UPDATE: Responding to popular demand, I have attached a sanitized version of the presentation I gave at Florida Coastal last spring here: Download FCSL sanitized I have removed proprietary data, such as information from FCSL's ABA Self-Study, in accordance with a non-disclosure agreement I signed with FCSL. The notes to the slides are not exact quotes from my actual presentation, but accurately reflect the content of my talk, at least up to the point that I was stopped by the President.
Back in April, the night before my my abortive Dean candidate talk at Florida Coastal School of Law, I had dinner with FCSL President Dennis Stone. Over dinner I expressed serious concern over the quality of recently admitted students at FCSL and their prospects for passing the bar. President Stone completely dismissed my concerns. In fact, he expressed great confidence that the school's bar pass rates was going to be just fine, and, even stated that he expected the rate to go up as a result of improvements to the curriculum and in-house bar prep programs.
I was unconvinced. When I expressed a decidedly different view of the school's trajectory the following day, President Stone responded by throwing me off the campus.
Before I departed, I predicted that the school was going to have a disastrous bar result in July. In fact, here is one of the bullets from one of the PowerPoint slides I used during the presentation:
◦ Bar Pass rate for summer 2014 will drop substantially, probably below 60%
The Florida Board of Bar Examiners recently released the July 2014 bar examination results by law school, and, lo and behold, Florida Coastal School of Law had a first-time bar pass rate of 58.0%. This woeful result placed FCSL second to last among Florida’s 12 ABA-Accredited law schools, just edging out perennially struggling Ave Maria.
Although I enjoy being proved right as much as the next guy, I can take no real pleasure in being proved right in this case, for there is a tremendous human toll when such a large school has such a poor result on the bar. There are 118 recent FCSL graduates who are suffering greatly right now because they failed the bar, and that is a tragedy. Indeed, it was precisely this kind of tragedy that I was hoping to avert by trying to persuade FCSL to change course.
How was I able to predict this drop with such accuracy? No magical powers were involved. All I had to do was look at FCSL’s entering student profiles to see that a bar pass rate train wreck was coming.
Although some seem loathe to admit it, there is a very strong correlation between LSAT scores and MBE scores (see, here and here). Let the LSAT scores of your admitted students drop, and three years later, the bar pass rate is bound to follow. Perhaps nowhere is this principle more clearly demonstrated than at FCSL.
Not long ago, FCSL’s bar pass numbers were perfectly respectable. In July 2012, FCSL was at 75.2%, within 5% of the state average of 80.2%. In July 2011, they had similar results: a first time passage rate of 74.6% compared to a 79.5.% state average. These consistent results were not surprising given that the entrance credentials at FCSL for the Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 entering classes were identical (153, 150, 147 at the 75th, 50th and 25th percentile in both years). But starting in 2010, the entrance credentials of FCSL’s students started to slip. That year, they went from 153, 150, 147 to 152, 149, 146, a one-point decrease across the board. As a direct result, in July 2013, FCSL’s July bar pass rate dropped below 70% for the first time in several years. At 67.4%, the 2013 rate was 10% below the state average of 77.2%. In 2011, FCSL dropped their standards even more dramatically, enrolling a class with LSATs of 151, 147, 145. Based on this drop in the aptitude of its entering students, coupled with a significant level of transfer attrition from the top of the class, it was easy to predict that there would be a significant drop in bar performance for FCSL’s July 2014 bar takers.
Unfortunately, the worst is undoubtedly yet to come from FCSL. The entering class of 2012 was substantially weaker by LSAT score (151, 146, 143) than the 2011 entering class, and the 2013 (148, 144, 141) and 2014 (unavailable at this time, but projected to be about the same) entering classes have drastically lower predictors. Unless FCSL substantially increases academic attrition from the bottom of the class, their bar pass rate will almost certainly drop below 50% in the coming years (assuming they stay in business). Even with significantly greater attrition they will still be hard-pressed to match this year’s dismal results.
