The California State Bar just released a report in which the authors attempted to explain the decline in bar exam performance in recent years, focusing on results from 2013, which were relatively good, and 2016 and 2017, which were much worse (although not as bad as 2018). The report found that between 20-50% of the decline in bar exam performance could be attributed to lower entrance credentials. The authors of the report could not account for the other 50-80%.
There were a couple of points in the report worth emphasizing. Final law school GPA was the single most important predictor of performance followed by LSAT score. In other words, LSAT scores do have a strong and statistically significant correlation with bar passage. And of course, LSAT scores were the best pre-law school indicator available to law schools of likely bar passage success.
11 law schools participated in the study, providing data for 7500 law students who took the bar exam in 2013, 2016, 2017. As the LSAT score dropped, the bar pass rate dropped, as reflected in the table below.
LSAT SCORE RANGE |
2013 Pass Rate % |
2016 Pass Rate % |
2017 Pass Rate % |
<154 |
52 |
32 |
46 |
154-158 |
65 |
56 |
62 |
159-161 |
75 |
64 |
70 |
162-164 |
85 |
74 |
78 |
>164 |
84 |
81 |
85 |
The report dramatically underscores the drop in the caliber of students admitted to law schools between 2010 (when most of the 2013 bar takers started law school) and 2014 (when most of the 2017 first-time bar takers matriculated). In 2013, only 19% of the graduates from these 11 schools taking the bar had LSAT scores of 154 or lower, while 20% had LSATs of 164 or above. By 2017, 33% of the first-time test takers graduating from these schools had LSAT scores of 154 or less, while only 14% had LSATs of 164 or above. Similarly, students with 162-164 LSATs made up 20% of the bar takers from these schools in 2013 but only 13% in 2017. This very significant decline in the caliber of the students from the schools in the sample matched the overall decline in the entrance credentials of law students nationwide during this period. Unfortunately, the report did not indicate how much below 154 on the LSAT the students were, nor does the report further break down the passing rates of the group at 154 and below. Had they done so, I am quite confident that we would have seen a continued steady decline in bar passage rates as LSAT scores decreased. I don’t know if Whittier (now closed) or Thomas Jefferson (currently on probation) took part in the study, but according to the ABA 509 reports, these were the two least selective ABA accredited law schools in California in 2014. Their LSAT profiles in 2014 demonstrate that most of their students were well below 154:
Whittier: LSATs 150/146/143
Thomas Jefferson: LSATs 149/145/141
Not surprisingly, the pass rate at these schools was below the 46% mark for the “154 and below” cohort:
Pass rate in July 2017:
Whittier: 49 of 125 – 38%
Thomas Jefferson: 29 of 96 - 30%
In February 2018, these schools did even worse
Thomas Jefferson: 6 of 32 - 19%
Whittier: 0 for 17 – 0%
The evidence that admitting students with low LSAT scores leads to horrendous bar results was reinforced by the recently released results for the July 2018 California bar exam by school. The four least selective law schools in the state in 2015 – Whittier, La Verne, Thomas Jefferson and Golden Gate, each with a median LSAT of 148 or less for their 2015 entering class -- all had first-time pass rates of 34% or less on the July 2018 bar.
First-time takers – July 2018 pass rate LSAT profile entering class of 2015
Whittier: 16 of 61 - 26% 150/148/146
LaVerne: 17 of 50 - 34% 150/147/144
Thomas Jefferson: 20 of 79 - 25% 148/144/141
Golden Gate: 19 of 56 - 34% 151/148/145
University of San Francisco, which had slightly stronger students (but still mostly at 154 or below - 154/152/149 for the entering class of 2015) also cratered on the exam, with a 33% pass rate (46 of 139). Every other law school in the state was above 50%. The average for California ABA schools was 64%.
Graduates from highly selective law schools, for the most part, did much better. Duke Law School turned in the most impressive performance going 25 for 25 (100%), followed by Yale, at 93%, Stanford (91%), Harvard (89%), Columbia (88%), Berkeley (86%), NYU (85%), UCLA (83%), UVA (83%), Georgetown (82%), USC (80%), Chicago (79%), Texas (76%), UC Davis (75%) and Northwestern (73%). UC Irvine turned in an uncharacteristically poor performance at 69%, just above Notre Dame at 68%. The worst of the elite schools was Penn at 64%, just edging Michigan at 65%. USD (71%) and Loyola (72%) performed respectably.
I have previously indicated my view that the California bar cut score is unnecessarily high, and the fact that so many students from elite law schools are failing reinforces this point. But these schools are at least admitting students who have a strong likelihood of passing. In contrast, we now know with absolute certainty that schools like Thomas Jefferson and Whittier have been admitting classes filled with students who were far more likely to fail than to pass, something that I have been saying for years. While I reiterate my view that California should lower the cut score, so long as the cut score remains where it is, it is grossly irresponsible for any law school in California to continue to admit any students with LSATs at 146 or below, except in exceptional circumstances. And California law schools should only admit students in the 147-149 range if they have very good grades.
