Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Should the aba start requiring a minimum lsat to enroll in lawschool?

It could be considered part of the prelegal minimal educatio esquire13811/04/17
Something modest like 150 seems reasonable to get in, and th esquire13811/04/17
I'd raise that to 155 as the entry point for getting in. junkwired11/08/17
I'd set it at 165 or whatever the 85th percentile is. inho2solo11/04/17
No. Let the individual schools screen the candidates and de patenttrollnj11/04/17
Why would the ABA care about filling the seats? They aren't esquire13811/04/17
The ABA could easily pass regulations holding these schools patenttrollnj11/04/17
Make the bar exam harder? Make the states mandatory prejd ed esquire13811/04/17
That's actually a good idea. The state bars should make the patenttrollnj11/04/17
States control it beyond just the schools as part of licensi esquire13811/04/17
They should, but they won't. They should drastically cut dow thirdtierlaw11/04/17
Good points lolasaurusrex11/04/17
THIS. 80% (a B grade) is high though. There a lot of schools feeder11/08/17
I think the LSAT is a better predictor of ability to be an a dingbat11/09/17
"Why would the ABA care about filling the seats? They aren't wutwutwut11/05/17
Yes, the ABA should. But think of the childr...I mean, thin dupednontraditional11/07/17
Absolutely they should. I say this all the time. As someon tomjoadsload11/08/17
You ask for the LSAT scores of job candidates? junkwired11/08/17
He probably surmises it based on their school. moistio211/08/17
The intellectual difference between someone who scores a 150 flyer1411/08/17
How far above Christmas treeing is a 145 anyway? It seems li downwardslope11/08/17
People with sub 140s have been accepted haha triplesix11/08/17
Yeah I looked at a spreadsheet and saw that someone with a 1 downwardslope11/08/17
Shouldn't these people know better by now? The poor career a relativityforever11/08/17
It's no different, other than being exceptionally more costl thirdtierlaw11/08/17
There's a sucker born every minute. relativityforever11/09/17
I could see that theory being to legalize pretty much any il esquire13811/10/17
No accredited school should be permitted to accept a candida anothernjlawyer11/10/17
Set 160 or 155 as the minimum score. 99% of the student bod cargo11/12/17

esquire138 (Nov 4, 2017 - 12:46 pm)

It could be considered part of the prelegal minimal education and would reduce attrition and increase bar pass rate and weed out the overflow of extra unlicensed or barely licensed jds deflating the value of the overall profession in the workforce.

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 4, 2017 - 12:48 pm)

Something modest like 150 seems reasonable to get in, and then maybe 170 with a decent grade overall and in a barprepelective can skip the bar itself too?

Reply Like (0)
junkwired (Nov 8, 2017 - 1:23 pm)

I'd raise that to 155 as the entry point for getting in.

Reply Like (0)
inho2solo (Nov 4, 2017 - 4:23 pm)

I'd set it at 165 or whatever the 85th percentile is.

Reply Like (0)
patenttrollnj (Nov 4, 2017 - 5:18 pm)

No. Let the individual schools screen the candidates and decide who they want to admit.

Requiring a minimum LSAT score won't do anything. The ABA will just keep lowering that minimum score in order to fill seats.

The solution is to stop funding low performing schools, thus an entity other than the ABA gets involved. Nothing short of that will help the situation.

Besides, and it may be hard for certain people here to believe, but there are certain people that score in the 150 range that are actually quite smart. You can pick up on this by looking at some of their other achievements listed in the application.

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 4, 2017 - 6:30 pm)

Why would the ABA care about filling the seats? They aren't the schools.

As to the smart EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE....I agree that they exist. What about having a nation wide fybx like CBX students have to take (the online folks)

Reply Like (0)
patenttrollnj (Nov 4, 2017 - 7:06 pm)

The ABA could easily pass regulations holding these schools to a higher standards, yet they don't. Thus, the ABA (for whatever reason) is enabling these schools to perpetuate the scam. Obviously, someone is pushing the ABA to look the other way. Thus, in effect, the ABA is looking out for the interests of the schools.

