The ABA 2019 Bar Pass Spreadsheet Part II: Ultimate Bar Pass and the New Standard 316

This is the second part of my series discussing the 2019 ABA Bar Data Consumer Info Spreadsheet (the “Spreadsheet”).  My first article looked at the 2018 first-time bar passage data. This post looks at the 2016 Ultimate Bar Pass (UBP) Rate within two years of graduation for 2016 graduates, most of whom started law school in 2013.  This post is especially timely given an important change to the ABA accreditation standards that occurred today.

For almost three years, the ABA has been considering changing Standard 316 to require that all law schools have a UBP of 75% within two years of graduation.  The ABA started publishing UBP data last year in part to allow people to evaluate whether such a standard was a meaningful, fair and reasonably achievable standard.   Earlier today, the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar finally adopted this revision, effective immediately. This means that starting in 2020, schools will be required to meet the 75% standard for the graduating class of 2017.

Based on the data in the Spreadsheet, I believe the ABA made the right decision.   The data from last year and this year prove convincingly that this Standard is reasonable and is not too difficult to meet, even in California. 

The overall UBP for all ABA-accredited law schools nationwide was 88.57%, very similar to the UBP for the graduating class of 2015 which had a composite UBP of 88.28%. 

What is the point of a UBP rate?

Although, in my opinion, first-time bar pass rate is the best and most important measure of a school’s effectiveness at preparing students for the bar, UBP after two years is still a useful measure.  UBP rates provide data to the accrediting agency about the effectiveness of a law school’s education program, and whether their admissions policies are reasonable. Because approximately 99% of law school graduates who eventually pass the bar do so within two years of graduation, the UBP rate gives us a good sense of what the true chance of becoming a licensed lawyer is at any given school. This can help prospective law students to compare schools that admit students with similar entrance credentials. 

Not surprisingly, UBP rates very closely correlate with the selectivity of the law school.   That is, the higher the LSAT profile of an entering class, the higher their UBP rate will be five years later (two years after the class graduates).  Conversely, the more high-risk, low LSAT students a law school admits, the lower their UBP will be.  However, there are some important exceptions -- law schools which posted UBPs well above peer schools with students of apparently similar aptitude based on entrance credentials.   And there are also a few schools which underperformed, failing to hit 75%, despite having students with reasonable credentials.  I will not speculate on why this is so, since I don’t have insight as to what is going on at all 200 law schools around the country.   Suffice it to say that the schools that are outperforming the competition must be doing something right (especially those that have managed to do so repeatedly), and schools that are doing more poorly than expected must be doing something wrong.  I welcome comments from those who have specific knowledge regarding a particular school's performance (good or bad).

GOOD NEWS/KUDOS

Before discussing the schools with the worst performance on UBP for the class of 2016, let’s give credit it where credit is due:

Schools that substantially outperformed their predictors for 2016 Ultimate Bar Passage:

Concordia,24/24 100% (joining Yale and Chicago as the only schools with 100% - sorry Wisconsin, I don’t count diploma privilege as passing the bar); Regent, 69/71 (97.18%); CUNY101/104 (97.1%); Penn State Dickinson, 32/33 (96.97%); Arkansas-Fayetteville, 94/97 (96.91%); Duquesne, 118/122 (96.72%); Widener-Commonwealth,44/46 (95.65%); Florida International,144/151 (95.36%); Liberty,51/54 (94.44%); and, Belmont, 66/70 (94.29%)

THE DIRTY DOZEN

At the other end of the spectrum are the schools that would not meet the new Standard 316 if it were in effect this year, those with UBP rates below 75%.   Gary Rosin listed these schools in a recent post (see here).   There were 12 - the dirty dozen - that did particularly poorly, failing to reach even 70% UBP for the class of 2016.  If we look at these 12 schools, all but one (the University of San Francisco)  engaged in irresponsible admissions practices in 2013, when most of the 2016 graduates matriculated.   As reflected in the following chart, these schools all admitted at least 25% very high risk students (LSAT of 146 or below) and several admitted at least 25% extremely high risk students (LSAT 144 and below) and 50% or more very high risk students.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bottom line is that law schools with responsible admission practices (i.e. schools that admit very few students with LSATs of 146 or below) have little to worry about from the new Standard 316, even in California. 

