2019-20 Bottom Ten List

I am pleased to report that the exploitation of unqualified students by law schools is no longer the widespread practice that I have been bemoaning since 2014.  Is the era of exploitative admissions in law schools over?  Perhaps not quite, but the recent Standard 509 admissions data released by the ABA (abarequireddisclosures.org) reveals that the problem of admitting woefully underqualified students at ABA accredited law schools has dramatically decreased. 

By now, readers of The Faculty Lounge are very familiar with the LSAT risk bands that I developed in 2014.   I have reproduced it here for your convenience.

David Frakt’s LSAT Score Risk Bands 

156-180           Minimal Risk

153-155           Low Risk

150-152           Modest Risk

147-149           High Risk

145-146           Very High Risk

120-144           Extreme Risk

These risk bands have become widely accepted as guideposts for law school admissions at less selective law schools.  The “risk” reflects the risk of failing to successfully complete law school and/or failing to pass the bar within two years of graduation.  

I have argued that “opportunity” law schools seeking to comply with ABA Standards 501 and 306 should shoot for an LSAT 75%/50%/25% of 151/149/147 and certainly no school should go lower than 150/148/146.   I recommend that students at or below 144 on the LSAT only be admitted in very rare cases where they have demonstrated through strong academic performance (i.e. college grades) that their LSAT score does not reflect their true aptitude.

A Brief History of the Admissions Crisis

In 2010, only 8 accredited law schools (out of nearly 200) accepted a class with 25% or more students at 146 or below.  But as law school applications dropped by double digit percentages in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, almost every law school in American lowered their admission standards, including many that were already accepting students with marginal aptitude for the study of law.  By 2014, 45 law schools accepted classes with 25% or more students at 146 or below, and 18 law schools accepted classes with a median LSAT of 146 or below.  In other words, at least half the student body at these schools was at very high or extreme risk of failure.  I believed that all of those schools were engaged in unethical admissions practices.  I also predicted that the massive drop in admission standards would result in a crisis in drop in bar passage rates.   This prediction proved to be accurate as bar passage rates plummeted nationwide in 2015-17, prompting several states to lower their bar passage standards.

 In an effort to draw attention to these unethical admission practices and the looming bar passage crisis, I helped Kyle McEntee and Law School Transparency prepare the 2015 State of Legal Education Report.  Due in no small part to the advocacy efforts of LST, the ABA eventually tightened the language of Admissions Standard 501 and, more importantly, started actually enforcing the Standard, finding a dozen or more schools out of compliance with this Standard between 2015 and 2018.  Several of these schools ultimately went out of business or had their accreditation withdrawn, including Whittier, Valparaiso, Arizona Summit, Charlotte Law School and Thomas Jefferson.  Also at the continuous prodding of LST, the ABA dramatically tightened the bar passage rule, Standard 306, creating the 75% within two year standard (also known as ultimate bar pass rate, or UBP) which will begin to be enforced in Spring 2020 when the full calendar year 2019 bar passage results have been calculated.

The combination of more aggressive enforcement of the Admissions Standard and the looming enforcement of the UBP standard has forced the least selective law schools to become significantly more selective.  As a result, instead of thousands of clearly unqualified students being admitted to dozens of law schools, as was the case at the peak of the crisis in 2014 and 2015, now there are only a few law schools admitting students with questionable credentials, and even those schools are admitting far fewer dubious students than they did before.  Indeed, this year, just five ABA-Accredited law schools (not including law schools in Puerto Rico) admitted classes with 25% or more students in the extreme risk category, with 16 more admitting 25% or more in the very high risk (or lower) category.  There are only 6 schools admitting classes with 50% or more students in the very high risk category.  Four of those are HBCUs with an historic mission to serve underserved minority populations.  Another is Appalachian, which has a mission to serve the poor rural population of Appalachia.  These schools, at least arguably, have a valid basis for taking a higher proportion of high risk students than other schools without a similar mission.  So, in the end, that leaves only one law school still clearly exploiting unqualified students -- Western Michigan University -- better known by its former name Thomas Cooley.  But even Cooley has significantly cleaned up its act, as will be explained below.

