Interpretation 301-6: Low LSATs and High “Cut Scores”

Given that the trend in Bar passage rates of persons with the same LSAT score (see The LSAT-free Illusion), the Bar passage rates of law schools also follow the same trend—lower Bar passage rates as the LSAT “profile” of entering classes fall.  In their study of the July 2004 Texas Bar exam, Stephen P. Klein, Ph.D. and Roger Bolus, Ph.D. found that the differences in the average scores of Texas law schools followed the schools’ mean LSAT scores:

[T]here are large differences in bar exam passing rates among schools. We found that almost all of these differences can be explained by differences in the admissions scores of the students they graduate. For example, there is a nearly perfect relationship between a law school’s mean total bar exam scale score and its mean LSAT score (the correlation is .98 out of a possible 1.00). Many of a law school’s graduates do better or worse on the bar exam than what would be expected on the basis of their own LSAT scores, but these differences almost entirely balance out when the data are analyzed by school. (Response to Question 5) (emphasis added).

In my article, Unpacking the Bar:  Of Cut Scores and Competence, 32 J. LEGAL PROF. 67 (2008), I found that law school first-time Bar passage rates fell as the “middle” LSAT of entering classes fell.  The cumulative Bar passage rates of law schools are not published in the ABA*LSAC Official Guide to ABA-Approved Law Schools, so a similar study of the association of law school LSAT profiles and cumulative Bar passage rates is not possible, but I would expect a similar result.  

The LSAC National Longitudinal Bar Passage Study did not identify by name the law schools attended by students participating in the study.  The Bar Passage Study organized law schools into six “clusters” based on varying attributes of the law schools included in the study of Fall 1991 entering classes:

Description of Law School Clusters
LSAC Bar Passage Study

Cluster	Description	Group
1	Among least expensive. Slightly below average in size.  Slightly above average in selectivity, UGPAs and LSATs.  Mostly public schools. (50 schools)	3
2	The least selective, below average in cost, and smaller. Lowest proportion of minority students.  Lower UGPAs and LSATs.  (18 schools)	5
3	Larger, more expensive, less selective, and lower UGPAs and LSATs than Cluster 1. Mostly private. (50 schools)	4
4	Highly selective, with UGPAs and LSATs among highest in country, but below Cluster 5. Among the more expensive of the law schools. Average size is significantly larger than any other group.  (14 schools)	2
5	Most selective and most expensive. Highest UGPAs and LSATs. Much smaller than Cluster 4 schools and much larger than Cluster 6 schools.  (16 schools)	1
6	Among the smallest and the least expensive. High proportion of minority students.  (7 schools)	6

The “Group” numbers are the LSAC Bar Passage Study clusters, in the reverse order of their LSAT means, from high (Cluster 5) to low (Cluster 6).

 

The Bar passage rates of the law-school Groups generally followed the LSAT means of each Group:

LSAT Means and Bar Passage Rates
LSAC Bar Passage Study

Group	LSAT Mean	First-Time	Cumulative
1	41.4	0.942	0.982
2	38.5	0.896	0.953
3	37.1	0.910	0.960
4	35.2	0.883	0.947
5	32.5	0.806	0.917
6	28.6	0.659	0.779

 

Looking at Table 1, you might wonder why Interpretation 301-6 might be troublesome.  The first-time Bar passage rate in Groups 1 through 5 are above the 80% benchmark for cumulative Bar passage rates.  Only Group 6, the group that includes seven schools with generally high proportions of minority students, seems to be at risk.  Even in Group 6, cumulative Bar passage rates are with 2.1 percentage points of 80%.

The Bar Passage study was based on Fall 1991 entering classes, and Bar exams beginning in Fall 1994.  Since that time, several states have increased their minimum passing scores.  SeeDeborah J. Merritt, Lowell L. Hargens & Barbara F. Reskin, Raising the Bar:  A Social Science Critique of Recent Increases to Passing Scores on the Bar,69 U. CIN. L. REV. 929 (2001).  Using the Multi-State Bar Examination’s 200-point scale, state cut scores vary from a low of 128 (Alabama) to a high of 145 (Delaware), with a median of 135.  California has the second-highest cut score at 144.  (For a list of state cut scores, see Chart 9 in National Conference of Bar Examiners, Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements (2011).

In Unpacking the Bar, I found that state cut scores had an inverse relationship with law-school Bar passage rates:  as state cut score rise, law-school Bar passage rates fall.  Because the relationship is non-linear, the effect of cut scores is especially pronounced for low-LSAT schools.  

Because the first-time Bar passage benchmark is 15% (or 10% under the proposed increase) below the passing rate for ABA-approved law schools, law schools with LSAT scores lower than the average LSAT of in-state takers from ABA-approved schools are most at risk.  

So, who is at risk on the Bar exam?  Students with lower LSAT scores.  Law schools with lower LSAT scores lower than the other law schools in the state, especially in high cut-score states, such as California.