As for USF, assuming their numbers are correct (and I have my doubts - USF check your numbers!), the graduates of the class of 2016 clearly underperformed. While it may be tempting to blame the difficult California bar exam for USF’s woes, the fact is that many California schools which admitted weaker students than USF fared far better. LaVerne and Golden Gate nearly met the new standard at 74.47% and 74.0%, respectively, despite admitting very weak classes in 2013 (152/147/146 at LaVerne, 153/150/147 at Golden Gate).  Southwestern (155/152/150) also had lower entrance credentials than USF but managed to achieve a UBP of 79.55%.   Western State outperformed all of these schools, achieving a UBP of 86.75%  with a LSATs of 152/150/148.   One interesting thing that the Spreadsheet revealed is that, even though California's first-time bar pass rate was nearly 15% below the national average in 2015 and 2016, the UBP for all California ABA schools combined essentially matched the national average for the class of 2015 at 88%, and was just 3 percentage points below the national average for the class of 2016, at over 85%.  So it turns out that the high cut score in California doesn’t actually prevent very many students who should pass the bar from becoming lawyers, it just delays many of them from becoming lawyers for a year or two.  Given that roughly the same percentage of law school graduates will eventually pass the California bar as in other states with easier bar exams, it is not clear how the high cut score really benefits California consumers, and it definitely hurts California law school graduates who may have to take the bar exam two or three times before they pass.  But claims that imposing the new Standard 316 will have a devastating effect on diversity at California law schools are grossly exaggerated. The data proves that the majority of law schools in California don’t need to change their admission practices at all to meet the UBP standard, and they won’t. The schools that do need to change their admission practices are those that have been exploiting minorities by admitting unqualified students with little chance of success, like Whittier (now closed) and Thomas Jefferson (on probation).  Replacing the toothless prior Standard 316 with the new Standard 316 should help reduce the exploitation of unqualified students of all races.  That makes today a great day for legal education.

 

 

Comments

[Doug Litowitz]

What do you make of law schools doing so much hiring in bar prep and academic support and success etc — which all seem like buzzwords for raising the bar passage rate?

Maybe that is the reason for higher pass rates - they are teaching to the exam. If so, the numbers provevnothing about student quality, only that a change in curriculum is a gimmick for bar passage.

[Jim Oleske]

A question about your "GOOD NEWS/KUDOS" list and this line from your post:

"Suffice it to say that the schools that are outperforming the competition must be doing something right (especially those that have managed to do so repeatedly), and schools that are doing more poorly than expected must be doing something wrong."

Does your analysis take into account attrition rates? I ask because that would seem relevant for applicants who are looking to "compare schools that admit students with similar entrance credentials" in terms of what percentage of those admitted students (as opposed to eventual graduates) pass the bar.

[William W Patton]

David,

You state that "claims that imposing the new Standard 316 will have a devastating effect on diversity at California law schools are grossly exaggerated." The 2016 success rate of schools who met the new standard for 2016 graduates was not a surprise. My analysis, however, focuses on 2018 graduates. Neither your analysis nor any data from the ABA Council take into account the dramatic changes in "repeater" bar passage rates that will make it almost impossible for 8 of the highest-diversity CA ABA schools to meet UBP standard for 2018 graduates.

If a law school has a very low 1st time bar passage rate (below 60-65%) it can only meet the 75% in 2-year standard by having good "repeater" passage rates for the 3 consecutive exams that follow the 1st time rate. Almost all CA schools met the 2016 UBP standard because of a "fluke" in the "repeater" rate on the February 2017 exam. That repeater rate was 46.4%. However, as the NCBE has predicted, "repeater" rates will continue to fall for the next several years. Look at the trend in "repeater" rates in CA: Feb. 2017: 46.4%; July 2017: 36.6%; Feb. 2018: 31.3%; and July 2018: 22.4%. This precipitous 50% decline in CA "repeater" rates will make it much more difficult for 8 CA law schools to come close to meeting the 2-year UBP for 2018 graduates even though they met that standard for 2016 graduates.

Do you agree that if the California "repeater" rate does not significantly improve from its current 22.4% that many more CA law schools will be at risk of not meeting the UBP standard for 2018 graduates?