Will these results finally cause InfiLaw to change their admission policies, and stop admitting huge numbers of high-risk students? One can always hope, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Perhaps the more salient question is: Will these recent results spur the ABA to take any action? The unfortunate answer is: probably not. Under ABA Standard 316(a)(2), a law school that is within 15% of the state average for first-time takers from all ABA law schools is deemed to have a sufficient bar passage rate. So, as far as the ABA is concerned, FCSL, at 14% below the state average, is still fully compliant. (Of course, if you remove FCSL’s students from the equation, the statewide first-time pass rate in Florida on the July bar would have been 73.2%, 15.2% higher than FCSL's average, but that is not how the ABA calculates things.) But even if FCSL is still meeting the ABA’s woefully inadequate bar pass standards now, it should be abundantly clear to anyone who understands the predictive value of LSAT scores that they are not going to be able to meet them in future administrations of the bar. How many more high-risk, poorly qualified students will InfiLaw be allowed to take advantage of before the ABA steps in?
In fairness to InfiLaw, FCSL is far from the only school to experience a drop in their bar passage rate. In fact, this year, Florida’s state average dropped sharply (-5.4%) to 71.8% overall. Florida’s numbers are consistent with what is happening in other states. According to this article, the majority of states to have reported their scores from July 2014 have reported drops of greater than four percentage points, with several reporting a double-digit drops in the first time bar passage rate. These numbers highlight one of the problems with ABA Standard 316(a)(2). When all law schools lower their admission standards, the overall bar pass rate may plummet, but even horribly performing law schools may still be able to stay within 15% of the state average. Florida is a perfect example of this. Florida’s worst-performing school this July, Ave Maria, at 57% (rounded up to the nearest whole percentage point) is still within 15% of Florida’s 72% statewide average, and thus, compliant, even though most people would agree (I hope) that 57% is unacceptably low. This example points to the need for the ABA to implement a minimum first time bar pass rate. Schools that drop below the minimum for a calendar year (combining the February and July bar) should automatically be placed on probation. If 75% is presumptively sufficient under ABA Standard 316 (a)(1), then more than 15% below that, under 60%, should be presumptively insufficient.
I understand very well the pressure on law school administrators to preserve the jobs of law school faculty and staff by trying to limit the decrease in the size of their entering classes by admitting weaker applicants. But it is highly ethically questionable to try to keep a law school afloat on the backs of students who have demonstrated poor aptitude for the study of law. It is even more ethically dubious when a law school is admitting large numbers of extremely high-risk students for the purpose of making a profit. Regrettably, that appears to be exactly what is going on at some ABA-accredited law schools. The ABA should put a stop to it.
Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You, Florida Coastal
Posted by
42
42
David
Quite right.
I would point out a problem: perhaps you can suggest a solution.
IN some states, like California, the "normal" bar pass rate is far lower; in some states, far higher. In other words, in some states, the pass rate is usually very high across the board, but this varies quite a bit.
My sense is that the ABA standard set a deviation from the state average to account for these differences.
THe ABA "standards" are, however, toothless, for the reason you cite and others. The factors to take into account if a school falls out of compliance are so broad, vague and lax that it seems impossible that any law school will ever lose accreditation because of low bar pass rates.
Have you studied the regulations regarding student loans? I believe in these, there may be some hope in finding an enforcement mechanism. The ability to obtain the promised license (i.e., bar membership) and find a job (i.e., employment placement rates) are valid criteria. So too is the percent of revenue derived from loans.
David,
For obvious reasons I think many who come to this site will feel great hostility toward your post. What you have written is important and deserves a wide audience. I have to credit those who run this site for allowing you to post this. It is useful to have hard numbers support what everyone intuitively knows.
Lowered student LSAT scores = lower bar passage rate 3 years later
"Opportunity" schools try and mitigate the low pass rate problem by intentionally causing massive student attrition and creating obstacles to transferring. This has helped these schools A LOT. As you point out, so has the fact that LSAT scores of law students in general are on the decline causing a corresponding general decline in bar passage rates.
The problem you describe is a huge one for legal education. The ABA won't fix it, state bars won't fix it, student loan regulators won't fix it, those employed by law schools won't fix it.
