It may well be that there are too many law schools in the country. Clearly, the number of law school graduates in recent years has exceeded the number of jobs for new lawyers. But it is equally clear that few law schools are likely to close down voluntarily. No university administration wants to shutter an institution that employs dozens of professionals and staff, has a loyal alumni base and has a profitable history. Rather, law schools will seek to endure the cyclical drop in applications through some combination of lower admission standards, reduction of class size, shrinkage of faculty and the institution of other cost-cutting measures until the legal job market improves and applications rebound.
The weakness of the legal employment market and the skyrocketing cost of legal education has led to an historic decline in law school applications. This reduction of the applicant pool has put the greatest pressure on what I will call “opportunity” schools – law schools which, by virtue of their mission or the market niche they occupy, traditionally admit a substantial number of at-risk students. For the purposes of this essay, I am defining at-risk students as those at the 40th percentile (149) or lower on the LSAT, although students slightly above that are still at some risk of failure (See the chart in my previous post.) With law schools above them in the pecking order admitting students who, in more prosperous times, might have had no choice but to attend an opportunity school, these schools may be forced to admit an even higher percentage of marginal applicants in order to stay in business. Of course, schools can go too far in lowering admission standards (see my discussion of InfiLaw’s recent admission practices in my previous post), but I believe it is possible for a law school to admit a substantial number of at-risk students without running afoul of ABA standards or ethical business practices.
Whatever one’s view on the appropriateness of admitting at-risk students, I think we should all be able to agree that a law school, having admitted such students, owes them a duty to provide the greatest possible chance of success in realizing the
ir ambitions to earn a J.D. and to become a member of the bar. This post addresses one way in which law schools may maximize the chances of success for these at-risk students.
My views on this topic largely derive from my experience at Western State Law School, where I was on the faculty from 2005-10, except for a one year military leave of absence. During this time, Western State’s bar passage rate for first-time takers on the California bar went from a low of 28% to above 80%, a remarkable achievement that helped Western State earn full ABA accreditation. (Note- Western State has sustained this high pass rate since I left). What made this all the more remarkable is that these outstanding results were achieved by students with virtually identical entrance credentials to those who had done so poorly just a few years before. During this time, a substantial majority of Western State’s students were in the at-risk category as I have defined it. As a law school that had temporarily lost accreditation in 2004, then regained provisional accreditation status in 2005, and operated in the highly competitive law school market of Southern California, Western State was not able to simply raise admission standards. Rather, we had to find a way to improve the performance of students with relatively modest entrance credentials. In order to determine how to do this, we spent a great deal of time compiling and analyzing data concerning which students were likely to succeed and which had a high probability of initial bar failure. It will not come as a surprise that students with a high GPA were most likely to pass the bar exam. At Western State, students with a 2.8 cumulative GPA at graduation, roughly the top 25-30% of the class, passed the bar at a very high rate, while students at 2.3 or below, the bottom 20-25%, rarely passed the first time. With students in the broad middle of the class, 2.4 to 2.7, success was problematic. We needed to determine why some of these average students passed, while others with similar GPAs failed. To summarize what we found, the key to bar passage was this: sustained effort throughout law school resulting in consistent, solid performance in core/bar-tested subjects.
It is often noted that there is a very strong correlation between first year grades and bar passage. While we certainly found this to be true at Western State, there were several instances where students who did quite well the first year failed the bar. What we found is that many students who felt comfortable that they were doing well after the first year reduced their efforts somewhat in their second and third-year. Other than highly motivated students who were seeking honors at graduation or competing for clerkships or positions with more prestigious firms or agencies, many students were content to lessen their academic efforts once they felt they were not in any risk of failure. Students had a tendency to focus their energy on activities that were more fun, like moot court or trial team or student organizations, or that they felt had more practical or job-related value like internships, externships or part-time employment with law firms. There was also a tendency for students to put the greater weight of their academic effort into non bar-related elective courses, perhaps because they considered the subject matter more interesting or more potentially relevant to their future practice (e.g. trial advocacy).
To counteract these tendencies, we instituted a requirement that we called Foundation Law Points (FLP). This program required students to earn a grade of 2.5 or better in a minimum of 8 courses from a list of about 25 bar-tested or fundamental courses. At least 4 FLPs had to be earned in the first year, and, in order to ensure sustained effort in the upper division, students had to earn 4 more FLPs in their second or third year (you can read the specifics of the program in the current student handbook found here at section III:5)
The idea behind FLPs was a simple one. When you think about it, the bar exam is basically a giant law school exam. Depending on where the state bar examiners set the cut line for passage, what is required to pass the bar is typically equivalent to between a C+ and B- level of performance in law school. Thus, a student who can consistently perform at a 2.5 level throughout law school in bar-tested courses should be able to pass the bar. The FLP program gave students the incentive to work up to their full capacity in the classes that mattered most for bar passage. It gave them an understanding of what level of effort was required to succeed in bar related subjects and most importantly, it provided them with a sense of confidence and even pride when they realized that they were capable of performing at a strong level in demanding courses. I should note that during the implementation phase of this program, which we applied not only to prospective students but to current students on a pro-rata basis, each at-risk student was counseled about their performance and work habits and was given a clear statistical understanding of what bar results were likely if they did not improve their academic efforts. Failure to meet the FLP requirements resulted in being placed on probation, just as if the student dropped below the required cumulative GPA. One unique aspect of the program was that we permitted students who otherwise had completed graduation requirements but lacked the necessary FLPs to retake FLP courses at no cost.
Although Western State instituted a wide variety of programs designed to increase the bar passage rate, I believe the Foundation Law Points program was the single most effective one. Law schools with similar student academic profiles should consider such a program. While there may be other ways to achieve the same effect, it should be noted that simply raising the cumulative GPA requirement to be in good standing or to graduate would not necessarily do so. In fact, raising the cumulative GPA requirement might simply encourage students to avoid what they considered to be the toughest classes and focus their efforts on those elective classes where they felt they had the best chance to get a good grade. It also should be emphasized that a program like FLP will not work unless there are clear grading guidelines in effect that are calibrated to the quality of the students being admitted. It also is beneficial if faculty members have a sense of what level of performance is required to pass the bar in their state. In California, the state bar examiners allowed law professors to sit on bar grading calibration sessions, and I found it very instructive to do so. It is worth checking with your state bar examiners to see if they have a similar program. If not, encourage them to start one.
In my next post, I will offer some additional recommendations. I welcome your comments.
Mr. Frakt holds Western State out as a success story but I disagree. Bar passage is only a means to a job as a lawyer, something Western does not deliver for most of its students. Western State's own ABA disclosures show that less than half of its graduates got a full time job where a JD is even an advantage (54 out of 123). The outcome really is worse than that since five of the graduates were solo practitioners, which likely is the same as unemployed.
A better way to judge a school is whether the benefits it confers exceed its cost. Here Western looks terrible. It charges $40,000 per year in tuition. But, even if we look at the students who got full time jobs as attorneys, almost all (34 of 46) were either solos or in firms with 2 to 10 attorneys which makes it unlikely they'll be able to pay off loans they take out. In all Western sounds like its doing a terrible disservice to its students (who are trapped in debt they won't be able to repay) and the nation (whose taxpayers will end up covering the cost of those loans after Western's grads default or go on PAYE).
There are two ways we can look at this.
First, the approach that I favor is to identify at-risk students and decline to accept them. The ABA could do it simply by making a minimum LSAT score to be accepted, or schools could decline to accept students by using UGPA/LSAT, and then dumping those with low 1LGPA's.
For obvious reasons that Frakt identifies, this will not happen. From a cursory glance at the TLS-sponsered Class of 2016 LSAT 50% medians, there are roughly 37 law schools that are lower than 150.
Faculty and administration are not going to fall on their swords, and the regulatory capture of the AALS means that the law schools with the most to lose by instituting minimally rigorous admittance requirements have the most power.
Thus, we can look more squarely at Frakt's points, that if schools are accepting many marginal applicants they should emulate schools which boast impressive bar passage rates despite accepting many at-risk students, such as Frakt's school.
And the answer is simply: yes. If they aren't going to fall on their swords, as they should, they owe their students that. Maybe it means turning "opportunity" law schools into three-year bar prep courses. Many people will balk at that, and I do, but I would rather have the "opportunity" law schools have higher bar pass rates than low, even if the better solution would be to close down many of the opportunity law schools.
At my private, expensive, unranked law school, which shall remain nameless, which I graduated from recently (long story that I slightly detailed at OTLSS)the faculty and administration are attempting to do something similar. I don't know if they succeed, I hope they do. The current 2L's and new 1L's have such low LSAT scores that they would be described as "extreme risk" by Frakt. The majority of them aren't very well-informed and are notably less-intelligent than previous classes at my school, but most of them lack the malice that would make me detest them or wish them bad luck, I instead feel pity.
To second anon's comment
1. I've heard the argument that "we dramatically improved the bar pass rate for students with the same predictors." (As stated above: "outstanding results were achieved by students with virtually identical entrance credentials to those who had done so poorly just a few years before.") When I hear this argument, I always think of it as an admission that the faculty was doing a terrible job (28% pass rate?) until the accreditation was threatened. That admission is not becoming and that fact is nothing to brag about.
2. The answer to the "problem" of low bar pass rates is always more or less the same, so I'm not sure it is appropriate to blow Western's horn and implicitly assert that it did something unique. THe response to low bar pass rates is (again, there is precedent for this approach) usually: 1.) modify the curriculum to turn law school into an extended BarBri course with a few electives mixed in and 2.) academically disqualify those unlikely to pass the bar (sometimes, in an incredibly unethical manner, in the third year).
3. Anon above points out the result: bar pass rates may have sky rocketed, but employment prospects remain abysmal. Worse still, the post seems to abuse the very programs that might provide the networking and experience opportunities that could lead to employment: all in favor of the Bar Review curriculum.
Where is the ABA? What is it doing? Well, it made bar review posing as a course in law school legitimate!
4. Finally, for those who claimed a few threads back that the LSAT is an intelligence test, this dramatic jumps in bar pass rates appears to prove otherwise.
I also think we need to know the percentage of Western grads who actually took the bar. Its possible a major reason the bar passage rate went up is that Western discouraged students who were likely to fail, from taking the bar exam. Western must have this information, it needs it to calculate the bar passage rate.