 

2019 Bottom 10 Least Selective Law Schools

 

School	FY class	75th% LSAT	50th% LSAT	25th% LSAT	75th% UGPA	50th% UGPA	25th% UGPA
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY	292	150	145	141	3.32	2.95	2.62
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY	241	147	145	142	3.31	2.99	2.68
APPALACHIAN SCHOOL OF LAW	61	149	145	143	3.40	3.13	2.64
TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY	180	147	145	143	3.33	3.07	2.78
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIV.	142	149	146	144	3.48	3.24	2.94
FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY	212	149	146	145	3.43	3.10	2.87
MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE	126	152	148	145	3.43	3.19	2.89
NORTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF	84	152	149	145	3.66	3.30	2.97
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL	151	154	150	145	3.51	3.24	2.88
FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW	87	151	147	146	3.36	2.94	2.66

 

1. Western Michigan University (formerly Thomas Cooley) - Two time Bottom Ten defending champion Western Michigan is still the least selective law school in the country.  But I want to give significant credit to WMU for dramatically and meaningfully improving its admissions standards.   In 2017 and 2018, WMU admitted 86% of applicants.  In 2018, WMU had a huge entering class of 541, with extremely weak LSATs of 147/142/139, placing nearly the entire class in the high risk of failure category.  In last year’s Bottom 10 column, I sharply criticized WMU for admitting over 135 students from the bottom 12% of test-takers.   In 2019, WMU admitted just 55% of applicants, enrolling a class of 292, a 46% decrease in their first-year class size.  Although the bottom half of WMU’s class is still very weak, and, in my opinion, likely very few from the bottom quarter should have been admitted, WMU has unquestionably made great strides towards coming into compliance with Standard 501.  I still don’t understand why the ABA found WMU in compliance last year, but it has clear that WMU, under the leadership of new President and Dean James McGrath, is genuinely trying to turn things around.  I commend WMU for the steps it took in 2019 and encourage the school to continue to improve admission standards in 2020.  This will be a challenge as WMU is likely to fall short of the UBP rate for the class of 2017, which had a 46% first-time pass rate, and 2018, which had a 42% first-time pass rate.

2.  Southern – (last year’s rank: 2) Southern raised its 75th and 50th LSAT by one point each, and UGPA went up significantly – from 3.13/2.83/2.55 to 3.31/2.99/2.68.   Southern had a 60% first time pass rate in Louisiana in 2018 and 58% in 2017, so they still have their work cut out to hit 75% UBP, but they should be close.  The 2019 entering class should make it.

3.  Appalachian – (last year’s rank: tied for 3^rd) Both LSATs and UGPA were up at the 50^th and 75^th The bottom quartile is still weak, but Appalachian is making progress.  The class size is quite small at 61, but that is up from 50 last year.  Is there light at the end of the tunnel for Appalachian?

4.  Texas Southern – (last year’s rank: tied for 3^rd) Texas Southern further shrank its entering class, from 217 to 180, raising its median LSAT one point and GPAs slightly at the 25^th and 50^th. These are modest steps in the right direction, but with a 60% Texas pass rate in 2017 and a 45% rate in 2018, Texas Southern grads will struggle to get to 75% UBP for the next couple of cycles. 

5.  NC Central – (last year: 5) NC Central made great improvements in 2018, but backslid just a bit in 2019, with their 75^th LSAT and 25^th GPA both dropping slightly. The school grew its first-year class from 103 to 142.  Probably should have stayed a little smaller and tried to improve standards again this year.

6.  FAMU – (last year – tied for 7^th) - FAMU grew its class from 190 to 212 while maintaining LSAT scores and slightly improving UGPA.  Florida A&M’s bar pass rate has not been good. 50% in 2016, 51% in 2017, and 48% in 2018.  FAMU either needs to tighten admission standards further, or do a better job preparing its students for the bar exam.

7.  Mississippi College (last year – Dishonorable Mention) – The top half of Mississippi College’s class looks fine – the bottom quartile is weak.

8.  North Dakota (last year – Dishonorable Mention) – The top half of North Dakota’s class looks fine – the bottom quartile is weak.

9. Vermont – This is Vermont’s first time in my Bottom 10 list. Vermont’s 75^th and Median are just fine, but a 25^thpercentile at 145/2.88 is too low for a law school of this caliber.  Vermont admitted nearly 73% of applicants, far more than any other school in the bottom 10 (Mississippi College was next at 63.6%)  Maybe 151 students in the first year class was a few too many? 

