Passing the LSAT Forum

[03152016]

Did a little snooping around studentdoctor today
If you want to become an MD, it looks like you need a minimum of a 30 on the MCAT, that seems to be the cut-off
that's a 75th percentile score

On the other hand, if you want a JD, 141 seems to be the low end of the scale (25th percentile at Cooley and ITLS)
that's a 15th percentile score

So you have a frame of reference, if i answered 7 questions correct per section and guessed the rest completely at random (1/5 chance per question), i'd be above 141

Having a minimum required LSAT score would
-lessen the glut of JDs in the job market, and possibly lead to higher caliber graduates on the whole
-eliminate the TTTTs that only serve to swindle victims out of their tuition dollars
-lead to more demand and better outcomes for graduating law students
-possibly cull some of the least competent would-be applicants, leading to better outcomes for clients?
-possibly restore some modicum of respect and dignity to the profession?

should there be a cut-off
if not, why not
if so, what should the cut-off be

eta: i know this prob belongs in lsat discussion but it fits in with the discussions we generally have in choosing

[Manteca]

If it were a similar system to the MCAT (75th percentile), that would make the LSAT cutoff a 158. Which seems reasonable to me. If you can't get above 70% on a test designed to assess your aptitude for legal/logical reasoning you probably shouldn't become a lawyer.

That being said, there are some problems with having a cutoff though (URMs generally having lower scores, etc).

[Dream_weaver32]

I think it makes a lot of sense. Would definitely help all parties. The schools would complain because they are the only real losers. Even if you cut it at 158, for the most part that keeps most of the URM's in the top however many schools. As a URM, seems like you still have to have over a 160 for a shot at a top 20 school.

My guess is it wouldn't happen for the sole purpose that schools would have to cut their law programs and would cost them $$$.

Also how would the new no LSAT score requirement rule come into play.

[should-i-do-it]

Great idea, never gonna happen though.

[03152016]

Yeah, obv not gonna happen, was just posing a hypo

If it were a similar system to the MCAT (75th percentile), that would make the LSAT cutoff a 158. Which seems reasonable to me. If you can't get above 70% on a test designed to assess your aptitude for legal/logical reasoning you probably shouldn't become a lawyer.

That being said, there are some problems with having a cutoff though (URMs generally having lower scores, etc).

Yea 158 seems like the right number to me too

[jbagelboy]

I would support a 150 LSAC-mandated minimum as a temporary stop-gap to kill off the TTT's, although I think there are better solutions.

[should-i-do-it]

What are the actual chances of some of these tttt's shutting down over the next few years. You've gotta think places like Indiana tech would be forced to close if enrollment keeps declining at the levels they are.

[PepperJack]

The concern is LSAC would get sued, and might lose.

If the cutoff is a 150, and if it has already been established that the test has a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are more likely not to score above a 150, somebody from that group could sue LSAC. LSAC might say the bar passage rates correlated with the test, employment #'s, etc. The plaintiff would just point to some success stories of a 140 making bank.

IDK how it works for medical school, but it would produce a headache for LSAC. They seem to leave it up to the individual school's to impose a soft cutoff. Strict cutoffs are never a good thing.

[The Dark Shepard]

^ I don't know quite how much power LSAC has, but could they potentially do a requirement "encouragement" that basically means the schools has to? Sort of like how the Federal government got all the states to raise the drinking age to 21 voluntarily by use of how much funding they would get?

[Nova]

^ I don't know quite how much power LSAC has, but could they potentially do a requirement "encouragement" that basically means the schools has to? Sort of like how the Federal government got all the states to raise the drinking age to 21 voluntarily by use of how much funding they would get?

it would be up to the aba

& they would never do that unfortunately

they benefit too much from the current set up

[sublime]

..

[Onomatopoeia]

Agree with this. Supply and demand would favor everyone capable of bypassing this cutoff. Something needs to limit the supply of jds out there other than having a murder on ur record or having the aptitude of a vegetable

[Cade McNown]

Interesting topic, though it seems some people here (1) misunderstand the relative roles of LSAC, the ABA, law schools, and state governments, and/or (2) underestimate the harm that a strict LSAT-based barrier to entry might inflict.

LSAC is a nonprofit whose membership is comprised of law schools themselves. It lacks the authority (and incentive) to command law schools to reject applicants without a requisite LSAT score. Of course, nothing compels law school admissions offices to require an LSAT score at all. At best, LSAC could refuse to report low LSAT scores. While such a tactic might create an impediment to TTTTs, probably TTTTs will simply change their behavior by moving to a more holistic admissions process.

ABA is a voluntary professional organization of attorneys. It also lacks the authority to command law schools to reject applicants without a requisite LSAT score. ABA has some significant indirect power, because it could refuse to accredit schools who admit students with below-requisite LSAT scores. The reason this sanction is powerful, however, is not because the ABA is all-powerful, but because the federal government conditions student loans on accreditation status, and most state governments have implemented licensing schemes that require practicing attorneys to have graduated from an accredited school. However, not even tougher LSAT-based accreditation standards will deter the worst law school consumers--i.e., those who take out private loans to attend unaccredited schools.

