Desperation Time at Thomas Cooley

It has been obvious for some time that Western Michigan University’s Thomas M. Cooley Law School has been grossly violating ABA Standards.  I have previously noted this and urged the ABA to take action. For example, in a post on January 26, 2016 about Cooley’s abominable admissions policies (e.g. over 100 part time students enrolled with LSATs at 137 or below, the bottom 8% of LSAT takers),  I noted: “Cooley is clearly gambling that they can weather the downturn in applications by lowering their standards without jeopardizing their accreditation.   The ABA Council on Legal Education, if it is to maintain any credibility at all, should not allow Cooley to get away with it.”   

A few months later,  in a July 28, 2016  column describing Cooley’s Dean and President’s opposition to the ABA’s proposed tougher bar standards – standards which Cooley was virtually guaranteed to fail – I described Cooley this way: “the least selective ABA-Accredited law school in the country -- a school with unconscionable admission practices which has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue from federal student loans taken out by hundreds of unqualified students, leaving many of them saddled with six figure debts and worthless degrees.”

Last December 16, 2016, in a post describing the most appalling revelations in the 2016 ABA Standard 509 Reports, I noted: “Thomas Cooley has continued its exploitative admission practices, admitting 86% of its applicants and enrolling a huge class of 415 students, slightly down from last year’s class of 448, but with identical LSATs, a horrifying 147/141/138.  Cooley’s bar pass rate has hovered in the low 50s for the last three years (it is actually lower, because Cooley reports only 70-71% of their students and omits results from states where they did even worse, like California, as the current ABA standard permits).  Cooley has been 20 points or more below the state average since 2013 and was 16 points below the state average in 2012, so they are also out of compliance with ABA Standard 316.  Expect the ABA to place Cooley on probation in the very near future.

Earlier this year, in a March 28, 2017 post about the decision to place Arizona Summit on probation,  I made a prediction: “I expect the ABA to take action against other predatory schools in the near future.  Thomas Cooley and Thomas Jefferson would be my candidates for the next schools most likely to be sanctioned.”

It appears that I was right on the money.  Yesterday, the ABA placed Thomas Jefferson on probation.  Today, courtesy of Above the Law, we learned that Thomas Cooley has also been found non-compliant with ABA Standards.  I wrote recently about Thomas Jefferson’s unethical decision to keep silent regarding the ABA’s May 19, 2017,  letter informing the school about the ABA’s findings of non-compliance with several standards.   By failing to inform its continuing and admitted students of their non-compliance, which was of a sufficiently severe nature that it was obvious that probation in the near future was a distinct possibility, Thomas Jefferson deprived those students of an opportunity to transfer to another school, or to matriculate elsewhere or not at all.  Now Thomas Cooley has done Thomas Jefferson one better.  Not only is Thomas Cooley trying to keep its current and prospective students in the dark, but Thomas Cooley actually filed suit against the ABA seeking an injunction against the ABA from posting the letter on its website, as required by federal regulations.   Cooley’s rationale?  The letter will do immediate and irreparable harm to Cooley’s reputation.  More to the point, if prospective students become aware of the contents of the letter, they might choose not to attend Cooley. 

Hopefully, this outrageous gambit to keep consumers in the dark will fail.  As I wrote in my last column, I believe law schools have an ethical and legal obligation to disclose any letter from the ABA finding the school in non-compliance with an important Standard.  In the meantime, for those wondering what is in this letter that Thomas Cooley is so afraid will get out, there is no need to wait for the outcome of the lawsuit to find out.  It just so happens that Law School Transparency managed to obtain a copy of the letter from the ABA website before it was pulled, apparently in reaction to the lawsuit, so you can read it for yourself.  (Full disclosure, I am the Chair of LST’s National Advisory Council.)

