In a recent development, the American Bar Association (ABA) has reaffirmed its stance that law schools seeking to implement the JD-Next exam in their admissions process must continue to seek variances. The decision was made during the council meeting of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar on February 22, 2024.

JD-Next Exam Overview

The JD-Next exam, developed by Aspen Publishing, serves a dual purpose. Initially designed to help admitted law school students build essential reading and analytical skills, it has now evolved into a separate admissions exam. Unlike traditional admissions tests such as the LSAT and GRE, JD-Next aims to reduce or eliminate score disparities for underrepresented groups.

The Council’s Decision

The ABA council emphasized the need for more data before fully endorsing JD-Next as a valid and reliable assessment tool. As per ABA accreditation standards, the exam’s validity and reliability are crucial factors. The council’s decision reflects caution and a commitment to thorough evaluation.

Consultant’s Report on JD-Next

A consultant commissioned by the ABA, Nathan Kuncel, an industrial organizational psychology professor at the University of Minnesota, provided insights. The report acknowledges JD-Next’s potential as a predictor of early law school grades. However, it also highlights several caveats and cautions that require further investigation. Kuncel recommends using JD-Next as a supplementary factor in acceptance decisions, with more established measures like undergraduate grades carrying greater weight.

“The JD-Next exam is a reliable and valid predictor of early law school grades but with multiple cautions and caveats that cannot be evaluated with the present data and may represent threats to its validity if used operationally for high-stakes decisions,” said Kuncel.

Law School Perspectives

Fifty-one law schools have already obtained variances to use JD-Next in their admissions process. Daniel Thies, vice-chair of the council, confirmed this during an interview. 

Robert Ahdieh, dean of Texas A&M University School of Law and a member of the Educational Testing Service’s Legal Education Advisory Council supported the alternative exam, saying that “JD-Next [must be written] alongside the LSAT and the GRE as a reliable and valid test under Standard 503.”

Daniel B. Rodriguez, who is the former dean of Northwestern and University of San Diego Law Schools, remarked that “it would be really at odds with the current direction of innovation in the Section’s recent deliberations and actions, as well as with the spirit of both the consultant’s report and the accompanying analyses by others with true expertise in this space, to pretermit the collecting of useful data by seriously restricting the use of the test.” 

However, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), responsible for administering the LSAT, expressed support for the ABA’s cautious approach. LSAC emphasized the need for additional evidence and resolution of issues related to accommodations for people with disabilities.

Robert Dinerstein who chairs the ABA commission on Disability Rights remarked that accessibility of the JD-Next exam raises concerns. “The use of high stakes assessments will require a process for providing reasonable accommodations for applicants with disabilities for both the JD-Next instruction and the JD-Next assessment,” said Dinerstein, whose concerns with Aspen, who administers the exam, include extra-time, large text formats and verbal questions for those requiring these accommodations.

JD-Next’s Response

David Klieger, the program director for Aspen Publishing, expressed disappointment with the council’s decision not to grant full approval. Klieger highlighted JD-Next’s positive impact and its adoption by numerous institutions committed to innovation and equity in the admissions process.

“We are incredibly proud of the JD-Next program and its results to date,” Klieger said in a statement. “We take pride in the fact that [many] institutions have already adopted the program, demonstrating their commitment to innovation and equity in the admissions process.”

While JD-Next continues to evolve, the ABA’s insistence on variances underscores the importance of rigorous evaluation. As law schools navigate alternative admissions pathways, the JD-Next exam remains a topic of debate, raising concerns about its validity and accessibility. Legal education stakeholders will closely monitor further developments in this ongoing discussion.