Earlier this week, my article on “Why Removing LSAT Means Accessibility for All” was published.

This was a fun piece to write. Instead of writing about the doom and gloom of the struggles of persons with disabilities, I could finally write about something that was good news. This decision while radical, may be able to help those with disabilities to get into law school and become lawyers. Which is always a good thing to celebrate.

As I researched for this article, I wondered if this decision will open conversations on making the LSAT optional. After all, there are universities and colleges who have made the SAT optional given if the student has a high GPA. So is the case for the GRE .

The MCAT is still a requirement for med school, which makes sense. The test is based on a student’s knowledge of the relevant subjects, and medical topics that they must have in order to get into medical school. After all, the medical profession can be full of “life or death” situations, that rely heavily on knowing medical information.

While it certainly helps to have an understanding of the law when applying to law school, the LSAT does not test a student’s knowledge of the law, but determines if they have the capacity for logical, analytical reasoning and reading comprehension. Skills, that any student, if they study well enough, can in theory get a high score. Since it is based on capacity than acquired knowledge, I belive it should be optional. As there may be some skills that can be affected by a person’s disability. That does not mean that persons with disabilities should be excluded from the process altogether. They should have the opportunity to take the same test as others. But the test itself should be accessible so that it will be fair for everyone.

What do you think about this decision? Do you agree?