The American Bar Association voted earlier in November to eliminate the admissions test requirement for students applying to law school in an effort to increase racial diversity.

We’ve gone from lowering the requirements for pilots and doctors to also lowering to standard for lawyers in order to attain better ethnicity demographics.

Up until now, the ABA accrediting arm has required an admission test for law schools. Recognized tests include the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) or the Graduate Record Examination (GRE).

A council committee recommended a revision to this process, which initiated a consideration process in June. After consideration, the council approved each of the 196 ABA-approved law schools across the nation to decide for themselves whether to abolish the testing requirement. 

Now it will be up to the schools after the adopted change takes effect for the 2026-2027 school year. 

Does this mean if a law school decides to keep the testing requirements in place they are anti-progress and against diversity? It’s a real question that deserves to be explored since apparently accepting students on the basis of intellect is no longer acceptable. 

But what will come of this? Less capable students will be set up for failure. The LSAT has been a reliable examination to determine if someone is fit for law school, as described by Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of University of California Berkeley School of Law, and Daniel Tokaji, a professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School

However, what will definitely not change? The fact that after three years of law school, students must successfully pass the bar exam in order to actually practice law.


“Properly used, standardized tests, such as the LSAT, are extremely helpful in assessing whether applicants are likely to succeed in law school and gain admission to the bar,” Chemerinsky and Tokaji told The Daily Caller. “They can also be a tool for enhancing the diversity of our incoming classes. Research consistently shows that the LSAT can help identify students who are capable of succeeding in law school, even though their grades or other credentials alone might not so indicate. That includes students who come from less-advantaged backgrounds and underrepresented groups, as well as non-traditional or second-career students.”

Just like in undergraduate programs, professors can lower standards, abolish testing, grade on participation and attendance, and push subpar students along, but it’s just going to produce a poor outcome that will be noticeable.

After all, when it comes to knowing law, you either understand it and win for clients or you simply fail and render a bad reputation. 

Coincidentally, the change comes after a decade of falling enrollment rates, according to Law School Transparency. Law school enrollment peaked in 2010 with over 52,000 first-year students. Through 2019, that figure has fallen, hitting a low of about 37,100 students in 2015 and 2016.

“Declining enrollment may provide advantages for prospective law students. Fewer applicants mean it is easier to get into a more prestigious school,” according to LST.

What this means is that students currently hold an advantage over institutions, just like supply and demand. With this student-held advantage comes a major disadvantage for schools: less revenue. 

Of course for any business, bottom-line profits are a key aspect of operations. Allowing in more students on the premise of diversity is quite the strategy for the accounting department.

Speaking of finances, how much does the American Bar Association get from its accredited schools? That may have something to do with their ease of testing requirements.