For the Hochul James crime syndicate which stomps Nassau otb betyors’ ny const art 1 sec 3 rights faster than those who ventilate Maryland power transformers
Hochul James never met Easter Sundays in public school or in a court of law
Legal Association Deals Setback to LSAT-Optional Law School Admissions
I-
Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012
Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.
Rejection of plan to drop mandatory admissions tests sends the issue back to panel that accredits law schools
The American Bar Association’s policy-making body on Monday rejected a proposal to make the LSAT and other standardized tests optional for law school admissions, casting a cloud over a change that has prompted debate about diversity in the legal profession.
The test-optional policy appeared to clear a major hurdle in November when an ABA panel that accredits law schools approved it. It was on track to go into effect for students applying for admission to law schools in 2026. But the ABA’s House of Delegates voted down the policy Monday and sent it back to the accrediting body for further consideration.
Despite the back and forth, it is the accrediting council, which is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, that gets the final say. It could approve the policy again and ultimately implement it, even if the House of Delegates rejects it a second time.
The council’s main objective was to give law schools flexibility in the decision-making process, said Joseph West, chair of the ABA’s accrediting panel and partner at Duane Morris LLP.
The proposal would make law schools in line with other professional schools that don’t require tests for admission and eliminate a potentially cost-prohibitive requirement that has an impact from a racial and socioeconomic standpoint for prospective students, Mr. West said.
The council will discuss its next steps later this month. Under the proposal, law schools still have the option to require LSAT scores if they wish.
Despite Monday’s vote, Mr. West expressed optimism in the proposal. “Engaging with so many people on both sides of the issue is a good thing,” he said.
The LSAT, or the Law School Admission Test, tests analytical reasoning, logic and reading comprehension. The ABA in 2021 also allowed law schools to consider the Graduate Record Examination, or GRE, as an alternative to the LSAT.
Advocates for eliminating the test say that students of color perform less well on the LSAT and argue that law schools should have the choice to decide what criteria are best for building a student body. Going test-optional would lead to greater diversity in applicants, they say.
During the debate, former ABA President Hilarie Bass said the LSAT at one time might have opened doors for women and people of color, but that changed with the rise of a test-preparation industry in which students with financial means can take courses that lead to better scores. “What we now know is that [the LSAT] is an impediment for people without the economic means to study for this test,” Ms. Bass said.
Test-optional opponents, including the Law School Admission Council, which administers the LSAT, say the test is the best predictor of success in law school, and without it, students may be admitted and set up for failure, harming the legal profession. They also say eliminating the test won’t help with diversity and that other admissions factors are more susceptible to bias.
James Williams, a Perkins Coie LLP attorney who is a delegate for Washington state, spoke against the proposal, calling the LSAT a “great equalizer” that allows students who may not have prestigious pedigrees to be selected. “What are we fixing? The LSAT brought everyone in this room here,” Mr. Williams said.
Kellye Testy, president and chief executive of LSAC, said the vote would ensure that there is additional time for research into the “impact of test-optional policies on students and diversity.”
“As the debate showed, we all care deeply about diversity, we just have different views on the best way to pursue it,” Ms. Testy said.
The debate comes as law schools separately await a decision from the Supreme Court on whether race can be a factor in college admissions. The ruling, expected by the end of June, could force additional changes to how law schools run their admissions process.
Write to Erin Mulvaney at erin.mulvaney@wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment