Sunday, March 1, 2015

Two ABA-Accredited Law Schools Have Now Decided to Drop the LSAT for Ten Percent of Their Incoming Classes

The Culprits: SUNY Buffalo and the University of Iowa: On February 24, 2015, BloombergBusiness published reporter Natalie Kitroeff’s article, which was entitled “The First Two Law Schools to Drop the LSAT Could Be Just the Beginning.” Check out this opening:

“Two law schools said this month that they would begin accepting applicants who have not taken the Law School Admissions Test, a move that may help curb weak interest and plunging enrollments in law schools across the country. The State University of New York-Buffalo Law School and the University of Iowa College of Law said they would admit students from their respective undergraduate colleges based on their grade point average and scores on standardized tests other than the LSAT. 

“Taking the LSAT is a pain, and it is expensive,” says James Gardner, dean of SUNY Buffalo’s law school. The test comes with a $170 fee, often in addition to months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars. “This is just a way to identify strong-performing students based on perfectly rational criteria that don’t involve the LSAT,” Gardner says. 

He acknowledges, however, that the change might be a lifeline to law schools, which have lately been suffering from a persistent lack of bodies. “It does address that problem to the extent that they remove what is, for some students, an obstacle for applying to law school,” says Gardner. In 2014, first-year enrollment at U.S. law schools fell to about 38,000, its lowest point in four decades, down 28 percent since it peaked in 2010. First-year enrollments have declined by around 20 percent since 2011 at both SUNY Buffalo and the University of Iowa. 

The two schools are the first to announce that they've taken advantage of a recent ruling by the American Bar Association, which accredits U.S. law schools. In August, the ABA changed its rules to allow law schools to fill up to 10 percent of their class with students who have not taken the LSAT, as long as they were at the top of their college class and scored highly on the the SAT and ACT, college aptitude tests, or on the GRE or GMAT graduate school exams. 

Additional law schools will probably follow. Before the ABA loosened its standards, around 15 schools had successfully applied for special dispensation to admit some students without LSAT scores, and Barry Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education at the ABA, expects these and other programs to take advantage of new rules allowing them to do so without informing the ABA.” [Emphasis mine]

Listening to law school dean proclaim that the LSAT is an expensive pain is priceless, in terms of the comedy gold provided. Sitting in a chair for roughly four hours and shelling out a few hundred bucks is NOTHING compared to three years and incurring $130K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for a chance to enter a GLUTTED field.

Perhaps, “law professors” truly have the math aptitude of a toddler. On second thought, even 18 month kids can put the colored donuts/stacking rings in the right order. Overpaid, severely underworked academics complaining about the cost of the LSAT are the equivalent of hardened drug dealers stating that they want neighborhood children to wear bike helmets – in order to look out for their health and safety.

Other Coverage: Elie Mystal issued a scathing, epic ATL piece – on February 27, 2015. His article was labeled “Killing The LSAT Is A Bad Deal For Students.” He comes out swinging, i.e. telling the truth about this sham:

“Law schools are not dispensing with the LSAT to help you, they’re doing it to trick you. Instead of dropping $170 on a fee, plus whatever you spend on a prep course, to figure out if you might actually be good at law school, they want to strike down any barrier that might make you reconsider taking on $150,000 or more in debt. Oh, you’ll still have to take a massively important standardized test, it’s called the bar exam. But the school will have already gotten your money/debt obligations by the time you sit for it. The house wins the moment you step into the casino. 

And those are just the surface problems. Those are just the obvious issues with law schools dropping the LSAT requirement. The news from the University of Iowa and SUNY Buffalo is actually even more nefariously designed to trick students when you start peeling back additional layers.”

Later on, Mystal nailed this situation down PERFECTLY. Behold:

“These law schools are trying to turn the purchase of legal education into an impulse buy. Don’t buy a prep course that costs a thousand bucks, instead spend $150,000 bucks on a lark. This is the law school version of the guy who tells you that he doesn’t use condoms because it “kills the mood.” The LSAT is a de-minimus prophylactic that, if used properly, can help protect students from harm. But Iowa and SUNY just want you to trust them. 

IT’S A TRAP. Barry Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education at the American Bar Association, basically said so: 

Currier says doing away with the test might draw people to a career in law who would otherwise go to business or medical school. 

Think about that statement for a second. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT? That’s the problem with law schools right there. Instead of making law school reasonable, affordable, and valuable to people who want to be lawyers, deans are concerned with drawing — suckering — people into law who don’t know what they want to do with their lives. “I wanted to be a doctor, but I went to law school because I didn’t have to take a test.” That’s who they’re trying to sell law school to! That’s freaking evil.” [Emphasis mine]

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the cockroaches at the American Bar Association issued this decision, in order to buoy sagging applications and enrollment at member schools. Real professional schools seek to limit entry to the field BEFORE the pupils take on insane amounts of educational debt. However, we know conclusively, by now, that U.S. “law professors” and administrators DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about the students. It is all about the money, and the pigs want to extend this scam for as long as possible.


  1. Please someone in this country with the power to do so, please shut both of these law schools down.

    1. Iowa is an interesting case. There appears to be some demand for their graduates. If they were located in Des Moines, they could drive third-tier Drake entirely out of business by charging their standard in-state tuition.

      So why don't they move their law school to Des Moines? Because of their academic pretensions. They have several special programs, including legal history, that require collaboration with the main university. However, since few Iowa graduates, and perhaps none, can obtain academic jobs, these special programs are useless. They continue to exist only to feed the vanity of a few professors.

      Here's my proposal to turn around the Iowa law school. Discard the academic frivolity and relocate the school to Des Moines as a practice-oriented institution. That would lead to a quick and merciful death for Drake. Everyone would benefit, since Iowa can't support two law faculties in luxury, pretense, and uselessness any longer. A similar principle would apply to several other states, including Indiana, Colorado, and Oregon. Trim the fat and close down some unnecessary schools. Everyone would benefit except the grossly overpaid deans and professors.

  2. So the Buffalo dean is worried that taking the LSAT is expensive for students. I wonder if he realizes that the tuition at his law school is 140 times that amount, and multiplied by 3 years is actually 420 times the cost of taking the LSAT.

    1. poor reasoning for a law school dean, don't you think?

  3. Can you imagine a world where Hummer salesmen eschew the high price of gas while at the same time peddling their gas guzzling product? Or how about a DMV that waives the vision test and just gives everyone a driver's license, even the blind. That is the same world these scam law deans live in.

  4. The lsat is expensive.

    Law school is about 1000x expensive.

  5. Years ago there was a debate regarding increases in class size and quality of students. Shills believed that law schools would not like the class increases and lowering of entrance standards because lawprofs would deal with lower quality students. In reality, the professors don't give a fuck if they are lecturing to a room full of drooling morons. They just want the paychecks like always.

    Hilariously, the lawprofs scream bloody murder when university admins discuss layoffs or cuts to prof salaries. All that bleating about pro bono and "giving something back" goes right out the window when their $200k salaries are on the line. Nando puts those guidestar forms out for a reason: Law faculty and admins care only about getting paid. There is no higher calling here.

  6. Dropping the LSAT is a indeed a very bad idea. I graduated from a third tier, or was it fourth or maybe second tier, law school two decades ago. The LSAT at least held me back six months of so because I had to sign up for it in advance and then drive two hours to take it. Law school is a huge waste of time and I'm saying that after having passed the bar and been in practice for years. There should be more barriers not less between an unsuspecting youths time and money and the ridiculous waste of time that is law school. In addition to what I just said the LSAT is a real test that I believe does tell you a little bit about how well suited you are for the practice of law (certain kinds of law at least) and how likely you are to pass the bar exam the first time. This is important info. Skip the LSAT and law school and do yourself a real favor.

    1. I don't really like worrying about the past because there is no way to change it, but if law schools had the 3 year work experience requirement most B-Schools have, I wonder how many less applicants they would have. Also if law school at least had a core requirement of classes like medical and dental school.

      As it is, I now know that the 3 year work experience requirement doesn't really exist, and while even a crappy medical school still means an MD, a crappy JD is utterly worthless. The only reason I went for law was I thought it'd be a shortcut and fell for the fraudulent statistics (which courts hold nobody relied on, yet the schools screamed bloody murder when forced to publish more accurate stats and enrollment tanked completely).

      If law school had the same barriers to entry, I would have in order gone to a top B-school, and failing that, any medical school in the US, and possibly a DO program or overseas program, and then if somehow all of that failed, then and only then law school.

      I think most people who are genuinely at least somewhat intelligent and have any type of work ethic would have the same thinking. Maybe a top 5 law school would figure in there somewhere, but after having practiced law I don't think even that is worth it.

      Law school is a truly awful bet, and I think that's why there are no requirements. Virtually nobody would go with accurate stats and with similar barriers. Law backends the barriers on purpose because the schools don't care and the government has been subsidizing these awful results. So it's as Nando and others have stated, a scam.

      The law schools got to really crush some otherwise intelligent people from roughly 2004-2011 or so, but anybody going to a non-top law school after 2010 that isn't connected isn't really bright. The LSAT scores bear that out. The 2004-2007 classes were extremely competitive, and now the past few years are the opposite end of the spectrum.

      Historically a 165 LSAT got you into a T14 fairly easily, and a 160+ got you scholarships at the top 50 or so. But in the bubble, 165 got you a T2, and you needed to clear 171 just to make Georgetttown and probably not get anything out of that either.

      Now though, with the schools so desperate, I'm sure a 155 gets you into a top 50 ranked with some scholarship money.

      I guess timing really means everything. But the difference is now these people should know how bad the outcome is at a non top 5, so even though they're getting into "better" schools, it's still pointless. HYS is still going to demand around a 170+, and they're the only ones that matter. And no way a Georgetttown can demand 170s anymore.

    2. ^^^This^^^

      That is all.

  7. I wish there was a site like this for higher ed in general. Yes, law school is worse than most grad schools but I can say that to a lesser degree everything that is true about a third tier law school is also true of a third tier grad school in almost any discipline except maybe the very hottest professions in the current econ arena. Higher ed has become a total scam and on-line ed (where I work) is a total toilet.

  8. The LSAT isn't a big barrier but it's enough of one if people shell out maybe $1000 for prep classes and study 6 months for it. If after dozens and dozens of prep exams (and timed) you can't break 160, some will give up on the dream. Some have a brain and realize it's better to be out $1000 and several months of your life rather than $100k and 3-4 years (when you take bar prep and results in the mix). now the greedy assholes at the ABA wanna take that away.

  9. Not sure this will get them very much. You're talking about the top 10% of students who have a lot more options than law school.

  10. Last night I was at a college reunion (Class of '99) and ran into a classmate who now works as a hedge fund asst. manager. He makes $750K a year and lives in a $1.8M home and he drives a Maserati. As an attorney, I live in a $400K that is mortgaged to the hilt, drive a '06 Toyota Prius and probably earn less than a commoner in Abu Dhabi.

    Anyway, I had a few drinks with my classmate and he told me that when we graduated college, he could not get into law school because his LSAT was a 148. When I told him that today law schools take people in with no score or low scores in the 130s, he said "I am glad they didn't drop the standards when I graduated college; otherwise, I may be a struggling attorney chasing the illusory brass ring." Sometimes the person who gets dipped in shit is lucky, unless that shit is part of a pile of turd known as law school.

  11. With $hiTTTTholes like Cooley and TTTTouro and TTTThoma$ Jeffer$on letting anyone in now, it is a true race to the bottom.