In the end the ONLY thing which will stop the worst of the schools from continuing to enroll large numbers of obviously unqualified students will be a lack of students willing to attend. This is already starting to happen on the margins. This small change has been brought about by the push to make a lot more information available (costs, outcomes, etc.). Information just like this.
Keep writing David and keep trying to have these discussions. Be prepared for the criticism and push back that will undoubtedly come. In the end it will help to create a healthier and better legal education system.
I expect the lower-ranking (let alone the for-profit) schools to keep going like this. Their only alternative, cutting class sizes by a large amount) is very painful.
These schools will keep doing what they've been doing until they are closed down by outside forces – either the sheriff's deputy enforcing foreclose and eviction, or a college's board of trustees deciding to amputate a withered and gangrenous limb.
David – Thank you for the blog post. Any chance you could post your complete powerpoint presentation?
There seems to be some large drops at some of the public schools — Illinois dropped 11% this year; George Mason dropped about 20%. I also note that, at the public schools in particular in the last couple of years, the 25% LSAT and GPA are getting to be way below the median scores. Minnesota, Alabama, and William and Mary, for example, each ranked in US News top 25 (and US News only looks at the median), have their 25% LSAT 6 or 7 points below their median. We do not know what is going on below the 25%ile, but I would guess they each have some requirement for taking in state students and have lower standards there. (Emory, a private, also has a 7 point spread, and also fell 9 points in bar pass this year).
Seconding anon's request, Dan.
Thirding.
Thank you all for your comments. Anon, I am not very familiar with the regulations regarding student loans. I would certainly welcome more oversight from federal regulators of schools that may be abusing federal loan regulations.
I would love to post my entire PowerPoint presentation, but it contains some information from Florida Coastal's Self-Study and other documents that they consider proprietary, and I signed a non-disclosure agreement regarding those documents, so I can't. What I will do is go through the slides and remove the proprietary data and post a sanitized version of the slides. Stay tuned.
The ABA is largely toothless, but I still think ABA accreditation issues will play a role for schools with lower LSAT numbers in the next few years.
It'll be over the course of a number of years though.
We may finally see schools unable to meet either of the bar pass requirements (within 15% of state average on first time or 75% ultimate passage including repeats for three of the last five years). Additionally, if the first time rate drops enough, the ABA has shown the inclination to raise accreditation questions even where the school meets the ultimate repeat percentage. Yes, it was in the context of granting full accreditation to a provisionally accredited school (La Verne). I think they will do it under the general standard or the related standard dealing with only admitting students capable of passing the bar/being lawyers.
Of course, they might do as they did with La Verne, immediately re-grant provisional. However, it will still be a hard, potentially deadly, hit for the schools it happens to. First, they will take a big hit on the ability to attract students (already low). Second, in order to convince higher scoring students to attend, they will have to buy most of their student body. They will also likely have to shrink in size significantly. That will make the financial outlook of the affected school look really, really bad. Millions will have to be dumped in.
In short, the ABA hit might not be directly deadly, but it may do enough damage to force closures. I would not be surprised to see this sort of scenario played out at a number of schools in the next few years.
(This assumes that this year's drop in bar passage was not a fluke of MBE scoring by NCBEX and that schools cannot overcome the link between LSAT and MBE/bar passage.)
The trick is that the ABA education committee is run by the for-profits and bottom-feeder schools. To enforce standards would be cutting their own financial throats.
Thank you for posting redacted slides. Could you also note where Mr. Stone burst into the room to eject you? Cause that would really just make my day. Thanks!
Anon – Based on questions from the audience, I jumped around a bit in the slide presentation, so I managed to hit many of the slides, and I believe I discussed the content of all of the slides. I was on slide 12, and had spent quite a bit of time on it, when President Stone came in and asked me to leave.
The slides are posted at the top of the post in the update section.
