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

[[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.

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

You ask " 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."

Really, you ask this? Your research skills are well poor, your arguments Trump-ian. Who do you think unveiled and made an issue of those schools temporary hiring of their graduates as a way of improving their apparent employment data - that would be LST... which, means that English, factual knowledge, intellectual integrity - well you are not doing well here.

Moreover, my point that you should not be teaching (or practicing) law is illustrated by the basic point - even allowing for the fact that they have massaged their employment data, they have not had disastrous bar-exam outcomes, unlike the school you are presumably shilling for here (and to be fair to those kids, if you were teaching them, based on your posts here, they were double-damned.)

[Anon]

Gee, Mac. The sophistication of your argument has utterly persuaded me. I'll immediately leave the law as you suggest. Thanks so much for your insightful commentary.

[Genghis]

If I were LST, I would be focusing on exaggerated statements from schools like Colorado as to their employment stats -- even in this age of transparency:

"Around 93.5 percent of [Colorado University]'s graduates last year were employed 10 months after completing their degree, a number the school hopes to increase to 95 percent."

http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_29180820/cu-boulder-law-student-debt-drops-8-percent

Compare the actual Colorado employment stats are much lower:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/colorado/

This might be a good school for Professor Campos to highlight and shame.

[terry malloy]

Anon, apparently you and I understand a different dialect.

the one I understand is the one that Kyle is speaking thought the small, but powerful data transparency his website offers. He's telling the kids not to play near the downed power lines.

the english you speak seems to take umbrage with Kyle not warning the kids in Yale that sailing might be a dangerous sport with the same ferocity that he is warning kids not to play near the downed power lines.

agree to disagree.

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

Anon,

thank you so much. My insight may be nothing special, but it outstrips yours.

[Enrique Guerra Pujol]

LSAC's press release is pure garbage ... If LSAT scores are not that useful, then why even use them at all during the admissions game?

[David Frakt]

There are many "objectionable practices" at law schools. LST is a small organization and cannot devote the same time and attention to all of them. We have to prioritize, and the recent focus of LST has been on the large number of schools admitting large numbers of very high risk students. These predatory practices have a huge and profoundly negative impact on the lives of many students, and degrade the profession as a whole. The relatively small numbers of schools that are accepting large groups of transfer students has, thus far, not been a focus of LST. At this point, it is not clear to me what harm this practice is causing. That being said, one of the reasons that LST wanted to have a large and diverse National Advisory Council is to get strategic guidance on what issues LST should be tackling. If there is a consensus among the NAC members that this is a significant problem that is worthy of further scrutiny, then we will advise LST to do so.

On a personal note, when I was teaching at Western State, there was a significant problem with students from the top of the class transferring at the end of their first years to more prestigious schools in Los Angeles. Given that the faculty members were virtually all graduates of prestigious schools, we could hardly blame a student at Western State for transferring to USC or UCLA or Pepperdine or Loyola if they could get in there. Nevertheless, as an institution we decided to make it a priority to try to entice our top-performing students to stay by offering them increased scholarships, summer travel stipends and other special perks. The strategy of making our best students feel especially valued worked and transfers dropped dramatically, at least for the remaining years that I was there. Inevitably, almost all law schools will lose some students to transfer attrition. Most schools, other than those at the very bottom, can replace the students lost by accepting transfers from schools slightly lower in the pecking order. But law schools that are losing disproportionate numbers of students to transfer attrition should consider whether they are doing everything possible to make those students want to stay.

[David Frakt]

Anon 02:59

I am a little confused by your concept of a conflict. Just to be clear, I did not write the LST Report. I mainly provided editorial feedback on it. But I am the Chair of LST's National Advisory Council and soon LST will be posting the names and short bios of myself and the other members other website. So, I would appreciate your sage advice on what disclaimers I should include. Are you saying that I should disclose every law school job that I ever applied for and didn't get, or just the Florida Coastal one? The list of law schools that I actually interviewed with over the years that didn't hire me is quite long, but here goes: University of Washington, Gonzaga, Loyola - LA, Missouri, Georgia State (callback!), Cleveland State (callback!), Cincinnati, FAMU, South Carolina, Tennessee, Baltimore, New England School of Law, Cornell, Tulane, Montana (callback for Deanship!), Utah, Wyoming, Florida International, LaVerne (callback!), Chapman, SMU, Colorado, Indiana (Indianapolis), Tulsa (callback!), Willamette, Idaho (callback - Associate Dean), Drexel (callback - Assistant Dean), Stetson, Capital. I taught at Georgetown as an adjunct. I taught at Pitt as a visiting professor. I was a tenure-track Associate Professor at Western State and Barry (two schools on LST's high risk list). I have been a guest clinical instructor several times at Duke. I have guest lectured one or more times or appeared at symposiums or debates at the following schools: Harvard, NYU, American, Akron, Whittier, Osgoode Hall (Toronto), Stanford, Florida Coastal, Mercer, Nova Southeastern, UCLA, Loyola-LA, Thomas Jefferson, LaVerne, Penn State, Michigan State, Southern Illinois, Case Western Reserve, Seton Hall, Cleveland State, and Washburn. And I've published in law reviews at Harvard, Duke, Michigan State, Texas, Case Western, Valparaiso, USF, Pitt, Washburn and Florida State. I think that about covers it. Oh wait, I went to Harvard, but I got waitlisted at Yale. I'm still kind of bitter about that.