10.  Florida Coastal - Florida Coastal finally got out of the Bottom 10 last year by raising standards to 153/150/147.  This year they fell back to 151/147/146 while growing their class from 60 to 87 first year students.  Meanwhile, the ABA again rejected Florida Coastal’s application to convert to non-profit status, and recently found the school out of compliance with Standard 202, indicating that the school does not have the current and anticipated financial resources to continue to meet ABA Standards. Sounds like Infilaw is up to its old tricks.  No wonder Dean Scott DeVito quit earlier this fall. 

Dishonorable Mention – Every other law school met my bare minimum recommended LSAT profile for 2019, so I have eliminated this category for this year. 

Honorable Mention –  I do want to commend University of the District of Columbia, last year’s #10, for raising its standards while growing its first year class from last year’s perilously small class of 64 to 79 this year.  Ave Maria, Roger Williams and Charleston also raised their standards in 2019 enough to get off the naughty list.

The Bottom Line – For students without any demonstrated aptitude for the study of law, it is getting harder and harder to find a law school willing to accept them, and that is a very welcome development.  Although some law schools are likely to fall short of the UBP standard for the next couple of years because of the historically weak classes they admitted in 2014 and 2015 (most of whom graduated and took the bar for the first time in 2017 and 2018), those law schools that practice reasonable admission practices and provide a decent legal education should have no problem making the new standard of 75% UBP within two years of graduation. 

Disclaimer and note to prospective law students and other readers: This post is not intended to suggest that the law schools on the "Bottom 10" list are the "worst" law schools in the U.S. in terms of the legal education they provide, or even that any of the law schools in this post offer a sub-par legal education.  My purpose in publishing the Bottom Ten list has been to shine a spotlight on law schools that may have been exploiting students by admitting applicants who are at very high risk of failure.  Many law schools that are not particularly selective in their admissions requirements nevertheless offer a high-quality legal education.  Prospective students should look at other measures such as bar passage rates, job placement rates, and average indebtedness to determine if a law school offers a good value proposition.  Look at Law School Transparency's Law School Reports for the best information and study the ABA Required Disclosures carefully. (Disclosure - I am the Chair of LST's National Advisory Council)  Be sure to ask the admissions office at law schools to which you are applying for specific data about how law students with similar LSATs and GPAs to yours have fared at that law school in recent years.  I recommend that students with LSAT scores at 146 or below take the LSAT again (after studying for the exam using Khan Academy's free prep course) or consider another profession.  Chances are you will struggle in law school and there is a very good chance that you will academically attrit or fail the bar.  You should not risk wasting years on law school and burdening yourself with huge student loan indebtedness if you don't have good prospects for success.

 

 

Comments

[Steve Lubet]

This is an excellent series, David. Thanks very much for continuing to post here.

But I have a question. You "recommend that students with LSAT scores at 146 or below take the LSAT again," after taking a prep course. What is the point of that? They will still have the same aptitude for law study as they did before. Improving their LSAT score is not going to make them any more likely to pass the bar three years later.

[anon]

I believe that we all will agree that scoring on the LSAT is easily gamed by taking prep courses.

Steve Lubet: are you arguing that a person who didn't know how effective a prep course can be, and therefore took the LSAT the first time without having first paid for a prep course, therefore inherently lacks the "aptitude" for the law? (Is "aptitude for the law" measured by one's knowledge that the privileged enjoy privileges, one of which is a prep school, sheltered upbringing and superior coaching for these sorts of tests?) If so, I don't think your point is well taken.

If one took the test without coaching, and can improve that score significantly as a result of coaching, then there is every reason to believe that the same will hold true with respect to the bar. (This is especially true in this context, wherein Frakt slices the baloney so thin that you can see thru it.)

For those who can't afford the prep course, I think your comment is a bit naïve and heartless.

[PaulB]

David, I understand why you don't adjust LSAT targets for the degree of difficulty for a given state, but with USF and Golden Gate once again coming in at a 40% pass rate on the CA bar, when is the ABA going to get around and put these programs out of their misery?