[David Frakt]

William -

I agree that there is a significant risk that several California schools will fail the 75% UBP Standard for 2017 and perhaps even more for 2018. The reason for this is that several California schools dramatically lowered their admissions standards in 2014 and 2015, engaging in reprehensibly irresponsible admission practices. Those schools that admitted high numbers of extremely high risk will probably not meet the Standard and that is exactly why this Standard exists. And schools with responsible admission standards may also fail to meet the standard if they don't do a better job at preparing their students for the bar exam. As for repeater rates, there is a basic flaw in your math. The repeater rate is not for first time repeaters, it is for all repeaters. There is now a huge backlog of graduates who never should have gotten into law school who are taking the bar over and over again in California and my sense is that is what is driving down the overall repeater rate. What the UBP rate shows is that those students taking the bar in California with reasonable aptitude will pass within two years at a similar rate to non-California schools. I am not sure which 8 California schools you are referring to. There are many very good California law schools with high diversity. I reject the premise that schools can only achieve diversity by admitting minorities who are likely to fail. There are plenty of bright minority students in California with reasonable aptitude for the study of law.

[anon]

Interesting how David chose a cut off -- 70 instead of 75 - that allowed avoiding mentioning GGU, except in terms of PRAISE! This is truly striking. As I read it, Rosin mentioned GGU as failing the new standard for both 2015 and 2016 classes. Is this not correct?

At least there is some improvement in that David seems to be now willing to admit that his single factor theory of law school effectiveness (LSAT score) fails in numerous instances. He states:

"Suffice it to say that the schools that are outperforming the competition must be doing something right (especially those that have managed to do so repeatedly), and schools that are doing more poorly than expected must be doing something wrong."

Ok, that sort of gets to the point.

But, to regular readers: think about the amount of effort just to get to that little concession. And still, the concession only goes so far: "I will not speculate on why this is so, since I don’t have insight as to what is going on at all 200 law schools around the country."

Yet, David, you seem to draw conclusions about what is going on at all 200 law schools around the country, based on your LSAT single factor theory.

So, it appears that there are still "kudos" from David for those who do better, but only a sort of evasive, shuffling feet and "gee, I don't know" when it comes to faculty underperformance: even at schools that were subject to recent ABA sanctions (probation), improved, and then slid right back down into the ways that led to the first probation: to those ways that create horrible detriment to young lives while these faculties greedily exploit their cushy positions.

David: you likely don't know about all 200 law schools, but I believe you have worked in the arena and I seem to recall you have openly invited invitations to consult (perhaps in jest?). You do claim to know what is going on at all these schools (LSAT scores mean everything, sort of). So, in all fairness, one has to ask you to be transparent about your interests, if any, in promoting/demoting any particular schools.

All in all, I think you are doing some good work, David. But, there are certain big holes, it seems to me. You do seem to have an ax to grind and you do adhere to a narrow theory that is proven to be unreliable in enough instances to make it suspect, at least to me. At best, LSAT score is a factor, but a good faculty can produce better than expected results, and a lazy incompetent faculty can get worse. And, as they say, that is the truth and just plain old common sense.

[William W Patton]

David,

You make broad statements regarding California ABA law schools. However, the facts simply do not support your narrative. In your Part I and Part II expositions you have now twice stated that CA schools starting in 2011 through 2015 lowered the entering students’ LSAT’s scores and that starting in 2016 they raised those scores. Your clear implication is that the lower LSAT scores explain the lower recent CA first-time bar examination scores.

The data is inconsistent with your theory. LSAT scores among the schools that I claim are at risk for 2018 graduates, such as Southwestern, Golden Gate, and California Western during 2011 through 2017 barely fluctuated, and there is no causal link to bar exam passage rates and those LSAT fluctuations. For instance, consider Southwestern:

2013 LSAT: 155/152/150
2014 LSAT: 154/151/149
2015 LSAT: 154/152/149
2016 LSAT: 155/152/149
2017 LSAT: 155/152/150
2018 LSAT: 155/153/150

This data demonstrates that the mean LSAT at Southwestern varied by only 2 points and the 75th percentile varied by only 1 point, but Southwestern’s first-time California bar passage rates had a dramatic fluctuation - 2016 (2013 Class): 38%; 2017 (2014 Class): 57%; and 2018 (2015 Class): 50%. Your and LST’s theory that LSAT’s predict and explain bar passage rates simply do not work here. Your LSAT predictive theory is that the 2013 class with the highest overall LSAT’s should have had the highest bar passage percentage. The only problem is that the 2013 class had a 19% lower passage rate than the 2014 class that had students with lower LSAT’s.