Note that the ABA isn't expressing any opinion on law schools starting to use the GRE, which makes it easier for schools to fill seats.

This is why the solution to the over-supply of lawyers has to be from OUTSIDE the ABA.

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 4, 2017 - 7:12 pm)

Make the bar exam harder? Make the states mandatory prejd education a masters degree?

Reply Like (0)
patenttrollnj (Nov 4, 2017 - 8:52 pm)

That's actually a good idea. The state bars should make the bar exam harder.

Unfortunately, if they do that, we're probably going to start hearing about how the bar "discriminates" against certain underprivileged groups--and then they'll cave. But yes, if the state bars only had a 50% passage rate, that would be a good deterrent for people to apply to law school.

And yes, I'm all for "pre-law" classes and other difficult hurdles before someone is capable of applying. But, that's up to the individual schools, and their interest is to get as many people as possible to apply. Thus, don't hold your breath.

Something OUTSIDE of the legal sector must intervene to fix the situation. This is why I don't think anything can stop the scam. There is no incentive for anyone to do anything. The best we can hope for is that individual students who have potential (and can do something in some other sector) will opt not to go into law.

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 4, 2017 - 9:16 pm)

States control it beyond just the schools as part of licensing requirements. It's why if you enroll in a jd with less than a bachelors degree the school makes you sign a waiver that admits you know you wont be elligible for licensure in all states. And some states already are below 59percent pass rates on bar exam .

Reply Like (0)
thirdtierlaw (Nov 4, 2017 - 7:17 pm)

They should, but they won't. They should drastically cut down on accredited schools. Frankly, any school that has a bar passage rate lower than 80% should get the axe.

So many problems would be fixed the first year, it'd be amazing. No more glut of attorneys. People will avoid taking on life altering debt. All firms will make more money. I see very little downside. But sadly it won't happen. I have no idea why the ABA has no interest in protecting the profession. Take a look at the AMA, if the ABA had modeled themselves after the AMA, almost none of the current problem would exist.

As for smart people scoring 150 on the LSAT. I'm sure quite a few smart people who never bothered to prepare for the LSATs could get a score in that range. But I also believe the fact remains that those same individuals could score much higher if they actually cracked an LSAT prep book.

Though I don't believe the LSATs are a good predictor of how a person will be as an attorney, I don't mind it being used as an arbitrary entrance exam.

Reply Like (0)
lolasaurusrex (Nov 4, 2017 - 11:38 pm)

Good points

Reply Like (0)
feeder (Nov 8, 2017 - 4:34 pm)

THIS. 80% (a B grade) is high though. There a lot of schools who would take an 80% passage rate. I think 70% for any two-year period would work well enough without being overly restrictive. That way only truly bad schools will shut down while preserving some not so good schools and compelling those to lower class sizes.

Reply Like (0)
dingbat (Nov 9, 2017 - 2:42 pm)

I think the LSAT is a better predictor of ability to be an attorney than it is a predictor of success in law school

Reply Like (0)
wutwutwut (Nov 5, 2017 - 2:21 pm)

"Why would the ABA care about filling the seats? They aren't the schools. "


Ahem. You may want to check how many lower-tier LS deans populate many of the committees of the ABA, including the one overseeing education.


In a certain sense, portions of the ABA decision-making bodies ARE the schools. Or at least, the deans of the schools.


Fox/henhouse, regulatory capture at its finest.

Reply Like (0)
dupednontraditional (Nov 7, 2017 - 4:21 pm)

Yes, the ABA should. But think of the childr...I mean, think of the Deans, Admins, and LawProfs...!

Reply Like (0)
tomjoadsload (Nov 8, 2017 - 12:53 pm)

Absolutely they should. I say this all the time. As someone who has to make hiring decisions, I've seen first-hand that the attorneys who score 150 and below on the LSAT are often incompetent and incapable of legal practice.

