What this article suggests is that law schools should be taking into consideration a variety of factors about the applicant's experiences, background and so on. Not at all I am trying to say that law schools should accept people only because they are from different background or are underrepresented minorities..The applicant must still show some proof that she\he makes a good candidate to be accepted. In my case, I have been speaking English only for 3 years, and I am currently in my 3rd year of UG, my GPA is fluctating between 3.4 up to 4 in different semesters, with the overall GPA being 3.5. I also have a HUGE desire, and I believe a natural predisposition too (maybe it sounds funny, but I really believe so), to become a lawyer. So, I believe it is extremely unfair if I won't be able to pursue a career which I have a passion for, only because I will get less than 161-.. on the LSAT. Honestly, to get even 154 on the LSAt is in itself a good achievement. So, my argument is that the LSAt need not be neccessarily abandoned, but instead the scores should be interpreted differently, as well as time limits should be reduced. Why do you have to do the section exactly in 35 min.? not 45? how does it relate to a lawyer's future performance? We not talking about the difference between 35min. or 2 hours..
Some people have suggested that the LSAT should add a listening section to the test.. That's just proves my point... that some people totally miss the point why the LSAt was created in the first place. It was not to measure your abilities as a lawyer, you are not one yet!