For those who think that we should focus more on “ultimate” bar pass rates rather than first-time bar pass rates, here are some very sobering statistics on repeat takers. On the July 2018 exam, repeaters from California ABA schools passed at an overall rate of 22%, but repeaters from non-selective schools tended to do much worse. For example, only 13 of 114 Whittier repeaters passed, for an 11% rate. And only 13 of 126 Thomas Jefferson repeaters, passed, a rate of 10%.
And let us not forget our good friends at WMU Thomas Cooley, America’s least selective law school (but somehow compliant with all ABA Standards). Although first-time passage rates for Cooley weren’t published (indicating fewer than 11 grads took the test), their repeaters went 0 for 25. That’s right, 0%. Arizona Summit, which recently lost its accreditation, showed why, as their grads went 2 for 24 (8%).
Another interesting point in the report is that Law School end of First Year GPA and Law School Cumulative GPA remained unchanged for the classes taking the 2013, 2016 and 2017 bars. The report noted that this was not surprising because many law schools grade on a curve. But it is troubling to me that law school admitted substantially weaker classes, but did not adjust their grading at all. If the much weaker students who entered law school in 2013 and 2014 were getting the exact same grades as the much stronger entering class of 2010, that suggests that there was significant grade inflation going on at many law schools from 2013 to 2017 since it is highly unlikely that these much weaker students were performing at the identical level as the stronger students who preceded them. This grade inflation not only results in students being retained who should be attrited, but also gives students a false sense of security regarding their likelihood of passing the bar, whereas giving them the lower grades that they deserve might spur them to study a bit harder. One important lesson for law school administrations is that when they lower their admission standards, they should also adjust any mandatory or recommended grading curves or distributions downward, especially in first year courses.
But, the incoming President of AALS says that "the state of legal education is excellent." (see the TaxProf Blog)
Posted by: Scott Fruehwald | January 05, 2019 at 12:26 PM
Shouldn't repeat offenders be subject to a heightened level of scrutiny?
Posted by: anon | January 05, 2019 at 12:49 PM
From what I can tell, the Cal Bar Study didn't inquire into how students were studying for the bar exam. I've always thought that might have something to do with it (apart from drop in credentials). In my 13 years of teaching, at least, students at the beginning were usually attending live classes offered by BarBri and the like. But for the last several years (maybe 6 years or so) students essentially never do that. Instead they just watch videos while sitting at home in their pajamas (too many distractions). Could that be part of the difference? Obviously Oregon is a much smaller market than California, so I assume live classes are still available in many big cities in California. But even so, maybe students aren't going. I think the Bar should look at that.
Posted by: Tomas Gomez-Arostegui | January 05, 2019 at 04:51 PM
Let's not mince words here. Their not the smartest. They should have worked harder like Brett Kavanaugh. He worked hard.
Posted by: The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated | January 05, 2019 at 06:19 PM
Bottom line is the bottom line.
There is no need in California for the four schools mentioned.
Qualified students can find admission elsewhere.
The market can't and has proven that it won't absorb graduates of crass bottom feeders, if they are even able to pass the bar.
These schools exist for one reason and one reason only: the benefit of the faculty and owners.
The faculty because, in at least one instance mentioned above, the faculty has demonstrably failed, again and again, to sustain the bare minimum in results that the ABA supposedly requires. Question: what about repeat offenders? Isn't this almost the best evidence of a faculty culture?
The owners because the business model appears to involve admitting too many unqualified first year students, and then attrition at unconscionable levels, in order to fleece that first year class to the greatest possible extent.
This latter practice is so disgusting and reprehensible.
The failure by the ABA to shutter any such schools demands that the DOE strip the ABA of its authority, immediately.
Posted by: anon | January 05, 2019 at 06:39 PM
^^^^^anon, I need to enlighten you. Your name is Liam or Amber and your 24 and you matriculated with a 2.25 GPA in Psychology or Marketing East Central Iowa Torah Tech College. You scored an assistant manager position at the Family Dollar for $41K and your exhausted once again after working 71 hours per week. You sit down with your Amazon Avocado Toast and after 4 craft brews you pick up your iPhone and search for "new careers" for college graduates. A pop up for Thomas Jefferson or Cookey Law School appears on screen. They promise lucrative careers as a LAWYER!!!! A LAWYER!!!! You are the next Atticus Finch!!!!!! You take the LSAT and score 110. You are accepted to both. After six long years, poof, you are now a LAWYER!!!! You score a job with a Collections Mill, threatening debtors over the Capital One bill, for $43K per year. At least you can tell your mom you are a LAWYEER and now get Thanksgiving off. Its beautiful. What don't you understand, ANON?
Posted by: The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated | January 06, 2019 at 12:02 AM