Three Myths Used to Justify Predatory Admission Practices - The Instructive Example of InfiLaw

For some time now, I have been warning of the catastrophic consequences of admitting students with very poor LSAT scores and correspondingly low grades because such students are at very high risk of failing the bar even if they manage to make it through law school.  The plummeting bar passage statistics from the last several administrations of the bar exam have borne out these warnings.

The Law Schools engaged in these irresponsible admission practices have offered a variety of explanations for admitting significant numbers of students with very low indicators.  These explanations of what are really exploitative admission practices typically fall into three general categories or themes, which I call the “Magic Formula Myth” the “Miracle Worker Myth” and the “Fairness Through Failure Myth.” Often, predatory law schools will use these themes in combination.  

Theme 1:  The Magic Formula Myth

Under this variation, law schools claim to able to identify students who have a reasonable likelihood of success despite very low LSAT scores and poor undergraduate grades.  These schools claim to have some secret sauce -- a special blend of personal characteristics and life experiences -- which purports to be a more accurate predictor of success than test scores and grades.  Schools using this approach often say things like “you are more than just a number” to appeal to those who have low test scores and grades.  But, of course, these schools also claim that their magic formula is proprietary or otherwise refuse to share it, so it can’t be reviewed or independently validated. Such magic formula claims should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Theme 2:  The Miracle Worker Myth

Under this variation, schools claim that poor predictors really don’t matter, because with their uniquely well-designed curriculum, special methods of instruction, and robust academic success programs, they can impart the necessary knowledge and boost the academic skills that the student lacks to ensure that they pass the bar.  The schools will claim that with three or four years to shape the student, that by the time the student graduates the entrance credentials of the student will have little bearing on their chances of success.  While some law schools have demonstrated some ability to help students of modest ability to succeed, the assertion that a school can take large numbers of students with very low predictors and miraculously turn them into law school graduates capable of passing the bar is unsupported by actual experience.  However dedicated and skilled law professors and academic support staff may be, there is only so much they can do with students with no real aptitude for the study of law. They are not miracle workers. 

Theme 3:     The Fairness through Failure Myth

Some schools claim, truthfully, that some students with poor predictors will succeed, but it is difficult to tell which ones. So, in an effort to provide opportunities to those who might succeed, especially those from underrepresented groups, the school is generously choosing to give a chance to some students with slightly weaker indicators.  These schools promise to use a rigorous first year curriculum and tough grading standards to rapidly separate those students who have what it takes from those who do not; they assure the public and their accreditors that they will promptly weed out those with demonstrated poor chances of success through academic attrition in the first and second semester.  

This third model could, at least theoretically, be a legitimate admissions model, especially if the school utilizing it was honest to the students about their chances from success from the outset. Indeed, this model reflects the actual practices of several law schools in the past (and might still reflect the admission practices of a few law schools now). But there are many more schools claiming to use this model which don’t actually do what would be required to make this model work.   First, these schools are admitting students not just with slightly weak indicators, but with such low numbers that there is a vanishingly small probability of success. Second, it is not only disadvantaged students and underrepresented minorities who are being admitted with low predictors.  There are plenty of white kids from advantaged economic backgrounds being admitted with low grades and LSATs.  And, third, many of the schools ostensibly using this model do not actually have sufficiently tough grading standards to weed out the likely bar failers.  As a result, the academic attrition rates at these "opportunity" schools are much lower than they would need to be to account for the large numbers of very high risk students being admitted.  So, in practice, many extremely weak students are not only being admitted, but they are being allowed to complete their J.D. despite atrocious law school performance that all but guarantees bar failure.  Not surprisingly, after these students graduate, they usually fail the bar, repeatedly.

Although many law schools have been using one or more of the myths above to justify their admission practices in recent years, far and away the biggest promoter of these myths are the InfiLaw law schools: Charlotte Law School, Florida Coastal School of Law, and Arizona Summit School of Law.  As a group, these schools, which have very similar corporate headquarters-driven admissions practices,  have enrolled more very high risk students than any other three law schools combined in the country over the past five years.  The admissions departments at these schools, the marketing materials from these schools,  senior administrators at these schools and InfiLaw corporate spokespeople all have utilized the themes discussed above both to aggressively recruit unqualified students and to defend the admissions practices of InfiLaw schools against critics like me.  The recent bar examination results of InfiLaw graduates demonstrate why none of these mythical justifications should be believed.