Can Mr. Frakt tell us the percentage of Western grads who passed the bar (as opposed to those who took the bar)?
Also, Mr. Frakt suggests the FLP program was designed to help students. But could it have really been designed to flunk out students unlikely to be able to pass the bar, so they would not bring down Western's bar passage rate?
Can Mr. Frakt tell us the percentage of students who started at Western that ended up passing the bar?
I did not and do not advocate turning law school into a three year bar prep course or an "extended BarBri" course. The purpose of the Foundation Law Points program was simply to force students outside the top third of the class to work harder in core required classes and to continue to be diligent in their studies all the way through to graduation. The FLP did not require a change in curriculum or teaching methodology. I do believe, however, that professors who teach bar-tested courses at opportunity schools need to be familiar with the scope of coverage of their subject area on the bar exam, and that there should be significant overlap in their course coverage so that when students do take a bar review course, they are actually reviewing mostly familiar material, rather than learning it for the first time. While I have not been at Western State since 2010 and no longer have access to Western State's internal data, my recollection is that very few students were academically dismissed due to lack of FLPs. Rather, the vast majority of the students rose to the challenge, worked up to their full potential, got the FLPs, and passed the bar on their first try. My recollection also is that almost every graduate took the bar. We never discouraged our students from taking the bar. Generally, students came to Western State because they wanted to practice law, not simply acquire a J.D..
David, do you know how many Western State matriculants ended up graduating?
Professor Fract, your advocacy of the Foundation Law Points (FLP) is misguided at best. It is simply a tool designed and used, along with other institutional mechanisms, by Western State to weed out law students who are statistically unlikely to pass the bar exam.
Some data points on Western State's recent student attrition rates.
From lawschoolnumbers.com's stats on attrition rates:
1st year: 27.5%
2nd year: 13.7%
3rd year: 3.1%
From the school's 2013 509 Report (J.D. Attrition):
1st year: 28.1%
2nd year: 7.2%
3rd year: 2.5%
From findthebest.com's stats (Attrition 1st year): 32.6%
Note that some students at Western State who actually manage to do well in the classes not related to the FLP transfer out rather than face the consequences of poor performance in the FLP.
Some may wonder why the school admits so many students when it has created the FLP and other educational policies which it knows will result in a large percentage of admitted students never graduating.
The answer lies in who runs and controls Western State. Educational Management Corporation owns Western State as well as many other "educational institutions." I assume you know this. To hold out the FLP as a beacon to be emulated is misguided at best sir.
My apologies for not correctly spelling your name in the post above Professor Frakt. I did want to follow up on another educational policy put in place by Western State which contributes to the school's student attrition rate. It goes hand in hand with the FLP. That policy is to yank the scholarships of poorly performing academic students.
From the school's website:
# Entering with # Whose Sholarships
Students Matricu. in Conditional Scholarships Since Reduced/Eliminated
2012-2013 138 67
2011-2012 163 94
Students who lose their scholarships can't afford to pay full sticker tuition at a school like this. They have to quit school. The upside for the school is that they don't sit for the bar exam.
It is the nature of opportunity schools to admit a substantial number of at-risk students. It is not inappropriate or unethical for such a school to have a relatively high attrition rate in the first year. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to. Law schools can't predict in advance which of the students with similar entrance credentials will rise to the occasion and apply themselves, or demonstrate an aptitude for the study of law that was not apparent from their prior academic performance. So, law schools in this cohort must have tough, realistic grading standards. When I was at Western State, to ensure that we were treating students fairly and not taking their money beyond the point when it was clear that they had little chance for success, we changed the rules so that a student below a cumulative 1.7 GPA after the first semester was academically dismissed. This seemed fairer than placing the student on probation and allowing them to continue for another semester when there was minimal prospect of success, based on historical data. Students between a 1.7 and 2.0 were placed on probation, counseled on their prospects for success and given the option to withdraw. Those who remained were given robust academic support in their second semester. Some got back into good standing, others didn't. But I must emphasize that there was little or no difference in the entrance credentials of those who were academically dismissed and those who succeeded. The school gave an opportunity to pursue their dream to students who appeared to have a reasonable chance of success and many went on to complete the J.D. and pass the bar. I can't speak to what has happened at Western State since I left, but I don't find the statistics you cited (high attrition and high bar pass rate) to be very alarming. I would be much more concerned if there was a low attrition rate coupled with a low bar pass rate. That would indicate that the school was allowing students with poor prospects for success to continue just so the school could continue to collect tuition.
One problem is that Western is doing that at a cost of $60,000 per year, without taking into account fees and interest. And the low risk students are the ones that are likely to be subsidizing their higher score classmates or to be from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is a LOT of money for an "opportunity" school.
Perhaps it would be much simpler for those students to retake the LSAT until they can get a score that would allow them to get into a higher ranked school, instead of taking a one year chance at Western.
The second problem is that you know how many of those students are going to flunk out because of the curve. All of them might be capable of passing the bar with enough prep, but 1/3 have to wind up in the bottom 1/3 of the class.
I second the point above that I'm not sure what purpose opportunity schools serve. If it's just a matter of LSAT score, then I haven't seen anything that says people in the mid to high 140s couldn't improve their scores sufficient to get a 150 or higher.
Professor Frakt, I have no doubt that most in the legal profession and in society as a whole find practices like those you describe so matter-of-factly above, VERY alarming. The fact that nothing is being done about it does not make it acceptable or ethical.
Ben Barros has posted about how he has learned to "frame" legal education issues from exchanges he has had on this site. I see that you frame what Western State is and does by referring to it as an "opportunity school." I would submit to you that most other legal professionals would use more colorful words to describe it.
From the tone of your reply above, you seem to think your explanation of what Western State does and your support for its practices will make you come across as a good guy. It does not. It makes you come across as tone deaf and uncaring about the 35-40% (a rough estimate) of Western State students who never graduate and are saddled with debt they can't repay.
The lives of these students that never finish law school are damaged. You should acknowledge that. Saying that many of the students with law entrance credentials end up graduating and passing the bar and that we can't predict exactly which of these students will fail is no justification. Western State created a system where a large percentage of its students don't graduate. If they did then they would fail the bar and put Western State's accreditation in jeopardy again.
Those attrition numbers are not an unfortunate unforeseen occurrence. They are the intended result of a calculated policy. Western State's owner, Education Management Corporation is concerned about profits and nothing else. You should not hold Western State's practices out as something to be emulated as a "best practice" by other law schools.
Just so we're clear on the framing: what the anonymous comments are saying is that there are LSAT scores below which we just shouldn't let people be lawyers. They frame it as "protection of the unwary." I frame it as elitism. The truth is likely somewhere in between.
Let's look at the facts:
1. Not many schools are going to admit students with these low scores
2. If they do, even fewer are going to do so for free
3. People with low scores can pass the bar and become lawyers, often good ones
4. But for the same reasons many law schools won't admit, employment numbers are low.
The son of a family friend who went to Western State, graduated, and got a job. Does everyone? No.
Did our friend deserve to be told he couldn't have a shot at going to law school because someone else thought it was too expensive for him? I guess the jury is split on that one.
Now, can we quibble with the tuition amount? Sure. Are there complaints about for profit schools? Sure. But let's be clear about what we're talking about here when we dismiss schools like Western State. Either we let folks with low numbers find a law school to attend or we don't.
Until I hear the names of all those other schools lining up to give these students a law education with great job opportunities and low costs, I'll take these comments with a grain of salt. So long as job market, bar passage, and attrition information isn't hidden, lied about, or otherwise obfuscated, I'm willing to hold my elitism at bay and let grownups make their own decisions about which law school to attend.
It seems to me that this post indicts Western. Admissions from a former insider, combined with the published stats, appear to establish that Western is in violation of ABA standards.
Standard 501. ADMISSIONS …
(b) A law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its educational program and being admitted to the bar. …
Interpretation 501-3
Among the factors to consider in assessing compliance with Standard 501(b) are the academic and admission test credentials of the law school’s entering students, the academic attrition rate of the law school’s students,
the bar passage rate of its graduates, and the effectiveness of the law school’s academic support program.
Interpretation 501-4
A law school may not permit financial considerations detrimentally to affect its admission and retention policies and their administration. A law school may face a conflict of interest whenever the exercise of sound judgment in the application of admission policies or academic standards and retention policies might reduce enrollment below the level necessary to support the program.
The ABA does not establish a precise threshold proportion of attrition to trigger violation. The rule states "shall not admit … applicants who do not appear capable …"
Western admits students who do not appear capable. That was the point of this post. To brag on that fact.
There is no "opportunity to make a profit from the naïve" exception. In fact, the comments to the rule make clear that the viability of the law school is completely irrelevant.
Let's assume, however, that the ABA does not consider the admission of a small number of "high risk" students determinative.
Based on teh comments above, it appears that Western admits a class that it is statistically certain will fail at a rate that approaches 40% or even more.
What good is it then to say that a high proportion of the survivors survived? (If 1 person survived and then passed the bar, the bar pass rate would be 100%. So what would that prove? That Western did a great job of "educating" that person(or, according to the post despite subsequent denial, taking three years to teach that person to pass a test that is based on MINIMAL competence in the subject areas tested?).)
Is this level of attrition consistent with ABA standards?
How is this tolerated?
WHere are the feds, who determine eligibility for federal student loans (without which, schools like this would quickly shutter)?
Oh yes, they rely on the ABA.
It is elitist to argue caveat emptor when dealing with the dreams of the young and arguable attempts to prey and profit on their aspirations.
The post above stated: "I believe it is possible for a law school to admit a substantial number of at-risk students without running afoul of ABA standards or ethical business practices."
Let's not pretend here that there are no standards, both ABA and ethical, in play here. Let's not pretend that if the "So long as job market, bar passage, and attrition information isn't hidden, lied about, or otherwise obfuscated" all is well. Let's not pretend that Western is "giv[ing] these students a law education with great job opportunities and low costs."
Frankly, that whole approach sounds a bit … elitist.
And, btw, should we admit 100 persons to medical school who lack the demonstrated aptitude to become doctors (at 60K per student), on the chance that 50 might prove to be minimally qualified to practice medicine based on a single written test for which they spent three years preparing?
