In my opinion, percentage of applicants accepted is the most important metric in tracking the decline in selectivity at ABA-accredited law schools, and the consequent devaluation of a JD degree. When a law school refuses to accept an applicant with substandard credentials, it is choosing its own reputation over the lucrative opportunity to monetize a dupe. But law schools are turning away far fewer applicants than they used to.
The decline in LSAT scores for incoming law students is important too, and we have discussed that. (See here and here) But law schools can "game" their LSAT numbers somewhat by enrolling likely applicants in LSAT prep courses, or by admitting a certain percentage of the class without an LSAT, which the ABA now allows.
The decline in GPAs for incoming law students is less important, though it may be worth a post at some point. Law schools do not have to game this stat, college students do that for themselves by taking easy courses or easy majors. (College flashback: An "American Studies" class where we piled into a vast lecture hall, standing room only, to watch reruns of "Green Acres" and then pretend to be intellectual by discussing the semiotics of it all. A reasonably coherent essay got you an "A." An unreasonably incoherent one got you a "B.")
In the tables below, I look at how many schools had particular acceptance rates for the incoming class of 2011 as compared with the incoming class of 2014. I then look at the the number of schools that have increased their acceptance rates and by how much during that three year period. I then list the law schools with the highest acceptance rates, the quasi-open enrollment ones that accept 70% or more. [1] Finally, I list the schools that have experienced the greatest percentage point increase in their acceptance rate between 2011 and 2014-- i.e. those schools that are most rapidly abandoning selectivity in the interest of keeping their gravy trains chugging a little longer.
The decline in LSAT scores for incoming law students is important too, and we have discussed that. (See here and here) But law schools can "game" their LSAT numbers somewhat by enrolling likely applicants in LSAT prep courses, or by admitting a certain percentage of the class without an LSAT, which the ABA now allows.
The decline in GPAs for incoming law students is less important, though it may be worth a post at some point. Law schools do not have to game this stat, college students do that for themselves by taking easy courses or easy majors. (College flashback: An "American Studies" class where we piled into a vast lecture hall, standing room only, to watch reruns of "Green Acres" and then pretend to be intellectual by discussing the semiotics of it all. A reasonably coherent essay got you an "A." An unreasonably incoherent one got you a "B.")
In the tables below, I look at how many schools had particular acceptance rates for the incoming class of 2011 as compared with the incoming class of 2014. I then look at the the number of schools that have increased their acceptance rates and by how much during that three year period. I then list the law schools with the highest acceptance rates, the quasi-open enrollment ones that accept 70% or more. [1] Finally, I list the schools that have experienced the greatest percentage point increase in their acceptance rate between 2011 and 2014-- i.e. those schools that are most rapidly abandoning selectivity in the interest of keeping their gravy trains chugging a little longer.
% of applicants accepted
|
2011
|
2014 |
85+%
|
0
|
3
|
80-84%
|
1
|
7
|
75-79%
|
1
|
10
|
70-74%
|
5
|
14
|
65-69%
|
7
|
16
|
60-64%
|
5
|
23
|
55-59%
|
13
|
20
|
50-54%
|
15
|
26
|
45-49%
|
25
|
14
|
40-44%
|
26
|
25
|
35-39%
|
28
|
13
|
30-34%
|
18
|
10
|
25-29%
|
24
|
9
|
20-24%
|
20
|
4
|
15-19%
|
9
|
6
|
Under 15%
|
5
|
2
|
Law School
|
Acceptance Rate, 2014
|
Suffolk Univ.
|
87%
|
Thomas Cooley
|
85%
|
Southern Illinois Univ.
|
85%
|
Thomas Jefferson
|
84%
|
University of South Dakota
|
82%
|
Western New England
|
82%
|
Oklahoma City
|
82%
|
Mississippi College
|
81%
|
Capital Univ.
|
80%
|
New England Law
|
80%
|
Drake Univ.
|
78%
|
Florida Coastal
|
78%
|
Charleston School of Law
|
77%
|
Faulkner
|
77%
|
Valparaiso
|
77%
|
Samford
|
76%
|
Ave Marie
|
75%
|
Charlotte School of Law
|
75%
|
McGeorge
|
75%
|
Elon
|
75%
|
Indiana Univ.- Indianapolis
|
74%
|
Vermont Law School
|
74%
|
Whittier
|
74%
|
John Marshall (Chicago)
|
73%
|
Marquette Univ.
