Failure is not an option (Campos) Forum

[haus]

Academic suspension from top 50 law schools only hits 1 in 1000? Wha?

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/201 ... -an-option

What does it take to fail out of law school? Forgetting the English language?

[LeninLunchbox]

That's like asking what you have to do to get kicked out of an out-of-the-way casino when you have 50 grand on the table. The answer is "a lot." Like maybe pull out a gun and start screaming about being cheated, or demanding sexual favors from the other patrons. And even then...

[A. Nony Mouse]

If you think about it, the people attending top 50 law schools all had pretty good grades in college and/or LSAT scores, so they're capable of handling the material. It's not really a cross-section of intellectual ability. So you do have to have some kind of meltdown or just stop attending class to fail. People at the top 50 schools are much more likely to drop out voluntarily than fail.

[haus]

If you think about it, the people attending top 50 law schools all had pretty good grades in college and/or LSAT scores, so they're capable of handling the material. It's not really a cross-section of intellectual ability. So you do have to have some kind of meltdown or just stop attending class to fail. People at the top 50 schools are much more likely to drop out voluntarily than fail.

So how do you account for the considerably higher rates of seperation in past decades? Were law schools admitting people who somehow failed to learn while they were getting their undergraduate degrees?

Can we somehow attribute the increased success rate as law students to the creation of the iPod?

[A. Nony Mouse]

If you think about it, the people attending top 50 law schools all had pretty good grades in college and/or LSAT scores, so they're capable of handling the material. It's not really a cross-section of intellectual ability. So you do have to have some kind of meltdown or just stop attending class to fail. People at the top 50 schools are much more likely to drop out voluntarily than fail.

So how do you account for the considerably higher rates of seperation in past decades? Were law schools admitting people who somehow failed to learn while they were getting their undergraduate degrees?

Can we somehow attribute the increased success rate as law students to the creation of the iPod?

50 years ago is eons in higher education practice/policy, in particular due to changes in financial aid. Campos notes that he does not know how many of the 50% who didn't finish law school whenever it was failed out or quit, so he's comparing apples and oranges. I'd be willing to bet a lot of the people who matriculated in 1966 and didn't finish just couldn't pay the tuition. Also, now that there's more aid, people take out more aid, tuition goes up, and there's more incentive to keep people happy/in school who are paying that much money. When Campos started at CU, it cost some ridiculously small amount of money - for instance, even around the year 2000, tuition was something like $7000 a year, whereas now it's close to $30K for residents and more for non-residents. If you flunk out someone who's paying $7000 a year it's not nearly as big a deal as flunking someone who's paying nearly $30K. (Of course, this applies to crappy schools too, so make of it what you will.)

[okinawa]

I'm not sure why failing people from law school is really desirable except in a paternalistic kind of way, to get people who are going to graduate at the bottom of the class to forcibly not take out loans for 2 more years. But if you want to be paternalistic, wouldn't it be better to close down the bottom 50 law schools and have no one fail out of the top 50 than to have 50% of students fail out?

I haven't looked at the numbers but I'm almost certain that of the schools he looked at, each one has a very high bar passage rate. So if almost every person at those schools is capable of becoming a licensed attorney, why should they be failing people?

[20141023]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

If you want to reduce the number of JDs, it makes much more sense to close law schools than to flunk students. Do you think students at the bottom of the class at Chicago are less capable of becoming lawyers than any of the students at Cal Western?

[dixiecupdrinking]

Schools know that by accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from their students, they've fundamentally changed the relationship to a consumer one. Can't charge that much money without giving people the degree they've basically purchased.

[J. D.]

As I understand it. The ABA has the authority to grant schools accreditation. Once granted accreditation the school would have to break some law to be disaccredited. Point, there is no THEY that can close down schools. The only way to force schools to close is for admissions to sink to a level that is unprofitable for the school. Although some of that is occurring now, I have yet to hear of any school closings (although some have cut staff, etc.).

[Holly Golightly]

If you think about it, the people attending top 50 law schools all had pretty good grades in college and/or LSAT scores, so they're capable of handling the material. It's not really a cross-section of intellectual ability. So you do have to have some kind of meltdown or just stop attending class to fail. People at the top 50 schools are much more likely to drop out voluntarily than fail.

I have done both of these things and just graduated from a T14. haha

[FKASunny]

I'm not sure why failing people from law school is really desirable except in a paternalistic kind of way, to get people who are going to graduate at the bottom of the class to forcibly not take out loans for 2 more years. But if you want to be paternalistic, wouldn't it be better to close down the bottom 50 law schools and have no one fail out of the top 50 than to have 50% of students fail out?

I haven't looked at the numbers but I'm almost certain that of the schools he looked at, each one has a very high bar passage rate. So if almost every person at those schools is capable of becoming a licensed attorney, why should they be failing people?

