To Diversify the Legal Pipeline, Let's Share the Rules of the Game
Creating a diverse legal industry is a challenge when many would-be law students don't know the "rules of the game" for law school admissions. Rachel Patterson of AccessLex Institute writes about creating meaningful transparency on admissions processes.
November 14, 2019 at 01:24 PM
5 minute read
There is an old quote, commonly attributed to Albert Einstein, which says "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." While the actual utterance of the phrase by Einstein is disputed, the truth behind the mantra is not. In any competitive atmosphere, you must first understand the rules of play before you can successfully compete and ultimately win.
In basketball, for instance, a player cannot walk or run with the ball more than 1.5 steps or that is considered a "travel." When a player dribbles the ball, picks up the ball with both hands and resumes her dribble, that is considered a "double dribble." Both of these violations turn the ball over to the opposing team. In basketball, if you fail to understand the rules of the game, you will severely handicap yourself. Similarly, many underrepresented students do not understand the rules of the game with respect to entry into legal education.
As reported by the Washington Post, the legal profession continues to be the least diverse profession of all. One reason is that many historically underrepresented students do not know the "rules" of law school admissions. In 2017-2018, 51% of black students and 37% of Hispanic students who applied to law school were not admitted anywhere. Thousands of underrepresented students are applying to law school each year, but many are shut out of the legal industry pipeline during the law school application process. If our desire is to increase diversity both in legal education and the profession, we must create meaningful transparency about our processes and expectations.
|Strategies for Students
While many different tips and tricks exist in the game of law school admissions, it is vital for a law school applicant to understand the rules, four of which are described below, in order to be a competitive and successful candidate for J.D. program matriculation.
1) Apply early. As the old saying goes, "If you're not early, you're late." This is especially true for law school applications. Although application deadlines typically aren't until January or later, applicants seriously hinder themselves by applying close to the deadline. By applying earlier in the cycle, students increase both their chances of admission and of receiving scholarship funding.
2) Prepare. As my favorite quarterback says, "The separation is in the preparation." Spend ample time preparing for the LSAT by either taking a course or through self-study. According to the Law School Survey of Student Engagement, merit scholarship funding has a strong positive correlation with high undergraduate GPAs and LSAT scores. Upperclassmen and those who have already completed their undergraduate studies will find it easier to improve their LSAT score than to significantly impact their college GPA. Thus, it behooves students to properly prepare for the LSAT in order to give themselves the best possible opportunity to be considered for merit scholarship funding.
3) Diversify your applications. It is important to apply to a combination of "safety," "target" and "reach" schools. Far too often, underrepresented students are intimidated by law schools' median GPAs and LSAT scores and thus fail to apply to higher-ranked institutions. Alternatively, other students only apply to "reach schools" and are ultimately disappointed. A diversified list of schools is necessary for a successful application cycle.
4) Learn the merit scholarship process for the schools to which you are applying. Some law schools will negotiate scholarship offers while others will not. Some institutions automatically consider students for merit scholarship funding while others require a separate application. Knowing the process of the institution you are applying to will help you achieve better outcomes in terms of financial aid.
These processes are varied, and at times difficult to navigate, particularly for students who may be first-generation college or law students. However, understanding these four rules, among others, can have a substantial impact on a student's chances of gaining entry to law school.
|Schools Should Be Transparent
Transparency regarding the rules of the game is a necessity when working toward the goal of increasing diversity in the legal profession. Countless law school administrators yearn for greater diversity in legal education. However, many remain unclear as to how to increase diversity in their respective educational institutions. While this endeavor requires a multidimensional approach, one aspect of it requires a willingness to acknowledge the responsibility that we each have in making that happen.
For those of us who are committed to increasing diversity in legal education, we can't be afraid to look inward and ask ourselves, "What, if anything, can we do differently to help more underrepresented students matriculate to law school and the profession?" Law school administrators must be committed to transparency in their processes and procedures. For example, law schools should make it publicly known what date an applicant needs to apply by in order to be considered for merit scholarships.
Though there are many areas of improvement regarding law school admission, gatekeepers to legal education have the unique opportunity and responsibility to create clarity about the processes, culture and expectations to effectively eliminate barriers that restrict access to the legal industry for so many aspiring students.
By implementing initiatives that prioritize transparency, law schools can help make the rules of the game accessible to all and create a more inclusive legal profession that reflects the racial diversity of our nation.
Rachel Patterson serves as the director of programs for diversity with AccessLex Institute in Washington, DC.
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 AllLingering Questions at Supreme Court About Climate Change Litigation Need Resolution
6 minute readArguing Class Actions: Meet and Confer Abuses as Defendants' Litigation Strategy
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump Nominates Ex-SEC Chief Jay Clayton to Helm Southern District of New York US Attorney's Office
- 2Steward Health CEO Saga Signals Escalation of Coercive Congressional Oversight Against Private Parties
- 3'They Should Have Tried to Negotiate': Jury Finds Against Insurer
- 4Expert Testimony Regarding Sexual Grooming
- 5Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Law Firms Shrink From 'Performative' Statements
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