Epstein on University of North Texas Law School

My former colleague (and mentor) David Epstein has written a defense of the University of North Texas School of Law, entitled "The University of North Texas School of Law is Important."  I have posted it below:

The continued existence of the University of North Texas School of Law (UNT Law) is important to the people of the State of Texas and to legal education. It is a special place that is boldly attempting to meet a pressing need.

I was fortunate to be a part of UNT Law during its first semester. I taught Contracts to both the “day students” and the “night students.”

Earlier, I had the good fortune to teach at the University of Texas Law School and the Dedman School of Law of Southern Methodist University and other law schools and served as dean of the University of Arkansas Law School and Emory University Law School. As a student, teacher or administrator, I have been involved in legal education for more than 40 years at 17 law schools.

What makes UNT Law special are (1) UNT Law people and (2) UNT Law policies. Any list of “special people” should have Royal Furgeson at the top of list. Ask Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and other people in Royal’s law school class, ask people in El Paso where Royal practiced law and was not only president of the bar association but also president of the United Fund, ask the lawyers and their clients who appeared before him during his 17 years as a federal district judge.

Royal is hardly the only special person at UNT Law. There is also the faculty. The UNT Law faculty have strong academic credentials and meaningful practice experience. But the faculties at all the other Texas law schools also have strong academic credentials. What is special about the UNT Law faculty is their commitment to teaching, and not their “scholarship,” their commitment to their students’ careers, and not their own While I was teaching at UNT Law, the other faculty members were in the building from early in the morning until late at night – helping students’ understand today’s class and working on tomorrow’s class.

But what really distinguishes UNT Law is the UNT Law students. It is hard to put into words how special the students are. It is not just that there are more black and brown faces at UNT Law than at other law schools. Or that UNT Law has more old faces. Or more faces without the expensive coiffures you see at other law schools.

To me, what makes UNT Law students that I taught special was how much many of the students – black, brown, and white - had to overcome to get to law school and how hard they were working to get as much as possible out of law school. They recognize and appreciate that UNT Law is giving them an opportunity not available anywhere else.

I acknowledge, as UNT Law consistently has acknowledged, that many of these students are also “special’ in that they have comparatively low LSAT scores and comparatively low grade point averages. UNT Law students know this. UNT Law students know that reliable predictors indicate that they will not pass the bar. UNT Law students are anything but naïve, and UNTLaw is anything but exploitive. UNT Law repeatedly makes these risks clear to applicants and again to admitted students. What is atypical of law school deans (but completely “in character” for Royal Furgeson) is Dean Furgeson’s meeting with each student for a one on one conversation during that students’ first semester. A big part of these conversations is Dean Furgeson’s reminders about the challenges that particular student faces in passing the bar.

And, at UNT Law, unlike the other 16 law schools that I have been part of, students get regularly feedback from their professors as to how they are doing. The general law school norm is a single graded exam at the end of the semester. The UNT Law norm is weekly, if not more often, graded work. Students know how they are doing and can make an informed decision about continuing to incur the costs of a legal education.

I am not suggesting that everything at the UNT Law is perfect and that there is no basis for concern by the five person ABA accreditation team that visited UNT Law. For example, I am concerned about the number of students academically dismissed during the first year – that number may well should be higher. If that proves to be a problem, it is fixable. It is not a basis for the Texas Bar denying all UNT Law graduates the opportunity to take the Texas. And, it is certainly not a basis for the American Bar Association withholding PROVISIONAL accreditation. It is PROVISIONAL so that fixable problems can be fixed.

Texas does not need more lawyers who want to represent the people living in Highland Park1, more lawyers who want to represent the investment group trying to buy the Rosewood Mansion on Turtle Creek restaurant2. Texas does need more lawyers who want to represent the people living in Oak Cliff3, more lawyers who want to represent the first generation Americans trying to transition from working as a waitress to buying a food truck. The continued existence of UNT Law is important to the people of the State of Texas and to legal education.

Comments

[twbb]

"twbb adds another assumption that I think many people share: that by the time you come to law school, your intelligence is relatively fixed. You either have it or you don't. Law school grades will reveal just how much of "it" you brought with you, but classes won't do much to change your ability compared to classmates."

