U.S. News Announces Release Date For Brand New Law School Rankings Forum

[Updater101]

April 18, Best Graduate Programs Officially Released https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/u-s-new ... -rankings/

Quite excited on how they will assess law schools moving forward. What are your thoughts?

[jamestaylorrecordsas]

a) Harvard knows they will lose the pending SCOTUS affirmative action case

b) Harvard's solution? Get rid of LSAT (ABA just voted to end LSAT requirement by 2025) and opt out of USNWR rankings

c) Had Harvard stayed in the rankings, USNWR could not have ranked them anyway without the LSAT data, yet they may try, haha

d) Racist policies of T14 can continue (the discrimination against Asians can continue, just like the Harvard Jewish quotas in 1950s. "Undesirables" are now Asians, who have done too well, so now weights must be put on them)

e) Case can't be made against Harvard/Yale since no LSAT data to point to. And if there is a case filed against Harvard/Yale, they'll simply say the LSAT has been de-emphasized. Sure the Asians have higher LSATs but since the LSAT now has microscopic importance, you're proving nothing

f) Negates any unfavorable decision in the pending SCOTUS affirmative action case

g) Self-proclaimed prestige of the school isn't diminished since Harvard/Yale opted out of rankings

That's why the yoke of USNWR is being thrown off.

[dcrambler]

Since LSAT scores are highly correlated to bar passage, I would strongly recommend their continued use for law school acceptance and rankings. The schools moving away from LSAT are moving away from competition and excellence. If the goal no longer is to graduate the best and brightest lawyers, let's simply move to other inane factors for acceptance such as skin color and height. Next, rinse and repeat with med school and professional athletics. Only then can we assure ourselves that merit and excellence are purposefully pushed to the background being replaced by quotas and underachievement.

[tathagata]

Since LSAT scores are highly correlated to bar passage, I would strongly recommend their continued use for law school acceptance and rankings. The schools moving away from LSAT are moving away from competition and excellence. If the goal no longer is to graduate the best and brightest lawyers, let's simply move to other inane factors for acceptance such as skin color and height. Next, rinse and repeat with med school and professional athletics. Only then can we assure ourselves that merit and excellence are purposefully pushed to the background being replaced by quotas and underachievement.

The goal at the tippiest of top schools has not been to graduate the best and brightest lawyers for a while now. Do you know anyone who goes to Yale or Harvard? They spend more time at cocktail parties than they do studying for exams. The difference in 1L experience between Yale and a place like Cornell is shocking in terms of how intense the actual study of law is.

[ProbablyWaitListed]

Since LSAT scores are highly correlated to bar passage, I would strongly recommend their continued use for law school acceptance and rankings. The schools moving away from LSAT are moving away from competition and excellence. If the goal no longer is to graduate the best and brightest lawyers, let's simply move to other inane factors for acceptance such as skin color and height. Next, rinse and repeat with med school and professional athletics. Only then can we assure ourselves that merit and excellence are purposefully pushed to the background being replaced by quotas and underachievement.

The goal at the tippiest of top schools has not been to graduate the best and brightest lawyers for a while now. Do you know anyone who goes to Yale or Harvard? They spend more time at cocktail parties than they do studying for exams. The difference in 1L experience between Yale and a place like Cornell is shocking in terms of how intense the actual study of law is.

Don't know a ton of HYS people but a couple. I thought Harvard was a pretty competitive place to be honest. It seems like their grading scheme looks weird but basically replicates the B/B+/A-/A scheme of the rest of the t14

[tathagata]

Since LSAT scores are highly correlated to bar passage, I would strongly recommend their continued use for law school acceptance and rankings. The schools moving away from LSAT are moving away from competition and excellence. If the goal no longer is to graduate the best and brightest lawyers, let's simply move to other inane factors for acceptance such as skin color and height. Next, rinse and repeat with med school and professional athletics. Only then can we assure ourselves that merit and excellence are purposefully pushed to the background being replaced by quotas and underachievement.

The goal at the tippiest of top schools has not been to graduate the best and brightest lawyers for a while now. Do you know anyone who goes to Yale or Harvard? They spend more time at cocktail parties than they do studying for exams. The difference in 1L experience between Yale and a place like Cornell is shocking in terms of how intense the actual study of law is.