For those who don’t want to wade through four single-spaced pages of accreditation-speak, here is the gist of it:  Cooley was previously found in September by the Accreditation Committee of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar to be in non-compliance with ABA Standard 501b, and Interpretation 501-1.  Cooley appealed this decision to the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and several members of Cooley’s senior leadership team made presentations at the last ABA Council meeting on November 3-4, 2017.  The ABA Council rejected the appeal and affirmed its earlier finding.  To state it most simply, the ABA found that Cooley is admitting applicants who do not “appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.”  Among the factors the ABA considered in reaching this conclusion were the academic test credentials of the law school’s entering students, the academic attrition rate of the law school’s students, the bar passage rate of its graduates, and the effectiveness of the law school’s academic support program. Cooley was ordered to provide a highly detailed report about its admissions practices, attrition rates and recent bar passage rates, and advised that if the report does not demonstrate compliance with Standard 501b, the school will be subject to sanctions when the Committee meets next June.  Based on the information already publicly available regarding Cooley’s admission practices, attrition and bar passage rates, it is hard for me to see who Cooley will be able to avoid sanctions.  Whatever sanctions the ABA chooses to impose will be richly deserved, but I hope that the Committee will seriously consider the authorized sanction under Rule 16(b)(2) of “requiring that the law school refund all or part of tuition or fees paid by students” for those students that the ABA determines never should have been admitted.  The forcible disgorgement of these ill-gotten gains would not only benefit those students receiving a refund, but would serve as a powerful deterrent to other law schools from engaging in exploitative admissions practices in the future.   

These latest actions by the ABA continue the ABA’s recent crackdown on predatory law schools.  I commend the ABA for its strong stand on this issue and urge the Council to stay the course.   

Comments

[anon]

Is Golden Gate immune from the rules?

[anon]

Here's the reason I wonder the reason that you go after all these law schools, but never, ever, Golden Gate:

From 2016 509: Any errors inadvertent

Bar Pass

Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2013) -15.42
Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2014) -20.91
Bar Passage Rates (February and July 2015) -24.81

Attrition

1st year 39.3%
2nd year 5.3%

LSAT

25 Percentile LSAT Full Time 146 Part Time 144

Tuition

Full-Time Resident $ 48,500 Non Resident $ 48,500

[David Frakt]

Dear Anon,

It is not a question of me "going after these law schools". I am primarily reporting what the ABA has done. And I have discussed Golden Gate's horrible bar pass statistics and their predatory admission practices. See. e.g. http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2016/12/some-thoughts-on-the-california-bar-exam-.html (in the comments). The ABA should send Golden Gate a letter of non-compliance very similar to that which it has sent recently to Thomas Jefferson, Florida Coastal, Appalachian and John Marshall (Atlanta).

[Kyle McEntee]

anon, do you think David is part of a conspiracy to protect Golden Gate from criticism?

[PaulB]

Before the corpse of Valpo Law School goes cold, we should at least acknowledge that the school belatedly recognized that their admissions standards were too lenient. They raised them significantly only to learn that they were incapable of getting enough students. Not unlike Whittier.

If only the ABA would consider setting minimum LSAT (or their GRE equivalent) numbers for 25 and 50th percentiles for all accredited schools.

[anon]

Kyle

No, I don't. And he has denied that he represents that law school in any way, or any of the faculty there. On the record, so to speak.

Nevertheless, it is curious. Selective outrage is always a warning sign of something, I think.

Instead of answering a question with a question, how about a transparent answer? DF attacks certain schools with a vengeance. But, Golden Gate is never included in the list, even when he is attacking WHittier and Thomas Jefferson (i.e., California law schools).

One could say that he was only attacking those law schools attacked by others. But, standards are standards.

Go ahead, say it. Golden Gate Law is just so much better than those other schools, it isn't even worthy of mentioning it!

[anon]

"The ABA should send Golden Gate a letter of non-compliance very similar to that which it has sent recently to Thomas Jefferson, Florida Coastal, Appalachian and John Marshall (Atlanta)."

Yes. But, what filter do you apply in your selection of the law schools to target? You write column after column recommending action against certain law schools, but never, unless goaded into it, mention this school, and then, only in the comments in response to another comment asking WHY?

