores but with ample wealth and privilege to gain entry to law school in a way underprivileged students cannot.
Despite the lack of discussion on this issue within the legal community as a whole, this is the approach that has become increasingly favoured by law schools across the country – and it is an approach that will make it exceedingly difficult for people from historically disadvantaged groups and from lower- and middle-income backgrounds to study law.
