Tell the ABA how to fix our Profession Forum

[Skye]

160 LSAT minimum for the student, or no admission. LS denial is not groundbreaking, Harvard does it all the time to applicants with 160. The medical profession isn’t shy about saying no to applicants who do not measure up (and I do believe we have doctors of all colors and nationalities). The question is, do you want to fix the problem, or just kinda fix it?

I see your point, but the LSAT isn't an aptitude test. The difference between a 155 and a 165 test taker can easily be attributed to one test prep course or the ability to take time off of work to study full time and may have little correlation to their law school and lawyering abilities. If law schools want to take these socioeconomic factors into account, then I think they should be able to. Having a median floor gives them that flexibility. I think the results of median floor vs. admissions floor would be pretty similar in that schools outside of the top 100 or to 75 would have to close.

Even with a 4.0 GPA it is hard as in [nearly] impossible to gain admission into medical school if you fail to score well in their version of the LSAT. IMO: a 160 LSAT equates to not scoring well — that is why those with a 160 are turned away by the T14 and most of tier-1 schools. So where do these people head to… the schools with their hand out to grab $ in return for a slim chance of success.

And while you and others bring up reasons on why this is not a picture perfect solution, the point remains, it is an efficient means to an end. Not so much that it denies schools a path to easy money, as much as it saves students from wasting three years and running up a cliff-diving debt.

Either way, I think the prescription should focus more on outcomes (bar passage and FTLT JD required jobs) than admissions standards.

Sounds good, but it just does not work.

[Clearly]

160 LSAT minimum for the student, or no admission. LS denial is not groundbreaking, Harvard does it all the time to applicants with 160. The medical profession isn’t shy about saying no to applicants who do not measure up (and I do believe we have doctors of all colors and nationalities). The question is, do you want to fix the problem, or just kinda fix it?

I see your point, but the LSAT isn't an aptitude test. The difference between a 155 and a 165 test taker can easily be attributed to one test prep course or the ability to take time off of work to study full time and may have little correlation to their law school and lawyering abilities. If law schools want to take these socioeconomic factors into account, then I think they should be able to. Having a median floor gives them that flexibility. I think the results of median floor vs. admissions floor would be pretty similar in that schools outside of the top 100 or to 75 would have to close.

Even with a 4.0 GPA it is hard as in [nearly] impossible to gain admission into medical school if you fail to score well in their version of the LSAT. IMO: a 160 LSAT equates to not scoring well — that is why those with a 160 are turned away by the T14 and most of tier-1 schools. So where do these people head to… the schools with their hand out to grab $ in return for a slim chance of success.

And while you and others bring up good points on why this is not a picture perfect solution, the point remains, it is an efficient means to an end. Not so much that it denies schools a path to easy money, as much as it saves students from wasting three years and running up a cliff-diving debt.

Either way, I think the prescription should focus more on outcomes (bar passage and FTLT JD required jobs) than admissions standards.

Sounds good, but it just does not work.

It doesn't work because there is no valid way of judging employment outcomes. Schools have already figured out ways to spoof that data with school funded positions etc. I think this is the ideal system too, but it just won't work because the data isn't easy to get and IS easy to fake. The lsat, for all its problems is great in that it is a truly equal experience. Everyone takes the same test, and is graded fairly. No grade inflation, no school funded BS, it's the only objective part of the entire equation that the ABA has to work with. The URM disparity is going to be the trouble with this plan though. You could either say 160 or better unless you're a URM which is kind of messed up, or you can start scaling the actual LSAT by URM status, give URMS a looser curve and let schools uphold the same numerical standard. Either way its a mess, but in my opinion its the only thing to work with.

[buddyt]

You could either say 160 or better unless you're a URM which is kind of messed up, or you can start scaling the actual LSAT by URM status, give URMS a looser curve and let schools uphold the same numerical standard. Either way its a mess, but in my opinion its the only thing to work with.

It's not any more "messed up" than the current system which already gives URMs an artificial LSAT boost of several points.

[beepboopbeep]

You could either say 160 or better unless you're a URM which is kind of messed up, or you can start scaling the actual LSAT by URM status, give URMS a looser curve and let schools uphold the same numerical standard. Either way its a mess, but in my opinion its the only thing to work with.

It's not any more "messed up" than the current system which already gives URMs an artificial LSAT boost of several points.