Having looked at the slides, I can think of no finer example of why academic tenure – real academic tenure – is a must. The presentation makes a good case for financial decisions driving admissions at the school, in violation of ABA standards and with clear consequences in the future. It's sad that an invited speaker at the school cannot present this speech, and that the faculty are clearly intimidated into silence.
The violations are flagrant and I think the ABA has to do something in response, if they plan on doing anything at all about any rule violations at any point. Anything less indicates a complete unwillingness to oversee legitimate academic principles.
Wow, Anon. First, you say that faculty have nothing to do with law school closures, and you seem to applaud their exculpation and irresponsiblity.
Here, you plead that faculty governance is the key to renewal and reform, and bemoan the "fact" that the faculty were "intimidated" into making decisions that they wouldn't have otherwise made.
What makes you think that the faculty wished to rise up and demand that the presentation continue? What makes you think they would have been terminated had they done so, or had any fear of that outcome? What makes you think that they wanted to hear someone say that the admission standards were too lax? What makes you think the faculty would raise the admission standards if given the opportunity? What evidence is there, ANYWHERE, that law school faculties are fighting for higher admission standards against cruel profiteers who refuse to heed their concern?
Let's ask David. David: did the faculty protest when you were asked to leave? Do agree with Anon's assumption that they were too "intimidated" to do so? Have you received messages of support from the faculty?
It is so striking that shills for law school faculties cannot imagine fault on the part of the willing participants who engage in actions that all can and should condemn.
Anon –
To answer your questions:
No, the faculty did not protest when I was asked to leave. It appeared to me that they were in shock at what was going on and didn't know how to react. One faculty member did walk out when I did, and expressed her disgust with what had just transpired. Several faculty members contacted me privately after this episode to express sympathy for me and outrage at President Stone's actions. All of them except for one who had secured a job elsewhere requested anonymity for fear of retaliation from the administration. One faculty member forwarded me a message from Human Resources which was sent to the faculty shortly after the event forbidding them from speaking about this episode to anyone, and to refer any inquiries from the media to HR. Also, prior to my presentation, I had several small group sessions with faculty members in which some faculty members told me about the atmosphere of intimidation at the school, and efforts to silence or punish dissenting voices. Several of the faculty members shared my concerns with the declining admissions standards and voiced frustration with their inability to do anything about it. I was also contacted by faculty or former faculty from other InfilLaw campuses who described similar experiences. It appeared to me that the atmosphere of academic freedom typically associated with higher education which would enable internal critics to speak out without fear of retribution did not exist at FCSL. The President's silencing of my job talk only served to reinforce the sense that dissent from the corporate party line would not be tolerated.
David
Thanks. That is indeed interesting. Sounds like faculty at FCSL are hapless victims of their rapacious corporate overlords.
I wonder still, however: What evidence is there, ANYWHERE, that law school faculties are fighting for higher admission standards against cruel profiteers who refuse to heed their concern?
Here in the FL, we hear faculty saying the LSAT is bogus, we hear them saying that they are "opportunity" providers, we hear them say that the bar exam is bogus, we hear them saying the law school critics are hysterical "scam bloggers" and that law school standards are being upheld just fine, etc.
We don't hear all the things you say you heard from law faculty: not much, David. Not much at all.
Prof. Frakt's comments omit some important countervailing factors that counsel against a rigid, hold-the-line-at-all-costs approach to LSAT scores as a non-negotiable criterion for admission to law school. Prof. Frakt notes that there has been a significant diminution in median LSAT scores for virtually all law students in recent years. The ABA standards reflect the undeniable truth that any LSAT score is only one of many factors that influence an individual's prospects for success in law school and beyond.
Prof. Frakt also fails to include key data that contradict his core message. He makes no mention of FCSL's 72.9% bar pass rate for February 2014. The difference between the February and July results is very unlikely to be attributable to a vast difference in median LSAT scores for the two groups. Instead, other influences such as different areas of emphasis on the two bar exams are more apt to be significant. Likewise, Prof. Frakt omits any mention of FCSL's 79.3% bar pass rate in February 2013. The numbers-based credentials of each group are essentially identical, so a statistician's single-minded focus on the figures would be at a loss to explain the varying outcomes. Clearly, other factors than cold, lifeless LSAT numbers from years before the bar exam are exerting a profound effect.