    This might keep the trap schools afloat for a little while longer, but even this won't stop the brain drain. The word is out that law school is a full-on con game, and smart undergrads are either going T8 or doing something else. I'm sure there will always be special snowflakes stupid enough to play some law school three card monte, but even those numbers are falling.

    Keep up the good work, Nando. Give it another year, and we'll start seeing law schools close for good.

  12. US News should find a way to take into account these students without LSAT into their rankings. This new category of students affect the quality of the students thus the school.

  13. Elie's post was actually quite good. Another part that was not included:

    "Dear Iowa and especially SUNY students, please take the LSAT. Worst case scenario, you’ll do poorly and still get into a law school that is desperate for warm bodies. Best case: you do well and can go to a better law school.

    That’s the second prong of the attack Iowa and SUNY are taking to their own students. By minimizing the LSAT, the schools are trying to reduce the chances that their own students “test out” into better law schools, or law schools that will offer them a significant discount in tuition based on strong LSAT scores. A good LSAT score empowers prospective students with options. Iowa and SUNY are encouraging students to disregard those options.

    But what if you get a low score? That’s attack number three. Now Iowa and SUNY can admit students who otherwise have no business being in law school without taking a hit to their median LSAT scores and thus their U.S. News ranking. Understand, Iowa and SUNY can admit whoever they want, LSAT be damned. But if you take it and do poorly, oh well that might make the schools look bad in the rankings. WE CAN’T HAVE THAT. Iowa and SUNY would prefer to hide their worst test takers from their LSAT statistics, while still taking all of their money."

    Perhaps I consider his post good due to a confirmation bias. Nearly a year ago I posted on this same topic at The Faculty Lounge—an edited excerpt:

    "This leads to [two] questions:

    (1) Is the LSAT worth imposing, or is it not? If the schools truly found the LSAT to be relevant, they would care about the LSAT without regard to a[n] exception. . . .

    (3) Schools will have a conflict of interest regarding undergrads [exploited by a gimmick] program. Schools have a willing customer, who is relying on not having an LSAT score (either by not having one at all, or doing poorly enough for the school to put this applicant in the 10%) good enough to go somewhere perceived to be better. Is there anyone more at risk of being charged sticker price for law school? This is a problem waiting to happen.

    Oh, BTW, if the Standard 509 only notes quartiles, 25% is admitted without regard to LSAT anyway. 10% more isn’t necessary."

    I suppose the reason I didn't get any traction makes sense; of course pessimistic/realistic analysis would fall on deaf ears at such a forum.

    I personally question the efficacy of the LSAT (i.e. it's not terribly accurate at predicting 1L performance—though, admittedly, something as arbitrary as 1L grading may not have a better option), but doing away with the LSAT would be a terrible idea. The reasons for which the schools are taking their current actions is flat-out scummy. If I were an alum of those programs I would be livid.

  14. great post. the next step is to move law schools online.

  15. Can you warm a seat? Well...come on down to Bill's Garage & Law School.


  16. So, when the pool of "drooling morons" is exhausted and milked dry, will the animals in our zoos be safe?

    Perhaps the folks who protect endangered species will bring the law scam down.

  17. "Law school is a pain, and it is expensive." Why not get rid of law school, too? Just have a two week course like real estate agents.

  18. There is an element of law school not mentioned by anyone in all of my following of the discussions.

    I have always had the impression that dentists, for all their medical training, spend 80% or so of their time "merely" filling cavities. I have no idea if 80 is fat or lean, but most professions spend much of their time doing mundane work. After 38 years in solo work, I do.

    So, in law school, we study CONSTITUTIONAL law, yet spend the rest of our careers doing drivel. Drivel needs to be done, but it is boring, and certainly not "constitutional."

    Law students all discuss "constitutional" law, yet the futures of 99.999999999999% are elsewhere.

    I actually had a constitutional law issue arise in my sh*tlaw solo career, and I stultified my opponent-an expert on it for his client.

    Score 0 for nothing.

    Most of us simply do filings, dentists or attorneys.