Southwestern is not an isolated example. In a longer article I will demonstrate this same statistical pattern (CA schools with relatively constant LSAT’s but with dramatically fluctuating first-time bar passage rates) for many of the other at-risk CA law schools.

[anon]

W Patton

I agree with your point: Frakt's LSAT-only theory is flawed and contradicted repeatedly by the facts. It can't be that his theory is right but wrong in practice so often.

All Frakt is saying, really, is that, in general, if a school admits the students with the worst scores on standardized tests, then those students will likely perform worse than others on standardized tests. Wow. That's quite an insight. The problem is that it basically ignores a little thing called THREE YEARS OF TRAINING IN LAW SCHOOL. Frakt's "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" theory is archaic, elitist and proved wrong, time and time again.

Your argument suggests that faculty performance can and does affect bar exam outcomes.

Do you concede this?

Or, do you argue that random factors result in performance at certain schools that improves when scrutiny is applied, falls off when the heat is off, and then improves again when scrutiny is again applied? Just what are you saying?

[Scott Fruehwald]

Anon,

I agree that three years of effective training can make a huge difference in outcomes. However, the problem is that many of the lower-tiered law schools are admitting students with low indicators, and they don't provide the kind of education you and I are talking about. Makes you wonder why they are admitting those students. It doesn't help diversity to the legal field to admit students who can't pass the bar.

Here is my plan for better educating students: How to Grow a Lawyer: A Guide for Law schools, Law Professors, and Law Students (2018) at https://www.amazon.com/How-Grow-Lawyer-Professors-Students/dp/1726737764/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_img_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=5A05AEWJ7JZGN4387TVA

[David Frakt]

My belief is that two things are required for a law school to produce a good first time bar passage rate. First, the school needs to admit students with reasonable aptitude for the law. I don't think that is "elitist". I just don't think law school is for everyone. Students from the bottom 25% of the LSAT with commensurately poor grades should not be admitted to an ABA accredited law school. Second, the school needs to have an effective curriculum that challenges students and pushes them to perform to their full potential. It is fairly easy to measure whether schools are meeting the first requirement. It is somewhat more difficult to measure the second element. While it may seem that I am simply stating the obvious when I say that those with very low LSAT scores are far more likely to fail the bar than those with LSAT scores at or near the median and above, there are still many who reject the correlation between LSAT scores and bar passage. While the number of law schools engaging in irresponsible admission practices has declined sharply since the ABA started enforcing standard 501 in 2016, there are still schools admitting students with appallingly low entrance credentials. (The ABA's unfathomable decision to let WMU Thomas Cooley off the hook without extracting any meaningful concessions on admissions from the school did not help matters.) When law school Deans and the general public bemoan falling bar pass rates, it is important for someone to point out that these falling bar pass rates generally track the decline in admissions standards 3 years earlier. There is no question that law schools with thoughtfully developed programs designed to prepare students for the bar (like FIU, for instance) can have a significant impact on the bar passage rate. Of course, bar pass rates will fluctuate for a variety of reasons. For example, some schools may do a better job teaching some skills or subject areas than others, so in a year where those areas are emphasized on the bar, the rate might go up, and in a year where other areas are emphasized, the rate might go down. Over 4 administrations of a bar exam, those fluctuations are likely to level out and the the UBP should end up being fairly constant if the school's admission policies remain the same and the curriculum and faculty also remain constant. Transfer attrition from the top can also have a significant impact on bar passage rates as some commenters have noted.

[David Frakt]

In response to William Patton's comment

First, I don't have an LSAT only theory. LSATs are the best predictor of ultimate bar pass success that we have available before law school, so that is why I believe they should be a very important factor in admissions. But I freely acknowledge that many factors contribute to the success or failure of individual students and of classes as a whole. I have written in the past about some of the positive steps that we took when I was at Western State to raise the bar passage rate while our admitted student profiles remained relatively constant. In response to the commenter who is obsessed with the faculty at Golden Gate (talk about having an ax to grind), I agree that a lazy and incompetent faculty could certainly negatively impact bar passage rates. I am just reluctant to make a sweeping accusation about an entire law school faculty when I don't know a single person on the faculty and have no first-hand knowledge of the school. And by the way, I was not praising Golden Gate, I was simply noting that a 75% UBP rate is not a very high bar, as demonstrated by the fact that even Golden Gate, with a weak student body (and according to you, a horrible faculty) ALMOST made it.

While I can't account for every fluctuation at a school with relatively steady admissions standards, I can point to many examples of schools that lowered their admission standards over several years (2011-15) and saw a steady decline in bar passage rates three years later (2014-18). For example, all three Infilaw schools,(Charlotte, Arizona Summit, Florida Coastal), Whittier, Thomas Jefferson, Charleston, WMU Thomas Cooley, South Texas College of Law, FAMU, Barry, South Dakota, Southern, Ave Maria, Valparaiso, Texas Southern, Touro, and New England School of Law fall into this category.

Mr. Patton, I guess I am unclear what exactly it is that you are advocating. Are you suggesting that law schools should continue to admit large numbers of students with LSATs of 146 and below, or even 144 and below, and poor grades, and still be found in compliance with Standard 501? Should only minority students with such poor entrance credentials be admitted or also white students? Do you consider it acceptable for an accredited law school to have less than a 75% ultimate bar pass rate 2 years after graduation? Should a lower UBP be considered acceptable only if a law school has a more diverse student body?

I'm not sure exactly what it is that you are trying to prove, but I look forward to reading your article.

[Scott Fruehwald]

"Second, the school needs to have an effective curriculum that challenges students and pushes them to perform to their full potential."

The most important thing is effective teachers.

[Jim Oleske]

"Transfer attrition from the top can also have a significant impact on bar passage rates"

David - Isn't it just as important to look at non-transfer attrition from the bottom? Take, for example, Widener-Commonwealth from your list of ostensibly over-performing schools. Their first-year attrition rate for the class that entered in 2013 was an astonishing 32.4% percent, and 22 of the 24 students who departed were dismissals/drops as opposed to transfers. While not as dramatic, at least four other schools on your kudos list had first-year attrition rates of 11% or more with all or most of the attrition being non-transfer. Given that dynamic, is it really true that we can conclude that these schools "must be doing something right"?

I should add, I suspect *some* schools on that list *are* doing something right. And I do think bar passage rate is a very important metric. But unless that metric is looked at in combination with attrition, it strikes me as impossible to claim that a school is over-performing/over-performing in terms of preparing the students it enrolls for the bar as opposed to just experiencing inflated/deflated bar passage rates due to drops/transfers among its 1L enrollees.

[William W Patton]

David,

Until a few days ago you disagreed with the Council’s new standard requiring that all law schools have a 75% passage rate within 2 years of students’ graduation. In fact, you wrote a proposal that attempted to accommodate schools in jurisdictions with extremely high cut scores. Now, you state that “ the ABA made the right decision” based on the 2-year data for 2016 graduates.

What my earlier remarks pointed out is that your faith in the predictive value of LSAT scores does not work for schools in California and that the new 75% in 2-year standard will necessarily reduce diversity in California law schools that are housed in one of the most diverse states in the country.

In my last post I demonstrated that your narrative that falling bar passage rates were caused by schools from 2011-2014 dramatically lowering their LSAT scores is untrue regarding many California law schools. You provided this glib response to my empirical rebuttal: “I can't account for every fluctuation at a school with relatively steady admissions standards….” That is simply not an adequate response since the rule that you now wholeheartedly have adopted, the 75% in 2-year standard, will have a significant impact on the diversity of California law schools.

You ask what I support. I support a standard, like you did up to a few days ago, that provides a better balance among the ABA’s often competing goals of consumer protection, diversity, and access to justice. I think that those objectives are best balanced in high bar cut score states by maintaining, for instance, the old standard that a school must be within 15% of the state-wide average passage percentage.