|
73%
|
Univ. of St. Thomas (Minnesota)
|
73%
|
Northern Kentucky
|
72%
|
Creighton
|
72%
|
Roger Williams
|
72%
|
Williamette
|
72%
|
Univ. of Louisville
|
70%
|
St. Mary’s
|
70%
|
Northern Illinois Univ.
|
70%
|
Hamline
 |
70%
|
Change in Acceptance Rate, 2011-2014
|
# of Schools
|
Acceptance Rate up by 35-39%
|
2
|
Acceptance Rate up by 30-34%
|
3
|
Acceptance Rate up by 25-29%
|
15
|
Acceptance Rate up by 20-24%
|
24
|
Acceptance Rate up by 15-19%
|
31
|
Acceptance Rate up by 10-14%
|
32
|
Acceptance Rate up by 5-9%
|
29
|
Acceptance Rate up by less than 5%
|
14
|
Acceptance Rate down by less than 5%
|
8
|
Acceptance Rate down by 5-9%
|
1
|
Acceptance Rate down by 10-14%
|
3
|
Law School
|
Acceptance Rate, 2011
|
Acceptance Rate, 2014
|
Change in % accepted.
|
Univ. of Louisville
|
31%
|
70%
|
39%
|
McGeorge
|
39%
|
75%
|
36%
|
Southern Illinois
|
51%
|
85%
|
34%
|
Samford
|
42%
|
76%
|
34%
|
Univ. of Florida
|
29%
|
61%
|
32%
|
Univ. of Arkansas-Fayetteville
|
31%
|
60%
|
29%
|
Oklahoma City
|
53%
|
82%
|
29%
|
Elon
|
47%
|
75%
|
28%
|
Lewis and Clark
|
39%
|
67%
|
28%
|
Indiana Univ.-Bloomington
|
34%
|
62%
|
28%
|
Charleston
|
50%
|
77%
|
27%
|
Marquette
|
46%
|
73%
|
27%
|
Southern
|
38%
|
65%
|
27%
|
Univ. of Maryland
|
20%
|
47%
|
27%
|
North Carolina Central
|
18%
|
44%
|
26%
|
Indiana Univ.-Indianapolis
|
49%
|
74%
|
25%
|
Northern Illinois
|
45%
|
70%
|
25%
|
St. Mary’s
|
45%
|
70%
|
25%
|
Southwestern
|
36%
|
61%
|
25%
|
Univ. of Connecticut
|
29%
|
54%
|
25%
|
Drake
|
54%
|
78%
|
24%
|
Brooklyn Law School
|
29%
|
53%
|
24%
|
Univ. of South Dakota
|
59%
|
82%
|
23%
|
Mississippi College
|
58%
|
81%
|
23%
|
John Marshall (Chicago)
|
50%
|
73%
|
23%
|
DePaul
|
42%
|
65%
|
23%
|
Chicago-Kent
|
39%
|
62%
|
23%
|
Univ. of San Francisco
|
38%
|
61%
|
23%
|
South Texas
|
44%
|
66%
|
22%
|
Pace
|
40%
|
62%
|
22%
|
Catholic
|
33%
|
55%
|
22%
|
American
|
28%
|
50%
|
22%
|
Univ. of Illinois
|
20%
|
42%
|
22%
|
Univ. of North Carolina
|
18%
|
40%
|
22%
|
Ave Maria
|
54%
|
75%
|
21%
|
Univ. of Denver
|
41%
|
62%
|
21%
|
Faulkner
|
57%
|
77%
|
20%
|
Northern Kentucky
|
52%
|
72%
|
20%
|
Univ. of Nebraska
|
48%
|
68%
|
20%
|
Univ. of South Carolina
|
37%
|
57%
|
20%
|
Univ. of Puerto Rico
|
36%
|
56%
|
20%
|
Cardozo
|
30%
|
50%
|
20%
|
Univ. of California-
Hastings
|
29%
|
49%
|
20%
|
Boston College
|
24%
|
44%
|
20%
|
Boston Univ.
|
20%
|
39%
|
19%
|
Suffolk
|
69%
|
87%
|
18%
|
St. Thomas (Minnesota)
|
55%
|
73%
|
18%
|
Louisiana State
|
44%
|
62%
|
18%
|
Hofstra
|
43%
|
61%
|
18%
|
Univ. of Baltimore
|
41%
|
59%
|
18%
|
Univ. of Kentucky
|
41%
|
59%
|
18%
|
Chapman
|
34%
|
52%
|
18%
|
Loyola-Chicago
|
34%
|
52%
|
18%
|
George Washington
|
27%
|
45%
|
18%
|
[1] Source: The 2011 and 2014 spreadsheets available at the ABA "require disclosure" site.
http://www.abarequireddisclosures.org
Wow. Suffolk, Cooley, Thomas Jefferson, Drake, Valparaiso...maybe they should just go ahead and team up with the Infilaw Schools? Apparently Infiliaw is more selective these, if that is even possible...Hamline was more selective that all of them.
