Search the Lounge

Categories

« The Bias in UPL Laws | Main | LSAC and Predicting Applicants for 2016-17, Part 3 »

December 23, 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

[M][@][c][K]

"Brackets,

Do you make it your business to cyber-stalk anyone who posts as anon (which might not even be the same person you're thinking of/obsessing over) to recycle your ridiculous responses and faux-psychology?"

Anon think of it as an occupational hazard from being an "anon" who makes straw-men arguments that you will be confused with anon's who make straw men arguments while condemning straw men arguments.

At the risk of being called a name-ist, they not being an "anon," before you complain, since all anons look alike to me.

Sy Ablelman

Yo,

Brackets and Anon. You can't fight here, this is the war room!

[M][a][c][K]

Huh!

Anon

So it seems that we all agree that drawing conclusions from a small sample size is unfair. That means we all should agree that it was unfair for Frakt to attack the non-California schools in his original post. His response to my original comment merely doubled down on his criticism of Whitter without defending his criticism of the other schools. I don't know why, but his posts consistently stretch the facts, and he never acknowledges it when called out in the comments. It seems like he really has an axe to grind. . .

twbb

You're making no sense, Anon. The non-California schools he's criticized have the same bar failure issues in their own jurisdiction at suitably large sample sizes.

eye of the beholder

Oh Anon. Again, you're trolling, and getting people to reply. You haven't pointed to a single example of Mr Frakt 'stretching' any facts, because he hasn't. And you're not doing a very good job of 'calling him out', if that's what you're attempting to do. But then again, nobody really thinks you're making an effort.

[M][@][c][K]

Anon - which Anon are you? Let's try 10:49PM

So if we are to understand your posting, you think that the Bar Passage rates of Wittier are perfectly acceptable? That it just jim-dandy for Whittier students to be going into substantial debt to get a "JD" from this school? That its non-transfer attrition rate is just peachy?

Because so far that is what you are suggesting.

Barry

"In fact, he accused Law School Transparency of “instigating a dangerous national discourse” by suggesting that law schools were admitting students at very high risk of failing out of law school and/or failing the bar based on their poor LSAT scores and grades."

There are certain key features of such arguments - in this case, note that Professor Lyke didn't claim that the other side was incorrect in any way, but rather “instigating a dangerous national discourse”. And weaseling like that, he didn't even back his argument. After setting the bar on the ground, he still stumbled over it.


"In his post, Professor Lyke claimed that the “LSAT is at best a weak predictor of first-time bar passage” and “there is no evidence that law school graduates are not eventually passing the bar.” Both of these claims are nonsensical. "

"Remember, according to Professor Lyke, “there is no evidence that law school graduates are not eventually passing the bar.” Well, here is some evidence. The pass rate for Whittier’s 84 repeat takers on the July 2015 exam was just 14% (12 of 84)."

Both of his arguments are linked - when failing under the established metrics, claim without evidence that somehow they don't matter. Throw the burden of proof on others. Apparently we are supposed to be conducting a long-term study on Whittier grads, because that'd be far too hard for Whitterir to do it.

Barry

Knn: "I would say it is the sign of a poor school that takes people with good LSATs but cannot get them through the bar. I would say such a school is perhaps worse than a school that takes people with poor LSATs and cannot get them through the bar, as they had less to work with."

Well, the latter case is frankly, fraud - not in a criminal sense, but in the sense of 'if you or I did it, we'd be toast'. It's clear that law schools are regarded by the courts as 'untouchables' (those largely above the law, save for the most severe offenses which also attact publicity).

These schools are admitting large quantities of people whom they didn't admit before, and their results are in line with the reasons why - there are no improved methods or holistic standards which justify this. It's dropping standards to fill seats - or rather, cash student loan checks.

The second is also worth mocking - I looked up Brooklyn Law School's results on LST. Their LSAT quartiles are still above the median LSAT, which is surprising. However, their bar passage results s*ck. My personal opinion is that if you take people with above median test scores, and award them a degree, then the overwhelming majority should pass the basic licensing exam for that profession.

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad