Marjorie Shultz Notes Limitations of the LSAT

-The New York Times, March 11, 2009 by Jonathan D. Glater
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/education/11lsat.html?pagewanted=print

“Proposition 209 and the reduced numbers of minority admits prompted me to think hard about what constitutes merit for purposes of law school admission, and to decide LSAT was much too narrow, as well as having big adverse impact,” Professor Shultz said.

-KCBS 740AM, March 11, 2009 Hosts Patti Reising and Jeff Bell
http://www.kcbs.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=3564877

“The LSAT was designed to predict who would be good as a student in law school and it actually does quite a good job of that. It’s not that it’s not useful; it’s that it’s narrow because a lawyer needs many more talents than simply logic and reasoning which is the focus of the LSAT. And our test development is trying to gauge other kinds of skills like problem solving and practical judgment and stress management and all the range of things that practicing lawyers need to have.”