Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

WSJ article: aba considers rule about shutting law schools down

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-te st-for-law-schools-do-eno mera8801/13/19
This is from the ABA's accreditation council. I think the wutwutwut01/13/19
I'm a big believer in this, but I also know it'll never happ thirdtierlaw01/13/19
When I was in law school, most of the topics that were on th fettywap01/13/19
Hi, I don't think the arguments post-2012 or so have been th wutwutwut01/13/19
It's been a long while, but I remember the MBE being mostly onehell01/14/19
it should also be tied to loan / student ratio if someone whiteguyinchina01/13/19
This situation indicates the lack of intellectual rigor in l brokelawyer01/14/19
It is because they don't care about the profession. I'm s thirdtierlaw01/14/19
Well, residencies are actually accredited by the ACGME, not onehell01/14/19
It is incredibly hard to get into medical school. Students n mera8801/14/19
Applicants don't even need the LSAT; about 25 schools accept toooldtocare01/14/19
Didn't say anything about making the exam easier, just that onehell01/15/19
They should do it. 25% bar passage is a low standard. If t jeffm01/14/19
Which means that this dispute is a balancing of "predation o brokelawyer01/14/19
jm's absolutely correct-which means this has no chance of su toooldtocare01/14/19
Troll article triplesix01/15/19
mera88 (Jan 13, 2019 - 2:04 pm)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-test-for-law-schools-do-enough-graduates-pass-the-bar-11547391600

Aba considers rule that if 75% of a law school graduates don't pass the bar exam in under two years to shut the school down. what do u think? hope it actually passes.

Reply
wutwutwut (Jan 13, 2019 - 2:30 pm)

This is from the ABA's accreditation council.

I think they have little power overall, esp. compared to the regulatory capture of the other ABA education committees which are over-heavy with low-tier LS deans.

There's this: The accred council has recommended similar previously but "retreated from an earlier attempt after detractors said it would hurt schools with larger enrollments of minority students"


This is always the ammunition used against anyone suggesting that the scammiest schools should lose accreditation. But-but-but-the-minorities!


Never mind that those schools are actually abusing large numbers of minority candidates who will fail out by mid-2L year after going 80K in debt.

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Jan 13, 2019 - 2:40 pm)

I'm a big believer in this, but I also know it'll never happen.

Reply
fettywap (Jan 13, 2019 - 2:43 pm)

When I was in law school, most of the topics that were on the bar exam were elective courses. You learned how to pass the bar through that 6 week bar review course, not through law school.

Reply
wutwutwut (Jan 13, 2019 - 2:47 pm)

Hi, I don't think the arguments post-2012 or so have been that law schools are failing to teach students the bar exam.


It's mainly that law schools are enrolling people they should know have a high likelihood of being completely incapable of passing the bar exam. No matter the bar review course(s).

Q: How many schools between 2010 and 2016 or -17 enrolling classes let what was their 25th percentile students become their 50th or even 75th percentile students?

A: Far too many.

Reply
onehell (Jan 14, 2019 - 11:25 am)

It's been a long while, but I remember the MBE being mostly 1L subjects (or professional responsibility, but that's not an elective. In fact, at my school I think it was the only 2L/3L class that was actually required.)

There are a few elective courses that the bar can hit like UCC, T&E, evidence, corporations. And there can be some state-specific stuff that law school probably doesn't even offer, but the overwhelming majority of subjects tested are taught in 1L, which is why they call your review course a review.

Besides, law students are pretty motivated to pass the bar. Sure, you can theoretically get the JD taking nothing but liberal artsy seminars all 2L/3L year, but almost everyone voluntarily takes at least a few of the bar classes so the stuff isn't completely new to you when you get to the "review" course. As others have said, the problem isn't so much what is or is not taught as it is whether the students simply even have the cognitive ability to pass the barxam.

Once you get down into schools that admit kids with LSATs in the 140s, it starts to get questionable whether any amount of teaching could get them to pass. I know the notion gets maligned a lot, but law school really is intended to get you to "think like a lawyer." And the barxam is similar. It's not like the tests many people are used to taking which are based on memorization and regurgitation. There's reasoning to it, like how on the MBE you aren't just choosing the right answer but rather the "most correct" answer.

Law school pedagogy, at least the 1L year, is an interesting invention that really can change how you think about a lot of things, but only if they have the raw material to work with. The 2L/3L years are unnecessary, indeed I think the JD could easily become a 1 year masters, but the 1L curriculum is one of the few things about law school with which I have no beef. However, it should be pretty darn rare to see someone admitted to LS with a sub-150 LSAT and/or a sub-3.0 GPA, which is what a rule like this is trying to crack down on.

Reply
whiteguyinchina (Jan 13, 2019 - 2:58 pm)

it should also be tied to loan / student ratio

if someone is paying out of pocket, fine

Reply
brokelawyer (Jan 14, 2019 - 2:26 am)

This situation indicates the lack of intellectual rigor in law. Medical schools and engineering schools don’t worry about making it easier for the dumb kids—because it’s not possible. In law, you can demand less and still mint a lawyer. Which is kind of depressing.

Reply
thirdtierlaw (Jan 14, 2019 - 10:03 am)

It is because they don't care about the profession.

I'm sure engineering schools don't particularly care about the profession either, but they are typically undergrad programs that don't need to worry if their students are failing because the students will just change majors and go on their way.

The AMA does it right. They intentionally limit the number of residences and and hold schools to a high standard. It helps ensure that almost all graduates have good paying jobs coming out.

Reply
onehell (Jan 14, 2019 - 12:54 pm)

Well, residencies are actually accredited by the ACGME, not the AMA, but neither can or do explicitly control the number of slots/seats. That would create an anti-trust problem. What they can do is make accreditation requirements very expensive to meet, which is easy to justify given what's at stake for patients and the biological nature of the discipline.

How could the ABA possibly justify making it as difficult or expensive to open a law school as a medical school? All there needs to be is professors and rooms to deliver Socratic lectures in. The most expensive requirement they've so far managed to hold on to is the increasingly-obsolete law library.

ABA simply can't control the number of law schools without the aggrieved schools having valid anti-trust cases. If anything, the ABA need to LOOSEN its standards, particularly in terms of delivery method and number of credits required. The 1L curriculum should be all that's needed, as it is almost all the bar exam tests, and there's no reason it can't be delivered online. Meanwhile, the feds could tighten the student loan spigot. Given that almost everything after 1L is elective, law school should be a one-year masters program and that's all the feds should be willing to loan for.

If law were a one year masters, you might indeed see even more schools pop up. But the investment for the student would be far less than it is now, especially if schools finally had an incentive to compete on price. And as with your engineering example, it would be far easier for people to do something else when it doesn't work out.

Reply
mera88 (Jan 14, 2019 - 1:06 pm)

It is incredibly hard to get into medical school. Students need pre reqs and internship experience with high gpas and high MCAT scores all across the United States. The medical profession has really made sure that only the top of the top get into medical school which actually helps students who are not doing well from avoiding a profession that is pretty tough and longs hours. Law schools do not have an equivalent of this situation. All you need is a GPA(doesn't matter how low it is) and an LSAT score(doesn't matter how low it it) to go to law school. This means that there will be a lot of law graduates not able to pass a bar exam and have a lot of debt and no law license with a low paying job or no job at all. In addition there is no way they are going to make it easier to pass the bar exam. More lawyers means more doctors and insurance companies are getting sued who have a very strong lobby. While these latter entities do not have much in the game when it comes to students becoming law students they do have something at stake when law grads become lawyers because it is very likely they will start getting sued left and right so I doubt that the bar exam will be made easier to pass and I don't think it should because then there will be over saturation of law grads more than there is already now.

Reply
toooldtocare (Jan 14, 2019 - 2:59 pm)

Applicants don't even need the LSAT; about 25 schools accept GRE scores.

Reply
onehell (Jan 15, 2019 - 10:33 am)

Didn't say anything about making the exam easier, just that the style of thinking you need to pass it (as well as the vast majority of the subjects tested) is all done in 1L, meaning there is no need for the third year and probably little need for the second one either.

As to the rest of what you said, I agree. But the REASON med school is so hard to get into is simply because the demand of students exceeds the seats available by a huge margin, so there's no such thing as an unselective medical school in the United States.

If it were law school, the number of schools would simply expand until demand was met, and then they'd use student loans and misleading marketing to create even more demand (for seats, not jobs lol). But that's apples and oranges. For antitrust reasons, no accreditor (not even AMA) can say "this is how many schools we will allow to exist" but they can set quality standards. It's obvious how much more onerous an accreditor can be with a discipline that is rooted in biology over one that is rooted in liberal arts. Add to this the fact that everyone needs regular medical care (and most can get an insurer to pay for it) whereas the average person needs a lawyer somewhere between 0-5 times in their life (and usually has to either pay out of pocket or convince a contingent-fee guy that settlement is all but certain) and the result is obvious: Easy to create seats and demand for them, not so easy to create demand for grads.

Reply
jeffm (Jan 14, 2019 - 12:06 pm)

They should do it. 25% bar passage is a low standard. If they can't recruit and educate qualified candidates, it starts to become clearly predatory.

Reply
brokelawyer (Jan 14, 2019 - 1:21 pm)

Which means that this dispute is a balancing of "predation on minorities" against "giving better access to minorities." Noticing a trend here? If it is done in the name of minorities, the sheer economic stupidity of the arrangement is somehow irrelevant.

It makes no sense for law school to cost $100,000 per year (especially given the low school overhead), and there is no reason for one in 300 Americans to be a lawyer. Yet these are not the facts under discussion.

Reply
toooldtocare (Jan 14, 2019 - 3:01 pm)

jm's absolutely correct-which means this has no chance of surviving, as it makes too much sense.
Besides, somebody's got to look out for the scam deans and profs-if all these schools were to close they might have to-godforbid!-actually practice law.

Reply
triplesix (Jan 15, 2019 - 9:03 am)

Troll article

Reply
Post a message in this thread