[David Frakt]

Steve - I recommend taking the free LSAT prep course for several reasons. People who do poorly on the LSAT the first time may have performed poorly for a variety of reasons that are not wholly related to their aptitude for the study of law. For example, they may not have paced themselves properly and might not have finished. Or they might just have been nervous because they don't consider themselves to be good test takers or because so much is riding on the exam. People in a highly stressed or agitated state are unlikely to perform to the best of their abilities. I don't think that a good LSAT prep course is really just about "gaming the LSAT" as much as it is doing your best on the exam. To the extent that students learn skills that help them think better under pressure or help them to read test questions more closely and analyze them more effectively, those skills may indeed carry over to multiple choice tests in law school and on the bar exam. If a student takes a prep course and performs at their best and they still score very poorly, then that is a strong indicator that Law School is not for them.

[David Frakt]

PaulB -

It was virtually impossible to fail the old bar pass standard. Even schools with very low first time bar pass rates were never found out of compliance. Under the new 75% UBP rate which will be enforced for the first time this spring, several schools will likely be found out of compliance, possibly including USF and Golden Gate. Schools out of compliance will be given some time to get back in compliance and perhaps some remedial measures will be required. Incidentally, my analysis of UBP rates in California found that despite the much lower first time bar pass rate in California, the UBP rates end up very close to the UBP rates of peer schools in states with easier bar exams. I other words, the students that should pass eventually do pass in California, it just takes them longer. See my post here: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2019/05/the-aba-2019-bar-pass-spreadsheet-part-ii-ultimate-bar-pass-and-the-new-standard-316.html

[Steve L.]

Thanks, David. I agree of course that people can underperform on the LSAT for many reasons unrelated to their abilities. Retaking the test is often a good strategy and can lead to admission at a more highly ranked school.

But those who score "146 or below" are, according to you, at either "very high risk" or "extreme risk" of failing to graduate or flunking the bar." The risk is signaled by the LSAT score, but not caused by it. Raising the score on a subsequent test does not mean that the student's chances have actually improved -- unless it goes up significantly or if there was some external factor affecting them on the first test.

Given your overall position that people at such great risk should not go to law school, the advice to retake the test seemed inconsistent.

Also, I strongly doubt that a test prep course will carry over three years later on the multistate. Doesn't everyone take a bar prep course? And yet, those in the bottom risk band still tend to fail the bar.

[David Frakt]

Steve L. -

A student who takes the LSAT only one time, with little or no preparation, may receive a score that does not reflect their true aptitude. Using the LSAC materials and taking the free prep course will enhance the student's confidence and give them some skills to perform to their full capacity. (I am not suggesting spending a lot of money on an expensive prep course - taking the free course or preparing diligently on your own will likely yield the same benefits.) My understanding is that using the free or low cost materials from LSAC raises a student's score, on average, by 3 points. (LSAC has prepared a study on the relative efficacy of test prep methods - see here https://www.lsac.org/data-research/research/summary-self-reported-methods-test-preparation-lsat-takers-testing-years-1) A student who scores below 146, then takes a prep course and takes the test again and still scores at or below 146 probably should not go to law school. A student who gets a 146 then takes a prep course and gets a 149 is a different story. This three point difference represents a huge difference in ability. A 146 is at the 29.5 percentile of LSAT takers, while a 149 is at 40.3%. Your question seems to be directed at the student's "true" aptitude for law school - is the student really a 146 and therefore still at very high risk despite their improved score, or should they be considered in the next risk category? The most accurate measure of a student's ability is an average of their LSAT scores. So I would consider that student to be a 147.5 - which would put that student between the 33rd and 36th percentile - still a high risk, but with a reasonable chance of success in law school. Another important thing to consider for potential law students is that the student with a 149 has a much wider range of law schools that may be willing to accept him or her. Some schools may even offer a partial scholarship to a student with a 149. In contrast, few law schools will accept a non-minority student with a 146. So it is well worth a student's time and effort to prepare for the LSAT and take it over.

[Dave Garrow]

David, just to commend you once again for what pioneering work you've done & continue to do on a subject that is SO crucial for young people not being taken advantage of & left saddled with burdensome debt that did them no good.

[David Frakt]

Dave Garrow -

Thank you for your kind words. Happy Holidays!

David Frakt