What are law professors whispering about their students?

Here are two interesting quotes, followed by some stats about the decline of admissions standards at a certain poorly-regarded law school.

1. "It’s whispered by colleagues in the law school halls. It’s lamented in faculty lounges, Incoming law students aren’t “what they used to be.” No one seems to define “what they used to be”—only that once upon a time, a better time, students were more prepared for law school, spent more time studying, and didn’t need so much support. Criticism of lackadaisical, underprepared, or unmotivated students has long history, but recent research suggests that incoming law students are less prepared than previous generations of law students." Flanagan, Rebecca C., The Kids Aren't Alright: Rethinking the Law Student Skills Deficit (June 1, 2014). Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2015, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN:

2. "I worked with some people from Harvard and Yale who just couldn't practice. They were useless as lawyers. . . I disagree with the insinuation about the abilities and prospects of people from lower-ranked schools. By the way, I never said anything about large firms filling out the ranks with students from lower-tier law schools. Large firms are very credential focused. I think this is a mistake. But there are a lot of people out there (like you?) whose derive a great deal of their self-worth from their LSAT score. [sic] That will likely never change." -- Widener Law Prof. Ben Barros.  

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/08/the-coming-lawyer-shortage/comments/page/3/#comments  (comment at August 22, 2014 at 11:39 AM)

3. For the Class entering Widener Law (Delaware campus) in 2010, the median LSAT was 154 and the 25% percentile score was 150. For the class entering in 2013, the median LSAT score at Widener was 150, and the 25th percentile score was 147. The significance of this decline is illustrated by expressing these scores as a percentile rank of test-takers. A 154 is at the 59th percentile. A 150 is at the 43rd percentile. A 147 is at the 33rd percentile.  

Let us stipulate that there are bright people who cannot take standardized tests, and also that occasionally someone will butcher an important test that he or she would have ordinarily aced due to major life stressors, or just a very bad day. Let us stipulate that a standardized test like the LSAT can give only a rough approximation of intelligence of the sort that legal practice requires. Therefore, no objection to a law school offering admission to a handful of low LSAT scorers who have signaled potential in other ways. 

But what happens when a law school does not merely take a chance on a few low-scorers, but opens its doors wide (or widener) to virtually an entire classful of kids with LSAT scores that make most academics and lawyers shake their heads and snicker?

What happens is that people notice. Lawyer work (minus document review) requires strong research skills and facility in logic and written persuasion. What answer can a law grad give when challenged by a potential employer about his or her attendance at a school that accepts lots of students with abysmally low scores on a test designed to measure logical and analytical reasoning and reading comprehension, a test regarded as sufficiently reliable that the the vast majority of prospective law students are required to take it? [1] True, a few grads will be able to say: "I know that my school is a joke, but you can infer my personal abilities from my full-tuition scholarship or my top 10% class rank." But what about the others?

The JD mystique has dissipated, including the preconception that a lawyer, no matter his or her faults and no matter where he or she went to school, must at least be shrewd and smart. There are many long-held negative associations or stereotypes attached to lawyers, but the behavior of law schools in dramatically lowering admissions standards is creating a brand new one: the lawyer as gullible lightweight. 

A law grad of recent vintage should not be surprised to hear his or her scamma mater disparaged by a colleague, or a potential client, or a person in a position to recommend a client, or even a social acquaintance. Maybe the grad can respond with a Ben Barros-style witticism about how there are a "lot of people" who "derive a great deal of self-worth" from their LSAT score, but I doubt that the skeptics will be chastened. 

And, contra the impression one might derive from Benny's blend of defensiveness and boosterism, law faculty are well-aware of the decline in admissions standards and what it signals about their students’ prospects. Law students at low-ranked schools such as Widener (or Flanagan's school, the even more miserable UMass-Amherst School of Law) should be aware: this is what your professors are whispering about you. They think that you are lackadaisical, underprepared, unmotivated, and needy.

Yes, kids, your own professors, your intended mentors in the law, are whispering to each other that you may not be fit for the legal profession. But they are not saying it to your face because they are enjoying the cushy lifestyle and contemplative ease made possible by your tuition money. Do you want to wait three years and spend many tens of thousands of dollars and then hear a potential employer state in clear and blunt language what your professors only whispered behind your back? 

-------------------------------

[1]  The ABA recently adopted an interpretation of its Standard 503 which will allow a law school to waive the LSAT for up to 10 percent of its incoming class provided those students achieved a certain level of academic success in college or scored in the top 15% on some other post or pre-college standardized test. (SAT, ACT, GRE, or GMAT).  

From 2008 through 2011, years before this ABA rule amendation, legal education trendsetter Paul Pless implemented this practice at the University of Illinois School of Law. In internal correspondence, Pless provided a vivid explanation, saying:

"I am a maverick and a reformer so I started a new program for U of I undergrads to apply in their junior year and we don't require the LSAT. We have additional essays and an interview instead. That way, I can trap about 20 of the little bastards with high GPA's that count and no LSAT score to count against my median. It is quite ingenious."

The ABA’s new LSAT waiver provision is called “Interpretation 503-3,” which seems rather cold and clinical.  Couldn’t they call it the “Little Bastards Subrule”?