Florida Coastal School of Law is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse law schools in the nation. Their commitment to diversity and to providing an opportunity for underserved communities to have a chance for a career in law should be lauded, not penalized. This school, similar to Charlotte School of Law where I was a tenured professor for several years, relies on a sophisticated blend of factors to predict a person's likelihood of success. Life experiences, a history of overcoming obstacles, personal commitment/work ethic/determination, familial and work responsibilities that had to be met along with academic duties, and other indicia can be crucially important in assessing whether any person has what it takes. Numbers alone cannot describe anyone's merits, nor dictate a human being's future.
FCSL and CSL have two of the most robust and multi-pronged Academic Success programs available anywhere. Beginning from the very earliest stages of a law student's career, a panoply of initiatives and tools is made readily available to assist in surmounting any challenges. These law schools consistently out-perform statistical expectations, in testament to the ability of hard work, sensitivity to learning differences, advanced pedagogical methods, persistence, self-reliance, and teamwork to defy the dire predictions of any numerical metric of a person's capabilities. To sacrifice this, on the altar of a putative gain in bar passage rates, would be to elevate stark statistical predictions over actual human achievement.
One more vital point was overlooked by Prof. Frakt. Florida Coastal's ultimate bar pass rate was, most recently, 88%. Yes, 88%. An uninformed reader never would have guessed this stellar outcome after having read Prof. Frakt's piece. This result is powerful evidence of a key lesson I learned when I served on law school admissions committees for years. I now know, from personal experience, how many prospective students rise far above the supposed limits of their LSAT and UGPA numbers, if only given the opportunity. They may not succeed at first, and they may encounter real struggles along the way, but persistence and dedication are paramount.
This we know for certain: if the door to a law school education is locked for anyone whose numbers fall below some arbitrary cut-off, those people will have zero chance of success in law school or as a lawyer. A more nuanced approach would be to acknowledge the additional challenges that some potential law students may have, but expertly to help them overcome those obstacles rather than to force them surrender preemptively without even trying.
Professor John C. Kunich
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
I think many faculty members at bottom tier schools may simply be too worried about keeping their jobs to advocate for tougher admissions standards. I have observed that speaking out against the policies of one's own law school administration is frequently not career-enhancing.
Thank you, John. I have never advocated for a "rigid, hold-the-line-at-all-costs approach to LSAT scores as a non-negotiable criterion for admission to law school." As I have noted in earlier posts, the LSAT is only one indicator to be considered in the admissions process. If a students has a low LSAT score, but has other strong predictors of success, particularly a strong record of undergraduate academic performance, then it may be reasonable for a law school to give that student a chance. However, the recent admission statistics from FCSL do not support the claim that FCSL is admitting students with low LSATs only when they have other proven countervailing indicators of success. FCSL admitted 2319 of 3085 applicants in 2013, or 75% of those who applied.
As to "ultimate bar pass rate" I am sure that some of the graduates who failed the first time around will eventually pass. But all the data shows that your best chance at passing is the first time you take the test and that your chances of passing decline with each attempt. I do not believe that the group of FCSL grads who just took the bar, and the current cohort of students moving through, will be able to achieve an 88% "ultimate bar pass rate." But I certainly wish them the best.
John, how do you feel about the job outcomes from Charlotte and the ability graduates have to repay their loans in those jobs? Bar passage is important, no doubt, but only part of analyzing a professional school's performance.
David – thank you very much for posting the slides! (This is the first anon that requested.) I thought it was a longshot and I appreciate your transparency on this issue. I skimmed them quickly but had to focus on Slide 12 and your notes "The corporate ownership turned a corner, they said, we don’t care if we lower our standards as long as you make more money." Wow. Dennis Stone is a shareholder in Infilaw so that may have prompted his entry. I've heard many dean/faculty presentations over the years but never one so honest.