February 2016 Bar Examination Results at InfiLaw Schools

The February 2016 Bar Examination Results have been publicly released in Arizona and Florida, and I also managed to obtain a copy of the North Carolina results.   From these reports, I have analyzed the results from Charlotte Law, Florida Coastal and Arizona Summit.  Although February bar examination results tend to be a few percentage points lower than the summer bar results, this phenomenon does not account for just how abysmally graduates of the three InfiLaw Schools performed on the February 2016 bar exam.  The real explanation was the sharp drop in admissions standards in both the full and part-time programs at InfiLaw schools which started in 2011 and accelerated in 2012 and 2013, when most of the students who took the February 2016 bar matriculated.

Charlotte Law:

Of the first-time takers of the North Carolina bar from Charlotte Law, 26 of 75 passed, for a 34.67% pass rate.  Charlotte’s repeat takers fared even more poorly, with a 23.68% rate (27 of 114).

By comparison, first-time takers at the other North Carolina ABA Law Schools combined (Duke, North Carolina Central, UNC, Wake Forest, Elon and Campbell)  passed at a much higher rate:  37 of 64, 57.8%.  First-time takers from out of state law schools had a similar first-time pass rate of 56.55%.  In fact, Charlotte’s abysmal performance dragged down the entire state average for first-time takers from 57% to 51%.   Repeat takers from the other 6 NC law schools passed at a 49.3% rate, more than double Charlotte’s rate. 

Florida Coastal School of Law

Florida Coastal’s first time pass rate on the February 2016 Florida bar was 32.7% (16 of 49).  This compares to a statewide first-time pass rate of 58.4%.  Results for repeat takers from the February exam are not yet available.

Arizona Summit Law School

Arizona Summit had a first time pass rate on the February 2016 Arizona bar of 38.1% (37/97).    By comparison, the first time pass rates for Arizona Summit’s two in-state competitors, Arizona and Arizona State, were 71.1% and 81.6%, respectively.  Takers from all ABA-schools other than Arizona Summit had a combined first time pass-rate of 75.3% (119/158). But Arizona Summit’s weak performance dragged down the entire state average over 14 percentage points to 61.2%.

The repeat takers from Arizona Summit also fared extremely poorly, with only 18 of 97 passing for an 18.6% rate, compared to a repeat taker pass rate at all other ABA schools combined of 45.9% (34/74). 

 

The combined first-time pass rate of InfiLaw graduate in their home states on the February bar was 35.7% (79/221).  Although some of these 142 J.D. holders will eventually pass the bar, most of them probably will not.  (The pass rate for repeat takers from low performing schools is typically about half the first-time pass rate for  that graduating class.)  This is a massive human tragedy caused directly by corporate greed.  And it is only going to get worse, as the 2014 and 2015 entering classes at InfiLaw schools were even weaker than the 2011, '12 and '13 entering classes.  It is high time for the ABA to step in and put a stop to the exploitative admission practices of InfiLaw and the other schools peddling these admission myths. 

 

Comments

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

On its Arizona Summit website, Infilaw promotes the lofty social ideal of "Diversity" in the legal profession. Infilaw is owned by Sterling Partners, a private equity investment group. If one were to check out its website, sterlingpartners.com, one would find photos of its directors, investors, employees, principals, and "talent." Check out the home page photo of the four Yuppy types lounging on couches and one with his feet on the table. Very quaint. One will notice the glaring lack of racial diversity in any of the photos. Spike Lee, a talented filmmaker, broached the subject of exploiting diversity for the sake of profits. In one movie, a fried chicken franchise shilled a product called a "Gospel Pack." Ask any of those Sterling Partner photos what "Growth" means. I would venture that it does not mean social service or Pro Bono.

[Anon professor]

Sterling. Partners also owns Educate, Inc. Yes, that's their name. They own Sylvan Learning, which provides tutoring for a hefty fee for students whose regular school is failing them. These guys have turned education into a business and are making lots of money off the poorly educated and poorly performing students.

[Jojo]

I am amused when insiders at the not for profit schools start moralizing about the for profit law school industry. Schools like Cooley and Whittier are just as bad. That the profits flow to rich oligarchs in Manhattan rather than the Dean's and cronies pocket doesn't make it any more of a scam.

Not for profit law schools = not for profit, just like the National Football League.

[anontoo]

I wonder if rather than pinning the blame on the schools for letting in weak students, we could blame the bar exam for being too difficult. Why do we think that the bar exam (a multiple-choice test, of all things) is a good mechanism for screening out those who will be acceptable lawyers from those who won't?

