Law School Transparency (LST) Responds to Law School Admission Council (LSAC) Press Release

Law School Transparency’s recent report, the 2015 State of Legal Education, led to numerous articles in the national media about the trend of law schools admitting large numbers of poorly qualified applicants.  This prompted the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) -- the organization responsible for the LSAT -- to issue a press release  denouncing LST’s report and purporting to rebut certain factual assertions allegedly made by LST.  The press release mischaracterizes the conclusions of the LST report. 

The press release begins:  “A report recently released by Law School Transparency (LST) has gained headlines by claiming that some ABA-approved law schools have been intentionally admitting “high risk” students who, based on their LSAT scores, do not have a reasonable chance of passing the bar.”

LST stands by the assertion that dozens of ABA-approved law schools know that they have admitted large numbers of students who, based on their low LSAT scores, coupled with commensurately low undergraduate GPAs, are at high risk of academic failure or failing the bar.  Although LST’s risk band categories are delineated by LSAT scores, LST was very careful to explain that the risks of a low LSAT score could be offset by strong academic performance in college. LST analyzed the available data and determined that law schools were not offsetting lower LSAT scores with higher GPA requirements.  Although many of these same law schools have been allocating more resources to internal and external academic success and bar prep programs, these efforts have not yet offset the overall decrease in student capability, resulting in a strong trend of decreasing bar passage rates at the high-risk category schools.

Law schools can analyze internal data about attrition and bar passage rates by LSAT score and UGPA to make reasonably accurate predictions of the likely success of applicants with similar credentials.  Law School Transparency has urged (and continues to urge) law schools to make internal data publicly accessible.  LST acknowledges that some law schools may be better at educating students with marginal predictors and helping to prepare them for the bar. LST stands by its assertion that law schools have a duty to the legal profession to share empirically validated findings.

LSAC specifically states that LST has made three false claims.  The first alleged false claim is that “LSAT scores can be used to assign bar passage risk.”  LSAC objects to LST’s labeling of students with certain LSAT scores as high risk, very high risk, and extremely high risk.  Drawing from LST’s report, LSAC notes that students labeled “high risk” at one school had a first-time pass rate of 57 percent, while comparable students from another school had a pass rate of 23 percent. Based on this disparity, LSAC concludes: “Clearly, many factors significantly affect bar passage rates above and beyond LSAT scores.”  LST agrees wholeheartedly with this statement and has never claimed otherwise.  The LSAC statement concludes “The assertion that LSAT scores alone measure comparability is patently wrong.”  Here Mr. Bernstine is arguing against an assertion that the LST report never made.  Here is what the LST report actually says about assessing risk by LSAT score: 

The [LSAT risk bank] framework represents only a starting point for assessing the risk of bar failure.  A student with a low LSAT score but very high undergraduate GPA, for example, has less risk of failing the bar than a student with the same LSAT score and a very low UGPA. Some law schools have also been more successful than others in helping students with low LSAT scores succeed on the bar exam. Where the student takes the bar exam matters as well.

While LSAC may object to “labeling” law schools and law students, LSAC doesn’t dispute the underlying premise that there is a strong correlation between LSAT score and success in law school and on the bar exam. Mr. Bernstine does not because he cannot. LST believes that “high risk” is a fair characterization of both a 43% and 77% risk of failing the bar the first time, as reflected in the data from these two schools.

The second “False Claim” identified by LSAC is:  “LSAT scores can be used to delineate risk categories.”

This is really not a different claim, but a variation on the first claim. Nevertheless, LST did use LSAT scores to delineate risk categories (minimal risk, low risk, modest risk, high risk, very high risk, extreme risk), so clearly it can be done. Mr. Bernstine’s concern seems to be that the risk categories are either arbitrary or misleading because we are making “fine distinctions.” Mr. Bernstine notes that a difference of one point on the LSAT, such as from 150 to 149, may be statistically insignificant.   But each of LST’s risk bands are more than one point wide, and represent a range of performance.  For example, the high risk category from 147-149 represents the 33^rd to the 40^th percentile on the LSAT.  The point of the risk categories is simply to illustrate that the risk of failure goes up as the LSAT score goes down, an undisputable fact that is not challenged by Mr. Bernstine.  While reasonable people could differ on exactly where to draw the various lines, the available data confirm the validity of the risk categories as presented in the report. Again, LST invites any law schools with data tending to refute the validity of these categories to come forward and make that information publicly available.  We want to be wrong. 

