It's been about a month since the LSAC last updated their data on applicants for fall 2014. They are now reporting that "As of 7/04/14, there are 347,967 fall 2014 applications submitted by 53,104 applicants. Applicants are down 7.4% and applications are down 8.6% from 2013. Last year at this time, we had 97% of the preliminary final applicant count." If this year's applicants follow last year's pattern, we'll have approximately 54,746 total applicants for the class entering in fall 2014. Dan Filler has some historical data on the first year enrollment from 1964 to 2012 here. I link to some more comprehensive data (going back to the 1940s) here.
My last post in this series is here.
If these numbers hold, more schools will be following Cooley's lead in shutting down 1st year classes.
Doing some quick math, and using some numbers from the last thread.
Assume 54,900 applicants.
Assume 30% of the LSAT takers scored over 160.
54,900 * 30% = 16,470 applicants with LSATs over 160.
Assume 38,430 enroll (54,900 * 70%, a very conservative estimate).
Assume the T100 enroll 21,000 (according to this thread, this number enrolled in the T100 last year).
If the T100 accepts and enrolls the entire population of students with LSAT scores over 160, there will be still about 4,530 seats to be filled in the T100 by students with LSAT scores below 160 (22% of the total number of seats in the T100).
That would leave about 17,430 enrollees to fill the entering classes in the next 100 law schools, all of whom with LSAT scores less than 160.
To put this in context and based on reported experience, last year about 16% of US law schools admitted students with a median LSAT of less than 150 and about 5% admitted students with a median LSAT of 145 or less.
At 150 on the LSAT, one is at about the 44th percentile.
At 140 on the LSAT, one is at about the 14th percentile.
Any corrections to these calculations, or identification of any inaccuracy in the reported facts, would be welcome!
First year profs: Is it easier or more difficult to teach students whose median on the LSAT was bested by 86% of LSAT takers, i.e., the bottom 15%? How would you gauge the odds that these students will pass the bar and practice at a high level of expertise and competence?
What sort of placement success will a law school experience that regularly turns out classes of graduates whose median LSAT scores were in the bottom 15% or the bottom 20% at the outset?
Is there any obligation for law faculty, yes, law faculty – not the ABA, state bar associations, etc. – law faculty, to think about the means to address these issues?
Do law faculty, in general, do a terrific job of converting classes of students who scored in the bottom 15% into classes of law school graduates who will demonstrate excellence in practice?
Or, is the answer simply to dump the LSAT and deem it irrelevant?
@ anon
It seems to me that admissions committees at the lower ranked schools need to be looking more closely at their applicant pools now than maybe they once had to. Once you get below the 150 LSAT mark, bar passage rates become pretty dismal, particularly for those who also finish in the lower part of the law school GPA spread. Committees may want to consider disregarding LSAT score when choosing between applicants below that line in favor of other factors that may predict law school GPA, which also correlates well with bar passage rate.
One possible option might be for schools to start more regularly requiring a longer writing sample (e.g., an undergrad paper or the like) and scrutinizing the short statement of interest and unscored essay portion of the LSAT with a more critical eye. This might permit lower ranked schools' committees to more effectively differentiate between the poor multiple choice test takers and the poor multiple choice test takers who also have weak writing skills. The latter group strikes me as even more at risk of bar failure, particularly for states that have a local day that is heavily essay.
Former Editor, I suspect many schools do not want to see what passes for a writing sample from a lot of sub-150 LSAT applicants. At this point they can make excuses — "maybe he doesn't test well" — but that will vanish if they look that closely at the applicants. The best thing to do I think would be for the ETS to put in an analytical writing section on the LSAT like they do on the GRE.
Being a graduate of a law school with dismal LSAT numbers (my score wasn't that great, @ 160, but it got me a full-ride), especially as of the 1L class that started last Fall, I can say that the large number of weak students was noticed by the faculty.
The administration's response: try to target those who were identified as "at-risk" and get them extra help. It didn't occur to them that the more humane solution would have been to refuse them admission.
I was never as involved with the behind-the-scenes action as I would've liked, so I didn't know if the faculty were opposed to the de fact open-door admissions policy that was being instituted in order, as Ben Burke recently put, "to keep the lights on."
antiro
Exactly right. Law faculties complain regularly about any law school that doesn't recognize their right to "govern" but generally totally ignore the responsibilities that accompany that right.
Here, we have a case in point that is sort of proof of the abysmal lack of responsibility shown by some law faculties. The issue: survival.
Most reasonable people would agree that taking 150K or more in borrowed tuition dollars from a young, idealistic and hopeful student who scored in the bottom 15% of LSAT takers (likely, with a GPA to match) is unconscionable. But, if the alternative is closing the law school doors, what will these "faculty governors" do?
One step to finding a solution seems to me to be to call out the hypocrisy of most law faculties. Ask them to stop complaining that some law schools do not afford faculty sufficient autonomy in governance while at the same time blaming everyone else for the failures in law school governance. The choice to admit and retain some students who, based on objective evidence, will likely not fare well on the bar or in practice is not beyond the ken of most law faculties.
If doing the responsible thing means that a law school cannot continue, then that law school should not continue.
Second, focus on the practice of law. Anticipate and respond to a changing market for legal services. Hire faculty who can do that based on experience and stop hiring immature persons with little or no life or professional experience who specialize in, e.g., meditation or journalism or economics.
