Why hasn't the ABA considered limiting the number of incoming law students? Forum

[lacrossebrother]

Thanks man. Yea I try to work a lot. But then I take depositions home to read through and get in meaningless bickers on TLS.

[baal hadad]

Thanks man. Yea I try to work a lot. But then I take depositions home to read through and get in meaningless bickers on TLS.

I should have done LE shit it right right now. So may labor employment cases getting filed; wage and hour is a goldmine for plaintiffs dudes

[reasonable_man]

Thanks man. Yea I try to work a lot. But then I take depositions home to read through and get in meaningless bickers on TLS.

See what you get for arguing with an old washed up TLS lawyer... A ding on your billable requirement!

[BeyonceBeytwice]

With the poor legal employment numbers in every state, why are law schools admitting so many students? Has the ABA considered limiting the number of students per school to strengthen numbers? What are your thoughts on this?

Check me on this but I believe there is some antitrust rationale why they say they cant

That's a possibility, but I think the AMA somehow manages to restrict the number of med students each year. If they do, I'm not sure what the actual mechanism is, though.

AMA does not do this. Medical schools are a hell of a lot more expensive to start up though, so a university considering a new professional degree is more likely to just add a law school or an allied health school like nursing, optometry, PT, etc.

And yes, the antitrust restrictions on the ABA are strong. They can certainly set standards for schools to get accredited, but they have to be reasonably related to quality education and not simply meant to reduce the number of schools.

But couldn't you make the argument that capping the number of students that can be admitted to law school is related to the quality of education since the more the students, the less availability of educational experiences (internships, clinics, etc.) and staff available to provide training? Limiting the number of schools would probably be a stretch, but I think an enrollment cap could help.

[BeyonceBeytwice]

I wonder if the ABA or LSAC could require applicants to have say a minimum 150 LSAT score to be eligible for law school.

I think that would also be a good idea! (provided that you can still retake of course)

[BeyonceBeytwice]

I'm confused. Why exactly should there be less schools? So the median washington & lee grad who entered school with a 164/3.5 and took on $175k debt doesn't lose out on jobs to the top 5% mercer grad who happened to enter with a 160/3.5??

No, so that "for profit" law schools can't admit students who likely will not pass the bar and, even if they do, fail to be taken seriously by a single firm. I'm not talking about Mercer grads. I'm talking about John Marshall grads. The kid with a 2.2 gpa and 146 lsat. There is nothing wrong with that kid, but he or she should probably not be a lawyer, and schools who admit that student just to suck 200K out of him have no place in our country in my humble opinion. Fewer schools and enrollments mean more jobs for everyone, regardless of which school you went to. It isn't a prestige thing at all.

[Alive97]

How about a change to the availability of federal loans?

[zot1]

Capping the LSAT score is problematic because you could leave out great candidates who did not have the necessary tools, at the time, to get a good score.

I think law schools, even the top ones, recognize this and this is why they are willing to take a handful of students with a low LSAT every cycle.

Now keep in mind that LSATs have failed to correlate with bar or professional success.

Capping government funding also cuts applicants of low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Rather, I would love to see bars like the California bar to stop allowing unaccredited school grads from sitting for the bar. That would cut the oversupply a bunch.

[tomwatts]

Rather, I would love to see bars like the California bar to stop allowing unaccredited school grads from sitting for the bar. That would cut the oversupply a bunch.

They generally don't pass the bar, though, so it wouldn't do a lot to oversupply. (The pass rate for them is around 20%, and that's for those who made it past the baby bar, which in turn has a pass rate only around 25%).

[zot1]

You are correct that a lot of them do not pass the bar the first time, but they still might the fifth time around.

Plus, 20% of California bar takers is a lot of people. But I meant cut the oversupply if done across the nation. Sorry I wasn't clearer before.

[reasonable_man]

I don't think we ought to go full blown elitist here and require a 160 or better. But the fact of the matter is that people in the 140s are certain to fail the bar at least one or more times. So I think drawing the line in the sand and requiring all incoming students to score at least a 150 makes some good sense.

[Tiago Splitter]

Now keep in mind that LSATs have failed to correlate with bar or professional success.

Are you kidding?

[zot1]

No, there are studies that law school GPA is a better predictor of those things.

