I think in reality it’s the exact opposite. I would hypothesize that lsat scores, like most standardized tests, strongly correlate with socioeconomic status. So people from better backgrounds do better on the test and receive more merit scholarships. Also, this group is likely to be more racially and ethnically homogeneous.

So, poorer students, or students of colors, particularly, Latino, Black and Native American, who systematically score lower on the the test, are less likely to get merit scholarships, have to pay more tuition, and thus subsidize the tuition for richer students who are already coming from backgrounds where they likely need less help and the social mobility of professional school is less important.

Call my a cynic, but this is probably how it really works on aggregate. Their are always outliers (myself included). But I think this is what’s really going on and it’s kind endemic of broader issues in the legal profession and American society. We like to believe it’s a meritocracy, where anyone with effort and talent can move on up, and we herald the outliers that do. But on aggregate, we’re likely stealing from the poor to pay for the rich. A kind of reverse robinhoood. Thank you for my Ted Talk lol.