Thursday, March 10, 2016
ABA Cockroaches to Consider Change to Bar Passage Rules for Accredited Toilets
The News: On March 4, 2016, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog published a piece from Sarah Randazzo, under the headline “ABA to Consider Change to Bar-Passage Rules for Law Schools.” Enjoy the following portion:
“Law schools may soon have to do a better job at proving they actually prepare students for the practice of law.
At a meeting next week in Phoenix, the American Bar Association’s accrediting arm will consider changing a bar passage rate rule schools must follow to stay accredited.
The change would require 75% of a law school’s graduates who sit for a bar exam to pass the test within two years.
The ABA already essentially aims for the 75% mark, but the current rules offer a convoluted web of possible loopholes. They also give schools five years to meet the mark, and emphasize first-time test taker results in addition to the overall success rate.
The tweak, proposed by a committee that evaluates changes to law school accrediting standards, would eliminate more than 700 words of explanation from the rule, leaving a single sentence.
As the committee explains in its recommendation to the governing council of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, “an ultimate pass rate is the more appropriate measure of whether a school is operating a sound program of legal education, and it is not subject to the idiosyncrasies that can be found with a reliance on the pass rate of first-time takers.”
The current bar passage rate requirements haven’t given too many law schools trouble, and it’s not clear yet how much resistance there might be to the new proposed rule.
Since 2000, Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco and Whittier Law School in Southern California were both put on probation for low bar passage rates, but later had the probation lifted. Two other California schools, Western State University College of Law and the University of La Verne College of Law, lost accreditation, in part because of bar passage issues. Western State is once again fully accredited while La Verne has provisional accreditation.
As Law Blog readers know, bar exam passage rates have been falling nationwide, with some states reporting lower than 75% passage rates for first-time test takers.
Also at next week’s meeting, accreditors will consider eliminating a requirement that law schools must use an admissions test for incoming students.” [Emphasis mine]
Re-read that last sentence. That item is actually going to help the law schools admit more idiots and dolts. Furthermore, these two measures are not congruent. How the hell can you allow ABA-accredited diploma mills to make it easier to admit students, but then also require that they improve their bar passage rates?!?! Look for the American Bar Association rodents to apply pressure on state bar examiners to lower their standards.
Prior Coverage: Back on February 11, 2016, the ABA Journal featured a Mark Hansen article entitled Tougher, simpler bar-passage requirements for law schools to be considered by ABA committee.” Check out this opening:
“An ABA committee on Friday will take up a proposal that would toughen—and greatly simplify—the bar passage requirements of the law school accreditation standards.
Under the proposal, a law school would have to demonstrate that 75 percent of its graduates who took a bar exam within two years of their graduation passed.
Under the current standard, a law school can meet the bar pass requirement in one of two ways. It can show, as most schools do, that its first-time bar pass rate was no more than 15 points below the average bar pass rate for ABA-approved schools in states where its graduates took the exam. Or it can demonstrate, as some schools have resorted to doing, that 75 percent of its graduates who took a bar exam in three of the previous five years passed.
The proposed new standard would eliminate the first option altogether. It would keep the 75 percent bar passage rate from the second option but reduce the time frame for demonstrating compliance from five to two years. It also would require schools to account for all of their graduates. Under the current standard, a school needs to account for only 70 percent of its graduates.
The proposal would not relieve a school of its obligation to report and publish its first-time bar passage rates. But it would eliminate a loophole that now allows schools to exclude a group of test-takers known as “non-persisters”—graduates who fail a bar exam once and don’t take it again the next two times it is offered—from their calculations.” [Emphasis mine]
Even if this change occurs, the law school pigs will get an exception or find a loophole – such as “If we try to reach grads but are unable to do so, we cannot be expected to include them in our stats.” Those also happen to be the JDs who are embarrassed to report their low incomes. Plus, who will enforce this new rule and how often? Remember, the “educators” DO NOT GIVE ONE GODDAMN about the students and recent graduates. They only care about keeping the gravy train of federal student loan dollars rolling along.
Conclusion: The following facts are irrefutable. Collectively, ABA-accredited law schools KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY lowered admi$$ion$ “standards,” over several years, in response to a shrinking pool of applicants. Bar passage rates continue to drop. Instead of looking at themselves, the academic swine blame their bar examiners for “making the licensing exam too hard.” The bitches and hags then still move ahead and push for using other tests which are easier, such as the GRE, in lieu of the LSAT. Now, the ABA parasites are considering increasing bar pass requirements for member schools.
I smell a rat, in this arrangement. This is the equivalent of asking a dumber person to practice less, and then simultaneously play several expert level chess players in timed rapid games, and obtain better results. This is unrealistic, unless there is something else at play, such as collusion or trickery. I suspect the ABA will discuss this measure, and then not pass the damn thing. In the alternative, they will permit several exceptions to the new rule, rendering it meaningless. Which is in line with what the ABA typically does on a daily basis.
Posted by Nando at 4:57 AM