ReplyDeleteThe scammery here is enough to short-circuit any logical reasoning I might have had left. To hell with it, open the flood gates! RELEASE...THE KRAKEN...!!!
I'm sorry to see McGeorge fall so far into the toilet zone. They could actually perform a valuable function in the Sacramento area, but they got greedy and flooded the local market with unqualified grads. I don't think their reputation will ever recover from that.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying MCGEORGE no longer DOMINATES?
DeleteSacrilege.
I notice that Brooklyn has finally abandoned every pretense of being a selective law school. Once Dean Allard started screaming about the discriminatory bar exams, he had a pretext to virtually ignore the LSAT in admissions. Now he's loan-binging to the point where Brooklyn is an open joke within the legal profession.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible for someone not to be accepted at any law school provided enough applications are sent out? I think not. Even with a 2.0 G.P.A. and a 130 LSAT someone is going to take you.
ReplyDeleteHow can they sleep at night? 87% acceptance????
ReplyDeleteI've got a great idea for the next law school merger. Indiana Bloomington (acceptance rate 62%) could merge with Indiana Indianapolis (acceptance rate 74%) to form a single new law school in Indianapolis. Assuming the merged school admitted half as many students as the pre-merger schools, its acceptance rate would be 34%, putting it back in the top 31 schools by that measurement.
ReplyDeleteYour math is off. If Bloomington (62% acceptance) merged with Indianapolis (74% acceptance) then the new school would have an acceptance rate of 136%. That would make it #1 on the Most Acceptable Law School list.
DeleteThe acceptance rate would be 68% which is 136% divided by two.
DeleteNot if it admitted "half as many students" as the two pre-merger schools, which would be the moral thing to do and a good reason to merge.
DeleteYes, this needs to happen immediately. Why in the hell does IU have TWO "public" law schools in a state with an over saturated legal market where the poor graduates are essentially competing for the same few jobs?
DeleteAnd why the hell does Kentucky have THREE public law schools in a far less populous state? Northern Kentucky is really only relevant in the Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati, which could be adequately supplied with lawyers by a dozen other schools, including Louisville, Kentucky, Cincinnati, Indiana, Ohio State, ad Notre Dame.
DeleteReally, at this point, does any state outside of California need a 2nd public law school?
DeleteIllinois does not need NIU or SIU.
Arkansas does not need Arkansas-Little Rock
Florida should probably keep Florida State, but they don't NEED to, and A&M and FIU should have never opened.
George does not need Georgia State
Arizona does not need U of A with all the graduates being pumped by California and The Summit
Michigan doesn't need Wayne State
NC doesn't need NC Central
Louisiana doesn't need Southern
Missouri doesn't need UMKC
Etc. This is a lot of money being bilked to subsidize thee things. You would literally be better off turning most of these things into state lesbian tourism hostels.
And does California really need six?
DeleteHmmm...I count five state law schools in California: Berkeley, UCLA, Davis, Irvine, and Hastings. But they compete with numerous private schools as well, including Stanford, USC, McGeorge, USF, Golden Gate, Santa Clara, Pepperdine, Loyola, Southwestern, Chapman, Whittier, San Diego, Cal West, Jefferson Davis, and "La Verne." And the non-ABA schools as well.
DeleteDon't keep Tennessee of your list! State of 5 mil with two public law schools, three private law schools and one unaccredited law school--ridiculous.
Delete@ 2:52 PM March 6,
DeleteU of I Champaign's tuition is over twice that of NIU and Southern. If anything, I would rather see U of I Champaign closed, since NIU and SIU are in-state "regionals" with relatively affordable tuition. If you are going to work for a small firm or a local DA/PD in IL, you shouldn't be paying U of I's unconscionable tuition.
http://www.law.illinois.edu/admissions/tuition-and-expenses
Dybbuk, this is excellent scholarship. Why don't you submit it to the Journal of Legal Education?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you'd make an excellent law professor. Not only is your scholarship timely and relevant, but your ethics and integrity would put you light-years ahead of most law professors.