Don't know a ton of HYS people but a couple. I thought Harvard was a pretty competitive place to be honest. It seems like their grading scheme looks weird but basically replicates the B/B+/A-/A scheme of the rest of the t14

I know a couple of 1Ls at Harvard and only see them going to fancy celebrations and cocktail parties. I also went there before law school and took law classes—I know from experience that it's a far more lackadaisical environment than other law schools. But it's still better than what I know from Yale in terms of actually working. The people at Yale literally don't need to do a single reading all semester, but still get cushy summer jobs. If you ever see a Yalie's post-1L resume, you'll realize how much they play the system without having to rely on getting actual grades.

[B90]

LSAT predicts 1L outcome. GPA predicts bar passage.

[cavalier1138]

LSAT predicts 1L outcome. GPA predicts bar passage.

Not quite. LSAT is a mild predictor of 1L performance. LSAT and undergrad GPA together are an ok predictor of 1L performance. But LSAT alone has a strong correlation with bar passage (undergrad GPA has no real correlation).

This is also consistent with our understanding of how these numbers should work. LSAT and bar scores are objective measures of performance (ignoring the weird scaling that goes on with the bar). 1L GPA is wholly based on your performance relative to your classmates, all of whom had LSAT scores that were in the same basic range. So you'd expect more variation in that kind of curved performance assessment than in another objective test score. You'd also expect undergrad GPA to not have a strong correlation with law school or bar performance because of the significant variation in grading standards among different schools, majors, etc.

[butonawednesday]

LSAT predicts 1L outcome. GPA predicts bar passage.

The LSAT is generally found to be less predictive than the
individual’s final law school GPA, Wightman and Thomas both
demonstrate that an individual’s LSAT score and law school GPA in
combination are a better predictor of bar exam success than either
variable in isolation.

LSAT scores explained 13% of student bar exam
performance, reinforcing the LSAT as a useful tool for admissions, as
well as a means for gauging student performance on the bar exam. These
findings are consistent with the findings in the existing literature.

Above from:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2832835

Will I Pass the Bar Exam?: Predicting Student Success Using LSAT Scores and Law School Performance
45 Hofstra Law Review, Forthcoming

Katherine A. Austin
Texas Tech University

Catherine Martin Christopher
Texas Tech University School of Law

Darby Dickerson
Southwestern Law School

[butonawednesday]

the above research paper provides an added bonus, looking at law school classes and student activities that may have predictive power for Bar Exam

[Dcc617]

The bar exam doesn’t measure anything useful and should be abolished asap.

[butonawednesday]

or at least omit questions on Rule Against Perpetuities

[nealric]

The bar exam doesn’t measure anything useful and should be abolished asap.

It's more of a hazing ritual than a meaningful exam. But it does serve the purpose of keeping people out who have no business practicing law (especially in places like California where anybody with a pulse can sign up for an online law degree). The better solution is to ensure that nobody who would be unable to pass the bar after 3 or so tries manages to graduate from law school in the first place.

At the same time, I think even though a lot of the actual law tested on the bar is useless, the exercise of cramming for a couple months in preparation for a grueling legal endurance test is at least a loose simulation of what it's like in practice when you have to learn a new area of law (or new law is created) and have to quickly study for and apply it.

[nealric]

or at least omit questions on Rule Against Perpetuities

It can still be relevant. Just ask Disney. My property class actually skipped it, so I would have never learned it but for the bar. I think they like putting it on the bar because it's an example of a fairly complicated but very testable rule.

[Access]

When I was studying for the bar it was frustrating and I was on the abolition train. But ... I ended up passing by a wide margin and in retrospect the info I needed to study was mostly pretty essential. I would reform it by removing the MEE and just doing the multiple choice and the MPT (or whatever the closed universe essay was called). And cut down the trick questions.

Also I would break it up and let people take it in stages throughout 3L, like the MPRE. That way you can graduate and start working.

Way I see it, I wouldn't want anyone who can't pass the bar to be qualified as an attorney. But I want it to be easier for anyone who can to.

[Dcc617]

See, a lot of what the bar actually tests is your ability to afford spending a couple months studying full time.

There are a ton of absolutely wretched attorneys who pass the bar. And being able to recall a ton of superficial random legal trivia without looking it up has no bearing on practice.