Should we allow these "opportunity" medical schools to forego or discourage most forms of practical training, in favor of intense focus for three years on passing that single written exam (leaving aside internship and residency, for the sake of discussion)?
Would you have confidence in such a doctor, even knowing that among the few that actually survived, a few might be very well qualified? How would YOU determine this?
ANd the stories about the neighbor's child are really quite irrelevant. My cousin didn't get into vet school. People don't get into medical school. People don't get into graduate schools. If all this is just elitist, then we should have special schools for all these people: schools that take their cash, and then fail them at a rate approaching 40%, turning the rest loose with the notion that 80% of the remaining 60% might prove to be barely qualified.
And, let's wipe out the ABA standards, because stating the rules without enforcing them is too painfully incompetent to be tolerated.
Please … use some common sense here. If an underqualified student is determined, that student will find a place in a law school somewhere without tolerating institutions that demonstrably violate adopted standards.
Professor Risch,
I wanted to respond just to your first statement of fact in your post above.
"1. Not many schools are going to admit students with these low scores."
I point you to Professor Jerry Organ's March 2, 2014 post on The Legal Whiteboard.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwhiteboard/2014/03/thoughts-on-fall-2013-enrollment-and-profile-data-among-law-schools.html
He comments on the decline in students' scores:
"In 2013, the number of law schools with a median LSAT of less than 150 has more than tripled to 32, while the number of law schools with a median LSAT of 145 or less now numbers 9 (with the low now being a 143)."
He is talking about ABA accredited schools. 32 law schools! I would be willing to wager everything I own that this number will increase in 2014. I hope this changes your thoughts on how many schools are accepting low scoring students and how many students would be harmed if Western State's educational practices are emulated and become even more widespread. The scale of the harm, or potential harm, is much larger than perhaps you imagined.
For-profit law schools will take almost anyone who can take out student loans. They don't care about fighting elitism or providing the underserved with access to legal education. They care about profit. That profit is generated by tapping into student loans backstopped by the US taxpayer.
"And, btw, should we admit 100 persons to medical school who lack the demonstrated aptitude to become doctors (at 60K per student), on the chance that 50 might prove to be minimally qualified to practice medicine based on a single written test for which they spent three years preparing?"
And there we go again. This is the question. I ask you: who are you to judge who is qualified, minimal or otherwise? The school has an 80% passage rate in California, where passage rates hover around 50%. Do some not make it? Yes. Have they wasted $60K? What business is it of yours, assuming they knew this was a real risk going in with their 140ish LSAT?
My sister's podiatry school classmates had a saying: you know what they call the person who graduates last in the class? Doctor. What you are saying is that some people just shouldn't be lawyers. Just own it.
confused by your post:
1. Show me the numbers on loan defaults please. Last I read they were pretty small for law students
2. Your numbers show nine (9!) schools with a median LSAT of 145. That's not a lot. You may cloak it in disdain for the profitmaking model (a model I do not like, mind you), but what you're really saying is that these folks should simply not be offered the chance, risky though it may be, to be lawyers. Just own it.
anon, confused: let's say I'm wrong. Please tell me how folks with a 140-147ish LSAT get a legal education, should they be willing to take that chance. I'm willing to learn. What's the model that works?
Since the last comment was a bit snarky, let me add:
1. I'm not an apologist for this or any law school. Information should be disclosed, schools should deliver on promises, students should pass the bar, and a school with 80% or even 50% attrition would be unacceptable.
2. I own my own elitism, and I work hard to not let it color my views.
3. Instead of arguing for fewer of these schools, why not argue for more? Real tuition has dropped nationwide due to undersupply of students and oversupply of lawschools wanting higher LSATs. If there is real demand for law school with 140-147 LSAT students, but we are worried about tuition, then the answer is MORE competition, not less. Western State would be happy to see competitors go out of business. Then they could charge more. Indeed, we don't even know what the tuition discount is there, given the non-ABA school competition in CA that can offer lower cost education to students.
4. Assuming success rate in this range is 50%, if there were a better, cheaper way to figure out which one of two students with identical LSAT scores would succeed. I would gladly support it. Ideas welcome.
Ahhhh ….
So, now we are getting somewhere. Let's cut thru all the utter nonsense about MORE schools that violate ABA and ethical standards (a subject, with all the elitism that you "own") you seem to studiously ignore.
You can't deny that standards exist, so, you've invented your own (in your concededly elitist manner).
Most of us aren't willing to ignore the standards adopted by the ABA (that provides accreditation) and the sense of business ethics shared by almost all who don't think in terms that call into memory the era of Dickens.
But, let's stipulate that your standard is the very, very best one. Better than anyone's. Your standard is this:
"A 50% attrition [rate] would be unacceptable."
Interesting choice, because the school under discussion comes in just under that rule. Yet now, at least and at last, you have laid out a standard.
Now, next step. Are you willing to say the ABA should enforce your standard?
Oh, and btw, for first time ABA approved Cal bar takers, your estimate of pass rates is generally wrong.
I am not sure why anon and confused are singling out Western State for criticism. A review of Western State's 509 report shows that their LSATs were at 152/150/148 for the fall 2013 entering class. This is a very significant difference from the 9 law schools reportedly with medians at 145 or below, such as Florida Coastal at 148/144/141. It should be noted that Western State had an 83% bar pass rate on the Feb 2014 bar, placing them 5th in California, and continuing their solid record of performance in recent years.