That is not an accurate representation of what I said; I specifically note that someone might be unprepared while "naturally intelligent," a pretty explicit repudiation of the idea that intelligence is fixed. And I absolutely do not even imply that law school grades would reveal that intelligence, since grades can be set at whatever the faculty/administration want. The problem is once you are done with school, you have to take the bar exam, and after that, practice. My point is for many people that managed to get through 4 years of college (!) but still have trouble with basic reading comprehension and analysis, 3 years of law school in many cases is not going to help.

If you want to move the conversation over to your blog and discuss this further, I would certainly come over there to comment. Honestly as someone who has received a fair amount of graduate training in cognitive science and is quite familiar with the research -- and the current limits on how it can be applied -- I would love an opportunity to debate some of your interpretations of that literature.

[Deborah Merritt]

twbb, sorry for the implication. I was using "intelligence" in a different sense than "natural intelligence"--I was referring to the "certain level of ability by the time of entry into law school" that you referenced, which certainly is a combination of many factors. But many people read "intelligence" to mean "natural intelligence," so I should have used your word "ability."

But I think we still disagree on the malleability of that ability. You view it as relatively fixed by the time someone enters law school; I think research shows a great deal of potential for change. Even without reading that research, people seem eager to pay for LSAT prep courses--and many raise their scores that way. That suggests a fair amount of malleability in the abilities measured by the test.

Neuroscience research now shows that these courses don't simply teach to the test; studying for the LSAT actually changes brain structure in the areas that govern reasoning ability. (Sorry, I can't add a link; I'm afraid that will push me into spam. But it's easy to google and you may already have seen this research.)

I'm not a shill for LSAT prep courses. But if they can enhance this ability in college graduates, why can't law school? In fact, it's sort of embarrassing if those prep courses (which most professors disdain) have a greater effect on future lawyering ability than law school itself.

I suspect, by the way, that students applying to a school like UNT (which appeals to older students in the workforce and does not base scholarships on LSAT scores), are less likely to have taken prep courses than students at high-ranked law schools. Would a well designed curriculum at least raise ability to the same extent as an LSAT prep course?

Let's definitely continue on my blog, in addition to any further thoughts here. I'm in the middle of preparing some posts for the blog on the latest change to the MBE, but will turn to UNT and these broader issues soon. Hope to talk more there (or here).

[anon]

Deborah

Once again, I believe that you are attacking straw men. You restate an argument (as with TWBB's) and then refute your own assertion. Not fair!

You say: "Anon, there are a lot of categorical assumptions embedded in your reply--ones that I see from some other commenters as well. E.g.:

1. All law schools that admit students with low LSAT scores are "bottom feeders," intent on fleecing their students and the federal government."

That is just hyperbole. Yes, I stated: "Rather, the ABA should be focused on shutting down the corrupt operators of sham law schools that use the pretense of "opportunity" to fleece their student bodies of federal loan dollars." Repeating, this does not include all law schools that admit students with lower credentials. In fact, most of the top tier law schools admit a certain number of students with low predictors, and there are already an inordinate number of ABA approved law schools in the middle, and lower tiers that do the same.

2. LSAT scores are the only admissions credential worth discussing. Virtually no weight should attach to college grades, work experience, and other factors.

Geez. Who said that? Now you are just making stuff up. What I said was ""If you are in the bottom 10% of LSAT takers, you likely can hardly read at a high school level."" If you say you can't see the difference between your assertion and what I said, then I won't debate further, because you are not unable to discern the difference and if you won't, then you are not being honest here.

3. The US doesn't need any more law schools of any type in any place.

I think this one is a fair reading of what I said. Right! Name ONE LAW SCHOOL that has been shuttered. Do you agree with that?

4. Students with low LSAT scores must take three years of bar prep courses to pass the bar. They are not capable of benefiting from other types of courses.

Again, this is so twisted! Here's what I said: "feedback is different from a three year bar review course, of course. ... My point was, and again, if you read my comment I think you know this, that the guise of "feedback" is often just a cover for the latter: a glorified three year bar review course with graded essays designed to prepare students for the bar. Please. Let's stop pretending about this." Do you honestly believe that your characterization is even close to the mark?