The ABA Standards for law school accreditation require that faculty should enjoy "academic freedom." While they don't precisely define the term, it seems clear to me that FCSL, as described by David Frakt, does not meet this standard. If the ABA is serious about enforcing its standards, it will investigate this incident. But I'm not holding my breath…
(David, were you ever contacted by accreditation authorities about this?)
David – I disagree with your statement that the data show one's best chances for passing are the first time. Generally, people who pass the first time do not take it a second time, while those who fail the first time take it a second time. So to give an example a bar exam in which the pass rate for first time takers is 75 percent and for second time takers is 60 percent. Of the universe of people in both samples — 0 percent passed on their first attempt and 60 percent passed on their second attempt. The reason the first time pass rate is higher is because the smarter people are not taking the test twice.
Prof. Kunich,
You work at the Charlotte School of Law. The Charlotte School of Law does not even claim to be a part of the UNC system. See http://www.charlottelaw.edu/
Furthermore, you are not listed anywhere as a faculty member of UNC. See http://www.law.unc.edu/faculty/directory/
A law school friend of mine got a sanction on his transcript for calling Staples and announcing himself as a professor in order to get some very basic sales info for a deals class project. He nearly got suspended. How is your misrepresentation any different?
"John, how do you feel about the job outcomes from Charlotte and the ability graduates have to repay their loans in those jobs? Bar passage is important, no doubt, but only part of analyzing a professional school's performance."
Seconded. John this school (and yours, soon to be owned by the same corporation) have, IIRC, very high tuition combined with lousy job outcomes.
I won't ask how you justify that, because I'm sure that you can (try). I'm pointing out that what happens in these schools is contradictory to the rhetoric.
JM –
Prof Kunich used to be on the faculty at Charlotte Law. He is now a lecturer at UNC Charlotte in the Political Science Department. John is a retired Air Force JAG and an honorable guy and has not misrepresented himself. Let's try to avoid the personal attacks.
Will do.
JPQ – Regarding repeat bar exam takers, take a look at the statistics from NCBE on repeat takers. The statistics for the last 19 years are here http://www.ncbex.org/publications/statistics/. The most recent report, from 2013, is here http://www.ncbex.org/assets/media_files/Bar-Examiner/articles/830114statistics.pdf The reports are not encouraging regarding repeat takers and do support my statement that one's best chances for passing are the first time. Just to take a few examples from that report, using the combined data from the February and July 2013 bars: (State, First Time takers pass rate, Repeaters Pass rate) California, 65%, 30%; Florida, 78%, 32%; Illinois, 88%, 51%; New York, 76%, 34%; Pennsylvania, 81%, 41%; Ohio, 86%, 42% The national average was 78% for first time takers, 38% for repeat takers.
Of course, an individual who failed the first time has a greater chance of passing the second time since they didn't pass the first time, but I'm not sure what that proves.
David,
I carefully read through your powerpoint presentation. Did you honestly ever think you would get the job? I promise I don't mean that sarcastically. It seems that everything you are proposing runs directly counter to how Infilaw is running their law schools. Why would they hire someone that is going to fight with them?
No personal attacks here but those like Prof. Kunich who defend FCSL and Charlotte's admission and academic practices are dead wrong. He makes the standard defenses you hear from all proponents of "opportunity" schools. Such nonsense must be challenged every time it is uttered.
The claim that those schools rely "on a sophisticated blend of factors to predict a person's likelihood of success" cannot be taken seriously, given their de facto open admissions standards. Even if one were to take these Infilaw supporters at their word about Infilaw's excellent system of evaluating applicants using factors other than the LSAT, one would have to ask how are the results of that system?
Are the students admitted under the system happy enough that they aren't transferring out in large numbers?
Are they flunking out?
Are the students performing well on the bar exam?
Are employers showing they value Infilaw's student selection systems by actually employing Infilaw graduates in high paying jobs?
There are cold hard numbers that answer all of these questions. The admissions system used at Infilaw schools is an abject failure to its students. They flunk out, they transfer if they can, they do not pass the bar and they don't get decent jobs – all in alarming numbers.