  19. One of the problems is that while people are willing to pay $300 for a 5 minute visit with a doctor, or $150 for a checkup with a dentist, they howl in anger if an attorney charges them for said mundane tasks or consultations.

    The general public simply does not respect the work a lawyer does, and so doesn't feel they should have to pay for it. Now businesses do value some work, but only really high end work that goes to the connected, and even then most corporate clients argue over bills and want to cut them down.

    So it's really a field that doesn't provide a real benefit or product.

    And it's largely because of both the absurd overproduction of lawyers but also because lawyers do not possess a niche task that people would like done. Accountants handle taxes and tax compliance, doctors treat illnesses, dentist treat oral issues, mechanics handle vehicles etc.

    But what does an attorney do exactly? Never mind that accounting wouldn't even exist without regulations placed by the government, but attorneys are supposed to deal with regulations and compliance with them. Except...they don't. There is no power given to attorneys except appearing in court. Every other task any person can do, and most disputes won't end up in court, and by now most people also know that court is rigged anyway for the benefit of the wealthy. So again it would be an instance where you're buying the reputation of the attorney, so generally speaking you are best served with a powerful big law firm with the connections in place, so again only a few lawyers that are already connected have a purpose.

    It also doesn't help that law schools refuse to train lawyers, since they insist they are not a trade school. But if law schools don't train lawyers, and employers don't want to train lawyers, and if law grads are expected to learn the practice on their own, why can't regular lay people also learn the practice, outside of court, on their own too? And that's precisely what happens.

    Most people do believe doctors and other professionals possess knowledge gained from years of schooling that a lay person would not be able to accumulate on their own. But there is no such belief in law school, partly because law schools insist that there isn't.

    "Think like a lawyer" is bunk and while most law profs and even the dumber law students/grads will argue otherwise (for law profs because it's self serving to argue it) even the dumbest lay person knows how stupid that is.

    I know a lot of people on here like to argue that we need law schools. I argue otherwise, they should all be shut down. It's nothing but an undergrad degree around the world. It makes more sense for it to be an undergrad degree also in the US, and then work requirements before someone can take and pass the bar, similar to how CPA and CFA and the rest work.

    Law is simply not an UMC profession, it is barely MC. There is no need for such extensive education requirements when nobody even learns anything, and that case law method can easily be utilized in undergrad anyway. My undergrad classes were indeed more difficult than law school for me. At first I thought it was because I was a STEM major, but after awhile I realized law school was just stupid in general.

    1. Here's one person who agrees with you. I don't think law school should exist at all.

    2. The only thing I agree with in your post is that people don't like to pay lawyers. That much is very true. Everything else you say is Bunk.

    3. You made a lot of good points. Law schools really do not teach people how to practice law. For many law graduates it is a DIY project learning how to practice law. With the internet, a reasonably intelligent person can do a lot of legal things without an attorney, divorce, wills, immigration, bankruptcy, incorporation, and so on. Try doing a root canal on your own or pro se. Try finding a dentist that is the equivalent of legal aid attorney or a pro bono attorney. Dentists are like, "pay me bitch or suffer unbearable pain and possibly death from infection."

  20. Personally, dropping the LSAT requirement at shit law schools doesn't really matter because no one should be attending them in the first place. In fact, no one should be attending many of the better schools as well.


    On February 26, 2015, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a piece entitled “2 Law Schools Start Some Admissions Without LSAT.” Here is the entry in its entirety:

    “The law schools of the State University of New York at Buffalo and the University of Iowa have announced that they will start accepting applications from some students without scores on the Law School Admission Test, Bloomberg reported. The American Bar Association recently loosened its LSAT requirement for law school accreditation and Buffalo and Iowa are using these new standards. The two law schools will consider applicants from their own undergraduate colleges based on their grades and other standardized tests, such as the GRE.”

    As Elie Mystal pointed out, these schools are trying to boost enrollment, without taking a potential hit to their first year LSAT and UGPA figures. Plus, they want to lock in supposed top undergraduates into their programs – in order ensure that the university and law school both reap the rewards of the federal student loan $y$tem, from the same pupil.

