For those of you frantically preparing for the LSAT this Saturday, I've got either some really bad or really great news: It is going to be one of the most important tests of your life.

It may sound pretty scary, but a test that's roughly three hours long is going to be just as, if not more, important to law school admissions officers as your entire career as an undergraduate.

Although these very admissions officers will downplay the test's importance and justify its existence by telling you that the test gives them an idea of your ability to succeed in law school, there is inherent hypocrisy in the claims because the test caters to slackers who are testing whiz kids while faulting students who are dedicated hard workers who haven't quite mastered logic games.
For those of you who have taken the test already and aren't happy with your results, here's a heads up: It's going to seriously affect your application. If you're wondering just how much, all you have to do is turn to a few law school websites.

Stanford's website offers a refreshing dose of honesty when it professes, "Admissions officers downplay the role of the LSAT in admissions decisions, but don't believe them."

Stanford claims further that a "perfect GPA, an abundance of extracurricular activities, and a background as unique as an honest politician will not get you into a top-five law school if your LSAT score is low."

That's right, scrap all of your fantastic achievements: your stellar community service, your internship at Foley and Lardner, your great personal statement and letters of recommendation and even your 4.0 GPA, because one test on one day will effectively rank you and your abilities in the eyes of law-school admissions officers.

That might seem a little unfair, and that's probably because it is.

Students who earn that 4.0 only to fall flat on their face come test day, for any number of reasons, their high GPA won't be the savior. Rather, they can expect many rejection letters and wait listings because the LSAT serves the opposite role of benefiting lazy or just mediocre students and harming others.

For a student who managed to get by in college by perhaps partying a little too often, the LSAT is a wonderful thing. If you "achieved" a low GPA, but almost miraculously achieve a 170 on test day, the LSAT will be your savior.

It will allow admissions officers to overlook three-and-a-half years of academic mediocrity because one test score is going to show them the promise that they never realized during college, even if it is based on only three hours of testing.

If you are in this crowd, you have to love the LSAT because it will allow you to make your application look better than it probably is. But if you're in the other crowd, you're probably feeling a little bitter and dejected. That's mostly because the system is just not fair.

By placing such a high value on the test, the LSAT gives students with no real hope of getting into law school a chance to redeem their lack of achievement. But is this really the message that Law Schools should send to applicants? Should students be allowed to effectively erase a poor student record with one test?

By turning their backs on qualified students with low LSAT scores and high GPAs, the law school admissions officers are turning their backs on two skills essential to the legal profession: hard work and dedication.

Students earning high GPAs from good universities are demonstrating these skills on a regular basis. Students earning low GPAs who are testing well aren't going to just turn on the light when they get to law school.

These are students who consistently didn't work hard enough and by accepting these students over other hard workers, we have put the future and quality of the legal profession in jeopardy.

For those maintaining the LSAT's importance, only one question really needs to be asked. If it came down to a choice between a lawyer who would be questionably reliable and a lawyer who would bleed for you, whom would you choose?

For me, the choice is no contest, and it certainly has nothing to do with logically arranging X and Y in 35 minutes.

Robert Phansalkar ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.