OP's idea is that the LSAT should act as a barrier to entry to law school, and thereby the legal profession. As a general matter, barriers to entry are justified by both unselfish and selfish rationales. Unselfish reasons for increased barriers to entry include protecting the fiduciary nature of the legal profession, or paternalistic consumer protection for those considering law school. Selfish reasons for increased barriers to entry relate to suppression of competition, such as the ability of a reduced supply of attorneys to exact higher legal fees, or the desire to make legal hiring less competitive for law students. OP's idea seems motivated by a combination of such reasons.

I'm not persuaded by the selfish reasons for an LSAT barrier to entry. W.R.T. the unselfish reasons, to me a minimum LSAT requirement (whether voluntarily adopted by law schools, coerced by the ABA, or mandated by state licensing regimes) would be imperfect, duplicitous, and improvident. It's imperfect because the LSAT, like any aptitude test, cannot be expected to reliably screen out the good future lawyers from the bad. It's duplicitous because the legal profession already has significant barriers to entry--i.e. law school itself, and the Bar Exam. Finally, it seems improvident because (a) consumer protection is better achieved through information disclosure measures, and (b) the fiduciary nature of the profession (perversely) seems likely to be negatively impacted, because a reduced supply of lawyers in the long-run will produce increased legal fees to clients while achieving only speculative gains in attorney quality.

/my 2c.

[Louis1127]

Interesting topic, though it seems some people here (1) misunderstand the relative roles of LSAC, the ABA, law schools, and state governments, and/or (2) underestimate the harm that a strict LSAT-based barrier to entry might inflict.

LSAC is a nonprofit whose membership is comprised of law schools themselves. It lacks the authority (and incentive) to command law schools to reject applicants without a requisite LSAT score. Of course, nothing compels law school admissions offices to require an LSAT score at all. At best, LSAC could refuse to report low LSAT scores. While such a tactic might create an impediment to TTTTs, probably TTTTs will simply change their behavior by moving to a more holistic admissions process.

ABA is a voluntary professional organization of attorneys. It also lacks the authority to command law schools to reject applicants without a requisite LSAT score. ABA has some significant indirect power, because it could refuse to accredit schools who admit students with below-requisite LSAT scores. The reason this sanction is powerful, however, is not because the ABA is all-powerful, but because the federal government conditions student loans on accreditation status, and most state governments have implemented licensing schemes that require practicing attorneys to have graduated from an accredited school. However, not even tougher LSAT-based accreditation standards will deter the worst law school consumers--i.e., those who take out private loans to attend unaccredited schools.

OP's idea is that the LSAT should act as a barrier to entry to law school, and thereby the legal profession. As a general matter, barriers to entry are justified by both unselfish and selfish rationales. Unselfish reasons for increased barriers to entry include protecting the fiduciary nature of the legal profession, or paternalistic consumer protection for those considering law school. Selfish reasons for increased barriers to entry relate to suppression of competition, such as the ability of a reduced supply of attorneys to exact higher legal fees, or the desire to make legal hiring less competitive for law students. OP's idea seems motivated by a combination of such reasons.

I'm not persuaded by the selfish reasons for an LSAT barrier to entry. W.R.T. the unselfish reasons, to me a minimum LSAT requirement (whether voluntarily adopted by law schools, coerced by the ABA, or mandated by state licensing regimes) would be imperfect, duplicitous, and improvident. It's imperfect because the LSAT, like any aptitude test, cannot be expected to reliably screen out the good future lawyers from the bad. It's duplicitous because the legal profession already has significant barriers to entry--i.e. law school itself, and the Bar Exam. Finally, it seems improvident because (a) consumer protection is better achieved through information disclosure measures, and (b) the fiduciary nature of the profession (perversely) seems likely to be negatively impacted, because a reduced supply of lawyers in the long-run will produce increased legal fees to clients while achieving only speculative gains in attorney quality.

/my 2c.

[03152016]

Law schools already disclose data about employment, class makeup, selectivity, costs, scholarship retention, attrition, etc. What further 'information disclosure measures' do you propose?

eta: and btw i'm not saying they shouldn't disclose more, i'm saying that at this point the benefit starts to become marginal. of course i'd like more info on school funded positions, pi placement, nature of 101+ jobs, comprehensive salary data, etc.