Two disqlifications right there. But yes, in a universe where law,schools are serious institutions of scholarship and learning, Dybbuk would make an excellent professor. That not our universe though.
DeleteAlso, note that while the 70% acceptance percentage for Louisville for 2014 less their acceptance percentage for 2011 of 31% is indeed 39%, the change in their acceptance percentage is over 100% -- (70%-31%)/31% = 126%.
ReplyDeleteThat is, their acceptance percentage in 2014 is 125% higher than it was in 2011. To steal a line from Nando, I bet their mothers are proud.
Good work with numbers. That's a very interesting measurement of just how shocked and desperate the schools at the top of the list must be.
DeleteThere are four other schools, scattered throughout the list, that more than doubled their acceptance rates: North Carolina, Maryland, Illinois, and Florida.
DeleteHamline RIP, that's a good one.
ReplyDeleteI'm about as sad to see Hamline disappear as I am to see the mosquitos disappear in October.
Interesting, while students are paying usurious interest rates on student loans, the banks get 6 trillion in virtually interest free loans:http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/03/warren-citigroup-morgan-stanley-merrill-lynch-received-6-trillion-backdoor-bailout-from-fed/
ReplyDeleteMy ranking of responsibility for the law school scam:
Delete1) Federal government for underwriting and encouraging unlimited student loans
2) Law schools for intentionally overproducing lawyers
3) ABA and law professors for overseeing #2
4) Students for making the bad decision to apply for law school based on "Legally Blonde" or "can't wait till I get my Lamborghini!" nonsense
5) Students' families for not more strongly warning them not to go to law school
.....
Lower) Wall Street for doing what #1 asks and begs them to do
....
Still lower) Elizabeth Warren and Leftist activists for obfuscating the debate saying its all Wall Street's fault and ignoring the Federal guarantees, the astounding greed of academia (run by leftists), and gullibility from students... The Liz Warren crowd wants tuition to stay just as high (and pay her +300,000 HLS salary) but be paid by the taxpayer... Liz Warren is not the solution, reforming Federal student loan rules is
@2:58 I will have to disagree with you on 5. The municipal clerk in my community is a very good friend of mine. Her family is extremely close to another family in their neighborhood whom I also know. This neighbor family has an adopted son, their only child, who has struggled to find his way in life. Shortly before Christmas 2014 I was at the clerk's office and she mentioned that this adopted son was thinking about law school (he is still in college, probably his third college). I immediately sounded "all hands man rescue stations!" I told her that unless the kid got into HLS he shouldn't even consider the thought, and that HLS wasn't necessarily a direct route to Heaven. I told her to familiarize them with OTLSS and if that didn't convince them to have them contact me. She looked at this blog and when the two families got together on Christmas Eve she passed it along. She reported back to me that it "wasn't at all well received." The reaction was that their son had finally found a path in life so don't be bursting his bubble.
DeleteMost parents, like most of the general public, have no idea that the legal profession is imploding. In this case the parents were amply warned and chose to not believe it, but how many parents are lucky enough to cross paths, at least indirectly, with someone who can set them straight?
My conscience is clear, I tried.
2:58 back
DeleteI know what you mean and sympathize. My mother also has a 1960s conception of the prosperity that a law degree brings. I try to explain but it doesnt get through.
Yes, its not the fault of the parents and friends who warn a prospective JD. They have done their part. But the parents who fail to warn someone, especially after looking at websites like OTLSS - they ARE to blame. They heard the truth and exchanged it for a lie.
So you told that lady that unless the kid got into Hamline Law School, he shouldn't go to law school at all? That's terrible advice. No wonder his family wouldn't listen.
DeleteHoly shit!
ReplyDeleteThe most shocking for me was seeing the schools swing from 30% acceptance rates to 70% acceptance rates in two admission cycles!
No wonder so many Scam Deans are running crying to the NCBE. They know what they've done. They know what's coming down the pike for them. If 2014's bar passage rates were a terrible surprise image 2015's, 2016's, 2017's.
The ABA currently ignores its bar passage rate rule, lifting its skirts for the likes of Thomas Jefferson, but when they've got 30, 40, 50 schools out of compliance and they ignore it...it will hit the national media. People might even start asking what sort of federal regulatory agency employs people simultaneously employed by the institutions it regulates.