    In sum, ABA wants to make it easier to gain entry into member law schools. Could you imagine accredited U.S. medical, dental or veterinary schools lowering their admission standards?! Real professional schools seek to protect the investment of their future members’ time, money, and energy. Their primary goal is not to strap down students with outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, and leave them holding the bag.

  22. I have no doubt that there are way too many lawyers, that most law schools are festering scam heaps that leave their graduates indebted and underemployed . . . but I vehemently disagree that experienced lawyers do provide a true service that people could not obtain on their own. It is the rare layman who can come into Court and compete with a good knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the substantive law. That takes a competent and generally experienced lawyer. Its okay in my opinion to rag on the profession and the schools, but to be critical of the knowledge itself obtained through law school and experience is evidence of total ignorance by those doing the criticism.

    1. There are many problems with University Buffalo. A public school, half of the student population is foreign citizen. It's done to increase revenue and have pliant grad assistants in its large research programs.
      The law dean is on the lamb for some federal perjury charge. The university administration has university housing and catered lunches. Students are angry, with the elevators to the administration on lock down at times and full glass barriers between the lobby and offices.

      Lack of professionalism and back scratching seem to be par for course at UB. The dean of students at the pharmacy school, Mr. Feeblekorn, (the law school of the health professions) doesn't even have a terminal pharmacy degree, his experience being a district manager at a defunct pharmacy store chain. He is known for delusions of grandeur and disciplining students at a whim. I could go on and on...

    2. Except nobody cares. Go onto craigslist and look at what 10 years of first chair trial work typically gets you. It seems to be $40-60k a year.

      It's a rare person that is going to be an experienced Big Law litigator, the go to guy for big cases where tens of millions or billions are in play. No amount of shit law experience is however going to get somebody into that position.

      And an apprenticeship system where those experienced lawyers train new lawyers before they could even qualify to take the bar makes the most sense if we are looking at that high bar for practice.

      However there just aren't enough clients for that to work out. Most cases are garbage cases for nickels and dimes. And even then only a few will go to trial. Most are going to get disposed of with a simple SJ motion, and no real need to do anything in court.


    The ABA Journal posted a Debra Cassens Weiss article labeled “Two law schools will admit some who didn’t take the LSAT” – on February 20, 2015. Take a look:

    “Law schools in New York and Iowa have announced they will admit some promising undergraduates without requiring them to take the Law School Admission Test.

    The schools–the University of Iowa College of Law and the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School—are acting under ABA accreditation rules adopted this summer that allow law schools to admit up to 10 percent of their class this way, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports. The Buffalo News and the Daily Iowan also have stories.

    The LSAT waiver applies only to undergraduates who attend the same university that oversees the law school, according to the accreditation rules. The students must have at least a 3.5 undergraduate grade point average or rank in the top 10 percent of their class, and they must have high scores on another standardized test, such as the ACT or SAT.”

    I love how the shills act as if the schools are behaving ethically, by limiting this exception to supposed top undergraduates. Everyone with a brain stem knows that it is not difficult to obtain a 3.5 UGPA, in a soft-ass major. We now have grade inflation at most college$ and univer$itie$ - since they view students as customers.

    Let’s review this portion of the BloombergBusiness article again:

    “Additional law schools will probably follow. Before the ABA loosened its standards, around 15 schools had successfully applied for special dispensation to admit some students without LSAT scores, and Barry Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education at the ABA, expects these and other programs to take advantage of new rules allowing them to do so without informing the ABA.”

    BEFORE the ABA cockroaches lowered their “standards” further, they permitted roughly 15 diploma mills to admit some students – without LSAT scores. That speaks volumes about this organization. Dung beetles have much more dignity and integrity than the American Bar Association.