The criticism of Western State's conditional scholarship program is similarly misplaced. According to this article,
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwhiteboard/2014/07/conditional-scholarship-retention-update-for-the-2012-2013-academic-year.html
two-thirds of American law schools offer conditional scholarships. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with conditioning what is ostensibly a merit scholarship on continued solid academic performance, so long as the terms of retention are clearly disclosed and not unreasonably stringent. Approximately 30% of law students nationwide lose or have their conditional scholarship's reduced each year so this phenomenon is hardly unique to Western State. Furthermore, I am not sure what the basis for the claim is that students who lose their scholarships can't afford to continue in law school and have to drop out. Financial aid is readily available for law students. While I agree that tuition and fees at Western State are high, they are not high relative to other private law schools in their market. And, as Professor Risch aptly notes, no one is forcing anyone to go to Western State or any other law school. I am certainly no apologist for for-profit law schools. If I were, I wouldn't have been kicked out of my interview with Florida Coastal. But I think we have to give credit where credit is due. Whatever issues EDMC may have with some of the other schools in its portfolio, it appears to me that Western State is offering a very solid legal education and achieving commendable results with students with modest entrance credentials.
Yes, I know that first time, ABA approved bar passage is higher in CA. And yet, CA allows non-ABA schools so long as 1L's pass the baby bar. Maybe all the ire should be directed there? We do have standards, after all.
More particularly, the numbers above say 30% attrition, not 50% attrition. And the standards are that students must appear capable of graduating and passing the bar. Let's say it's half, but we can't tell which half. What I'm saying is that we should figure out a way to give half a chance, preferably cheaply. What you're saying is that the half that might succeed should be denied the opportunity, ostensibly to save the half that won't, even though 100% are willing to take the risk.
My, it's tough to get thru.
Here are the stats from a comment above, no reason to doubt them:
"Some data points on Western State's recent student attrition rates.
From lawschoolnumbers.com's stats on attrition rates:
1st year: 27.5%
2nd year: 13.7%
3rd year: 3.1%
From the school's 2013 509 Report (J.D. Attrition):
1st year: 28.1%
2nd year: 7.2%
3rd year: 2.5%"
We are scolded by MR that "the numbers [for WS] show 30% attrition." No, actually that isn't true.
Moreover, no one said WS was at the 50% standard (yet) that MR made up out of whole cloth. It was noted that MR's standard exceeded WS's actual attrition rate, but not by much.
Just like the CA bar pass rates, and the ABA standards, we are arguing with someone's imagination, rather than reality and common sense. Common sense dictates that all standards do not need to go away because someone barred by such standards might ultimately achieve.
Argue for open admissions? Fine. But MR doesn't do that. So, MR's point is hopelessly confused.
Implicit in MR's comments is that everyone has a right to attend law school, and expressly stated in his commentary is the assertion that, so long as the abysmal facts are disclosed, law schools with attrition rates of about 40% (but not 50%) should proliferate, so that some unspecified number of applicants may have the opportunity to someday pass the bar after taking a three year prep course.
Sorry. That doesn't sound like a good idea.
Yes, we are on the same page, anon. My numbers may be imaginary, but might I remind that the comments were busting Prof. Frakt's chops about Western State, with a 150 median, well above what I'm talking about. And so I wonder at what point it IS a good idea to let people try to become lawyers? This prompted my elitism comment.
But let's focus on my point about the lower end and my admittedly arbitrary 50%. The mean score for African Americans is around 142, for hispanics around 147. So, the upshot is that your "not a very good idea" – in the name of protecting these people of color – instead locks out people of color by not allowing them to try to get a legal education, even if half of them might succeed and become lawyers.
This is our fundamental divide. Should they pay $60K for that opportunity? No, we should look for better, faster, and cheaper ways to sort the top 50% from the bottom 50%.
Will they pay $60K? Unlikely, but even if they do, the question is – assuming that these facts are all known and disclosed (a tall order, I grant you) – what right you, or even the ABA, has to decide whether $60K is worth the shot at such a career. The ABA has standards, and my assertion is that 50% could satisfy the standard if folks aren't pushed through to graduation with no shot of passing the bar.
Professor Risch,
Is there anything stopping people scoring in the 140s to study harder and raise their score. Wouldn't requiring a 150+ LSAT score cause less colateral damage than enrolling hundreds of students that will flunk out or fail to ever work as lawyers upon graduation, leaving them burdened with tens or hudreds of thousands of dollars of debt, with nothing tangible to show for it?
On your accusations of elitism: Law is an incredibly competitive profession. If you are not among the relative elite, or you do not have some kind of close connections to the business world that would allow you to drum up business, you are going to have an extremely difficult time making a living as a lawyer in today's economic climate. 4th tier schools are setting up the 80% of their classes that finish outside the top 15% and do not have business connections for failure. The opportunity they are offering the vast majority of their classes is life ruining debt.
When you say, "will you they pay $60k? Unlikely," what are you basing that comment on? My understanding of law school economics is the poorer LSAT scorers in any given class are almost always the ones paying full frieght? Do you have any data that suggests otherwise?