All this said, it is clear that law faculties can't be expected to take responsibility for governance of any law school (except to take credit for any positive developments). They have failed as badly as the Wall Street crowd, and, like the Wall Street crowd, they have learned absolutely nothing and just "keep on keeping on" doing exactly as they did before. Inflated egos does not begin to explain this.
As law faculties won't work to fix any identified problem (in fact, if this blog is any example, most law faculty members can be expected to defend the status quo at all costs, integrity losing in the process), the answer lies elsewhere.
Accreditation and the eligibility for federal student loans are the only levers to pull here. One wonders when the true power (money) will wake up and do something about this sort of sordid mess.
It is highly unlikely that this will occur:
Second, focus on the practice of law. Anticipate and respond to a changing market for legal services. Hire faculty who can do that based on experience and stop hiring immature persons with little or no life or professional experience who specialize in, e.g., meditation or journalism or economics.
About twenty years ago I worked at a NYC law school that took in a large number of transfer students from where else: Cooley.
The faculty complained bitterly about the poor quality of these students since it made them (the profs) have to work harder to get the material through to them.
The school's bar pass rate dropped when these students sat for the bar and alumni complained but them when they hit the job market. It took years for the school to repair the damage to it rep that bringing in these students made. Of course, the faculty never blamed itself, although faculty played a large role on the admissions committee and I don't remember anyone speaking up against this decision until long after the fact.
I would guess that that law school is now admitting 1Ls with credentials at least as poor as those Cooley students. Of course, they are now doing it willingly to pay the bills. Few profs at this schools took the generous buy-out offered by the university. I am convinced that most just want to run out the clock — keep the place going until they are ready to retire or they are hoping that this is all a bad dream and things go back "to normal" soon.
At this point, it is every man/women for him/herself. No one cares about the students, the school, the profession. Given that the overwhelming majority of law profs are unemployable anywhere else, I guess that is understandable, although not very admirable.
Be it the highly credentialed partners at Dewey, who never spoke out against the powers that be and demanded answers and change, or the highly credentialed law profs who have no interest in re-shaping legal education, I am amazed how those who are the "best and brightest" of the profession act like selfishly at the worst times.
Folks,
There are plenty of professors out there who are working hard to innovate–in the classroom, with career opportunities and training for students, etc. And they do care about students. They just don't read blogs regularly or feel compelled to explain what they are doing on blogs or defend their actions on blogs. Just wanted you to be aware when you are generalizing.
"There are plenty of professors out there who are working hard to innovate–in the classroom, with career opportunities and training for students, etc."
"Innovation" is a buzzword used by professors and deans who can't or don't want to confront the fact that the only way to fix this problem is going to involve some financial pain to themselves (no more AALS conferences in Midtown Manhattan guys!). Even if it was possible to "innovate" your way out of this crisis (I've not yet seen a proposal that would accomplish that in any meaningful way), it is much simpler, and will save a whole lot of students from a whole lot of financial misery, if law schools would keep class sizes keyed to their local job market AND return tuition to the levels of 25 years ago. They don't want to do that because they are putting their own desires to live more than comfortably before their students careers- in essence, behaving like any highly paid executives in any industry.
If the law schools cannot make these choices, then the feds should cap GRADPLUS loans. Problem solved.
Anon: Can you cite to these innovations and discuss their relative success? I am not aware of much real innovation anywhere. Washington and Lee's revamped 3rd year program got lots of press when it was introduced, but, as I recall, the school had a dismal placement rate last year, so so much for practice-ready innovation.
The truth is: Law professors cannot innovate in terms of making students more practice ready because most have not practiced in years and are not on top of the present state of legal practice (which varies greatly based on types of practice). Many — I won't say most — left practice because they hated it and/or because realized that they were not going to make partner at a Biglaw firm.
If they are not innovating to make students more practice ready are they innovating to make legal ed more interesting, less expensive?
Law schools spent millions investing in smart classroom technology to allow profs to innovate in the classroom, do some distance ed, incorporate multi-media into classes, etc. and probably much of that investment was wasted since most profs never cared to learn to use it. So the opportunity to innovate has been handed to them and most have turned it down.
So are you generalizing when you state that "plenty of profs" are working hard to innovate? If they do not visit this blog, than maybe you can speak for them.
Does anyone know when the June 2014 LSAT test-taker numbers will be released?
It would be interesting to see if the numbers continue to decline or if there is a reverse.
Anon
"Plenty of profs" blog here, including you.
I too would love to hear about the "innovations" in the classroom of which you speak.
Please elaborate. Be specific.
On a related point: You sort of step into a mess when you say "There are plenty of professors out there who are working hard to innovate … with career opportunities."
Here, there is concrete evidence that demonstrates the success of this "plentiful" group. Do you really contend that this innovation has been successful, or are you arguing that this "plentiful" group has failed because of external forces beyond their control?
And, again, be specific. If this group is so plentiful, perhaps you can cite some specific examples of "innovators" who have demonstrably provided law graduates with "careers opportunities" (do you mean as careers as lawyers?).
Add
Anon
Last year about 16% of US law schools admitted students with a median LSAT of less than 150 and about 5% admitted students with a median LSAT of 145 or less.
Do you approve?
In response to the comment above, faculty are simply not "practice ready," so it's not at all surprising that they can't impart such skills to their students.