Infilaw's academic programs and standards are also part of the problem although I do love that Professor Kunich used the word "panoply" to describe them (great word). The schools academic programs and standards are not something to crow about. In the big picture, they are designed to ensure an unreasonably high number of students do not, or cannot, complete their JD degrees. That way they are not around to sit for and inevitably fail the bar exam. This artificially inflates these schools' bar passage rates. Most other schools admit students knowing almost all those admitted will graduate and take the bar exam. They do not admit them knowing many can't pass the bar exam and then design academic standards, etc. knowing the effect of these standards will be to prevent these students from graduating and taking the bar exam.
Infilaw does not care about diversity or the success of minority law students. It cares about profits. These profits are obtained by admitting as many warm bodies as possible. These warm bodies then must sign up for potentially life ruining student loans to pay for Infilaw's profits. These are loans that will burden both the students and the US taxpayers for years.
Infilaw's system of admissions and academic standards are not a net benefit to its students, the legal profession or society as a whole. They are not something to be lauded. They are predation.
"They flunk out, they transfer if they can, they do not pass the bar and they don't get decent jobs – all in alarming numbers."
Confused.. do you have data to support this statement? I have no connection to Infilaw, but each of these occurrences, taken alone, would cause a school serious problems come an ABA site visit since the accreditation committee pays close attention to academic attrition, transfers, bar pass rate and employment rate, as we know. IF a school had substantial issues with all of these — in alarming numbers, as you state, it would have problems.
What are the numbers you are relying on when making that statement? Of course, you cannot combine numbers from all Infilaw schools to reach your totals since each school is accredited separately.
anon: "I carefully read through your powerpoint presentation. Did you honestly ever think you would get the job? I promise I don't mean that sarcastically. It seems that everything you are proposing runs directly counter to how Infilaw is running their law schools. Why would they hire someone that is going to fight with them? "
David thought that the school was a school, rather than something several steps below an online diploma mill.
Regarding the "opportunity" issue, what alternative do the scammers propose to solve the diversity crisis? Women and minorities continue to be few and far between at the top of the legal profession. If we have a world that depends largely on tests that have a bias against diversity the problem just perpetuates itself.
@Bary. That seems incredible. A quick look at Infilaw shows that they are running a top-down organization that really doesn't want the radical change Frackt was proposing. For example, in the last decade the central Infilaw administration transferred the Dean at Charlotte to Arizona Summit, and at various times Dennis Stone (a librarian) has been Dean at Infilaw schools. (Including FloCo I believe). And interestingly the current interim dean is the general counsel of Infilaw. Clearly the ABA doesn't care that Infilaw is running a centralized operation with all power away from individual deals at individual schools.
One and Only… Your comment is insulting in that you seem to imply that women and minorities can only get into "opportunity" schools.
Women have compromised more than 50% of some law school classes (Rutgers, several years ago) and come close to 50% in many others every year — including schools in the top tier. I doubt all are there only as a result of "opportunity" a/k/a affirmative action. Women need no help getting into good law schools. They are still subject to discrimination in firms and corporations, esp. when they decide to have children, but is another discussion.
Many white men are admitted to "opportunity schools" with low credentials, too.
If your point was accurate, then the composition of the classes in most low ranking schools (the one's chanting "opportunity") would be overwhelmingly minorities and women, and my experience on site teams to some of these schools shows that is not the case.
I have sat in many faculties when the issue of how to increase minority enrollment was discussed. Sadly, law schools compete with each other for the best candidates and they also compete with other professions for the top minority students. I think most minority students who are likely to succeed in law school and practice can, especially now, get into a reputable school with good tuition discount. Again, as with women, why more are not at the top of the profession is a separate discussion.
The only people going to too many of these low ranking "opportunity" schools should probably not be in law school, regardless of gender, ethnicity or race.
Another point, One and Only….
no one — women, minority, white men are going to wind up at the top of the legal profession by attending an "opportunity" school.