JillyfromPhilly –
In my experience, most students scoring in their 140s have already spent a great deal of time and often a considerable amount of money prepping for the LSAT. Knowing how much is riding on their exam score, students with a history of poor performance on standardized tests often take multiple LSAT prep courses and/or engage in extensive self-study. Also, they often take the LSAT multiple times. Interestingly, while many lower-tier law schools used to average the reported LSAT scores (which provides a more accurate picture of the students aptitude) many now only consider the highest reported score. While intensive prep for the LSAT may result in a marginal score improvement, it typically would not boost a student from 144 or below into the 150s. Even if students could somehow magically raise their LSAT score through study, the higher score would not actually reflect greater aptitude for the study of law. Rather, it would reflect mastery of the particular format of the LSAT and effective standardized test-taking strategy. These skills will be of little value in law school. So, no, this approach would not "cause less collateral damage" to borrow your phrase. It is important to bear in mind that with over 30 schools with a median LSAT below 150, we are talking about thousands of students that would have to substantially raise their scores if law schools were going to stop admitting students with scores in the 140s. This is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
NOTE TO ALL COMMENTERS – While the debate about admitting at-risk students is interesting and important, for the foreseeable future, it appears certain that a significant number of schools will continue to admit a substantial number of such students. Therefore, I would prefer to focus the discussion on what law faculties can do to help these students succeed. Forcing these students to put added effort into the core curriculum and to maintain that effort through graduation has proven to be effective at Western State in raising the bar passage rate. I would welcome contributions from others who have other constructive ideas on the topic of raising performance of at-risk students. Since we seem to just be going in circles, I am going to start removing comments that simply rehash the "law school scam" debate.
Here's the article about what NYLS did to improve bar passage.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1551477
Thank you, John
David — the Atlantic article mentions that you "noted that according to statistics from the Law School Admission Council…scores higher than those in the 60th percentile correlate with a low risk of failing to eventually pass a bar" while "scores below the 25th percentile correlate with an extreme risk of failure."
Is there a specific LSAC report which you were referring to in your presentation? I'm interested in finding out more but am not familiar with the LSAC research referenced.
There is a tremendous amount of research on all things related to the LSAT on the LSAC research page http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/research/all/tr
I urge those who are honestly trying to understand LSATs as an admissions tool to review this research.
There is a lot of research at this page on how well the LSATs correlate with law school success (very strong correlation with performance in the first year of law school. The LSAT alone is more predictive than UGPA alone, but combining the two together provides even more accurate predictions. ) There are reports on what students do to prepare for the LSAT (average students uses 2-3 different study methods). There are reports on the performance of repeat test takers. (Average score goes up 2.8 the second time you take it, another 2.2 points the third time.) There is a report on Analysis of Differential Prediction of Law School Performance by Racial/Ethnic Subgroups which convincingly demonstrates that the LSAT does not underpredict the performance of the minority groups studied. There is a report on the validity of LSAT scores for repeat test takers which indicates that using the average score is a better predictor than using the highest score.
Although the report is somewhat dated (1998), the LSAC National Longitudinal Bar Pass Study has some very useful information about the correlation between bar passage and LSAT scores. You can find the study here: http://www.unc.edu/edp/pdf/NLBPS.pdf
See also this more recent article from the NCBE which discusses the correlation of LSAT scores and MBE scores., and includes a table with average MBE score by LSAT score.
http://www.ncbex.org/assets/media_files/Bar-Examiner/articles/2011/800411Testing.pdf
I would also recommend Rosin, Gary S., Unpacking the Bar: Of Cut Scores, Competence and Crucibles. 1st Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper; Journal of the Legal Profession, Vol. 32, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=988429
All of this research as well as my own research of several years of student data at Western State informed my presentation at Florida Coastal.
Much appreciated David for those lists of resources. I'll definitely check them out. Is there a published analysis anywhere (by LSAC or others) which shows that an LSAT of <145 has x% chance of passing the bar, 145-149 a y% … etc, etc. or was that your own analysis by triangulating different studies or based on private sources of information?
I'm familiar with the 1998 LSAC study but it seemed to me that the LSAT scores were on a different scale back then (on the bottom of page 24 it notes: "the LSAT data are shown on the LSAT scale, which had a mean of 36.8 and a standard deviation of 5.5").
Much appreciated
I never attempted to offer a percentage chance for passing for those below 145. I don't believe the publicly available data is sufficiently granular for that. Furthermore, the chances of passing would depend in significant part on which state bar one was taking. All I said was that students with a 144 LSAT and below, on average, were at what I considered to be an extremely high risk of either failing out of law school or failing the bar. Florida Coastal recently issued a press release indicating that their graduates who entered law school with an LSAT score below a 145 had a 63% first time bar pass rate. The press release did not include any data on the academic attrition for those with LSATs below 145, nor did it provide any information about the sample size of the group of the years covered. Looking at the admissions numbers for entering students at Florida Coastal, it appears that relatively few students with LSATs below 145 were admitted before 2011, and the bar passage data for these students is not yet available.) My guess is that before Florida Coastal started to admit large numbers of students with LSATs below 145, they were fairly selective about which students they would take with such low LSAT scores. For example, they might have only taken students below 145 if they had a relatively high UGPA, suggesting reasonably aptitude for the study of law. Given that over half of the class now has a score below 145 (their reported median was 144), Florida Coastal clearly is no longer being as selective. I believe that any school with a median LSAT below 145 is going to have a very difficult time maintaining a bar pass rate that meets ABA standards, but only time will tell.