[Hikikomorist]

No, there are studies that law school GPA is a better predictor of those things.

I'm not sure you understand what "failed to correlate" means.

[CicBob17]

No, there are studies that law school GPA is a better predictor of those things.

That doesnt mean LSAT doesnt correlate with bar passage. And, well, LSAT does correlate with bar passage.

[stego]

IIRC LSAT and undergrad GPA both correlate w/ bar passage but when used together the correlation is stronger than either one used by itself.

[zot1]

Yes, you are all correct. I used the wrong words earlier and didn't notice it the second time around.

[totesTheGoat]

No, so that "for profit" law schools can't admit students who likely will not pass the bar and, even if they do, fail to be taken seriously by a single firm.

What about "not for profit" law schools that create students, regardless of passing the bar, that have almost no chance of paying back their $180k student loans? If we're going to go about solving the problem, let's at least identify the boundaries of the problem. Despite the political talking points, "not for profit" schools are shafting students, too.

I'm not talking about Mercer grads. I'm talking about John Marshall grads. The kid with a 2.2 gpa and 146 lsat. There is nothing wrong with that kid, but he or she should probably not be a lawyer, and schools who admit that student just to suck 200K out of him have no place in our country in my humble opinion.

If a kid with a 2.2 gpa and a 146 lsat has $200k to spend on a law degree, who am I to tell them how to spend their money? Oh wait, it's not their money... it's a fedgov student loan. Perhaps it's more complicated that some evil "for profit" law school preying on a hapless wannabe lawyer? Again, let's identify the boundaries of the problem. The fact that somebody with approximately a 5% chance of getting gainful employment from their legal education is able to borrow $200k from the fedgov to get said legal education is certainly something to consider while trying to "fix" the problem.

Fewer schools and enrollments mean more jobs for everyone, regardless of which school you went to. It isn't a prestige thing at all.

??? Where do the people who don't get admitted go? Sure, there will be fewer lawyers per legal job, but it's not just like these poor applicants just disappear.

As is common with these "we need to FIX THINGS!!!!1111!!!" threads, the proponents of "fixing things" tend to be long on emotions and short on insight.

[Rahviveh]

Most of the deans in charge of the ABA are leeches from TTT schools who profit from the current setup. They got lucky they were born in the baby boomer era and would probably be working at best buy if it wasn't for the law school scam

[reasonable_man]

Looks like the ABA read our thread and decided to act. Good job everyone. Next topic, world hunger.

Seriously though, some baby steps in the right direction... Closing some of the loopholes on accountability is a good thing:

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/the-aba- ... countable/

[zot1]

I used to think the ABA wouldn't do anything about this. I stand corrected and glad about it too.

[Tiago Splitter]

Looks like the ABA read our thread and decided to act. Good job everyone. Next topic, world hunger.

Seriously though, some baby steps in the right direction... Closing some of the loopholes on accountability is a good thing:

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/the-aba- ... countable/

No more than 20% attrition not including transfers seems pretty meaningless.

Overall it looks good but I'll believe they are intent on change when they actually start laying the hammer down.

[reasonable_man]

Looks like the ABA read our thread and decided to act. Good job everyone. Next topic, world hunger.

Seriously though, some baby steps in the right direction... Closing some of the loopholes on accountability is a good thing:

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/the-aba- ... countable/

No more than 20% attrition not including transfers seems pretty meaningless.

Overall it looks good but I'll believe they are intent on change when they actually start laying the hammer down.

Agreed.

[lymenheimer]

Looks like the ABA read our thread and decided to act. Good job everyone. Next topic, world hunger.

Seriously though, some baby steps in the right direction... Closing some of the loopholes on accountability is a good thing:

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/the-aba- ... countable/

No more than 20% attrition not including transfers seems pretty meaningless.

Overall it looks good but I'll believe they are intent on change when they actually start laying the hammer down.

Agreed.

Realizing this is from 2008, there were 23 schools (out of 195) with 1L attrition rates worse than 20%: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... -ra-1.html

Could be a decent start to reform.

[reasonable_man]

It accomplishes (if properly enforced), the goal of making law schools accountable for admitting students that they know will not pass the bar. This is universally a good thing if the ABA sticks to its guns and actually enforces it.