[terry malloy]

anontoo is Dean Allard of Brooklyn Law School.

Anyone who can fog a mirror should be a lawyer (for a price), right Dean?

[FCSL grad]

And then reality hits for us around two years after leaving Jacksonville.... Destroyed credit, default on everything, chapter 13. We can't get married, can't think about starting a family, will never be able to buy a house. Think about leaving the country, think about suicide. Finally just settle on alcoholism.

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

There is a simple test for Theme 1 and Theme 3 - give all students a free first year and then only let them stay paying tuition if their first year grades indicate that they can master the material. Of course that would severely dent revenues and profits.

[Dave Garrow]

Congratulations on such great work once again, David. I just took a look at Sterling Partners' "team" photo page, & there's not a single African American. I wonder what % of Infi Law student enrollees are African American? Racism, anyone?

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

The cool dudes at Sterling Partners are entitled to THEIR money from "panic" peddling. The rest of us are relegated to selling our stuff on Ebay (Dick Cheney 2005), selling Loosies, working Arby's, cutting the Partners grass and hauling away their used two year old Sub-Zero appliances. Sounds fair to me. Murica BABY!!!!!!! Slavery lives!!!!! Ted Cruz, Sarah Plalin, Kim Davis, President Trump and the South have finally won.

[Leo]

Ultimately, blame lies with the ABA, which could easily put these guys out of the law school business, as well as the nonprofits, which do basically the same thing.

As has been noted here before, the lower rated schools dominate the Section of Legal Ed, it's committees and accreditation teams and the "big" ABA would rather focus on politically correct issues than the destruction of the profession, as well as individual lives.

[matt]

David,
How is this a "massive human tragedy"? With government repayment programs, as long as law school allows the grad to earn just 10% more than he would have otherwise, regardless of whether he passes the bar, the graduate is better off. That is because if the grad has a low income after graduation he can enroll in a program where the maximum payment on his loans is only 10% of his income ABOVE the poverty line.

Its true that the system is incredibly wasteful and is making people who take advantage of it (i.e. people who run law schools) very rich. But I don't think you help your case by claiming the sky is falling and people's lives are being "destroyed" when in fact this is just another huge waste of taxpayer money.

[anon]

So, if a law school grad earns 10% above the poverty level, we can all breathe a sigh of relief! Success!

[anon]

It's crystal clear that the people who run law schools have no idea what it's like outside of the ivory tower. Some sort of requirement mandating this needs to be imposed.

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

matt,

This is precisely what the Sterling Partners figure. They prey or exploit low expectations, low self-worth and low achievers. So, if these folks don't make it, they are back to where they started. No harm, no foul. Does any other professional, post-graduate conduct business like that? Is medical school modeled on that? Imagine having your car engineered by that thinking.

[Barry]

Matt: "How is this a "massive human tragedy"? With government repayment programs, as long as law school allows the grad to earn just 10% more than he would have otherwise, regardless of whether he passes the bar, the graduate is better off. That is because if the grad has a low income after graduation he can enroll in a program where the maximum payment on his loans is only 10% of his income ABOVE the poverty line."

This has been covered extensively; for a start see 'Inside the Law School Scam' and 'Con Law'.

The short version is that:

(a) The grad still has from $100-$250K in unsecured debt on their credit record,
(b) These programs have to be renewed by Congress, so they are a 30-year bet on a niche program being continued, and
(c) After 30, any debt forgiven (which will include massive accrued and compounded interest) is considered income by the IRS. That means that the grad, at age 55, would be considered to have earned $350K or so, and would have a tax bill ~$100K. Now, they could play with income averaging, but this would still be on the order of an annual bill for $20K for five years.

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

IBR nor IRS is not the problem with student loans. The IRS is filled with humans and if you act in good faith, they will negotiate and compromise. With student loans, I have received 25 years of deferments, hardships, forebearances, continuances, etc. I have delayed and denied. I treat my student loans like the defense of a serious criminal matter. Delay and Deny. It's a manipulation of the system. I call it MANAGING my student loans. If you make peace with the big nut, its no big deal. However, NEVER, EVER DEFAULT. The nice ladies at Great Lakes or whatever servicer you have, will work with you if you me 'em laugh. My point is that the harm is not the money, but the exploitation of mediocrity. Infilaw is no different than the ads found in the back of a 50s-70s era Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazines for getting rich and dubious careers as a lathe or carpet cleaner man with Cadillac or flocking and etching or mail order.