In recent weeks, several deans at high-risk schools have made comments in the media suggesting that there is no correlation between LSAT scores and bar passage at their law school, but none have provided data to support their assertions.  The most clearly false claim came from Dean Penelope Bryan at Whittier Law School. She told the Los Angeles Times that “[t]he LSAT score has no predictive value for the success of Whittier Law School students on the bar exam.”  Incidentally, Whittier’s first time bar pass rate in California dropped from 64.7% in July 2013, to 42.7% in July 2014 to 30% in February 2015. (Note - Whittier had only 10 first time test-takers for that administration; California's July 2015 results by school are not yet available, but the statewide results were lower.)

At the same time, Whittier’s entering class profile progressively weakened.  In 2014, over half of the entering class at Whittier was at 146 or below on the LSAT.  To Whittier’s credit, the school dramatically shrank their first year entering class in 2015, substantially raising the LSAT profile of the bottom half of the class, with the 50th percentile increasing from 146 to 148 and the 25th percentile increasing from 143 to 146.  Clearly, Whittier has recognized that LSAT scores do matter, even if Dean Bryan won’t publicly admit it.

Mr. Bernstine’s third objection to the LST report is our alleged claim that “A study based on 25-year-old data can be used to assess current bar passage risk.”  Mr. Bernstine makes much of the fact that LST cited a landmark LSAC study, the LSAC National Longitudinal Bar Passage Study, in support of the uncontroversial assertion that there is a strong correlation between LSAT scores and bar passage. He notes that the LSAT has changed since that study was published, but, importantly, he does not assert that the current version of the LSAT has any less of a correlation than the old version used in the study. Neither, to our knowledge, has the scaling and equating process changed in a way that damages the link between current tests and previous tests for comparability. And, of course, the LSAC study was just one of several data sources in support of the report’s conclusions.

The LSAC release concludes by noting the limitations of the LSAT and scolding LST for allegedly failing to identify these limitations in our report.  Ironically, the LST report specifically, correctly, and adequately addresses each of these issues. Despite these caveats, the fact is that LSAC has developed a highly accurate test for assessing law school aptitude.  Because the bar exam is essentially a cumulative law school exam, it should not be surprising that the LSAT turns out to have a strong correlation with bar passage as well.  The irony is that while LSAC spends millions refining the LSAT each year to ensure that it is the best predictive tool available for law school success, LSAC feels compelled to downplay the validity of the exam.

LST understands that LSAC is speaking on behalf of many of its customers, which include the scores of law schools identified by LST as high risk, very high risk and extreme risk schools.  LST understands that many of these law schools are very unhappy being called out for their reprehensible admissions practices.  Undoubtedly, being labeled an “extreme risk” school is not good for business, and does not make the school’s alumni very happy. 

LST should not be criticized for pointing out uncomfortable truths.  Dozens of ABA-accredited law schools are making reckless choices that have a huge impact on thousands of real people. If effective labeling motivates this minority of law schools to act responsibly, then the hurt feelings of a few people associated with these schools is a small price to pay.   Until LSAC, or the law schools identified by LST as having problematic admissions practices, come forward with actual data to refute the conclusions in the LST report, general attacks on the validity of the report should be taken with a large grain of salt.

 

Kyle McEntee, Executive Director, LST                                                  David Frakt, Chair, LST National Advisory Council

Comments

[Kyle McEntee]

I'm the only paid employee. I did not make enough this year or any year to necessitate a payment of more than $0 on my student loans. Our revenue this year has come from a few donors (all small amounts), service fees for prelaw advisors, and sponsorships for our podcast.

If someone can figure out who has an incentive to give us enough money to operate properly, I'm all ears.

[ML]

Some random thoughts:

1. Its pretty clear (judging from LST's advocacy of using higher bar pass rates to limit accreditation) that LST's goal is to set a much higher bar to admissions to law school (and probably eliminate a huge number of law schools). Who funds LST? What interests is it serving?

2. Given the assumption that LSATs and UGPAs predict bar passage (an assumption I suspect is pretty much right) why bother to even have a bar exam? Or from the ABA's standpoint (assuming that the ABA lacks power to get the bar exam repealed) why shouldn't the ABA ignore bar passage but set minimum LSATs for law school admissions? It seems to me that this would reduce the "teach to the test" culture that is swallowing up law schools, and solve the alleged problem.

