Don't Say I Didn't Warn You, Florida Coastal

UPDATE:  Responding to popular demand,  I have attached a sanitized version of the presentation I gave at Florida Coastal last spring here: Download FCSL sanitized   I have removed proprietary data, such as information from FCSL's ABA Self-Study, in accordance with a non-disclosure agreement I signed with FCSL.  The notes to the slides are not exact quotes from my actual presentation, but accurately reflect the content of my talk, at least up to the point that I was stopped by the President.   

 

Back in April, the night before my my abortive Dean candidate talk at Florida Coastal School of Law, I had dinner with FCSL President Dennis Stone.  Over dinner I expressed serious concern over the quality of recently admitted students at FCSL and their prospects for passing the bar. President Stone completely dismissed my concerns. In fact, he expressed great confidence that the school's bar pass rates was going to be just fine, and, even stated that he expected the rate to go up as a result of improvements to the curriculum and in-house bar prep programs.  

I was unconvinced. When I expressed a decidedly different view of the school's trajectory  the following day, President Stone responded by throwing me off the campus.

Before I departed, I predicted that the school was going to have a disastrous bar result in July.  In fact, here is one of the bullets from one of the PowerPoint slides I used during the presentation:

 ◦       Bar Pass rate for summer 2014 will drop substantially, probably below 60% 

The Florida Board of Bar Examiners recently released the July 2014 bar examination results by law school, and, lo and behold, Florida Coastal School of Law had a first-time bar pass rate of 58.0%.  This woeful result placed FCSL second to last among Florida’s 12 ABA-Accredited law schools, just edging out perennially struggling Ave Maria.

Although I enjoy being proved right as much as the next guy, I can take no real pleasure in being proved right in this case, for there is a tremendous human toll when such a large school has such a poor result on the bar.  There are 118 recent FCSL graduates who are suffering greatly right now because they failed the bar, and that is a tragedy.  Indeed, it was precisely this kind of tragedy that I was hoping to avert by trying to persuade FCSL to change course.

How was I able to predict this drop with such accuracy?  No magical powers were  involved. All I had to do was look at FCSL’s entering student profiles to see that a bar pass rate train wreck was coming.  

Although some seem loathe to admit it, there is a very strong correlation between LSAT scores and MBE scores (see, here and here).   Let the LSAT scores of your admitted students drop, and three years later, the bar pass rate is bound to follow.  Perhaps nowhere is this principle more clearly demonstrated than at FCSL.

Not long ago, FCSL’s bar pass numbers were perfectly respectable.  In July 2012, FCSL was at 75.2%, within 5% of the state average of 80.2%.  In July 2011, they had similar results: a first time passage rate of 74.6% compared to a 79.5.% state average.  These consistent results were not surprising given that the entrance credentials at FCSL for the Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 entering classes were identical (153, 150, 147 at the 75^th, 50^th and 25^th percentile in both years).  But starting in 2010, the entrance credentials of FCSL’s students started to slip. That year, they went from 153, 150, 147 to 152, 149, 146, a one-point decrease across the board. As a direct result, in July 2013, FCSL’s July bar pass rate dropped below 70% for the first time in several years. At 67.4%, the 2013 rate was 10% below the state average of 77.2%.   In 2011, FCSL dropped their standards even more dramatically, enrolling a class with LSATs of 151, 147, 145.  Based on this drop in the aptitude of its entering students, coupled with a significant level of transfer attrition from the top of the class, it was easy to predict that there would be a significant drop in bar performance for FCSL’s July 2014 bar takers.

Unfortunately, the worst is undoubtedly yet to come from FCSL.  The entering class of 2012 was substantially weaker by LSAT score (151, 146, 143) than the 2011 entering class, and the 2013  (148, 144, 141) and 2014 (unavailable at this time, but projected to be about the same) entering classes have drastically lower predictors.  Unless FCSL substantially increases academic attrition from the bottom of the class, their bar pass rate will almost certainly drop below 50% in the coming years (assuming they stay in business).  Even with significantly greater attrition they will still be hard-pressed to match this year’s dismal results.

Will these results finally cause InfiLaw to change their admission policies, and stop admitting huge numbers of high-risk students?  One can always hope, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Perhaps the more salient question is: Will these recent results spur the ABA to take any action?  The unfortunate answer is: probably not.  Under ABA Standard 316(a)(2), a law school that is within 15% of the state average for first-time takers from all ABA law schools is deemed to have a sufficient bar passage rate.  So, as far as the ABA is concerned, FCSL, at 14% below the state average, is still fully compliant.  (Of course, if you remove FCSL’s students from the equation, the statewide first-time pass rate in Florida on the July bar would have been 73.2%, 15.2% higher than FCSL's average, but that is not how the ABA calculates things.)  But even if FCSL is still meeting the ABA’s woefully inadequate bar pass standards now, it should be abundantly clear to anyone who understands the predictive value of LSAT scores that they are not going to be able to meet them in future administrations of the bar.  How many more high-risk, poorly qualified students will InfiLaw be allowed to take advantage of before the ABA steps in? 

In fairness to InfiLaw, FCSL is far from the only school to experience a drop in their bar passage rate.  In fact, this year, Florida’s state average dropped sharply (-5.4%) to 71.8% overall.  Florida’s numbers are consistent with what is happening in other states.  According to this article, the majority of states to have reported their scores from July 2014 have reported drops of greater than four percentage points, with several reporting a double-digit drops in the first time bar passage rate.   These numbers highlight one of the problems with ABA Standard 316(a)(2).  When all law schools lower their admission standards, the overall bar pass rate may plummet, but even horribly performing law schools may still be able to stay within 15% of the state average. Florida is a perfect example of this. Florida’s worst-performing school this July, Ave Maria, at 57% (rounded up to the nearest whole percentage point) is still within 15% of Florida’s 72% statewide average, and thus, compliant, even though most people would agree (I hope) that 57% is unacceptably low.  This example points to the need for the ABA to implement a minimum first time bar pass rate.  Schools that drop below the minimum for a calendar year (combining the February and July bar) should automatically be placed on probation.  If 75% is presumptively sufficient under ABA Standard 316 (a)(1), then more than 15% below that, under 60%, should be presumptively insufficient.

I understand very well the pressure on law school administrators to preserve the jobs of law school faculty and staff by trying to limit the decrease in the size of their entering classes by admitting weaker applicants.  But it is highly ethically questionable to try to keep a law school afloat on the backs of students who have demonstrated poor aptitude for the study of law.  It is even more ethically dubious when a law school is admitting large numbers of extremely high-risk students for the purpose of making a profit.  Regrettably, that appears to be exactly what is going on at some ABA-accredited law schools.  The ABA should put a stop to it.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Kyle McEntee]

John, how do you feel about the job outcomes from Charlotte and the ability graduates have to repay their loans in those jobs? Bar passage is important, no doubt, but only part of analyzing a professional school's performance.

[anon]

David - thank you very much for posting the slides! (This is the first anon that requested.) I thought it was a longshot and I appreciate your transparency on this issue. I skimmed them quickly but had to focus on Slide 12 and your notes "The corporate ownership turned a corner, they said, we don’t care if we lower our standards as long as you make more money." Wow. Dennis Stone is a shareholder in Infilaw so that may have prompted his entry. I've heard many dean/faculty presentations over the years but never one so honest.

[anonprof06]

The ABA Standards for law school accreditation require that faculty should enjoy "academic freedom." While they don't precisely define the term, it seems clear to me that FCSL, as described by David Frakt, does not meet this standard. If the ABA is serious about enforcing its standards, it will investigate this incident. But I'm not holding my breath...

(David, were you ever contacted by accreditation authorities about this?)

[JPQ]

David - I disagree with your statement that the data show one's best chances for passing are the first time. Generally, people who pass the first time do not take it a second time, while those who fail the first time take it a second time. So to give an example a bar exam in which the pass rate for first time takers is 75 percent and for second time takers is 60 percent. Of the universe of people in both samples -- 0 percent passed on their first attempt and 60 percent passed on their second attempt. The reason the first time pass rate is higher is because the smarter people are not taking the test twice.

[JM]

Prof. Kunich,

You work at the Charlotte School of Law. The Charlotte School of Law does not even claim to be a part of the UNC system. See http://www.charlottelaw.edu/

Furthermore, you are not listed anywhere as a faculty member of UNC. See http://www.law.unc.edu/faculty/directory/

A law school friend of mine got a sanction on his transcript for calling Staples and announcing himself as a professor in order to get some very basic sales info for a deals class project. He nearly got suspended. How is your misrepresentation any different?

[Bary]

"John, how do you feel about the job outcomes from Charlotte and the ability graduates have to repay their loans in those jobs? Bar passage is important, no doubt, but only part of analyzing a professional school's performance."

Seconded. John this school (and yours, soon to be owned by the same corporation) have, IIRC, very high tuition combined with lousy job outcomes.

I won't ask how you justify that, because I'm sure that you can (try). I'm pointing out that what happens in these schools is contradictory to the rhetoric.

[David Frakt]

JM -

Prof Kunich used to be on the faculty at Charlotte Law. He is now a lecturer at UNC Charlotte in the Political Science Department. John is a retired Air Force JAG and an honorable guy and has not misrepresented himself. Let's try to avoid the personal attacks.

[Bary]

Will do.

[David Frakt]

JPQ - Regarding repeat bar exam takers, take a look at the statistics from NCBE on repeat takers. The statistics for the last 19 years are here http://www.ncbex.org/publications/statistics/. The most recent report, from 2013, is here http://www.ncbex.org/assets/media_files/Bar-Examiner/articles/830114statistics.pdf The reports are not encouraging regarding repeat takers and do support my statement that one's best chances for passing are the first time. Just to take a few examples from that report, using the combined data from the February and July 2013 bars: (State, First Time takers pass rate, Repeaters Pass rate) California, 65%, 30%; Florida, 78%, 32%; Illinois, 88%, 51%; New York, 76%, 34%; Pennsylvania, 81%, 41%; Ohio, 86%, 42% The national average was 78% for first time takers, 38% for repeat takers.

Of course, an individual who failed the first time has a greater chance of passing the second time since they didn't pass the first time, but I'm not sure what that proves.

[anon]

David,
I carefully read through your powerpoint presentation. Did you honestly ever think you would get the job? I promise I don't mean that sarcastically. It seems that everything you are proposing runs directly counter to how Infilaw is running their law schools. Why would they hire someone that is going to fight with them?

[confused by your post]

No personal attacks here but those like Prof. Kunich who defend FCSL and Charlotte's admission and academic practices are dead wrong. He makes the standard defenses you hear from all proponents of "opportunity" schools. Such nonsense must be challenged every time it is uttered.

The claim that those schools rely "on a sophisticated blend of factors to predict a person's likelihood of success" cannot be taken seriously, given their de facto open admissions standards. Even if one were to take these Infilaw supporters at their word about Infilaw's excellent system of evaluating applicants using factors other than the LSAT, one would have to ask how are the results of that system?

Are the students admitted under the system happy enough that they aren't transferring out in large numbers?
Are they flunking out?
Are the students performing well on the bar exam?
Are employers showing they value Infilaw's student selection systems by actually employing Infilaw graduates in high paying jobs?

There are cold hard numbers that answer all of these questions. The admissions system used at Infilaw schools is an abject failure to its students. They flunk out, they transfer if they can, they do not pass the bar and they don't get decent jobs - all in alarming numbers.

Infilaw's academic programs and standards are also part of the problem although I do love that Professor Kunich used the word "panoply" to describe them (great word). The schools academic programs and standards are not something to crow about. In the big picture, they are designed to ensure an unreasonably high number of students do not, or cannot, complete their JD degrees. That way they are not around to sit for and inevitably fail the bar exam. This artificially inflates these schools' bar passage rates. Most other schools admit students knowing almost all those admitted will graduate and take the bar exam. They do not admit them knowing many can't pass the bar exam and then design academic standards, etc. knowing the effect of these standards will be to prevent these students from graduating and taking the bar exam.

Infilaw does not care about diversity or the success of minority law students. It cares about profits. These profits are obtained by admitting as many warm bodies as possible. These warm bodies then must sign up for potentially life ruining student loans to pay for Infilaw's profits. These are loans that will burden both the students and the US taxpayers for years.

Infilaw's system of admissions and academic standards are not a net benefit to its students, the legal profession or society as a whole. They are not something to be lauded. They are predation.

[Just saying...]

"They flunk out, they transfer if they can, they do not pass the bar and they don't get decent jobs - all in alarming numbers."

Confused.. do you have data to support this statement? I have no connection to Infilaw, but each of these occurrences, taken alone, would cause a school serious problems come an ABA site visit since the accreditation committee pays close attention to academic attrition, transfers, bar pass rate and employment rate, as we know. IF a school had substantial issues with all of these -- in alarming numbers, as you state, it would have problems.

What are the numbers you are relying on when making that statement? Of course, you cannot combine numbers from all Infilaw schools to reach your totals since each school is accredited separately.

[Bary]

anon: "I carefully read through your powerpoint presentation. Did you honestly ever think you would get the job? I promise I don't mean that sarcastically. It seems that everything you are proposing runs directly counter to how Infilaw is running their law schools. Why would they hire someone that is going to fight with them? "

David thought that the school was a school, rather than something several steps below an online diploma mill.

[The One and Only Anon]

Regarding the "opportunity" issue, what alternative do the scammers propose to solve the diversity crisis? Women and minorities continue to be few and far between at the top of the legal profession. If we have a world that depends largely on tests that have a bias against diversity the problem just perpetuates itself.

[anon]

@Bary. That seems incredible. A quick look at Infilaw shows that they are running a top-down organization that really doesn't want the radical change Frackt was proposing. For example, in the last decade the central Infilaw administration transferred the Dean at Charlotte to Arizona Summit, and at various times Dennis Stone (a librarian) has been Dean at Infilaw schools. (Including FloCo I believe). And interestingly the current interim dean is the general counsel of Infilaw. Clearly the ABA doesn't care that Infilaw is running a centralized operation with all power away from individual deals at individual schools.

[Just saying...]

One and Only... Your comment is insulting in that you seem to imply that women and minorities can only get into "opportunity" schools.

Women have compromised more than 50% of some law school classes (Rutgers, several years ago) and come close to 50% in many others every year -- including schools in the top tier. I doubt all are there only as a result of "opportunity" a/k/a affirmative action. Women need no help getting into good law schools. They are still subject to discrimination in firms and corporations, esp. when they decide to have children, but is another discussion.

Many white men are admitted to "opportunity schools" with low credentials, too.
If your point was accurate, then the composition of the classes in most low ranking schools (the one's chanting "opportunity") would be overwhelmingly minorities and women, and my experience on site teams to some of these schools shows that is not the case.

I have sat in many faculties when the issue of how to increase minority enrollment was discussed. Sadly, law schools compete with each other for the best candidates and they also compete with other professions for the top minority students. I think most minority students who are likely to succeed in law school and practice can, especially now, get into a reputable school with good tuition discount. Again, as with women, why more are not at the top of the profession is a separate discussion.

The only people going to too many of these low ranking "opportunity" schools should probably not be in law school, regardless of gender, ethnicity or race.

[Just saying...]

Another point, One and Only....

no one -- women, minority, white men are going to wind up at the top of the legal profession by attending an "opportunity" school.

[David Frakt]

Anon -

Did I honestly think I was going to get the job as Dean of FCSL? Not really. Before I went to visit, I thought I had a chance, but I knew I was one of 7 finalists being brought to the school, so I knew the odds were not in my favor. But my preliminary interviews went well and I thought FCSL might be genuinely interested in going in a different direction. I thought that the things that I had to say would appeal to the faculty and that with strong support from the faculty, I might have a chance. What I found when I got there was that the faculty had extremely minimal influence in the Dean selection process. InfiLaw management had directed the faculty to approve 6 of the 7 candidates that were going to be presented to them, unranked, and then InfiLaw management would select the Dean. So essentially, the faculty only had veto power over one candidate. After I had dinner with President Stone, I realized that I had virtually no chance to get hired because he had a lot of influence over the Dean selection and he and I saw things very differently. But I was already there and had put a lot of time and effort into preparing so I went ahead with the interview even knowing it was an extreme longshot, at best. It never occurred to me that I would get thrown out simply for providing a candid assessment of the school's situation.

As a postscript, the entire Dean search failed. Apparently none of the seven finalists were acceptable to InfiLaw and willing to take the job. They are running another Dean search now.
see http://law.academickeys.com/seeker_job_display.php?dothis=display&job%5BIDX%5D=58736

[Jeff Anon Harrison]

When people discuss Bar Passage rates I cannot help but wonder how large a sample of exam takers were involved. Florida is a pretty big law school but the February results that I have seen usually involve a handful of test takers and it would misleading tho use that number as representative of the overall passage rate. It would be helpful to know how many Charlotte grads took the exam in Feb 13 and 14 in order to know what to make of the percentages. I know that duke and Campbell are smaller but they each had single digit numbers of test takers.

[Barry]

Jeff, that's a very good point. And does anybody have an idea of the demographic differences?