Search the Lounge


« Some Thoughts on the July 2017 New York Bar Results | Main | Zietlow Stepping into Faculty Lounge »

November 29, 2017


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


This was an even greater problem back when U.S. News didn't include the part time scores in its calculation of the medians for ranking purposes. U. S. News closed that loop hole, and overnight, part time class sizes shrank dramatically...just like when law school funded jobs vanished immediately after that loophole was exposed and closed, showing how disingenuous the justifications given by schools for those "jobs" were. And the unemployed - not seeking scam. And on and on. There needs to be some sort of independent oversight entity with actual teeth to put a stop to law schools' ever-shifting sleaze-tactics.


Yes, Bob, it happened at Hofstra when Nora Demleitner was dean.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

NO. Exploitation is what President Donald John Trump did to obtain 63% of the White vote and what he did to the 12 women he assaulted.

Giving students a chance to become lawyers, even academically challenged ones, is not exploitation. It is called giving a CHANCE or OPPORTUNITY.


So, David
you list this school

Loyola-Chicago 160/157/154 -- 160/156/151

and this one

Rutgers 157/155/152 -- 157/154/150

and this one

Stetson 156/154/152 -- 157/152/150

But not this one

152 149 146 --- 151 148 144 --- 34

All together now, which school did David leave out?

Looking forward to the distinction you will find here, David.


anon, if he is using schools with non-risk full-time students but at-risk part-time students, why would he mention a school where the full-time students are also at-risk?

Paul Gowder

Good on you, David, for talking about these problems.

David Frakt

anon - Just wanted to make sure you were paying attention!
Actually, the reason I left Golden Gate off the list of schools with the most significant disparities is that the UGPA of the 2016 part-time class 3.35/3.02/2.77 was significantly higher than the UPGA of the full-time class 3.32/2.93/2.52, especially at the 25%, so although the LSAT 25% was 2 points lower, it appears that Golden Gate might be balancing that out with higher UGPAs. Plus, haven't we beaten up enough on Golden Gate recently? In addition, as twbb has suggested, I chose to focus on schools which appear to have reasonable admissions practices for their full-time divisions, but which have questionable admissions practices for their part-time divisions, as opposed to schools with objectionable admissions practices for the entire class.


Look folks, these rationalizations!

Compare these two sets of numbers:

Rutgers 157/155/152 -- 157/154/150

Golden Gate 152 149 146 --- 151 148 144 --- 34

The discrepancy is EXACTLY the same; the numbers are much worse for the latter school.

SOrry, but pulling in GPA doesn't work. THat criterion wasn't mentioned, in the compiling the big list of seventeen. I searched for "GPA" but all I saw was: "The seventeen schools with the most significant disparities in 2016 are listed below the break (alphabetically)." Again, compare the two schools above.

You focused above on LSAT scores nearly exclusively. I can agree, perhaps, that GPA scores are too variable and are not consistently derived, as are the LSAT scores. But, to argue now that was one of your criteria for listing schools doesn't wash. I would invite anyone to read the long post above, and claim that GPA scores were used to derive that first list of seventeen schools.

SOrry, David, the GPA excuse doesn't wash. You would have need to have explained that, up front, and you didn't.

twbb, I acknowledge there might be some support for your point, but not much. David stated: "At some schools, the disparity in the entrance credentials of the full-time and part-time students was so substantial that it placed the bottom quarter to half of the part-time student class in a completely different risk category. The seventeen schools with the most significant disparities in 2016 are listed below the break (alphabetically)."

In the case of Rutgers, cited above, do we find your point is verified?


Why are you obsessed with Golden Gate?



Because it's there.

David Frakt

anon -

Okay, I admit it. I am part of a vast conspiracy to spare Golden Gate from criticism. Are you satisfied now?

Actually, if you read closely, you would note that I said: "Thirty law schools had significantly lower admission standards for part-time students, with the LSAT at the 25% level at least two points lower than it was for the full-time students." I went back and reviewed my data and there were actually 31, not 30. From, these 31 law schools, I chose 20 (I know the article said 17, I've now corrected it) that I regarded as having the most significant disparities. That means that Golden Gate was one of 11 schools that I omitted from the list of 31. How did I choose those 20? There were several factors that I considered. I focused on differences at the bottom of the class, where lower standards were more likely to result in attrition and bar failure. I looked at whether UGPAs were also lower. I looked at whether the lower admissions standards put students into a different risk category using my risk bands. I also went back to the prior year to see if there was a clear trend of admitting much lower qualified students in the part-time division. Based on these factors, I chose to highlight 20 of the 31 schools. Schools which also had a two point disparity at the 25% which were omitted from the list were Chicago-Kent, Pacific McGeorge, Loyola-LA, Connecticut, Denver, John-Marshall Atlanta.

One school that I omitted that on further review I should have included is Baltimore, so I have now added them to the list in the main article. Baltimore's full time class was 155/152/150 and their part time was 154/150/147, a significant disparity.

John Marshall Atlanta had comparable stats to Golden Gate:
150/148/146 for full-time, 149/147/144 for part-time. But the ABA has already cited JM Atlanta for non-compliance, so I saw no reason to include them on this list.

Arkansas-Little Rock was another school with a 3 point disparity at the 25% (150 to 147), but the LSAT's were the same at the 50% and the part-time students were actually higher at the 75%, so I did not include them for that reason.

Fordham had a 4 point disparity at the 25% from 160 to 156, but since students with a 156 LSAT are at minimal risk of failure, I did not consider that be a reason for concern of exploitation. Similarly, Georgetown had a 5 point disparity at the 25% (162 vs. 157), but 157 is still very good.



The title of your post asks whether law schools are exploiting part-time students. But admitting weaker PT students than FT students doesn't answer that question per se. Exploitation, in this context, surely depends both on input and output.

So, for instance, why didn't you include output measures like bar passage rate and employment? Several of the law schools on that list have reasonable bar pass rates and employment results. I would think we would want to congratulate the schools whose PT students pass the bar and become employed despite lower indicators. Why not include that information, or at least note the issue?

I agree that there are many schools on that list whose bar pass rates, employment results, and incoming indicators coalesce to suggest questionable practices, to say the least. Your post is quite useful on that point. But why tacitly accuse the other schools of exploitation when they actually are doing what they're supposed to do?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

(Side Note: My experience, albeit anecdotal, is that PT students generally fare better on employment results because their previous (or current) employment makes them more attractive than the 25-year-old K-JD with little to no experience).

David Frakt

Anonprof -

You have hit upon the precise problem: law schools are not currently required to report outputs/results separately, so we have no idea if part-time students are doing the same, better or worse than full-time students with attrition/graduation rates, bar passage rates and job placement. All we know is that some schools are admitting much weaker students, at least on paper, into their part-time divisions. Since law schools never voluntarily report anything that they are not required to report, I am suggesting that the ABA should require schools with suspicious admissions practices for part-time students to report their outcomes so we can determine if they are taking advantage of these students. If there are any schools that have high rates of success with their part-time program, I would be happy to report that.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad