The American Philosophical Association (APA) publishes a brochure entitled "Philosophy Student Performance on the Law School Admissions [sic] Test (LSAT)," the clear implication of which is that majoring in philosophy causes one to do better on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). No evidence is provided for this startling claim, which is repeated so often by so many people in so many contexts that one is inclined to accept it as fact. Given a correlation between majoring in philosophy and doing well on the LSAT, and given that the former occurs before the latter, there are two possibilities:
- Majoring in philosophy causes one to do better on the LSAT.
- People who are intelligent, and therefore going to do well on the LSAT anyway, major in philosophy, perhaps because philosophy rewards the very attributes that cause one to do well on the LSAT, such as analytical ability, argumentativeness, critical awareness, and reading comprehension.
I have never seen any evidence in support of the first of these possibilities. It seems much more likely to me that the second is true than that the first is true. So why would the APA imply that the first claim is correct? I think you know the answer: dishonesty motivated by self-interest. The APA wants students to think that majoring in philosophy will cause them to do better on the LSAT. The more philosophy majors there are, the more lucrative the discipline of philosophy is for everyone who is involved in it or earns a living by it. This is another reason why I'm proud to have dissociated myself from the APA. It's politically biased and dishonest.
Addendum: My philosophical colleagues both home and abroad will criticize me for addressing this issue. My question to them is this: What is your evidence for the first of the possibilities listed above? For surely we philosophers should not be making bold empirical claims without supporting evidence. Isn't that what we teach our students? I haven't even mentioned the ethical question. How can it be right to induce students to major in philosophy when the basis of that inducement is questionable? I hope other philosophers join me in calling upon the APA to withdraw its brochure, at least until empirical research (by nonphilosophers!) establishes the requisite causal connection. Philosophers have a chance to practice what they preach.