    1. I cannot understand how the ABA tries to legitimize this.

      The ABA should not be pretending this is merely an insignificant number of entrants who are going without taking the LSAT. If the ABA had the slightest shred of integrity they would say to the schools a professional version of the following:

      "You shall require a goddamn LSAT from these applicants because--as you would know if you read our standards as closely as you require 1Ls to read cases--the 509 only keep stats on the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile. Therefore, whether it's 10%, 15%, or 24% of the class that doesn't need to take the LSAT, you academic fucktards don't need another excuse to relax your standards. If the applicant is worth accepting, they should be accepted with consideration of a shitty LSAT. If they're not worth accepting, the applicant should be denied with consideration of the LSAT. Either way, you morons only had one job, it was a goddamn gravy train, and you still managed to f*ck it up.

      /s/ ABA"

      At this point, I'm really wondering if the ABA is working for any organization other than the academy. I'm not sure any of this benefits biglaw--after all it's not like they're hurting for labor. Even if they were, I'm sure they could drop salary and increase associate headcount if they wanted to. Not that this wouldn't perhaps bruise some egos, but those bruises would quickly be forgotten with the increases to PPP.

      I sincerely wonder how the ABA justifies its own existence if it can't police itself.

    2. As far as I can tell the ABA does not justify its existence. I have no idea what they actually do.

    3. The members of the ABA's committee on Accreditation Standards who made this decision are listed below. NOTE WHO EMPLOYS ALL BUT ONE OF THESE "PEOPLE."

      There's no other way to say this. Congress delegated its regulatory authority to the ABA and allowed for the most heinous instance of regulatory capture to be seen anywhere in American society.

      If the FDA being run by persons currently employed as Pfizer executives, what would you do?


      2014-2015 Standards Review Committee

      Scott Pagel, Chair, Associate Dean, George Washington University Law School

      Craig M. Boise, Dean, Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

      Catherine L. Carpenter, Vice Dean and Professor, Southwestern Law School

      Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Esq., Adjunct Professor, Vanderbilt

      The Honorable Robert J. Cordy, Adjunct Faculty, New England Law School

      Thomas A. Edmonds, Esq., Former Dean, Mississippi School of Law and University of Richmond Law

      Peter A. Joy, Professior & Director, Criminal Justice Clinic, Washington University School of Law

      Lisa Kloppenberg, Dean and Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law

      Peter McDonough, Esq., Interim General Counsel, American Council on Education

      Veryl Victoria Miles, Professor, The Catholic University of America


    Paul Campos posted an update on his blog today. The entry was entitled "Halfway home." You can see why the pigs are starting to waive the LSAT for up to 10 percent of their incoming classes. Check out this portion:

    "It's fair to say that admissions standards have now been cut as much as they can be cut, practically speaking. 80% of all applicants were admitted to at least one school to which they applied during the 2013-14 cycle. That number can't go much if at all higher, because a significant minority of applicants will only apply to schools that maintain various levels of real selectivity, and some of those people won't get into any of those schools.

    In addition, perhaps 5% of the applicant pool in any year consists of people who have such serious behavioral red flags in their files that no school, even though most desperate, will admit them, if only because of potential liability concerns.

    When it comes to law school admissions, we may not be at the metaphorical equivalent of -459.67F quite yet, but we're very close. Which means that any further declines in applicants are going to be matched by something close to an equivalent decline in matriculants."

    I half expect the law school cockroaches to simply throw up their hands and admit anyone who has the desire to be an attorney. It would be akin to an ad from slimy, used car salesmen, i.e. "Bad credit? No credit? No problem! We can put your broke ass in a brand new Chevy Malibu, for as little as $200 down. Drive off the lot in a new car today."

  25. Bravo! Showing admission flexibility by giving a small group of prospective 1L's a "pass" on the antiquated Lsat is smart marketing for schools and convenient tor prospects. People have busy lives and saving lots of time preparing for dubious tests is a "gift" to a businessman of 45 years like myself. Having had three careers and not ready to retire (too energetic) at age 63, l welcome the changes. God Bless!


Web Analytics