I can't wait to see the mess of a profession law will become in the next few years when tens of thousands of unqualified applicants all fail the bar, particularly NY and CA. Get your popcorn ready.
DeleteI know!
DeleteSo, let's see, if you took the bar in July of 2014, that means you started as a 1L in the Fall of 2011.
Uh, yeah, it appears the admission standards have plummeted since 2011...so, popcorn time! National issue time. I'm picturing "diversity" admits who, despite graduating law school, cannot speak in full sentences freaking out to 60 Minutes about their $300,000 in student loans and how NO ONE in their graduating class passed the bar. Delicious.
Also broadcast live interviews with some people who borrowed $300k to go to Brooklyn or Thomas Jefferson or wherever. Ask them rudimentary questions about the law and watch them squirm. Do this right after they claim to be excellent lawyers who just can't get a break.
DeleteOld Guy
@ Old Guy,
DeleteBut still, however, dumb or however deaf to the current state of affairs, our hypothetical lemmings are definitely victims. It's still a tiny minority of Americans who have any clue that student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and for all the scambloggers there's an army of propagandists with main stream media bull horns lying through their teeth to this generation. There's an army of scammers, scamming.
None of these students deserves what is about to happen to them. Some will die. If you do not know someone who died, I hope you never have to know the pain of it.
In addition, remember that those 25 percentile LSAT stats weren't met by a quarter of the classes. And given what we know, it's likely that that lower tail goes waaaay down.
Delete-Barry
You're right about the army of scamsters. But let's admit something else: most law students are just too lousy to become competent lawyers. They should not be allowed to borrow $300k for law school, because they should not be allowed to go to law school at all.
DeleteIf the ABA and legal hackademia cared half a damn about the so-called legal profession, they would set meaningful standards of admission that would include proof of high skill in reading, writing, and thinking. Instead, they promote the idea that everyone belongs in law school. And of course the lemmings, especially the millennial generation (which was fed with mother's milk a downright narcissistic self-image), eagerly rise to the bait.
No one should lightly borrow a six-figure sum. And if people are taking out student loans with the intention of getting them discharged in bankruptcy, they'll get no sympathy from me.
Yes, the big scamsters are the law-school profiteers and the other shills for hackademic so-called education. But the law-school lemmings are not innocent little lambs either.
Old Guy
@ Old Guy,
DeleteWell, we may have to agree to disagree.
Your own argument is a 'door that swings both ways.' While I absolutely agree with you that law schools are accepting applicants who are not intellectually developed enough to be competent lawyers (and law professors are simply too lazy to have students do writing assignments until they learn to write), the door swings the other way - as it were - when you ask yourself whether such intellectual babes have any means or opportunity to know that they've not got the right stuff and to avoid the profession?
How would a dumb prospective student come to the objectively correct conclusion that he probably cannot hack it when the ultimate sign of whether he might be able to hack it is getting accepted to a law school? Probably such students assume that real time, energy and attention will be invested into them in law school, as is the case with serious undergraduate majors, and law school will be more than a garbage in, garbage out process...for instance, they probably expect it to BE A SCHOOL. They'd be wrong, of course, but again we're talking about a demographic that probably knows no lawyers in real life.
[As an aside, I also just have to say that I've met plenty of lawyers in their 50s who are idiots, and have been crappy lawyers their entire careers, but got in when the getting was good to a government position and stayed like barnacles.]
So, yes, I'll stick to my guns that these kids are victims in the full-throated sense of the word; that they are invincibly ignorant and are being preyed upon and used badly. The stupider the demographic preyed upon the more true this becomes.
I fully agree, 1:26, that the law schools are at fault for accepting tens of thousands of intellectual lightweights every year. But I don't share your view that a starry-eyed lemming clutching a letter of admission from this or that Cooley has no way to know that she cannot hack it. Even confronting a lemming with cold facts seldom works. Someone above who directed an acquaintance's son to this Web site was told not to rain on the boy's parade. And that example is by no means unusual.
DeleteOld Guy
@ Old Guy,
DeleteYou and I both know if they really understood what was in store for them, there is no way they would go. Whatever the impediment to understanding, the proof that they do not understand, is that they go. The really culpable people here are the scammers who literally smile in these kids' faces knowing they are sending them to hell; who spend countless hours producing fake scholarship and *proof* to the amazing legal demand that will exist when they graduate. Those evil people should be all shipped off to ISIS.
Let's just agree on this: Lemmings who deny the truth even when it is made clear to them are not competent to sign up for six figures' worth of unsecured, non-dischargeable debt.
DeleteSome of them are aware of the facts but still press on on the basis that "I have to pursue my dream" or "I'm special and will not suffer the same fate as everyone else". There comes a point at which adults have to accept some responsibility for their actions. And those that hold themselves out as capable lawyers cannot easily claim to need protection from scams as crude as that of law skule in 2015.
Old Guy
And what is this responsibility they need to accept going to look like? The denizens of Law Lemmings, for instance, are not going to pass the bar exam, and they will never practice law. They will be mired in debt that likely exceeds their lifetime earnings potential. That debt will not be repaid. No one wins.
DeleteLike I said, agree to disagree, but law schools are precisely going after kids who have not heard about the industry, and who are being lied to before you ever get to speak to them. I think you seriously underestimate how many people can rattle off stats the way scambloggers can.
So, are lemmings any more stupid than the millions of Americans who took no money down, interest-only, negatively amortized, adjustable rate mortgages with a balloon payment?
Do lemmings deserve to die? What kind of punishment do they deserve for their stupidity? What kind of punishment do the parties to whom those loans actually flowed because of premeditated and deliberate fraud deserve? They put whatever the fuck they want in their glossy brochures as long as they have a Standard 509 on their website, the ABA won't touch them. Don't believe me - go look at George Washington's website. They have a brochure for prospective students advertising a 90% employment rate...
Yes, many of those people who took out the unmanageable mortgages knew damn well that they had no business doing so. And many of the law-skule lemmings know damn well that their degree (if they ever get it) borders on worthlessness.
DeleteWere they manipulated, swindled, and used? Of course. Were they altogether innocent? No way in hell.
Old Guy
You're back to the same absurdity. If a lemming has an actual, subjective belief what he is doing is worthless, he doesn't go to law school. Is he deluded, irrationally optimistic, under-informed, objectively wrong? Yes. The only people out there fostering the notion that a lemming can walk into big debt and not pay is Georgetown with its PSLF ponzi scheme. We all know how severely punished the lemming will be for common as dirt failing of being irrationally positive or egotistic.
DeleteIt's just bullshit to think any of these people are actually marching knowingly to their doom. And it's dangerous bullshit because it is the sort of argument that is used by those in Congress who oppose restoring bankruptcy protection, so desperate are they to avoid blame for what they created.
While we're talking about what people know...the federal government KNOWS it is making loans that cannot and will not be repaid.
Lemmings are just arbitrary conduits for the kleptocracy that has gone so deep it doesn't care whether the 'taxpayer' is hosed, it cares which lobby is giving the biggest campaign contributions. It cares whose dick it has got to suck to keep taking its slice of The People's pie.
When a law school does as LSTC once wrote and finds 23 Botswanan refugees hiding in a boat house and signs them up...then will it be enough for relative innocence for you? At some point it has to be.
"I knew that I couldn't afford that house. But I wanted it, so I took out the mortgage." Not an unusual post facto justification.
DeleteWhat do people say over at Law School Lemmings when told a few choice truths? "Don't rain on my parade." "Where there's a will, there's a way." "I believe in myself." "You're just bitter because you were too lousy to get a job." "Look on the sunny side." "Things will turn out better for me." And on and on.
They're being willfully blind. And those who don't even look before leaping into $300k of non-dischargeable debt, especially for the likes of Cooley and Thomas Jefferson and Indiana Tech, exhibit rashness and foolishness that are inconsistent with aptitude to practice law.
Just how little responsibility do you think these people should take for their actions? None at all? In that case, why should they be permitted to serve as lawyers, with responsibility for other people's affairs?
Shut down seven law schools out of eight. Impose meaningful, objective, high standards for admission. Cut the cost of law school. Limit the amounts that students can borrow. Raise standards all around. Get the professors to teach rather than churning out scholarshit or sitting on their ass. Subject the legal profession to public oversight. I agree with all of that. But I won't absolve the lemmings of all responsibility just because the system is corrupt and predatory.
Old Guy
Look, I've encountered the same rude, deluded, accusatory attitude from lemmings - and lemming parents! - when I'm just trying to save their lives, and it definitely rubs me the wrong way too. It does, in that moment, make me not particularly give a shit what happens to them - I know, they will learn.