Let me give you another example. Southwestern Law School, as I demonstrated in my last post, maintained its LSAT/GPA profile from 2011 through 2018. Therefore, under the LST model, its students should have had a fairly constant bar passage history. However, in reality, those rates fluctuated significantly. Under the LST model, and I suppose under the model used by “anon” and by “Scott” in this debate, perhaps the lower bar scores resulted from a poorer curriculum or poorer teaching. But, again, that is not the answer. Even though Southwestern’s bar passage rate fluctuated, its students’ performance on the bar was consistently better than the mean of all ABA law schools. Southwestern scored better than the national mean MBE score on every bar exam from February 2014 through July 2018. Therefore, it is not poor curriculum or poor teaching that caused the low bar passage rates.

Even though Southwestern met the 75% in 2-year standard for 2016 graduates, it is predicted under the LST and ABA models to fail that standard for 2018 graduates since its 2018 bar passage rate was only 50.4% even though its students outscored the national mean MBE by 3.4 points on the February 2018 exam and by 2.9 points on the July 2018 exam. The low bar exam score was obviously not caused by poor teaching or poor curriculum, but rather by California's 144 cut score.

You ask what relevance I see regarding a law school’s diversity. Diversity, as I stated, is a clearly stated goal of the ABA as expressed in its standards. Therefore, a bar passage standard (consumer protection) must be balanced with twin goal of diversity. That means that some compromise should be made in that balancing process. Let me demonstrate my point by comparing two law schools’ LSAT/GPA’s, academic performance (mean MBE score), and bar passage rates for the July 2018 exam.

Mercer: LSAT (154/152/150) GPA (3.49/3.32/3.06)
Passage Rate 73.7% Mean MBE 137.7
Diversity: 4% Hispanic 14.4% Black (African American)

Southwestern (154/152/149) (3.39/3.17/2.91)
Passage Rate 53.0% Mean MBE 140.9
Diversity: 22.3% Hispanic 8.6% Black (African American)

Under the Standard you now support, the 75% in 2-years model, a school like Mercer, with similar LSAT/GPA data, with a substantially less diverse student body, and with lower performing students (3.2 points lower mean MBE) will continue to thrive because of its state’s low cut score (135). However, a school like Southwestern with a much more diverse student body with similar LSAT/GPA credentials and with students who perform much better on the bar, will lose accreditation solely because of its state’s high (144) cut score. That result demonstrates that the new 75% in 2-year standard does not adequately balance consumer protection with diversity.

That is where you and I disagree. I think that the previous ABA standard that provided more latitude to schools like Southwestern by containing an exception for compliance if the school was within 15% of the state bar passage rate is a better standard. I think that the 15% rule or some variant of that rule, if limited to schools in high cut score states, will better balance the dual ABA goals of both consumer protection and diversity than the recently enacted 75% in 2-year rule.

But I would not stop there. I support the LST call for more mandatory reported data for prospective student consumers. Therefore, together with the 15% rule, I would now require all ABA law schools to publish in their ABA 509 reports their school’s mean MBE scores. That data will permit students to better compare all ABA law schools, not only within a single state, but also nationally, regarding schools’ academic outcome measures since passage rates alone are a reflection more of cut scores than of students’ comparative competence at graduation as measured by the bar exam.

De-accrediting schools like Southwestern which have not substantially lowered their LSAT/GPA’s, which provide meaningful opportunities for a diverse student body, and which produce students who continually outperform the national mean MBE score is not my definition of consumer protection. However, as you have made it clear, it is now your position because you support the 75% in 2-year standard with no exceptions for schools like Southwestern.

[anon]

David, in a comment that purports to be "In response to William Patton's comment" you appear to be flailing around and sort of ranting about my comments and those of Scott Fruehwald, as well those by Patton.

So, to the extent you have included an attack on my comments, let me just say this: you protest too much. I noted that you used a 70% cut-off instead of the 75% cut off when denigrating certain law schools as "the dirty dozen," and this sleight of hand permitted letting GGU to escape your scrutiny: AGAIN. This is sort of appropriate for a litigator - bound to win an argument and not bound to fairly and objectively view the circumstances. But, if you purport to be a scholar, not so cool.