[EN]

LSAC to LST - How dare you claim our entrance exam for law school actually helps predict academic success in law school and on the bar exam! Never underestimate the depths of the scam: race baiting, conspiracy theories, and now even attacking your own standards for admission. Whatever it takes - as long as those sweet federal student loan dollars keep pouring in!

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

Anon @ 7pm.

It would seem pretty obvious to readers here that your statement "I'll immediately leave the law as you suggest" contains the same logical fallacy as "he's trying to make me look stupid" (i.e., implying effort, necessity and lack of success.) That is to say, it implies that your departure from law school teaching (that it is clearly imminent) is voluntary (and yes, it's pretty obvious to all readers that you are exiting law school teaching, inferred by reading your hysterical and rancid posts.) However, I think your posts here illustrate another fallacy, or at least misconception on your part - that law professors are only being forced out because of the economic pressure on law schools and LST. It could simply be because they really ought not to be teaching.

Your posts illustrate another point - passing the bar (which I presume you did (but who knows)) does not in fact show that someone is actually qualified to practice law. I think that may soon be apparent to you too.

[Anon]

Professor Frakt and moderators,

I think it's become clear though Mac's multiple and increasingly unhinged, fact-free, and personal attacks that such posts should not have been allowed in the first place and should be removed.

Mac,

I have no idea what the heck you're even trying to say anymore. I'm not departing law teaching, involuntarily or otherwise. It's called sarcasm.

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

Anon:

Let's be clear here. You placed a series of screeds on this forum in which you made personal and ad hominem attacks on Frat, Merritt, McEntee and LST. You questioned their motives and bone fides, implied that some mysterious conspiracy was sponsoring them, ranted repeatedly and when pressed could not back up any of your alleged facts. You made idiotic statements in which you accused LST of ignoring the hiring of graduates by large schools, ignoring the reality that it was LST that unveiled this practice. In fact, you could be described as making a series of "increasingly unhinged, fact-free, and personal attacks." Curiously Anon - you are convinced that commenting on an anonymous person is a personal attack (try and get your head around the logic of that.)

In response I am pointing out two things, which you can be sure has occurred to everyone who has read your "increasingly unhinged, fact-free, and personal attacks" and that is that they are clearly motivated by a strong personal animus, one that most reasonable observers would consider as almost certainly reflecting your personal situation at your law school.

I also pointed out that you posts have been so irrational and devoid of actual factual content that it does in fact speak to your abilities as a law teacher and indeed when the thing you fear happens, as a lawyer. You have in fact read your posts? You have seen the wild logical fallacies, the personal attacks embedded in every one haven't you? Or maybe you have not - actually almost certainly you have not.

[Anon]

You're blending your anons, Mac. I am not the one who (allegedly) questioned LSTs bona fides or raised questions about their funding sources. Different anon.

Moderators?

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

Oh dear, one anon claims not to be another anon - who knew.... and who is convinced....

[John Coates]

Total enrollment of the top 6 law schools (see Blau and Margulies 1974-75) has been the same since 1970.

In that time, the US population grew by 55%, and US GDP has grown by more than 14x.

[anonymous cowards]

Ill bet anon is another shyster who works for toliet tier law schools preying on clueless students. It's funny how the folks who cant stand criticism of unscrupulous law school practices always seem to work for law schools. Correlation?

[anonymous cowards]

Shyster law schools and the worthless ABA are slowly destroying this profession as they saddle bottom tier, poorly educated students with no hope of BAR passage with 6 figures of debt. And they have the audacity to say they do so for the good of diversity. If they actually cared about diversity, toliet law schools wouldnt charge 40-50k a year in tuition. It's no wonder why our legal profession is considered unscrupulous by everyone else, considering how we prey on young and vunerable students entering the profession.