[NYSprague]

Did a little snooping around studentdoctor today
If you want to become an MD, it looks like you need a minimum of a 30 on the MCAT, that seems to be the cut-off
that's a 75th percentile score

On the other hand, if you want a JD, 141 seems to be the low end of the scale (25th percentile at Cooley and ITLS)
that's a 15th percentile score

So you have a frame of reference, if i answered 7 questions correct per section and guessed the rest completely at random (1/5 chance per question), i'd be above 141

Having a minimum required LSAT score would
-lessen the glut of JDs in the job market, and possibly lead to higher caliber graduates on the whole
-eliminate the TTTTs that only serve to swindle victims out of their tuition dollars
-lead to more demand and better outcomes for graduating law students
-possibly cull some of the least competent would-be applicants, leading to better outcomes for clients?
-possibly restore some modicum of respect and dignity to the profession?

should there be a cut-off
if not, why not
if so, what should the cut-off be

eta: i know this prob belongs in lsat discussion but it fits in with the discussions we generally have in choosing

You know that admissions are moving in the opposite direction with schools now allowed to enroll up to 10% without any LSAT score.
Also you can't compare to doctors because of the limited spots for residents. Law has no natural limit.

[03152016]

Did a little snooping around studentdoctor today
If you want to become an MD, it looks like you need a minimum of a 30 on the MCAT, that seems to be the cut-off
that's a 75th percentile score

On the other hand, if you want a JD, 141 seems to be the low end of the scale (25th percentile at Cooley and ITLS)
that's a 15th percentile score

So you have a frame of reference, if i answered 7 questions correct per section and guessed the rest completely at random (1/5 chance per question), i'd be above 141

Having a minimum required LSAT score would
-lessen the glut of JDs in the job market, and possibly lead to higher caliber graduates on the whole
-eliminate the TTTTs that only serve to swindle victims out of their tuition dollars
-lead to more demand and better outcomes for graduating law students
-possibly cull some of the least competent would-be applicants, leading to better outcomes for clients?
-possibly restore some modicum of respect and dignity to the profession?

should there be a cut-off
if not, why not
if so, what should the cut-off be

eta: i know this prob belongs in lsat discussion but it fits in with the discussions we generally have in choosing

You know that admissions are moving in the opposite direction with schools now allowed to enroll up to 10% without any LSAT score.
Also you can't compare to doctors because of the limited spots for residents. Law has no natural limit.

yea it's sad how clueless the aba is
but a minimum score would serve precisely that purpose, to create a limit
superficial as it may be

[Cade McNown]

What further 'information disclosure measures' do you propose?

I don't propose any. Current voluntary disclosures are sufficient IMO, though I wouldn't oppose a government information collection and value-based rankings, similar to those POTUS has advanced for undergrad. My point though was that information disclosure is generally the appropriate regulatory approach for consumer protection (at least where the risk to the consumer is economic harm & not serious personal injury).

[03152016]

43% of 2013 graduates fell through the cracks
maybe the 509s have helped at the margin
but they've demonstrably failed to help students, by and large, make more informed and reasonable decisions about their education
that's why there should be a more robust regime, whether it's a cut-off or something else

[banjo]

Actually, Canada essentially has minimum LSAT and GPA requirements. They have a fixed number of schools with steady class sizes and high admissions standards (http://www.oxfordseminars.ca/LSAT/lsat_profiles.php). Canadians who can't get into a Canadian law school have to retake or attend TTTs in the United States, Australia, and England, much like some pre-meds in the U.S. go to Caribbean medical schools. Not surprisingly, the Canadian legal market is much healthier than ours.

[TheSpanishMain]

I would 100% support this plan, although yeah, it's not likely to actually happen anytime soon.

[Nebby]

150 minimum.

Create agency within DOEd that regulates law schools and creates accreditation regime.

Any school that has an underemployment % of more than 20% for three years in a five year period will be put on probation for three more years.

If underemployment isn't reduced during probation, the school has all federal funding cut off.

[HRomanus]

Did a little snooping around studentdoctor today
If you want to become an MD, it looks like you need a minimum of a 30 on the MCAT, that seems to be the cut-off
that's a 75th percentile score

Where did you get this information? In no way would I characterize a 30 on the MCAT as a "cut-off" to get into med school. There are unranked med schools that have medians below that and even lower ranked schools have medians hovering around 30.

[Cade McNown]

students, by and large, [should] make more informed and reasonable decisions about their education
that's why there should be a more robust regime, whether it's a cut-off or something else

Again, that's remarkably paternalistic. I don't disagree that the decision to attend a TTT is too risky for my taste, but not everyone shares our appetite for risk. And if you're ready to drastically reduce the supply of lawyers, given that a person has a right to an attorney only as a criminal defendant, what's your solution for indigents and ordinary folk who will no longer be able to afford a lawyer for their everyday little-person problems, e.g. drafting a will or a contract, small-dollar civil disputes, etc.? Do nothing?

Intervention into the law school market is much more complicated than you're admitting. For a perspective on why we should actually increase the number of lawyers, see the Brookings Institute. Whether or not you'll agree with the article (I don't like its conclusion), it at least includes a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis than you're likely to get from TLSers.

[should-i-do-it]

There should not be an increase in the number of lawyers. The brookings institute could care less if were all unemployed.