You say you have no interest there. Ok, we'll have to take your word for it, but you did go on then to say "LaVerne and Golden Gate nearly met the new standard at 74.47% and 74.0%, respectively, despite admitting very weak classes in 2013 ..." which sounds very much like one of your "kudos" ...

Mr. Frakt, don't accuse others of obsession for pointing out true facts. If you don't work for law schools or seek to -- as a consultant, attorney, faculty member or Dean -- and, again, we have to take your word for it -- then, as stated in a prior comment, the fact that you avoid finding fault where perhaps fault is due is even more telling.

See, prior comments about deserved heightened scrutiny in certain instances, which you have scrupulously avoided addressing. This is my main point. Perhaps you can't study the history of ABA sanctions and familiarize yourself with the issue that you are flogging here, because of your obsession with stating your single-minded theory that poor test takers don't do well on tests. (Hold the door, Hold the door, Hold the door.)

David, you've made your point. Some are arguing that lower LSAT test scores are not determinative, and that, for reasons of "diversity" shouldn't be determinative in admissions. I would tend to agree, because I believe that three years is a lot of time to train someone to be able to pass a bar exam.

I used the word "elitism" for that reason. If you believe that some folks can't be trained to pass a bar exam, then so be it. Say it! I don't believe that. What I do believe is that a law school that demonstrably can't even accomplish that minimal goal shouldn't be allowed to fleece young people any more. Two strikes and another decade to do this isn't required: ABA, DOE, at long last, have you no shame?

Take action!

Whether law school should be a three year bar prep course, of course, is another matter.

[David Frakt]

William Patton -

I changed my mind about the ABA rule because the data showed that my assumptions were incorrect as applied to California schools. I assumed that because California schools had much lower first time bar pass rates, they would also have much lower UBP rates and that 75% might be too tough a standard. But the data shows that 75% is not too difficult to reach in California, and that law schools in different states which admit students with similar credentials tend to end up with similar UBP rates even if their first time bar pass rates are substantially different. Consider, for example, UC Irvine, UCLA and UC Berkeley. The Deans of all of these schools have strongly criticized the California bar claiming that the high cut score is hurting diversity. But the UBP rates at these schools for 2015 and 2015 were 94.4% and 94.7% for UCI, 96.5% and 95.5% for UCLA, and 97.8% and 97.5% for Berkeley. These numbers are very comparable to Columbia, NYU and Fordham in New York, which have similar admitted student credentials but the bar is much easier. Or, to take your example of Southwestern. Southwestern is not in any danger of losing accreditation. Southwestern's UBP for 2015 was 82.9% and for 2016 it was 79.6%, well over the 75% threshold. This was despite having fairly low first time bar pass rates of 50.64% in 2015 and 38.26% in 2016.

My assumption that a school would need to be near 60% on first-time pass rate to reach 75% proved to be inaccurate in California, even though it was pretty accurate in the rest of the country. On average, the UBP was about 15% higher than the first time pass rate for all law schools combined in 2015-6. But in California, the difference between the first-time pass rate and the UBP was much higher, averaging an increase of 25% for 2015 and 2016, with several schools posting increases of 30% or more.

Let's take your comparative example of Mercer and Southwestern. Mercer reported a first time bar pass rate in 2015 of 74.5% and a UBP for the class of 2015 of 91.2%. Southwestern had a first time pass rate of 50.64%, and a UBP of 82.9%. For the class of 2016, Mercer had a first time pass rate of 65.83% and a UBP of 84.47%, while Southwestern had a first time pass rate of 38.26% and a UBP of 79.6%. By the way, both Mercer and Southwestern dropped their admission standards significantly between 2012 and 2013 which accounts for the decline in their bar pass percentage from 2015 to 2016. Mercer's LSATs went from 156/153/149 in 2012 to 154/152/148 in 2013. Southwestern's went from 155/153/151 in 2012 to 155/152/150 in 2013. And yes, a one point change in the median and at the 25% is significant.

