Wednesday, April 17, 2013

A Good Use for the LSAT

Preston’s post inspired me to reiterate an idea that has been raised tangentially a few times but deserves serious consideration.

Lawprofs, including Campos now, have signed onto a meaningless pledge for incremental reform akin to a long barren path leading nowhere.  I have asked Campos to explain his sudden retreat from the scamblog movement and this pledge for reform that seems to contradict most of what he stood for just a year ago.  Hopefully, he explains his position at some point.

The mess of meaningless reforms reaffirmed my belief that the simplest messages are the only ones that can pierce through the white noise.  Instead of a package of reforms, the scam movement should promote one simple reform to solve a number of problems simultaneously: we should petition the ABA to require a minimum LSAT score for a school to maintain accreditation.  To support such a petition, plenty of statistics and individual stories of misery could help to shame them.

The state bars already require minimum bar exam scores for entry into the legal community.  Wouldn’t it make the most sense to screen for the students most likely to pass the bar exam before those students waste three years and a six-figure loan?  Even a modest cutoff score, like a 150, would close many law skools in dimension T3-4.  In my opinion, the score should be at least 155, not an outlandish score even for those of us not naturally talented with standardized tests.

Here are my counterattacks against the traditional arguments advanced by law school apologists who do not want stricter pre-law requirements:

1) Standardized tests have nothing to do with the art and science of Lawyering (note the capital L).

Obviously.  But all of the state bar organizations use standardized tests as a hurdle before admission.  Why should we allow anyone and everyone to spend the time and money on attending skools with open admission policies, only to block them at the very end with a marathon series of standardized tests that make up the “bar exam” (MBE, MPRE, MPT, MEE, state multiple choice segments, state essay questions).

For better or worse, standardized tests are the basic measure of “learning” in modern America.  If the state bars keep using exams as the main hurdle to admission after law school, a commonsense and ethical profession (yes, ha ha) must enforce a minimum LSAT requirement.

2) The LSAT has nothing to do with the bar exam.  The tests are totally different.

The LSAT is basically a test on test-taking.  However, the LSAT is a very good predictor of success on the Bar Exam.  For example, T3-4 law schools that use the second and third years for mostly bar review types of courses tend to have lower bar passage rates than the highest ranked schools in the same state without such extended prep-programs.  The students at the better schools with the better LSAT scores tend to have a better capacity or attention span for studying the bar exam and passing on the first try.

This makes sense: the LSAT is mainly a test of reading comprehension and, well, test-taking skills...the main skills needed for the bar exam.

3) How should we determine the cutoff score?

Remember, there are entire blocks of law skools with media LSAT scores in the 20-30th percentile range.  Considering that the percentiles measure one’s success against other LSAT test-takers—not exactly the best and the brightest—it is purely a scam to admit thousands of students who have a low probability of passing the bar exam.  The fact that our country allows a number of accredited law schools to exist, where the average student at those schools cannot even get half of the questions correct on the LSAT, proves the absolute corruption of the American Bar Association and the meaninglessness of its “accreditation” role.

A sobering statistic that made me very nervous after I took the bar exam: the majority of people who fail the bar exam on the first try will never pass.  That scared the hell out of me while I was waiting for my score especially since my brain was so fried after the marathon exam that I had no idea how I did.  And it is scary that an entire segment of bar exam test takers will never pass the exam even though they received a J.D.  No comparable segment of damned test takers exists in other professions (such as medicine) because those professions screen prospective students.

I wonder why lawprofs like Campos have not signed onto a simple reform like a minimum LSAT score, especially since his school has nothing to worry about if this policy takes effect?  Perhaps all professors want to avoid the closings of any law schools because of the potential for a lawprof glut…

A minimum LSAT score would close many of the T3-4 diploma mills.  These closures would reduce immediately the output of lawyers.  It would make the total law school applicant pool smaller, leading to smaller class sizes.

I advocate this position because of its simplicity.  It works within the already established framework to achieve the closing of the lowest schools and to reduce the law school applicant pool.  It also has the benefit of protecting prospective students with a high probability of never passing the bar exam.  The simplicity of a minimum LSAT score looks far less “radical” than other suggestions, even if it would achieve many radical results, such as reducing the law school applicant pool by half.  In fact, it is difficult to think of any good reason for not implementing a minimum LSAT score outside of self-serving drivel about “diversity” and “open access” to education.