As you're probably aware, passing the bar ≠ becoming an attorney. In order to get a job as an actual lawyer, most students need decent grades during their first year of law school in order to be considered during on-campus interviews. Accordingly, it is almost crueler to allow someone at the bottom of their class to continue paying for 2 additional years of law school when it is pretty obvious that they won't get a job than it is to fail them during their first year.

As you're probably aware, outside the T14, most students get their jobs outside OCI. If most students need jobs obtained through OCI to become "actual lawyers," then you're gonna have to flunk out a majority of students at schools in the lower T14 on down.

[A. Nony Mouse]

As I understand it. The ABA has the authority to grant schools accreditation. Once granted accreditation the school would have to break some law to be disaccredited. Point, there is no THEY that can close down schools. The only way to force schools to close is for admissions to sink to a level that is unprofitable for the school. Although some of that is occurring now, I have yet to hear of any school closings (although some have cut staff, etc.).

I was speaking purely hypothetically (since flunking out some significant proportion of students in law schools is hypothetical at most schools, too). But just to be clear, the ABA could remove accreditation without the school "breaking some law." They're not going to, but they could.

[okinawa]

As you're probably aware, passing the bar ≠ becoming an attorney. In order to get a job as an actual lawyer, most students need decent grades during their first year of law school in order to be considered during on-campus interviews. Accordingly, it is almost crueler to allow someone at the bottom of their class to continue paying for 2 additional years of law school when it is pretty obvious that they won't get a job than it is to fail them during their first year.

The majority of the 200+ ABA accredited schools have nothing approaching an OCI in this sense, for the top 10% or the bottom 10. It is pretty obvious when they enroll that they won't be getting an OCI-type biglaw job. Letting anyone at those schools pay for the first year, much less two additional ones, is cruel by this logic.

Ultimately these are adults who are capable of dropping out themselves based on job perspectives. Of course, the same thing could be said for bottom tier schools, but since both failing people and shutting down schools are hypothetical, I'd rather just shutter a school that has almost no chance of decent employment outcomes yet is still charging $150k+.

[haus]

As you're probably aware, passing the bar ≠ becoming an attorney. In order to get a job as an actual lawyer, most students need decent grades during their first year of law school in order to be considered during on-campus interviews. Accordingly, it is almost crueler to allow someone at the bottom of their class to continue paying for 2 additional years of law school when it is pretty obvious that they won't get a job than it is to fail them during their first year.

The majority of the 200+ ABA accredited schools have nothing approaching an OCI in this sense, for the top 10% or the bottom 10. It is pretty obvious when they enroll that they won't be getting an OCI-type biglaw job. Letting anyone at those schools pay for the first year, much less two additional ones, is cruel by this logic.

This raises the question, how much should it really cost to get a solid (not great, just solid) legal education?

It seems that very little of the education requires cutting edge analyst, there is no need for expensive lab equipment, ideas can be discussed in bland class rooms vice something that looks like Hogwarts. Is there any reason that law school could not operate at break-even (or a small profit) for a tuition of 8-9k/year?

[J. D.]

As I understand it. The ABA has the authority to grant schools accreditation. Once granted accreditation the school would have to break some law to be disaccredited. Point, there is no THEY that can close down schools.

I was speaking purely hypothetically (since flunking out some significant proportion of students in law schools is hypothetical at most schools, too). But just to be clear, the ABA could remove accreditation without the school "breaking some law." They're not going to, but they could.

If a college breaks a rule the NCAA has numerous ways to punish the school ― Penn State recently had to pay millions in fines, give up numerous scholarships, etc. What the NCAA cannot do is punish a school for having a losing season. So, I have no idea what the ABA could do as punishment for schools underperforming in their veiled declaration of success. What is the harshest punishment the ABA has issued to any law school in the past two decades? Weren’t certain schools recently caught manipulating their stats…. what did the ABA do? Perhaps issue tougher guidelines….was that it?

I’d love to be on the “scale down the number of law schools” bandwagon, I just don’t see how the ABA can help.

[A. Nony Mouse]

As I understand it. The ABA has the authority to grant schools accreditation. Once granted accreditation the school would have to break some law to be disaccredited. Point, there is no THEY that can close down schools.

I was speaking purely hypothetically (since flunking out some significant proportion of students in law schools is hypothetical at most schools, too). But just to be clear, the ABA could remove accreditation without the school "breaking some law." They're not going to, but they could.

If a college breaks a rule the NCAA has numerous ways to punish the school ― Penn State recently had to pay millions in fines, give up numerous scholarships, etc. What the NCAA cannot do is punish a school for having a losing season. So, I have no idea what the ABA could do as punishment for schools underperforming in their veiled declaration of success. What is the harshest punishment the ABA has issued to any law school in the past two decades? Weren’t certain schools recently caught manipulating their stats…. what did the ABA do? Perhaps issue tougher guidelines….was that it?