5. Courses that focus primarily on helping students pass the bar are an unworthy form of education. These courses focus on memorization and drills, rather than policy discussion and thinking like a lawyer.

Again, you just inventing assertions here.

Deborah, in an earlier post you referred to your "cringing" and now, you disclose your personal involvement and investment in this particular school. You claim to be entirely disinterested, but you appear not to be arguing in good faith. Change my mind, and please, just answer one question, based on the following premise:

You seem to believe that the market can't serve, your word now, "DISADVANTAGED" students. (Your statement: "UNT is distinctive partly because its leaders spent so much time researching how to structure an educational program that would help disadvantaged students succeed; identify students who would do well in that type of program ..."

Is it your belief that a new law school should be accredited by the ABA to help "disadvantaged" students who cannot be admitted at any other ABA approved law school succeed?

[Deborah Merritt]

Anon, assumptions aren't what a writer states; they're the unstated premises that a reader must infer for the argument to make sense.

Your question includes another big assumption, although this one is explicit: that the students admitted to UNT "cannot be admitted at any other ABA approved law school."

I doubt that's true. There are other law schools with plenty of empty seats and LSAT scores lower than those at UNT. (I'm using scores here as the only admissions info we have for the comparison.) UNT's 25th percentile score is 143; Cooley's is 5 points lower at 138.

So why don't UNT's students just go to Cooley? Or Arizona Summit, Charlotte, or Florida Coastal? That seems to be what you're asking.

One reason is because they live in Dallas, have jobs there, and support family members in the area. These are not 22-year-olds with the money and freedom to fly anywhere in the country for three years.

A second reason is that other schools cost at least twice as much.

And finally, UNT offers much better preparation for practice and the bar exam than other schools. Their practical focus is one that all lawyers would appreciate, no matter how advantaged their backgrounds. And their willingness to devote substantially more time to teaching (e.g., one-on-one conferences, written exercises, and weekly feedback) is especially important for students with weaker entering credentials.

Dallas-Fort Worth is the seventh largest metropolitan area in the country. I believe there are only two other law schools in the city, fewer than in other major metro areas. Both of those schools are private schools with substantially higher tuition than UNT. Neither offers a night program (one recently closed its program).

If the question is: "Should the ABA accredit a law school that operates just like other law schools, and exists just to accommodate students who can't get into any of those other schools?" then the answer is no. But that hypothetical has nothing to do with UNT.

The right question here is, "Should the ABA provisionally accredit a school that offers more intensive education at lower cost than any other law school, structures its program to accommodate working adults, and does so in a large metropolitan area with relatively few law schools?" My answer to that question is yes.

[anon]

Deborah, ok. I'll play your game (and without the condescending instructions).

You state: "Dallas-Fort Worth is the seventh largest metropolitan area in the country. I believe there are only two other law schools in the city, fewer than in other major metro areas. ... The right question here is, Should the ABA provisionally accredit a school that offers more intensive education at lower cost than any other law school, structures its program to accommodate working adults, and does so in a large metropolitan area with relatively few law schools?"

You expressly believe that every major metro area in the US should be served by more than two law schools, at least one of which is tailored to admit and serve "disadvantaged" students who have substandard objective predictors.

For you, "only" two law schools for every metro area in the US is not enough.

YOu now (for the first time in this exchange) characterize "disadvantaged" students as "working adults", reflecting your unstated premise (now) that "working adults" have substandard predictors and are "disadvantaged."

You believe that the ABA should accredit new law schools to provide, at a lower relative cost, special law schools that offer "feedback" and "intensive instruction"- programs that are not offered at "any other law schools" - to accommodate the needs of substantial numbers of "disadvantaged" students who scored in the bottom 20% of LSAT examinees.

As stated, your arguments have exposed the frailty of the "opportunity school" claim. Your extreme views may be, in your view, high minded and quite in line with the savior complex, but, in reality, as readers of this blog know, this sort of attitude is actually cruel and results in too many disrupted lives, induced by greedy operators appealing, in the manner of con men, to the aspirations of the unwary.

[anon]

BTW, consider this:

"We believe a community's lawyers should be as diverse as the communities they serve. We are committed to serving a wide range of students who have the potential to be successful lawyers—not just to those who do best on standard admission tests."

Get it? What are the unstated premises here, Deborah?