Some Observations About the Recent California Bar Study and the July 2018 Bar Exam Results

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.

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.