I’d love to be on the “scale down the number of law schools” bandwagon, I just don’t see how the ABA can help.

Well, I never suggested that the ABA should be doing this. In fact, I was raising a pie-in-the-sky argument about what I would like to see happen under ideal circumstances - you're the only person talking about the ABA. But again, the ABA could sanction schools by removing their accreditation. You're right that they're not going to (which I already acknowledged), but they have the power to do so. They would probably have to change their standards to start taking employment numbers into account, but they can do that (since they set the standards). In any case, a professional organization isn't exactly the same as a national athletics association.

As for the manipulation of statistics: the ABA did sanction Illinois and Villanova when they did this. Illinois got (1) a public censure; (2) a requirement that the law school issue a public corrective statement; (3) a requirement that the law school hire a compliance monitor to report to the section’s accreditation committee on its admissions process and data for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years; (4) a monetary penalty; and (5) termination of a section agreement that allowed the law school to conduct an early-admissions program. Villanova got a public censure (the public censures go on the school's websites).

[okinawa]

This raises the question, how much should it really cost to get a solid (not great, just solid) legal education?

It seems that very little of the education requires cutting edge analyst, there is no need for expensive lab equipment, ideas can be discussed in bland class rooms vice something that looks like Hogwarts. Is there any reason that law school could not operate at break-even (or a small profit) for a tuition of 8-9k/year?

Completely beside the point. You could get a basic understanding of how the law works, as much as a 2L intern, by taking a BarBri course and googling any questions. Maybe reading some "Legal Writing 101" type book. You aren't paying for a solid legal education, you are paying for the reputation of the school, and no school with a solid reputation is going to start charging $8k a year.

[haus]

This raises the question, how much should it really cost to get a solid (not great, just solid) legal education?

It seems that very little of the education requires cutting edge analyst, there is no need for expensive lab equipment, ideas can be discussed in bland class rooms vice something that looks like Hogwarts. Is there any reason that law school could not operate at break-even (or a small profit) for a tuition of 8-9k/year?

Completely beside the point. You could get a basic understanding of how the law works, as much as a 2L intern, by taking a BarBri course and googling any questions. Maybe reading some "Legal Writing 101" type book. You aren't paying for a solid legal education, you are paying for the reputation of the school, and no school with a solid reputation is going to start charging $8k a year.

At some point the idea of a school reputation is pointless (perhaps outside the T14? T50? definitely by T100. Yet the ABA has approved, what, 200+ law schools, and only a handful can offer up a program for under 20k/year, despite having little to offer for reputation? Really?

[20141023]

.

[timbs4339]

The ABA could make the bar passage requirements tighter. If they changed to a flat number (say 80%) instead of the current "relative" formula, that would close a lot of schools very quickly.

The issue isn't that the ABA is unable to design an accreditation regime that forces school closures, it's that the Section on Legal Education was up until a few years totally captured by representatives of shitty law schools. Now it's only partially captured. The willingness is not there. Get 20 scambloggers in charge of the whole thing and heads will roll.

[haus]

The ABA could make the bar passage requirements tighter. If they changed to a flat number (say 80%) instead of the current "relative" formula, that would close a lot of schools very quickly.

This would only be viable if the states were willing to create a more equal standard for their bar exams.

[Holly Golightly]

The ABA could make the bar passage requirements tighter. If they changed to a flat number (say 80%) instead of the current "relative" formula, that would close a lot of schools very quickly.

This would only be viable if the states were willing to create a more equal standard for their bar exams.

Also, a lot of schools would be totally fine having an abysmal pass rate, which would just screw over their students even more.

[Big Dog]

although I'm a fan of campos, I don't understand the purpose for flunking out students. Med schools don't flunk students out; those that struggle are given every opportunity to repeat. Other professional schools don't flunk students out. Heck, plenty of undergrad colleges don't flunk students out -- Stanford eliminated F's so it is virtually impossible to flunk out of 'furd as an undergrad.

(The fact that too many law schools exist and that the feds fund them 100% and that there are no jobs, is a different issue.)

[JusticeHarlan]

I dunno, I always thought giving people a year to do well, then flunking them out if they don't, is a good middle ground. It lets the "special snowflakes" get their chance to show how capable they are so they can't complain about how unfair the admissions system is (because on a certain level using GPA and LSAT is kinda dumb), but if it turns out they're not beautiful and unique snowflakes then they get booted out with just a year's debt instead of three and they can't say they didn't have their shot. Opportunity for all, paternalism for the dumb.

Preferably I'd like some sort of baby MBE after 1L year, testing 1L subjects, to do the weeding, rather than leave it to the schools, but it's all a flight of fancy anyways, so whatever.