[David Frakt]

Dear Anon,

It is not appropriate to use the cloak of anonymity to launch repeated and unfounded personal attacks on me, Kyle McEntee or LST. Despite your hectoring tone, we have graciously answered your questions. You have asked that I disclose my bias. I admit that I am biased against law schools that take advantage of unqualified students by admitting droves of applicants knowing that they do not have a reasonable prospect of becoming practicing attorneys. This includes, but is not limited to, the three InfiLaw schools.

I am asking you to reveal yourself so that the readers can evaluate your biases. It seems obvious that you have strong personal animosity towards me, and total disdain for LST. It appears likely that you are an employee of, or otherwise closely associated with, Florida Coastal School of Law, or InfiLaw. Florida Coastal and InfiLaw have received a lot of negative publicity in recent years, including from me and InfiLaw. It would help our readers to interpret and evaluate your comments if they knew more about the perspective from which you are writing, particularly if my assumption is correct. I suspect that you realize that your comments are completely undignified and beyond the pale, and are therefore too embarrassed to admit your true identity. That makes you not only a bully, but a coward.

I have left your comments in place, rather than moving them to the spam file where they belong, because they are very revealing about the kind of people that oppose the work of Law School Transparency, but you should realize that you are not doing yourself, or your institution any good.

Incidentally, I want to make clear that neither I, nor LST, are criticizing the educational program at the law schools we have identified as high risk. Virtually all of these schools have highly qualified and dedicated faculties and I have no reason to believe that any of these schools are providing a deficient program of legal education. LST's main quarrel is with the trend over the last five years of admitting ever larger numbers of students who are unlikely to be able to benefit from such an education by completing their J.D. and passing the bar exam (or to find a decent job if they manage to do so).

[Dave Garrow]

As someone who has great professional regard for both David Frakt and Debbie Merritt, I'd like to again suggest to Al & the other "powers that be" here that TFL would be an even better platform for intelligent professional discussion if anonymous commenters were banned.

[David Frakt]

ML -

LST does not have a specific goal of eliminating a huge number (or any number) of law schools. LST's goal is to make existing law schools act ethically, responsibly and with greater transparency. The mission of LST is "to make entry to the legal profession more transparent, affordable, and fair."

LST seeks to serve the interests of the potential and current law student, the legal profession, and the general public through efforts to reform legal education, increase transparency and consumer information, and through appropriate accountability.

I encourage you to read more about LST's Theory of Action here: http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/who_we_are/theory_of_action/

[Anon]

The racial impact of relying on the LSAT is widely known:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/education/11lsat.html?_r=0

It is hardly ad hominem to suggest the authors of the alleged "study" do not know what they are talking about and have refused to disclose (on the page where the study is published) the obvious conflict that Mr. Frakt has.

Btw, there are more than one Anons commenting here. Calls to ban them came long ago when defenders of law schools were the subject of criticism by various hidden "scam" commenters and those were ignored. So, now that the shoe is on the other foot....

[anon]

I am an anon who asked about how LST is funded. Nothing more. And I will continue to remain anon but respectful. I do not believe I have abused the platform and am interested in an intelligent discussion.

I asked about how the organization is funded because it is a fair question to know what conflicts of interest exist behind an organization producing time-consuming research papers. (i.e. Simkovic's million-dollar law degeee paper receiving funding from LSAC)

Kyle's answer is interesting: If his salary is so low to not require a student loan payment, it would seem that he personally might be eligible (as an employee of the non-profit he self-created) to receive significant federal loan forgiveness after 10 years (2019 if his employee status started when LST was founded). Perhaps this non-taxable loan forgiveness would be to the tune of $400-500k? If this is so, LST is effectively being funded by a tax payers funded student loan safety net.

[Jojo]

I really do not understand the academic hate for Law School Transparency.

Is there anyone who is against transparency in law schools? Is there anyone who doesn't think the 509 disclosures are net good for students? I get that it has hurt revenue, but aside from hurting revenue, why the hate for LST?

[Anon]

Different anon here than the most recent one, but to Jojo's question:

I don't hate transparency not do I myself "hate" LST. I just am skeptical of them for two primary reasons:

(1) I find their constant insults and tone of righteous indignation tiresome, as I stated up thread (and as reinforced by Prof. Frakt's most recent comments above calling a different anon a bully, a coward, etc), even though not directed at my or my school. I therefore find it hard to wade through the vitriol to engage the substance. More bluntly, I don't currently think it's worthwhile to engage the substance because it strikes me that they're more interested in blame and name calling than information. That's fine - it's their organization, they can do whatever they want - but it limits their reach in my opinion.