  1. A great idea that will never get off the ground. Opponents will assert that a minimum LSAT score requirement for law school admission will hinder efforts by law schools to achieve diversity in the legal profession.

  2. None of this helps. Min LSAT scores, etc, are just window dressing. The problem is that the business of law is done. Nobody wants to be charged $350/hour for a divorce. People who need warehouses of documents read can feed docs into a Natural Language Processor. If you need to look something up, there are plenty of sources for this. Even the clerk at local Courthouse will help you figure out what the law is. Law Schools are relics of the past -- they don't even teach you to practice. Business of law is like being a clock repair school.

    1. Think you may be onto something here!


    2. This is absolutely true, but it is a different topic. Lawyers will always make work with complicated procedural law or harsh criminal statutes. The future of law is networks of specialized solos or small partnerships, not the god firms charging $1 zillion/hour for their "teams" of litigators and researchers.

      Regardless of the transition in the legal field, where less low level work will exist and fewer clients can or will pay high hourly rates, the lawyer glut can only make things worse. The minimum LSAT cutoff will help with the glut and protect victims of the T3-4 segment of the scam.

    3. I had a friend who's father passed away. In the past, they would have hired a lawyer, etc. Friend say clerks at the Courthouse were so nice, they basically did everything for them -- because they asked nicely. "We don't know how to settle an estate, do you know how?" "Let me help you with that... here, take this and copy it and send it to the beneficiaries, get them to sign off." Specialized solos? Maybe for $45,000/year, you can be a specialized solo.

  3. Leiter is the one posting all these things about Painter every day, just so we stop posting things about Leiter. He has found the bigger bogeyman for us to fear.

    Fuck off Leiter you rancid cunt. And fuck off Painter you rancid penis. I hate you both you fucking puss-filled douchebags who deny the scam or try to trash the sites fighting hardest for stopping it.

  4. Agreeing on 1 simple idea to promote is a good idea.

    My idea for the 1 simple reform is this:

    "the Federal government should cap total loans one can obtain in 1 year at $30,000"

    This reform would strike at the heart of the problem, result in law schools closing, reduce debt, and politicall we could join with the undergrad segment of the "higher education bubble" people.


    1. I agree with loan reform and bankruptcy for student debt after 7 years. However, the ABA has the power to pass a minimum LSAT score.

    2. ...without the constraints of our broken federal government.

  5. Campos covered the topic. It was getting repetitious.

    1. Get the word out to prospective students about the details of the scam.

    2. Adopt the Canadian/UK system of requiring students to have a paid apprenticeship year called articling. It immediately becomes very apparent that there are not enough articling spots to go around. In Canada there is about a 10% shortfall. In the U.S. it might be 70%. One of the comments here mentioned the very high scores required to get into Canadian law schools.

    1. Speaking as a Canadian, this does not really solve the problem.

      A graduate from a US law school can write the bar exam and, at the very least, work as a solo. This may not be an appealing choice, but it is at least an option.

      A Canadian who finishes law school but is unable to secure an articling position is unable to write the bar exam and so can never be licensed. They do not even have the option of working as a solo.

      There is no Canadian equivalent of doc review as a law-related fallback and while jobs for unlicensed JDs definitely do exist (I have one...), they are extraordinarly rare.

      So, here in Canada we have a small but growing group of law schol graduates who will never be licensed and so they will never work in law.

      Also, while it is customary to pay students for their period of articling -- salary ranges from $25K to $65K, depending on the firm and the local market -- increasingly people are doing so for free.

  6. A suggestion: We should have an open thread post where people can write in the "1 big idea" we need to push.

    Then the blog-tenders pick out the serious ones and create a poll. We poll the ideas, maybe have a run-off poll, and then find out the 1 big idea we mostly agree on.


  7. You missed the most obvious part:

    4) Das Racist!

  8. I feel that is among the such a lot important info for
    me. And i am glad studying your article. However should remark on
    some general things, The web site style is wonderful, the
    articles is truly nice : D. Good job, cheers

    Feel free to surf to my web blog: how much should i weigh

  9. That’s a brilliant share. Nowadays the competition for these exams has increased to an extent and that’s why these have become tough to crack. I took MPRE three times failed so this time I am going to solve previous MPRE Practice Questions as much as I can. Hoping that I will be successful this time.