Marjorie Shultz

Marjorie Shultz Notes Limitations of the LSAT

-The New York Times, March 11, 2009 by Jonathan D. Glater

“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

“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.”

Marjorie Shultz Argues for Improved Law School Admissions Tests

-The Recorder, Nov. 6, 2008 by Petra Pasternak

“We know that many times minority students in school don’t perform as well as whites if you look at it as a group, if you look at test taking and grades. But there don’t appear to be significant racial differences in performing in factors like problem-solving, negotiation or advocacy based on our sample data,” Shultz said. “Our test shows that, and earlier research in the employment field also supports that.”

-The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Nov. 7, 2008 by Dan Slater

Shultz and Berkeley psychology prof Sheldon Zedeck have been studying alternatives to the LSAT. They recently published their findings in a 100-page report. They say the LSAT, with its focus on cognitive skills, does not measure for skills such as creativity, negotiation, problem-solving or stress management, but that they have found promising new and existing tests from the employment context that do.