That question is a trap.
In my judgment, I think it's very naive to suggest that an interview process wouldn't be biased against (to name just one) short people. You can't just convince people not to be (in an analogy) racist. Again, at least in pro sports, these biases are very well documented and cause severe market inefficiencies -- much worse than the inefficiencies which (admittedly) exist with standardized metrics. Certainly the metrics are unfair -- the question is not one of fairness but of improvement. I'm just not convinced that stocking our ranks with Gregory-Peck-lookalikes is the way to do it. (Obviously, this is an exaggeration to make a point.)
It would be very interesting to study an MBA student body, for example, in comparison to a JD student body. Do they have a higher proportion of native English speakers? A higher average height? Slimmer hips, bigger shoulders? Louder voices? Nicer suits? I think these are likely inherent biases of any school which places great emphasis on subjective evaluation, both in LORs and in interviews.
Absent any evidence, I am going to assert my personal belief: these biases are so overwhelming that a law school will look back and find that introducing an interview results in the loss, not gain, of information. Apparently, Michigan's adcom agrees with me, and Northwestern's does not.
You got me. Oh man, I just got OWNED.. Total Ownage!I'm silly to think that supply and demand should have anything to do with it!Let's educate everyone regardless of whether or not there are available jobs.
I just think it's stupid to bring race and gender into an argument about experience and the ability to do well in an interview.
previous work experience [is] important.