Would you give any consideration to a RELATIVELY RECENT PRIOR PROBATION that apparently had only a short term effect?

If so, what inferences would you draw from that sort of circumstance? Any inference at all?

[anon 2]

What do you have against Golden Gate? You seem pretty zealous yourself.

[David Frakt]

anon -

I primarily write about law schools that are giving other law schools a bad name: schools that are taking advantage of people by admitting students with extremely poor prospects for success, and schools with very poor bar pass statistics and job placement outcomes. I believe Golden Gate to be one of those schools and I have been highly critical of Golden Gate. What else would you like me to say? Is there another school you believe that I should be looking at? And why do you care what I think? If you think that I have any direct or inside influence with the ABA, I am flattered, but you would be mistaken. I have never spoken to a single person at the ABA about anything. They certainly have never solicited my opinion.

[David Frakt]

PaulB - If you look at the incoming student credentials at the schools where the ABA has said that the law schools were violating Standard 510 on Admissions over the last couple of years, a very clear pattern emerges of what the ABA considers to be acceptable in terms of LSAT scores. There is no real mystery. I agree that Valpo should be given credit for admitting the error of their ways and raising standards back to reasonable levels, even though it meant that they could not stay in business.

[anon]

anon 2

If you know the history of this school, and just read the stats above, the question is: do you have any belief in the ABA standards, weak as those standards are? Or, do just think those standards, weak as those standards are, should be ignored for certain law schools?

The resort to questioning the motives and integrity of anyone who dares to simply ask these questions speaks volumes about your "position" ... which appears to be "leave Golden Gate alone"!!!!

[anon 2]

Nope, not my position. I was just wondering what they did to you.

[anon]

What "they have done" is demonstrated by the record.

Can't you figure out "what they have done"?

Any other questions, anon 2?

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

Quit attacking and slandering these schools. A lot of good attorneys, judges and other professionals matriculated from that list. Lots of good, hardworking staff, janitors, professors, typists work for these schools. When my comments don't fit your narrative, you remove them. Nice job. I guess you want a SAFE SPACE?

[Law Clerk]

In response to this excerpt: "I expect the ABA to take action against other predatory schools in the near future." Any "opportunity" school is a predatory school. There are so many others. Although there are good people working for them, it is still wrong to keep such schools open through student debt. It is terrible that so many students are saddled with debt that they can never repay and that cannot be discharged. Is it fair to sustain the underbelly of the law school industry on the futures of students who borrow beyond their means for a degree that is practically worthless? The ABA never should have accredited schools like this. We have enough reputable law schools -- and too many law graduates for the available positions. Who will monitor the ABA?

[David Frakt]

Law clerk,
I am not sure I agree with the idea that all "opportunity" schools are predatory. In many large cities there are schools which offer part-time programs for working people of modest, but real aptitude. But some formerly legitimate opportunity schools have lowered their standards to the point that they are now predatory, and other predatory schools have adopted the label opportunity school as a way of shielding what they are really doing. These schools frequently also use diversity as an excuse to engage in predatory practices.

[Law Clerk]

David,

I do agree with most of this response, with a few exceptions. First, I think that most "opportunity" schools are also for-profit schools; any such school is predatory, and, in my opinion, should not exist. Second, any law school that offers a part-time program is not doing it for mercenary reasons; rather, they're tapping into another market for funding. Finally, the lowering of standards is for financial gain, and I completely agree with the last sentence. To add to this, and not to do so in support of any stereotypes about the aptitude of diverse students, I also think that many schools now offer "academic support" to all students as a way to keep them in school (and paying tuition). Years ago, there was no such thing.

[concerned_citizen]

David, I don't know what you think you're doing here, singling out The Number Two Ranked Law School!

I mean, don't you know how resplendent their library is? MASSIVE square footage in that law library.

[concerned_citizen]

Law clerk on 20-Nov asks, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Good question.

I haven't bothered to look up the membership of then controlling ABA committees in a few years, but at one point such membership provided a nice real-life example of regulatory capture.