[nealric]

When I was studying for the bar it was frustrating and I was on the abolition train. But ... I ended up passing by a wide margin and in retrospect the info I needed to study was mostly pretty essential. I would reform it by removing the MEE and just doing the multiple choice and the MPT (or whatever the closed universe essay was called). And cut down the trick questions.

Also I would break it up and let people take it in stages throughout 3L, like the MPRE. That way you can graduate and start working.

Way I see it, I wouldn't want anyone who can't pass the bar to be qualified as an attorney. But I want it to be easier for anyone who can to.

I like the idea of doing it in stages, which is the norm in other professions. The CPA exam is split into stages as is medical licensing. You could do most (or all of them) 3L year when most students aren't working on classwork as hard anyways.

[nealric]

See, a lot of what the bar actually tests is your ability to afford spending a couple months studying full time.

There are a ton of absolutely wretched attorneys who pass the bar. And being able to recall a ton of superficial random legal trivia without looking it up has no bearing on practice.

There are certainly wretched attorneys who manage to pass the bar, but anybody who has failed the bar over and over is probably not someone I want practicing law. I've also encountered plenty of doctors and CPAs who managed to pass their respective licensing exams. No exam is going to keep all the dunderheads out.

[butonawednesday]

or at least omit questions on Rule Against Perpetuities

It can still be relevant. Just ask Disney. My property class actually skipped it, so I would have never learned it but for the bar. I think they like putting it on the bar because it's an example of a fairly complicated but very testable rule.

Please elaborate on Disney's connection to the Rule Against Perpetuities. Would Walt Disney be considered a "Measuring Life", or DeSantis?

[nealric]

or at least omit questions on Rule Against Perpetuities

It can still be relevant. Just ask Disney. My property class actually skipped it, so I would have never learned it but for the bar. I think they like putting it on the bar because it's an example of a fairly complicated but very testable rule.

Please elaborate on Disney's connection to the Rule Against Perpetuities. Would Walt Disney be considered a "Measuring Life", or DeSantis?

Neither:

https://davidallengreen.com/2023/03/hap ... rpetuties/

[johntchance]

Since LSAT scores are highly correlated to bar passage, I would strongly recommend their continued use for law school acceptance and rankings. The schools moving away from LSAT are moving away from competition and excellence. If the goal no longer is to graduate the best and brightest lawyers, let's simply move to other inane factors for acceptance such as skin color and height. Next, rinse and repeat with med school and professional athletics. Only then can we assure ourselves that merit and excellence are purposefully pushed to the background being replaced by quotas and underachievement.

Glaring problem with your analysis is the ambiguity of “merit and excellence.” You obviously mean academic merit and excellence. But there seems to be little correlation between success as a student and success as a practicing attorney, and in any event the relationship is heavily attenuated by EQ, charisma, people skills, luck, etc. Academic excellence on its own doesn’t take you far in practice, plain and simple. FWIW, I’ve observed countless highly successful attys (measured against the traditional benchmark—partnership, and specifically BL partnership) who were middle of the pack academically but have absolutely crushed it in their careers. Grades/scores are very important as a general signaler but there are plenty students w/ lower grades/scores who are just more impressive overall. Take, for example, Student A, who has a 171 and a 3.8 but was a Navy SEAL, or an elite athlete, or a firefighter, professional musician, refugee, etc. Student B scored a 175 (a few more correct answers on the LSAT) and has a 3.9 GPA but is KJD or has a cookie-cutter resume. Assuming for sake of arg these students are competing for one spot, should a school go with A or B? If you’re Yale or Penn or Harvard or xyz other prestigious school, you want to retain the latitude (and luxury) to opt for a candidate who is more original and more impressive OTW—i.e., looking past the bar exam, which surely isn’t top of mind for the schools we’re thinking about here, which student is most likely to succeed in practice? Not suggesting the answer is necessarily A. The point is that relying too heavily on one measure of excellence for admission to a top law school is an overly narrow and hollow method of selection, and far from being an accurate measure of “merit” in a holistic sense.

TLDR downgrading the importance of LSAT/grades in law school rankings is not “moving away from competition/excellence.” (And I’m well aware of the historical context for “character” admissions.)

[White Dwarf]

The biggest issue I have with getting rid of traditional metrics like the LSAT is that the proposed alternatives are, to put it as kindly as I can, total f***ing bulls**t. Yeah, it sounds great to talk about a "holistic admissions process that looks at every aspect of the applicant", but who are we fooling? Admissions offices don't have the time, resources, or ability to do this. You're telling me ~5 admissions staff are going to a meaningful "holistic" review of 20,000+ applicants? Give me a break.

They are just replacing objective metrics with fancy-sounding work-arounds that let them fill up their classes with the people they want (ie. a pre-determined number of rich, well connected white people to keep the donations flowing and a pre-determined number of each other group that has nothing to do with merit) without sacrificing their rankings.

Is the LSAT perfect? Hell no. But it is an opportunity for applicants who went to non-prestigious undergrads and don't have the other markers of prestige to get into top law schools. I'm worried we are closing that door in favor of this hypothetical "holistic" process that no one actually believes is going to work the way it's described.

To the above, I don't have a problem with taking other factors into account, especially if people have exceptional, non-academic credentials. But how many people does that describe? For every Navy SEAL or Olympic athlete we are giving preference to, there are 50 people getting preference based on summer internships, study abroad bulls**t and other rich-kid nonsense that is off-limits to most other applicants. Studying hard for the LSAT is doable for everyone. That's it's main selling point for me, not it's "predictive ability" or anything else.

[cavalier1138]

Juts wanted to pour one out for Harvard. I imagine all its alumni are currently burning their degrees.

[White Dwarf]

Juts wanted to pour one out for Harvard. I imagine all its alumni are currently burning their degrees.

[nealric]

The biggest issue I have with getting rid of traditional metrics like the LSAT is that the proposed alternatives are, to put it as kindly as I can, total f***ing bulls**t. Yeah, it sounds great to talk about a "holistic admissions process that looks at every aspect of the applicant", but who are we fooling? Admissions offices don't have the time, resources, or ability to do this. You're telling me ~5 admissions staff are going to a meaningful "holistic" review of 20,000+ applicants? Give me a break.

They are just replacing objective metrics with fancy-sounding work-arounds that let them fill up their classes with the people they want (ie. a pre-determined number of rich, well connected white people to keep the donations flowing and a pre-determined number of each other group that has nothing to do with merit) without sacrificing their rankings.

Is the LSAT perfect? Hell no. But it is an opportunity for applicants who went to non-prestigious undergrads and don't have the other markers of prestige to get into top law schools. I'm worried we are closing that door in favor of this hypothetical "holistic" process that no one actually believes is going to work the way it's described.

To the above, I don't have a problem with taking other factors into account, especially if people have exceptional, non-academic credentials. But how many people does that describe? For every Navy SEAL or Olympic athlete we are giving preference to, there are 50 people getting preference based on summer internships, study abroad bulls**t and other rich-kid nonsense that is off-limits to most other applicants. Studying hard for the LSAT is doable for everyone. That's it's main selling point for me, not it's "predictive ability" or anything else.

The LSAT/GPA numbers game was one thing I found refreshing about the law school application process. Unlike undergraduate admissions, which purported to weigh your entire life story and consider whether it was worthy (that isn't how it works, but it was what I was lead to believe as a 17 year old), law school was always sold as a simple question of whether you had a high enough score and high enough GPA, with exceptions for the tippy top schools and "softs" being tiebreakers. Get a 4.0 and 175, and Harvard is probably yours. You don't need to cure cancer, be the world's greatest underwater ping pong player, or have your wealthy parents pull political strings.

The fact of the matter is that 99% of applicants do not have particularly remarkable soft factors. GPA can be helpful, but it's nearly impossible to get a fair comparison. We all assume that a 4.0 in Physics from MIT is quite a bit more impressive than a 4.0 in communications from directional state U, but most undergraduate records don't have such obvious differences.

With all their flaws, standardized tests are the one thing in the admissions game that is the same for all applicants. Of course not all applicants have equal access to test prep and the like, but inequality factors into every intangible factor too. For this reason, I think the death of the LSAT is highly exaggerated. Most schools will still rely on it heavy, even if they don't admit it.

As far as the rankings themselves: the year-by-year horse race was always silly and continues to be. The U.S. News has generally been reasonably accurate in sorting schools into broad categories for those who have no familiarity with such things, but beyond that it has little to offer other than entertainment value.