http://lawschooltransparency.com/reform/projects/investigations/2015/
LST’s Report: Recently, Law School Transparency published an excellent study – backed up with charts, graphs, figures, and rock solid analysis – that was entitled “2015 State of Legal Education.” Here is the general overview of that report:
“A problem for our profession and society
Law school enrollment is the lowest it's been since the 1960's. To remain financially viable, many law schools are admitting many people who face real risk of not completing school or of failing the bar. The bargain is clear: take larger, riskier classes now to survive and deal with the accreditation challenges, angry alumni, and bad press that follow later.
But at what cost, and to whom? And should we collectively enable this bargain?
We need lawyers. Yet too many schools hoping to produce the next generation of lawyers are failing the profession and society today—not to mention the students they're setting up to fail. To reinvigorate the law school pipeline, we must address the substantive issues that drive prospective law students away from the legal profession. We must ensure that law schools make responsible enrollment choices and become more affordable.” [Emphasis in original]
Since a profession is supposed to care about its practitioners, future members, potential clients or patients, and society – as well as maintaining and enhancing its reputation – who could be upset with an organization that, at its own expense, has furnished such data and provided pragmatic solutions? Then again, we are talking about the law school swine.
http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/press-releases/lsac-statement-dec-1-final.pdf?sfvrsn=2
The Pigs Respond: LSAC “president” David Bernstine provided this reply, in his letter “Why LSAT Scores Should Not Be Used to Label Law Schools and Their Students” – On December 1, 2015. From his opening:
“A report recently released by Law School Transparency (LST) has gained headlines by claiming that some ABA-approved law schools have been intentionally admitting “high risk” students who, based on their LSAT scores, do not have a reasonable chance of passing the bar. As explained below, this claim and others made by the LST study are based on misunderstandings of the LSAT.
The LSAT is a valid measure of certain cognitive skills that are important for success in law school. However, proper use of the test does not include using score ranges to label law schools and their students as to their potential for successful bar passage.
In addition to the fact that the recommendations in the LST report run counter to LSAC’s testuse guidelines, we are concerned about the methodological errors upon which the report is based, and the misleading media coverage that this flawed report has generated.” [Emphasis mine]
By his “logic,” college quarterbacks being assessed for their ability to play and succeed in the NFL should not be judged on whether they can complete difficult passes in tight coverage or whether they can remain calm and perform at a high level in critical situations. After all, there are so many other factors and intangibles. Apparently, David Bernstine has difficulty with reading and statistics.
http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2015/12/law-school-transparency-lst-responds-to-law-school-admission-council-lsac-press-release.html
McEntee Replies: The Faculty Lounge posted his well-written retort, “Law School Transparency (LST) Responds to Law School Admission Council (LSAC) Press Release” – on December 2, 2015. Check out the meaty portion below:
“In recent weeks, several deans at high-risk schools have made comments in the media suggesting that there is no correlation between LSAT scores and bar passage at their law school, but none have provided data to support their assertions. The most clearly false claim came from Dean Penelope Bryan at Whittier Law School. She told the Los Angeles Times that “[t]he LSAT score has no predictive value for the success of Whittier Law School students on the bar exam.” Incidentally, Whittier’s first time bar pass rate in California dropped from 64.7% in July 2013, , to 42.7% in July 2014 to 30% in February 2015. (Note - Whittier had only 10 first time test-takers for that administration; California's July 2015 results by school are not yet available, but the statewide results were lower.)
At the same time, Whittier’s entering class profile progressively weakened. In 2014, over half of the entering class at Whittier was at 146 or below on the LSAT. To Whittier’s credit, the school dramatically shrank their first year entering class in 2015, substantially raising the LSAT profile of the bottom half of the class, with the 50th percentile increasing from 146 to 148 and the 25th percentile increasing from 143 to 146. Clearly, Whittier has recognized that LSAT scores do matter, even if Dean Bryan won’t publicly admit it.” [Emphasis mine]
According to the Orange County Register, the American Bar Association placed Whittier Law Sewer on academic probation in 2005 due to pathetically low bar passage rates. The fact that the ABA continues to accredit such dung heaps shows that they don’t give a damn about students or recent graduates. It also speaks volumes about the organization.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the LSAC rats are in the same boat as “law professors” and deans. They need more asses in seats, in order to keep their plush, easy jobs. They know that the media coverage of the drop in numbers of test-takers, decline in the quality of applicants, and the resultant plunge in bar passage rates has cast the ABA-accredited toilets in a bad light. The bitches and hags will do and say anything, to stanch the bleeding. Simply put, the schools want to be able to admit morons who can barely read at an 11th grade level – and they don’t want anyone to point that out to others. The Law $chool Admi$$ion Council is in leagie with the pigs. However, this is still “the noble profession,” right?