I'm not sure what happened but my previous post seems to have been deleted…
I mentioned that I have a close friend who scored a 141 or 142 on her LSAT and had been accepted to Florida Coastal and a few other places. She's incredibly hard working and I don't think her LSAT is a fair indication of her chance of being a great attorney.
However, we came across the Campos article (and several other articles) and we are now extremely concerned as it basically says below a 145 you have almost no chance of passing the bar. Professor David Frakt is the reference for that and the article says that Professor Frakt referenced in LSAC study as his source.
I'm just trying to figure out what the "data" is that supports this claim. The most I could find in the links Professor Frakt provided above is that LSAT has a strong correlation. The LSAC study seems to be from a time when the LSAT had a different scale.
Professor Frakt — in terms of quantitative conclusions (>50% chance of passing vs. "quite unlikely" / well below 50% chance) does that come from your experience / Western State data primarily or is there somethings specifically across a broader set of schools that LSAC or somebody else may have published (or not published)?
I'd appreciate it if this post wasn't deleted unless I've inadvertantly violated some rule here…
Anon2. Although the LSAC study came from a time when LSATs were scored on a 12-48 point scale as opposed to 120-180 as it is now, you can still make comparisons based on the percentile score.
It would be irresponsible to predict an outcome for an individual based solely on one data point. When I was speaking at Florida Coastal, I was generalizing about a large cohort of admitted students. I do not claim to be the authority on LSAT scores. I was just offering my opinion based on several years of teaching at opportunity schools and the review of the sources noted above. If your close friend is incredibly hard working that is a useful attribute that will stand her in good stead in law school. If she was a very good undergraduate student with a high GPA, that would also be a good sign. If she got into several schools then perhaps she is a stronger applicant than the LSAT score alone would indicate. I have never said that a person has no chance of passing the bar if he or she has an LSAT below a 145, and that would not be a true statement. Many students with scores below 145 have passed the bar. That being said, a 141 or 142 is a very, very low score. A 141 would place your friend in the bottom 15% of all LSAT takers. What I would advise your friend to do is to ask the schools that admitted her to provide her with information about how students with similar LSAT and UGPA profiles have fared at that school in the past. What has been the academic attrition rate? What has been the bar passage rate? The LSAC does free correlation studies for law schools so her schools may have one of these studies. Even if they don't, they are likely to have some internal data that would address her/your concerns. Whether the schools are willing to share that data with a prospective or admitted student may be another matter. The LSAC is very reluctant to identify a particular score below which it would be inadvisable for a student to attend law school or a law school to admit a student. In fact, the ABA standards for accreditation contain a cautionary statement from the LSAC about relying too heavily on LSATs and they advise against setting a specific cutoff score below which no student will be admitted. Another concern that I would have for your friend is that schools that tend to admit students with very low LSAT scores tend (although there are exceptions) not to have the best job placement statistics. So it is a gamble not only whether the student will graduate and pass the bar, but whether she will be able to find suitable employment upon graduation.
Thanks David — much appreciated
David- Only 33% of all LSAT scorers repeat the test. You're wrong that "most" lower-tier law schools take the highest score- every law school I know of with the exception of HYS takes the highest score because that's all they have to report to USNWR. Given that the downside to retaking is a few hundred in administration fees and the upside to the "average" score increase is 2-3 points and that can be worth a lot of scholarship money, I'd say most scorers at any level are not behaving optimally, i.e., maxing retakes and study time. FWIW, my anecdotal evidence is that low scorers assume that they are just "bad standardized test takers" and thus do not put in the effort that would raise their scores. Better UG counseling is needed for those students to understand the value of studying, retaking, and putting off law schools for a few years. Furthermore, low scorers are more likely to be from more limited means and do not have the money to take expensive test prep courses. LSAC should be required to release, for free, a substantial amount of prior testing materials. (Again, the legal academy is silent on a system that discriminates against poor applicants. What a shocker).
http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/data-%28lsac-resources%29-docs/repeaterdata.pdf
It's possible that studying for the LSAT will make a student faster at some of the basic logical fallacies or analytical reasoning skills that are important in the profession. There's a reason physics/math and philosophy majors have by far the highest LSAT scores. Could be selection bias, could be the result of UG coursework, could be both.
Michael – You agree that there should be some cutoff for who can become a lawyer, no? Or do you really think we should get rid of the bar exam because it stops people from having the opportunity to become lawyers?
According to Western's last 509 report 33% of matriculants received no money. 42% of the students in your classes at Villanova received no money. That's about a 280K investment for those students, all in. And you do understand that most of these students aren't paying 60K/year out of their own pocket. They're paying with federal student loans, and the ABA absolutely has the obligation to make sure those funds are not being disbursed to cohorts that have a low shot of passing the bar or being able to repay them.
Having more kids go to terrible law schools, take out massive debt, and then not get jobs as lawyers isn't going to reduce elitism in the profession- it's going to exacerbate it and leave a lot of people from modest means carrying huge debt in the process.