And

(2) Per my earlier point, the vigor of their advocacy of transparency is applied selectively: objectionable and non-transparent practices at highly ranked schools apparently get a pass from LST, but objectionable and non-transparent practices at low ranked schools are the scourge of humanity).

I've yet to hear the members of LST on this thread respond to either point.

[randomanon]

A characterization of LST as 'vitriolic' seems absurd, as I'm sure it does to most other readers and those familiar with its work and representatives. Likewise the accusations of 'righteous indignation' and 'being more interested in blame and name calling than information'.

None of those characterizations seem the least bit apt to me. But I suppose it's an attempt to frame the narrative, albeit a poor one.

[Anon]

If you say so. Bully, coward, reprehensible, etc., strike me as more heat-generating than light-shedding. But it's no big deal to me personally either way.

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

Anon - project much?

Your posts on this thread have been a series of own-goals and a remarkable demonstration of a lack of self-awareness. Your school lets you teach! wow, what those kids are learning!

[terry malloy]

"objectionable and non-transparent practices at highly ranked schools apparently get a pass from LST, but objectionable and non-transparent practices at low ranked schools are the scourge of humanity"

you. . . you don't see the difference in outcomes between high and low ranked schools.

Do you understand data?

[Anon]

I understand data. Do you understand English?

I did not say the outcomes between elite and non-elite schools are the same or even comparable. I asked why LST spends little to no time as far as I can tell on objectionable practices at highly ranked schools. Do their better outcomes immunize them from criticism?

(Note that, on the employment front, some highly ranked schools' outcomes actually aren't better than middle of the pack schools once you subtract school-funded jobs. Similarly, were credentials of transfer students reported (ahem, transparency?) and factored in to their reporting, their student body credentials would look far less impressive.)

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

The logic of this one:

"Do their better outcomes immunize them from criticism?"

Yes - at least the criticism that their graduates are paying large amount of borrowed money for what are objectively bad outcomes - as you said, they have better outcomes. Bad outcomes is what the controversy is about.

As you said, "Do you understand English?"

Self evidently, not very well in your case.

[Anon]

This'll be my last attempt to engage with you "Mac," because my questions were actually posed to LST, not you.

Let's try one more time:

My question as asked was about whether LST fully engages with non-transparent and objectionable practices occurring at elite schools. Not whether elite schools are the same as non-elite. Not whether elite schools have better student outcomes (with my caveat that, in some cases, the actual outcomes and credentials at some of those elite schools are artificially inflated). *Even granting all of that as true*: LST's stated mission as I understand it is advancing transparency and providing a student-outcome-focus med series of metrics for evaluating law schools. That's great (really). So, is there some magic that makes GW, Georgetown, Emory, W&L, et al, immune from similarly loud criticisms from LST in service of those same goals?

[randomanon]

"I asked why LST spends little to no time as far as I can tell on objectionable practices at highly ranked schools. Do their better outcomes immunize them from criticism?"

As someone not associated with LST I cannot definitively answer that, but I could suggest that because, as Kyle noted above, he is the only full-time employee of the organization, it could be a matter of prioritization and limited resources. Which seems more than reasonable.

And I believe that LST's quest for more-accurate employment data applied equally to all schools.

[twbb]

Anon@2:37:

The fact that David was willing to publicize the fact that Florida Coastal and its ilk are admitting students who will likely not pass the bar during the Florida Coastal dean search when expressing that opinion was likely to work against his interest (as it in fact proved to be) makes his similar statements here more credible, rather than less.

[twbb]

Anon@2:37:

The fact that David was willing to publicize the fact that Florida Coastal and its ilk are admitting students who will likely not pass the bar during the Florida Coastal dean search when expressing that opinion was likely to work against his interest (as it in fact proved to be) makes his similar statements here more credible, rather than less.

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

Anon - what you have posted is a series of transparent "straw man" arguments, that have systematically collapsed, whereupon you dug into ad hominem attacks. You have dodged the fundamental question, instead questioning motives. You profess to be a law professor - to be blunt, I do not think you should be teaching law, and based on your performance here, definitely not practicing.

It is pretty obvious that you are horrified at the employment consequences of the current law school crisis. It is also, objectively, obvious, that you concerns would be better addressed by being more proficient lawyer or law professor.

To be absolutely blunt, stay anonymous - even to the law school boosters your performance has been disastrous.