Arthur Frakt’s Thoughts on Law School Admissions and the Bar

Introduction:  I often discuss my TFL posts and the comments thereto with my father, Arthur Frakt.  Dad was a long-time faculty member and Associate Dean at Rutgers-Camden before becoming Dean at Loyola LA in the 80s, and Dean of Widener (both Wilmington and Harrisburg) in the 90s before retiring.  He has come out of retirement a couple of times: first, to help start the law school at Drexel, and later, to help Western State overcome its bar passage struggles and get full accreditation.  He continues to follow closely what is going on legal academia.  I asked him if he would be interested in sharing some of his thoughts on The Faculty Lounge, and he graciously offered to do so.   After reading them, I find myself in complete agreement with everything he says.  We both look forward to your comments.  

– David Frakt

SOME THOUGHTS ON LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS AND THE BAR

by Arthur Frakt

In my four decades as a teacher and administrator in legal education,  I was always deeply involved in the admissions process as well as the success of students in passing the bar examination and gaining entry into the profession.  Of course every law school dean must have an interest in how his or her school's students have  performed on the LSAT and succeeded at the bar examination, but I had a deep personal concern stemming from my own experience in law school and my work as the only lawyer in the New Jersey Attorney General's office working full time on civil rights.

I entered Rutgers Law School-Newark in 1961.  At that time the law school world and legal practice generally was the domain of white men. My class of approximately 130 students had three women and one African American male.  They were all excellent students, and while I never heard a racist comment from faculty and classmates, there was a great deal of animosity and insensitivity to the women.  Rutgers was fortunate to have a brilliant black professor, Clyde Ferguson, and an outstanding female professor, Eva Morreale.  Before I graduated, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had joined the faculty.  That was it for women and minorities.

I worked in Civil Rights during a time when discrimination in housing and employment was blatant and very widespread.  When I entered the teaching profession at Rutgers Camden in 1966, I was determined to do whatever I could to change the situation.  Fortunately, at that time of great national upheaval, there were many who felt the same way.

I will not review the almost incredible struggle it took to overcome the resistance of male faculties and administrators to admitting more than a token number of women to our ranks; rather, I want to discuss the efforts to reform the law school student recruitment and admissions process so that many more women and minority students would enter law school.  Obviously recruitment at predominantly female and minority colleges played a large role in these efforts, but another element was the determination to be more flexible with regard to both the college curricula and grades and the LSAT.

Serious consideration was given in these early days to the possibility that the LSAT could not properly test a minority applicant's potential for success in law school and at the bar.  Rather than rehearse all of the arguments made in support of this theory, let me simply say that in time it became clear that the LSAT was as predictive for minority students as for majority students, as exhaustive research studies have borne out.  While there were a gratifying number of successful minority students who became outstanding lawyers, there were many others who failed, were dismissed or did not pass the bar.  While the LSAT is far from a perfect predictor of success in law school and bar passage, it, along with evidence of undergraduate academic achievement, is the best we can do prior to enrollment.  Strong achievement in required law school courses is , of course, an even  better indicator of bar proficiency.  After all, the bar exam in simply an extended law school examination.

What I have come to conclude over my years in legal education is that applicants do not have to be brilliant LSAT takers to attain success in law school, at the bar exam, and in practice.  Whether a majority or minority applicant, if an individual has an LSAT score at or near the median and has demonstrated serious application of his or her abilities to undergraduate studies as reflected by good grades in challenging courses, a legal education is a very reasonable graduate program for him or her to pursue.  On the other hand, when an applicant's LSAT scores fall much below the 40% level, the ability to apply legal reasoning and solve legal problems is greatly diminished and he or she might be well advised to pursue another professional program for which his or her talents are better suited.

In sum, there is, in my opinion, great merit in a law school which offers an opportunity to students with modest aptitude but with proven dedication to undertake a challenging curriculum taught by dedicated professors.  These students must understand  it is not enough to merely get by with minimal grades and they cannot rely on either luck or last minute bar cramming to succeed.  I have counseled many students about the reality of their situations.  I think it is a faculty member's and a dean's responsibility to be honest with students about their performance and the likelihood of their success.

I have worked at public law schools, private law schools, and for-profit law schools.  There is nothing inherently better or worse about any specific type and all are capable of providing a quality legal education.  There is pressure for all law schools to meet enrollment goals, and there is often pressure to admit poorly qualified students.  When I was Dean at Loyola of Los Angeles and Widener, I frequently received calls from alumni or prominent members of the bar urging me to admit a relative or family friend with poor entrance credentials.  But just as it was my responsibility to turn down these requests, it is the responsibility of all law school administrators and faculty members to refuse to admit students who do not appear to have reasonable prospects of success in law school.  We should not kid ourselves that we are offering an opportunity to a deserving student when that student is in the bottom third of their college class and the bottom third of LSAT takers.   While a few (very few) such students might defy expectations and succeed, many more will end up dropping or flunking out, having wasted precious time and resources pursuing an unrealistic dream.  What is even more irresponsible than admitting these students is having weak academic standards which enable poor performing students with minimal prospects for success on the bar to earn a J.D..  Schools that have lowered their admission standards in recent years in response to the decrease in applications must be very tough in their grading, especially in first year classes.  Ideally, students who lack the aptitude for law school success should be identified by the end of the first semester and academically dismissed.  Schools which take high-risk students who end up flunking out should give partial refunds or loan forgiveness.  This would go a long way toward reassuring critics that financial motives were not driving admission decisions.

Failing the bar exam is a devastating experience, emotionally, psychologically and, obviously, economically. While individuals who fail the first time may ultimately succeed at passing the bar, their chances diminish in each succeeding try, as do their job prospects.  Every bar failure is also a failure of the law school from which the student graduated.  At the very least, the law school should offer the student professional help to understand the reasons for failure and an opportunity to enroll in classes where bar weaknesses may be overcome at no cost to the graduate.  Where the graduate has been close to passing, such assistance may be crucial.  Where the graduate has simply not been able to financially afford to devote herself full-time to bar preparation, a post-graduate grant or scholarship should be considered.  It is not enough to simply tell the graduate that if he or she continues to try, ultimately success may be achieved.  I had a very good friend who failed the bar examination many times before he finally passsed.  The toll that this took on his life can hardly be overstated.  No law school should consider it acceptable when a third or more of its graduates experience this kind of trauma each time the bar is offered.   

.

I often discuss my posts and the comments thereto with my Dad, Arthur Frakt.