Anon –
Did I honestly think I was going to get the job as Dean of FCSL? Not really. Before I went to visit, I thought I had a chance, but I knew I was one of 7 finalists being brought to the school, so I knew the odds were not in my favor. But my preliminary interviews went well and I thought FCSL might be genuinely interested in going in a different direction. I thought that the things that I had to say would appeal to the faculty and that with strong support from the faculty, I might have a chance. What I found when I got there was that the faculty had extremely minimal influence in the Dean selection process. InfiLaw management had directed the faculty to approve 6 of the 7 candidates that were going to be presented to them, unranked, and then InfiLaw management would select the Dean. So essentially, the faculty only had veto power over one candidate. After I had dinner with President Stone, I realized that I had virtually no chance to get hired because he had a lot of influence over the Dean selection and he and I saw things very differently. But I was already there and had put a lot of time and effort into preparing so I went ahead with the interview even knowing it was an extreme longshot, at best. It never occurred to me that I would get thrown out simply for providing a candid assessment of the school's situation.
As a postscript, the entire Dean search failed. Apparently none of the seven finalists were acceptable to InfiLaw and willing to take the job. They are running another Dean search now.
see http://law.academickeys.com/seeker_job_display.php?dothis=display&job%5BIDX%5D=58736
When people discuss Bar Passage rates I cannot help but wonder how large a sample of exam takers were involved. Florida is a pretty big law school but the February results that I have seen usually involve a handful of test takers and it would misleading tho use that number as representative of the overall passage rate. It would be helpful to know how many Charlotte grads took the exam in Feb 13 and 14 in order to know what to make of the percentages. I know that duke and Campbell are smaller but they each had single digit numbers of test takers.
Jeff, that's a very good point. And does anybody have an idea of the demographic differences?
Just saying,
"IF a school had substantial issues with all of these — in alarming numbers, as you state, it would have problems."
This is clearly not the case, which is precisely the problem. There are no "adults in the room" to stop this. If you want statistics, look at the schools' 509 reports which are required to be posted on the schools' websites.
Some numbers taken from FCSL's 2013 509 report:
Student attrition rate for 1L's: 28.6%
Student's transferring out: 97
FCSL Student Handbook (available on the school's site) spells out flunking standards along with a mandatory course grade distributions:
1L courses must award 15-25% of students C-,D+,D or F
upper level courses must award 5-15% of students C-,D+,D or F
FCSL's dismal 2014 bar pass rate's have been discussed to death here and on other sites recently.
As for employment numbers, look at Law School Transparency's website. He's some of FCSL's numbers for 2013:
Nonemployed: 37.9%
LST's Employment Score: 29.5%
30.8% of graduates were known to be employed in long-term, full-time legal jobs. This figure includes no school-funded jobs.
As an additional bonus. FCSL's website is required to list the schools numbers with respect to yanking conditional scholarships. Latest numbers available:
# of conditional scholarships:286
# of scholarships eliminate/reduced: 95
I recommend you do some research on Infilaw and draw your own conclusions. I do not see how anyone who is being honest does not find these numbers alarming.
This is an interesting discussion. There is a problem with the "ultimate pass rate" statistic which is the following. The longer you take to pass the bar, and start practicing, the less likely you are to have a successful entry into the legal profession. Granted, this comes from my personal experience of passing the bar, on the third try, but employers hiring entry level lawyers generally want to hire someone newly out of law school rather then someone who is from several classes back. The large law firms who will hire out of law school, and then keep a law graduate employed even if they failed the bar one or more times, are also unlikely to start shopping for associates at T3 and T4 schools.
Of course you can go solo once you pass, which is what I did, but it's very much a stuggle, especially with the current lawyer glut. I would not recommend to any lawyer coming out of law school to start as a solo because they will not have their own "book" of business. The successful ones will build a practice after many lean years, but others will like many small businesses, fail and have to close shop.
Word to the wise for 0ls, if a law school starts talking about its ultimate as verses its first time pass rate, you should try to get into a better school. If you can't get into a better school perhaps you should rethink whether to go to law school, because the majority of law schools are unwilling to "bet" on your success.