Critics of the LSAT complain that law schools place too much emphasis on the test and overlook a student's other important qualities. A Loyola University website that answers frequently asked questions about the LSAT states that law schools that base admission rigidly on the LSAT might reject someone with " Pulitzer winning writing skills, a Nobel prize in physics, a Lenin peace prize."
If law school requires a lot from its students, then students going to law school should have good study habits and a solid work ethic. Law schools that admit students on the strength of their LSAT score might ignore academic history and accomplishments, and risk admitting mediocre or less motivated students. Robert Phansalker, of the University of Wisconsin/Madison's Badger Herald, opines, "if you 'achieved' a low GPA, but miraculously achieve a 170 on test day, the LSAT will be your savior."
While on the one hand it might seem unfair to admit students with a mediocre academic history on the strength of one test, proponents of the LSAT argue that the test empowers students who show more intelligence than academic success. Not every bright, promising student does well in school, and the LSAT gives that student an opportunity to show potential.
Some universities require more of their students and some majors might be more challenging to students , but the LSAT measures each student in the same way. A Florida Atlantic University website for pre-law students notes that the LSAT "avoids the apples and oranges problem of comparing applicant GPAs from different majors and different universities," and adds that the LSAT score is a more objective measurement than a letter of recommendation can provide.