March LSAT Is Canceled, Fate of April Test Uncertain
Law School Admission Council president Kellye Testy says the organization is weighing options to give the LSAT remotely amid coronavirus uncertainty.
March 17, 2020 at 01:32 PM
4 minute read
The March administration of the Law School Admission Test has been canceled—just the latest upheaval for legal education, where nearly every law school in the country has already or soon will transition to online courses.
The Law School Admission Council announced Monday that the exam, scheduled for March 30, will not take place at any of the worldwide locations due to the coronavirus outbreak. All test takers in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands who were signed up for the March LSAT will automatically be registered for the next administration April 25 in the same area. Those in other countries will automatically be registered for the June LSAT.
Council president Kellye Testy said Tuesday that the decision did not come as a surprise for most March registrants, given the widespread cancellation of events nationwide.
"They not only expected it, it was met with great relief," Testy said, noting that the council has received many emails and online comments saying it did the right thing.
Still, the cancellation of the exam represents yet another question mark for legal education during what is already a tumultuous time. In addition to the quick switch to online classes and uncertainty over how exams will be administered remotely, it remains to be seen how the coronavirus pandemic will impact summer associate hiring and entry-level legal employment, among other things. A sustained economic downturn could well influence law school enrollment trends.
The timing of this month's LSAT cancellation within the law school admissions cycle is fortunate, according to Testy. About 9,000 people were registered to take the exam in March, but only 470 of them were planning to apply to law school for the fall of 2020. That means the vast majority of registrants were either repeat takers hoping to improve their score for the current admission cycle, or those getting a head start on the 2021 admission cycle.
"Thankfully, we're pretty far along in the [current] admission cycle," Testy said. "Most schools already had deadlines, or have them in early April. Most students are already tested and are maybe finishing up applications. There's not many who are really in need of that score in order to apply."
Testy added that the council is working with law schools to provide more flexibility to applicants surrounding deadlines amid the changes.
While the April test date has not yet been canceled, the council is working on contingencies in the event that it is. One possibility is the addition of test dates in the May and throughout the summer.
The council is also working on options to administer the exam remotely, which is possible because the LSAT transitioned last year from a paper exam to a digital one.
Testy noted that the writing portion of the LSAT is currently administered remotely. "You're sitting in your home, and there is a software system that allows you to take the test from your own computer. The idea is that you can take it remotely, and it would be secure."
Steve Schwartz, chief executive officer of test prep provider LSAT Unplugged, said it's unlikely that the council could launch a remote version of the LSAT by the April test date. A remote test might be possible by the summer, said Schwartz, who predicted that the April test is likely to be canceled as well.
"It may turn out to be an unexpected benefit of the digital LSAT transition that it eases the transition to bringing LSAT administrations online and accelerates the process," Schwartz said. "This could allow [the council] to administer the LSAT to anyone, anywhere, regardless of the local situation since the need to coordinate in-person is removed. In the long term, we may also see a further increase in LSAT testing administrations per year."
Schwartz added that while most in-person LSAT test prep courses are cancelled, demand for online prep courses is "stronger than ever."
In the meantime, the council is finding other ways to assist law schools in moving their operations online. For instance, it is holding a training session later this week on how schools can hold their admitted students weekends—typically held on campus during the spring—online.
"I think everyone is trying to respond with compassion and agility," Testy said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute read'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250