I understand the frustration with the high cut score in California. The high cut score has the result of delaying bar admission for many graduates who would pass the first-time in other jurisdictions, but have to take the California bar two or three times to get a high enough score to pass. I agree that the cut score is too high. But the high cut score for California does not make the ABA Standard 316 unfairly rigorous for California schools. Law schools in California with reasonable admission standards that are providing a rigorous legal education will have no problem meeting the 75% UBP standard.

[David Frakt]

One more thing about California law schools. The idea that 8 law schools are in danger of losing accreditation over the new Standard 316 is absurd. Only Thomas Jefferson is in real danger, and deservedly so. Whittier would have been in danger if they had not voluntarily closed. There are a few other schools that need to change their admission practices to stop admitting the bottom 10-15% of students they are currently admitting, namely Golden Gate, LaVerne, Western State, and possibly Cal Western and McGeorge. Stop admitting this with LSATs of 146 and below, unless they have very good grades. That's it. Very simple. This will not have any kind of devastating impact on diversity in law school or in the bar since the majority of students who would be denied admission would be likely drop outs or bar failers.

[PaulB]

The high cut off score in California can not be used by the state's law schools as an excuse. They know what's required here when they admit students. Admitting students with LSAT (or their GRE equivalent) scores in the mid 140s, then blaming the State Bar when a high percentage of those graduates are unable to pass the bar is utter hypocrisy,

Even a 75% ultimate pass rate is far too low. When one quarter of your graduates are unable to practice a profession for which they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and three years of their lives, something is very wrong.

[anon]

Paul B

Correct. And, as usual, Frakt's studied focus on LSAT scores ignores attrition rates (both transfer and academic disqualification), the changing curriculum to turn law school into a bar prep course, profitability at "just 10-15% fewer" admits, history of ABA disciple, etc.

His statement that "And yes, a one point change in the median and at the 25% is significant ..." is a prime example of absurdity of this fetish (an inanimate object - the LSAT - worshiped for its supposed magical powers of discernment).

Finally, Frakt seems to be doubling down on the growing perception, at least for this reader, that his analysis increasingly lacks any awareness of "common sense."

First, he doesn't seem to realize that saying that bad test takes do badly on tests isn't a brilliant insight. Concomitantly, he is engaged seemingly in a never ending quest to "consult" about his discovery of the "just right" point of "badness," based on minute differences in LSAT scores. This is, of course, a demonstrably false principle and therefore sort of risible, as shown above. HIs theory doesn't hold water in too many instances to be any sort of magic way to achieve satisfactory bar pass rates. This is especially so because, as seen above, Frakt doles out kudos to law faculties but refuses to criticize them. Again, just common sense here folks: something ain't right.

Second, Frakt is amazed that UBP is similar, even in California, where he concedes he thought it would be otherwise.

Where to begin parsing that one?

These posts, one thinks, have run their course. News of ABA rule changes? Yes. Reports about results? For sure.

But, more theorizing based on flawed premises? Not so much.

[anon]

Just to cap the point about UBP and the fact that Frakt didn't expect it to be what it is in California, generally.

Frakt states; "many graduates ... have to take the California bar two or three times to get a high enough score to pass."

Let's take that apart a bit. A typical bar prep course in CA runs about 12 weeks, and that's five days per week. Three times: that's 36 weeks, or the same as MORE THAN TWO ADDITIONAL SEMESTERS of law school, focused SOLELY ON BAR SUBJECTS, after THREE YEARS OF LAW SCHOOL.

Again, does anyone working in this industry have any common sense? What does it say that it would take a student 4 years of law school, with an additional year focused just on one test, to get to the MINIMIUM LEVEL of competence?

A legitimate law school operates ethically and does not exist solely to provide cushy employment to underworked and indifferent professors and profits to its operators.

A legitimate law school doesn't take the money of applicants to take the money of applicants. A legitimate law school engages in a meaningful admission process, and in meaningful academic attrition.

If a law school cannot attract a capable student body of a sufficient size, then that law school is a failed law school. A law school should be engaged in competent education, and provide every form of support and assistance to those it admits. But, it must properly disqualify those who are unlikely to be able to competently practice law.

An unreasonably high attrition rate indicates failure in all respects.

Law schools that are failing are failing. How long will it take the geniuses in legal academia to figure this out? Is all this as complicated and convoluted as Frakt's comments above?