Reply Like (0)
junkwired (Nov 8, 2017 - 1:22 pm)

You ask for the LSAT scores of job candidates?

Reply Like (0)
moistio2 (Nov 8, 2017 - 1:25 pm)

He probably surmises it based on their school.

Reply Like (0)
flyer14 (Nov 8, 2017 - 1:31 pm)

The intellectual difference between someone who scores a 150 versus a 155 isn't that big, usually it falls down to outside factors such as whether the person actually studied for the exam.

Between a 150 and a 145 however, the difference is dramatic... the 145 has no place being enrolled in law school much less be allowed to drag down the school's bar pass rate.

Reply Like (0)
downwardslope (Nov 8, 2017 - 2:20 pm)

How far above Christmas treeing is a 145 anyway? It seems like not much. Some of these schools were regularly letting in 141s.

Reply Like (0)
triplesix (Nov 8, 2017 - 2:45 pm)

People with sub 140s have been accepted haha

Reply Like (0)
downwardslope (Nov 8, 2017 - 3:44 pm)

Yeah I looked at a spreadsheet and saw that someone with a 129 was let in. I can only hope that English was their 4th language. That is the only excuse.

Reply Like (0)
relativityforever (Nov 8, 2017 - 3:07 pm)

Shouldn't these people know better by now? The poor career and financial outcomes of graduates from lower ranked law schools has been covered pretty extensively for at least 10 years in the mainstream media. If they aren't allowed to go to Cooley, maybe they'll get a graduate degree in medieval feminist theory, sell all their possessions for magic beans, or find some other way to ruin their lives. At some point, you have to recognize that some people are just going to make foolish decisions regardless of what you tell them.

Reply Like (0)
thirdtierlaw (Nov 8, 2017 - 4:17 pm)

It's no different, other than being exceptionally more costly, than those people who buy into those pyramid schemes. People in every position on the totem pole are unhappy with their lot in life. People want to believe the lies the admissions people are telling them. So when it comes to weighing the two mainstream articles on the topic and hundreds of forum posts vs. the Cooley admissions counselor pointing out the grads making millions a year. They are going to write off the "haters." Just like those people you see on facebook trying to sell you make-up, a fitness program, or smoothies.

Do you remember those late night infomercials that were selling "investment software" that all you needed to do was buy the featured stock when there were 3 green arrows and sell it when there were 3 red arrows? And besides the 6 monthly payments of $19.99 all the creator wanted, after you buy your mansion, is a thank you note. What insomniac at 3 a.m. didn't get that nagging itch, "sure it seems too good to be true, but what if it really is that easy?" Most people were smart enough to just dream about being rich and then head off to bed. But there is a certain subset of people who actually decided to buy that junk. Law Schools have their pitch down to a science. They are no different than those late night infomercials.

Reply Like (0)
relativityforever (Nov 9, 2017 - 6:10 pm)

There's a sucker born every minute.

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 10, 2017 - 9:30 am)

I could see that theory being to legalize pretty much any illegal substance or consensual act too.

Drugs, prostitution, etc.

Although being high and getting laid would be a fun change of pace for going to court......"your honor I sucked his D but he didn't provide no H"...."but did he nut"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi-yPMV7p14

Reply Like (0)
anothernjlawyer (Nov 10, 2017 - 9:43 am)

No accredited school should be permitted to accept a candidate with an LSAT score below 155.

Reply Like (0)
cargo (Nov 12, 2017 - 10:04 am)

Set 160 or 155 as the minimum score. 99% of the student body (as measured on the first day of enrollment) should be required to meet this threshold.

Permit law schools to admit 1% of their class without having to meet that requirement. That way, if there is a unicorn who just happens to do poorly on tests, they can still enroll. Not everyone in law school plans on taking the bar exam, so it is reasonable for 1-2 students a year to not need to be capable of passing the bar's multiple choice section.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread