Tuesday, March 24, 2015
News Flash: Legal Academics Will Gladly Admit Less Qualified Students, Because Larger Enrollment Equals More Student Loan Dollars
ABA Commodes Sinking Even Lower: On March 20, 2015, Tamara Tabo posted a Mimesis Law article entitled “Inefficient Markets Are Inefficient: What Behavioral Econ Says About Why Some Law Schools Fail.” Read the following excerpt:
“Sow’s Ears and Silk Purses and All of That
A law school’s admissions policy is crucial to its bar passage rate. Even the best teachers must work with the students who appear in their classrooms. So, let’s focus on the relationship between admissions and bar exam outcomes.
As law school applications drop nationwide, a lot of schools have been maintaining their class sizes by accepting applicants with lower GPAs, LSAT scores, and other admissions metrics. But what if a school is already taking chances on applicants whose numbers are rock-bottom? Law schools with already-low standards are caught on the horns of a dilemma:
(1) Maintain standards, though that means enrolling fewer students. Fewer enrolled students mean fewer tuition dollars funding the school’s operating costs. Deep cuts mean hiring freezes, pay reductions, and even eventual lay-offs.
(2) Lower admissions standards. Put warm bodies in seats — and money in coffers — by any means necessary. But what happens in three years when those students sit for the bar exam? If a school’s bar passage rate has been in the sewer for years, to what depths will it sink when a crop of ostensibly less-qualified students face the exam? Abysmal bar numbers threaten a school’s ABA accreditation. So, an admissions policy prioritizing enrollment over student success sidesteps next year’s financial crisis but it might doom the entire institution several years in the future.
Unfortunately, a lot of schools with low bar passage rates have been taking what’s behind Door #2. Why?
Perverse Incentives Are Perverse.
Perverse incentives create adverse consequences by unintentionally rewarding bad behavior. At most law schools, admissions policies are set by faculty vote or by the dean, with faculty approval. The people deciding are the same people whose paychecks could take a hit if next year’s incoming class is down 40%.
Faculty participation is supposed to make sure that the people closest to the consequences of the policy are the ones who set the standards. Unfortunately, the system unintentionally rewards faculty for putting their own financial interests before the good of the school.” [Emphasis mine]
Admi$$ion$ commiTTTies at ABA-accredited toilets are comprised of law faculty members and usually an ass-wipe assistant dean. These are the same people who tell you how intelligent you are and what a great decision you have made – throughout the application process and during orientation.
Of course, when YOU have not secured decent employment in three years – due primarily to the GLUT of lawyers in this country – these same cockroaches often turn around and blame you for being an entitled brat or a lazy bastard who didn’t apply himself. Actually, if you are outside the top 10% of your class after first semester or first year, then you are typically dismissed by these academic thieves as a loser.
Other Coverage: On March 22, 2015, Paul Caron reported on this development in an entry labeled “Behavioral Economics and Law School Failure: Tie Faculty Salaries to Student Bar Exam Performance.” He provides this portion from the Tabo piece:
“Low enrollment today frightens many law schools more than low bar passage rates three years from now. The reward of funding the current budget is a small reward compared to better bar passage and keeping the law school out of trouble with the ABA. But schools get that smaller reward right away. The reward of maintaining standards and ensuring the school’s future is greater overall, but schools won’t get that reward for several years, when the class of students admitted under the policy reaches the bar exam.
It’s not that professors don’t care about students passing the bar. It’s just that they care about cuts to next year’s budget more.” [Emphasis mine]
Frankly, the author is far too kind to the failed lawyers known as “legal educators.” It is ALL about the money – and that was always the case. The pigs simply squealed terms such as “public service” and “giving back” in order to pull the wool over your eyes. By the way, now that fewer people are applying to law school, many of these rodents will have the opportunity to prove whether they can indeed land huge salaries that they supposedly turned down for the sake of their precious students.
Conclusion: You can bet your ass that MANY of these commodes will continue to lower their “standards.” After all, they need more warm bodies in seats so they can get their hooves on all that federal student loan money. They get paid up front, in full – while YOU, the student, are left holding the massive bag of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. Hell, before long, these cesspools will start accepting those with an IQ in the Uncle Grandpa range. At this point, making consecutive three-pointers is more impressive than earning a damn law degree.
Posted by Nando at 4:22 AM