Right, but there's a difference between the current "open secret" system, and coding AA into ABA accreditation standards. The first is legally problematic enough as it stands; no association of lawyers would touch the second with a ten-foot pole.

[jas1503]

You could either say 160 or better unless you're a URM which is kind of messed up, or you can start scaling the actual LSAT by URM status, give URMS a looser curve and let schools uphold the same numerical standard. Either way its a mess, but in my opinion its the only thing to work with.

It's not any more "messed up" than the current system which already gives URMs an artificial LSAT boost of several points.

What makes the URM boost so nonsensical is that there doesn't seem to be any clear agreement on how much it's worth to each school or applicant. If schools just said, "We are going to take a holistic approach in evaluating a candidate, and this means race and gender will be considered" and just left it at that, then things might not be as screwy as they are now.

Instead the schools universally started targeting and announcing that specific groups of people would be rewarded with an overt boost- that is still unclear. Nobody knows if the URM boost is stronger or equal for different URM specific groups. Few people know if the URM boost is for LSAT or GPA or something else or both. All there is speculation because each school seems to have a different idea of what an URM boost is worth.

Hypothetically, If they suddenly did set a cut-off score of 160, then they shouldn't lower it for anyone they consider an URM. If they really want URMs in their law school class, then just provide LSAT tutoring.

[justonemoregame]

If the ABA wanted to set a median LSAT standard, could they do it? I know the Task Force doesn't have regulatory authority, but if they recommended this option, is it within the regulatory purview of the ABA?

[justonemoregame]

Fuck it, I think the ABA should implement the Law School Lottery System (tm).

1. 30,000 people per year are allowed to attend to law school.

2. There are an even number of students at each school.

3. You can apply for law school an unlimited number of times.

4. Each time costs $200

5. You throw your name in a hat with everyone else and 30,000 names are randomly selected.

6. Law schools are randomly assigned to the names picked.

7. You can either A) not get selected, B) get selected and attend your school, or C) decline your school and try again next year

8. Tuition is a flat $20,000 per year across the board

9. Law schools who have people decline to enroll have to fucking make-do. Can't make do? Adios. Your class size gets evenly distributed amongst the remaining schools making-do.

[North]

You could either say 160 or better unless you're a URM which is kind of messed up, or you can start scaling the actual LSAT by URM status, give URMS a looser curve and let schools uphold the same numerical standard. Either way its a mess, but in my opinion its the only thing to work with.

It's not any more "messed up" than the current system which already gives URMs an artificial LSAT boost of several points.

What makes the URM boost so nonsensical is that there doesn't seem to be any clear agreement on how much it's worth to each school or applicant. If schools just said, "We are going to take a holistic approach in evaluating a candidate, and this means race and gender will be considered" and just left it at that, then things might not be as screwy as they are now.

Instead the schools universally started targeting and announcing that specific groups of people would be rewarded with an overt boost- that is still unclear. Nobody knows if the URM boost is stronger or equal for different URM specific groups. Few people know if the URM boost is for LSAT or GPA or something else or both. All there is speculation because each school seems to have a different idea of what an URM boost is worth.

Hypothetically, If they suddenly did set a cut-off score of 160, then they shouldn't lower it for anyone they consider an URM. If they really want URMs in their law school class, then just provide LSAT tutoring.

Let's steer far clear of an AA debate, please.

[buddyt]

You could either say 160 or better unless you're a URM which is kind of messed up, or you can start scaling the actual LSAT by URM status, give URMS a looser curve and let schools uphold the same numerical standard. Either way its a mess, but in my opinion its the only thing to work with.

It's not any more "messed up" than the current system which already gives URMs an artificial LSAT boost of several points.

What makes the URM boost so nonsensical is that there doesn't seem to be any clear agreement on how much it's worth to each school or applicant. If schools just said, "We are going to take a holistic approach in evaluating a candidate, and this means race and gender will be considered" and just left it at that, then things might not be as screwy as they are now.

Instead the schools universally started targeting and announcing that specific groups of people would be rewarded with an overt boost- that is still unclear. Nobody knows if the URM boost is stronger or equal for different URM specific groups. Few people know if the URM boost is for LSAT or GPA or something else or both. All there is speculation because each school seems to have a different idea of what an URM boost is worth.

Hypothetically, If they suddenly did set a cut-off score of 160, then they shouldn't lower it for anyone they consider an URM. If they really want URMs in their law school class, then just provide LSAT tutoring.

Let's steer far clear of an AA debate, please.

Nothing that you quoted says anything about AA.

[North]

Nothing that you quoted says anything about AA.

Ragging on URM boosts. Leave it, don't need this thread getting nuked.

[North]

If the ABA wanted to set a median LSAT standard, could they do it? I know the Task Force doesn't have regulatory authority, but if they recommended this option, is it within the regulatory purview of the ABA?

I can't think of a reason why they couldn't but, as Kyle pointed out, there is a big reason why they wouldn't. Even though the consent decree the ABA agreed to expired seven years ago, they're still terrified of getting slapped with an antitrust suit from the DOJ.

[jenesaislaw]

If the ABA wanted to set a median LSAT standard, could they do it? I know the Task Force doesn't have regulatory authority, but if they recommended this option, is it within the regulatory purview of the ABA?

I can't think of a reason why they couldn't but, as Kyle pointed out, there is a big reason why they wouldn't. Even though the consent decree the ABA agreed to expired seven years ago, they're still terrified of getting slapped with an antitrust suit from the DOJ.

Also they'd be far more subtle about it, e.g. an interpretation to Standard 501 that ties expected bar performance to accreditation.

[californiauser]

So I'm listening to my local talk radio station today and the special guest is the president of the ABA. Unfortunately, I turned on the program with only 10 minutes remaining, but I did manage to catch this little gem:

Host: So in my production research, I came across numerous articles decrying the legal profession. I read that there simply aren't enough jobs for all of the graduates our schools are producing. If I'm a 22 year old kid, and tuition will amount to 150k after 3 years, how can I justify going to law school these days? What is your response to this?

President of the ABA: My response is this: (literally what she said, word for word) "being a lawyer is the best job in the universe." There are actually enough jobs to go around. The people most in need of legal services belong to the lowest socioeconomic classes. These people need representation! A law degree can open up numerous opportunities. One can work for a big law firm, family law, politics, legal advocacy, academia, medium sized law firms, small law firms, the opportunities are endless.

I wanted to call in and ask her how she sleeps at night while schools like NYLS are charging 50k a year to people who have no business in any sort of graduate school.

These people are delusional.

[Yukos]

A little off topic but can someone briefly explain to me why the AMA gets away with such rigid regulation while the ABA apparently can't.

Also, why does the DOJ care?

On topic: I'll definitely be righting something, thanks to everyone in this thread for helping me figure out what I want to say

[Yukos]

President of the ABA: My response is this: (literally what she said, word for word) "being a lawyer is the best job in the universe." There are actually enough jobs to go around. The people most in need of legal services belong to the lowest socioeconomic classes. These people need representation! A law degree can open up numerous opportunities. One can work for a big law firm, family law, politics, legal advocacy, academia, medium sized law firms, small law firms, the opportunities are endless.

This is a million times worse than anything in the TTT advertising thread.

[20141023]

.

[Clearly]

Looking at outcomes is great, but it is not really feasible because:

1) If you define a "good outcome" as passing the bar, then you discourage schools from doing things like clinical programs and pragmatic learning because they will focus more on making sure they are creating "good test takers" instead of "good lawyers." A lot of people use bar prep courses like BARBRI anyway, so I think that it would be unfair to give law schools credit for these passage rates. Passing the bar is important, but it is only the means to an end and not the end itself, so it would be dumb to use this as a standard for accreditation. If graduates are getting FTLTJD jobs, we can assume that they're passing the bar, so it is kind of a moot point anyway.

2) It is difficult to define what "employed" means in terms of bestowing accreditation. If a rule is made that a law school must have at least a "60% employment rate" in order to receive accreditation, does this only count FTLTJD jobs? What about prestigious governmental jobs that don't require a JD, business entrepreneurs who don't need a JD, school funded jobs, or other types of employment where it isn't clear if it should be counted / discredited?

The argument that setting a minimum passing LSAT score will prevent lawyers from going out to rural areas is kind of bull. Doctors have the same minimum standards, yet I've never been someplace where there wasn't a doctor. If you're arguing that it will keep URMs out, you're missing the point; creating a minimum LSAT would be "fair" in that no matter what your race or ethnicity is, if you can't get the minimum score (which I believe ~155 would be "fair"), then you can't play ball.

Another option is making the bar much harder.

I truly think a minimum LSAT is the way to go. It's the only universally objective measure that can't be faked or manipulated like job data can. The bar much harder thing actually might have counter intuitive consequences in that we would have fewwe lawyers, but more people graduating and not becoming lawyers, they'd still drive the costs of LS up, and worse would be more likely to default on their loans, which would reflect poorly on the profession, or at least legal education.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Doctors have the same minimum standards, yet I've never been someplace where there wasn't a doctor.

This is a minor nitpick, but I've lived in a town where the allergist came to town once every 6 weeks, or you could drive an hour to the the major metropolis (of 12,000 people) to see one. (This isn't "take an hour to drive across town in traffic," but "drive 70mph in the middle of nowhere for an hour.") And I've known doctors to complain that there aren't enough doctors out there to get doctors to stay in undesirable areas. So I think the barrier to entry thing *can* result in shortages. Is that so terrible with lawyers? Well, I think if you can't get public defenders/prosecutors in some areas, that's a problem (some reservations run into situations where they can't prosecute crime because they don't have anyone who can provide defense). I'm not saying that this is enough of a problem to torpedo the idea of minimum standards - and of course there's a backlog of unemployed lawyers right now, though I'm not sure I want a 2009 Cooley grad with no experience acting as a DA or PD. But it is the inevitable flipside of limiting entry and I think it needs to be recognized.

(I do have a problem in principle with setting a LSAT floor because I do have a problem with standardized tests and, in particular, the fact that the LSAT is so learnable; if it's so learnable - which everyone here says it is - then a minimum LSAT rewards people who have the money to take courses/buy books and practice tests, and, especially, devote the time to study, not more directly who's likely to be a good lawyer. That said, though, a 155 is ~60th percentile, which is pretty much bare minimum to pass with a D so if it's your grade in a class, so it's hard to argue against it...)

[Clearly]

Doctors have the same minimum standards, yet I've never been someplace where there wasn't a doctor.

This is a minor nitpick, but I've lived in a town where the allergist came to town once every 6 weeks, or you could drive an hour to the the major metropolis (of 12,000 people) to see one. (This isn't "take an hour to drive across town in traffic," but "drive 70mph in the middle of nowhere for an hour.") And I've known doctors to complain that there aren't enough doctors out there to get doctors to stay in undesirable areas. So I think the barrier to entry thing *can* result in shortages. Is that so terrible with lawyers? Well, I think if you can't get public defenders/prosecutors in some areas, that's a problem (some reservations run into situations where they can't prosecute crime because they don't have anyone who can provide defense). I'm not saying that this is enough of a problem to torpedo the idea of minimum standards - and of course there's a backlog of unemployed lawyers right now, though I'm not sure I want a 2009 Cooley grad with no experience acting as a DA or PD. But it is the inevitable flipside of limiting entry and I think it needs to be recognized.

(I do have a problem in principle with setting a LSAT floor because I do have a problem with standardized tests and, in particular, the fact that the LSAT is so learnable; if it's so learnable - which everyone here says it is - then a minimum LSAT rewards people who have the money to take courses/buy books and practice tests, and, especially, devote the time to study, not more directly who's likely to be a good lawyer. That said, though, a 155 is ~60th percentile, which is pretty much bare minimum to pass with a D so if it's your grade in a class, so it's hard to argue against it...)

Eh, I don't think it would ever get as bad as it can be with doctors. At the end of the day, its just harder to be a doctor, less people will get through it, and many are scared to even try. With the plethora of TTT 140 schools out there no one is ever told "you're not fit for law school"... Wow, I've ever actually written that idea before, and it just feels scary doesn't it. Virtually anyone that is eligible for loans is eligible to attend law school.

The thing is, the market system is efficient at curing supply issues, but painful at cutting over-supply issues. If someone in a small town sees they can make a killing as the only lawyer, they will be able to hit that 155 and prosper. The real threat is having 97 lawyers in that small town constantly undercutting each others' rates or all accepting salary cuts to do the same work for someone else. It will end up driving down the value of the profession forever.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Eh, I don't think it would ever get as bad as it can be with doctors. At the end of the day, its just harder to be a doctor, less people will get through it, and many are scared to even try. With the plethora of TTT 140 schools out there no one is ever told "you're not fit for law school"... Wow, I've ever actually written that idea before, and it just feels scary doesn't it. Virtually anyone that is eligible for loans is eligible to attend law school.

The thing is, the market system is efficient at curing supply issues, but painful at cutting over-supply issues. If someone in a small town sees they can make a killing as the only lawyer, they will be able to hit that 155 and prosper. The real threat is having 97 lawyers in that small town constantly undercutting each others' rates or all accepting salary cuts to do the same work for someone else. It will end up driving down the value of the profession forever.

Yeah, generally I agree that it won't get as bad as with doctors. But have you lived in a really small town? There at most 3 lawyers in that town. You'd never get 97 undercutting each other - I think the market can self-correct in that context. I don't think the current problem is too many lawyers undercutting each others' rates, so much as too many people who never get a legal job/can't support themselves as lawyers AND then can't service their tremendous debt. I wouldn't care that only 24% of Thomas Jefferson grads got jobs if the school only cost, say, $10K a year. (See: Ph.D. programs where employment rates are even worse than J.D. employment rates, but schools generally pay you to attend.)

[Sheffield]

After zipping through a number of opinions here, I fall on the side of using the LSAT. However, I would somehow include the GPA into the mix.

After the smoke clears there will likely be 30,000 applicants eligible for admission. So here you are with your 160 being stalked by every tier-2 school hoping to keep their doors open.

You will have a choice between a better ranked school with a high price tag or a lower ranked school with a very reasonable tuition (and likely a smaller class size). At the end of your three years you will be one of 30,000 grads competing for one of 25,000 positions.

Not perfectly ideal but certainly a giant step in the right direction.

[Clearly]

After zipping through a number of opinions here, I fall on the side of using the LSAT. However, I would somehow include the GPA into the mix.

After the smoke clears there will likely be 30,000 applicants eligible for admission. So here you are with your 160 being stalked by every tier-2 school hoping to keep their doors open.

You will have a choice between a better ranked school with a high price tag or a lower ranked school with a very reasonable tuition (and likely a smaller class size). At the end of your three years you will be one of 30,000 grads competing for one of 25,000 positions.

Not perfectly ideal but certainly a giant step in the right direction.

Unfortunately GPA is even less objective then employment figures. Grade inflation, majors, A-A+ There are already so many things wrong with this metric that factoring it into a minimum competency system is just too iffy for me.

[20141023]

.

[jarofsoup]

After 2 years of law school, I am not sure what the point of the LSAT is. Why not scrap it and use the GRE? Pretty much every part of the dam exam except reading competition does not correlate to anything practical at law school. Or at least get rid of logic games and use essay based portions instead like the GRE. 70% of law school is writing ability. I have only had a handful of multiple choice exams. Law school is pretty much just a social science... I know a lot of people who aced the LSAT and then totally screwed up law school, and a lot of people who screwed up the LSAT(me being one of them) and got ok grades.

The predicability of LSAT performance at first year grades is very low too. It is like 12% or something.

I believe that requiring some work experience for admission, like MBA programs do, would be very beneficial and would make graduates more competitive.

Also the for profit law schools, and the doors open law schools (TJLS, Cooley, etc) are a problem. Just as University of Phoenix and Devry are. Simply exploiting people.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, GPA is too lulzy to use as a standard for anything because of how variable it is.

Regarding the LSAT rewarding those with the time / money to take the test because it is learnable, this is already the case. Those with more time / money have access to more resources to help them succeed, so their chances of getting into a good law school and thereby getting a good job are already better. Rather than "standing up for" those without the resources to get a good LSAT score by allowing them to go to law school with "failing" percentile scores, we need to help these people from making career-destroying decisions by going to the NYLSs and Cooleys of the world. Allowing them to "pass" the LSAT with a terrible score and get into one of these schools isn't helping anyone.

Yeah, it's already a problem, but if we're completely revamping law schools it would be nice tp be able to address that problem. I'm one of those who doesn't think LSAT tracks lawyering ability (and its ability to predict law school performance is flawed too, as the post above points out), so while a low score might only get you into a crappy school, that's the problem - that the school is crappy - not necessarily that you will "fail" due to your low LSAT because the LSAT indicates a lack of ability. Maybe there needs to be a more widespread baby bar thing like California has, where you can get into certain schools to start, then after your first year if you meet certain criteria you can transfer to a better school, and if not, you're out. (I realize this is over complicated but I throw it out there.)

But again, in practice I don't think 155 is a really unreasonable bar. I just think LSAT is problematic so I rail in principle.