DeleteObserve how tragic this actually is: in point of fact, you cannot know with certainty what will happen to any particular lemming. In point of fact, you cannot know what the job market will look like 3 - 4 years hence. What's rational, but takes a lot of uncommon discipline, is to work out the likelihood of a bad outcome and the severity of that bad outcome and conclude you shouldn't proceed.
But lemming psychology being just human psychology, I know, you know, that when you approach someone with information they have never heard of and that information is disappointing, a strong bias for rejection kicks in. [The housing bubble wasn't a secret, it was discussed on the floor of Congress, but the same bias against the bad outcome existed.]
I don't want to over-state the flaw in the lemmings. Why? Because it's an impediment to reform and to justice.
And even if irrational exuberance exists in the person defrauded, of what significance is that to policy? I'm not saying there's ZERO culpability on the part of lemmings, I'm saying there's utterly insignificant culpability on the part of lemmings; literally, unimportant culpability, from the perspective of policy...from the perspective of justice.
After all, any clown can "want" to be lawyer, the sine qua non is not their desire, but the power to buy on unlimited credit and the law school who lie, lie, lie to induce the sale.
Meanwhile, on Planet Law Professor (the Faculty Lounge), Michael Risch, a professor at Villanova (which accepted about half of its applicants last year) has launched a full-throated defense of "legal scholarship", and denouncing the idea that law school is nothing more than a trade school.
ReplyDeleteHilarious quote:
"The cost estimates assume that if scholarship went away, then somehow law school would be cheaper by applying a percentage of time formula. I don't think so. First, you are unlikely to see major drops in the number of professors. Sure, some professors can teach more classes, but you still need subject matter diversification for expertise (expertise enhanced, I should add, by doing scholarship). More cynically, if law schools are really as corrupt as everyone says, then it's more likely that professors will just stop doing scholarship and continue to work "part time." Tuition would remain the same, but now there's no scholarship. Marginal cost of scholarship/benefit to students of removal = 0."
Because there are no external economic pressures that might compel professors to teach more than three classes a year, of course.
It was a very cushy existence while it lasted...
It's a lot like convention centers. Cities got the idea that they would bring a lot of money into town by building one, just like universities built law schools as cash cows. Problem is, every city of any appreciable size decided to cash in and built one and now there are way too many convention centers. And other than New York, Chicago, Boston and a few other places people would actually like to visit there just aren't enough conventions to keep them all full.
DeleteYou don't understand; the main solution is law school closures. Making law school operations even cheaper would allow more schools to open/not close. Scholarship is a component of cost.
DeleteSo, Nando's Drake has the 9th Highest acceptance rate in the country? Tied with Florida Coastal?
ReplyDeleteThird Tier Drake is starting to exhibit fourth or fifth tier acceptance rates.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that several "flagship" state universities have greatly increased their acceptance rates. Since these tend to be (relatively speaking, of course) bargains for in-state students I would not have expected to see that. Perhaps what is happening is that they are hamstrung by the need to reserve so many seats for state residents and thus cannot cast a wider net.
ReplyDeleteThere may also be an echo effect in some situations. Many Connecticut residents who can't get into UConn wind up at WNEU, which is only about 35 miles from Hartford. UConn lowers its standards, skims lemmings from WNEU, and WNEU must dip far deeper into the pool of lemmings, leading to a pitiful 83% acceptance rate.
Some of them are isolated and unattractive. The U of South Dakota is a prime example. Seventy percent of the previous year's entering students came from South Dakota, and I'd bet that most of the rest came from neighboring states. Try as they may, they just won't draw in many people from other areas. But the local pool is also shrinking as the lemmings head off for toilets elsewhere. So the U of South Dakota has to admit almost all comers in a desperate, and probably unsuccessful, attempt to fill its seats.
DeleteThe phenomenon that you describe, however, is also real. Just a few years ago, third-tier schools such as Cornell and Vanderbilt would have had a fair number of people with LSAT scores of 170 or higher. But that pool is shrinking, both because the number of people taking the test is shrinking and because those with the best scores are the most likely to avoid law school altogether. So now the eight or so schools in the first and second tiers are snatching up top-scoring applicants who might otherwise have ended up at a third-tier or even top-end fourth-tier school. As a result, the Cornells have to prey on the traditional applicant pool of the Iowas, which in turn are invading the Cardozos' territory, and so on down the line.
Old Guy
So the near top pirates the near bottom and the bottom is made to open the admissions to any and every lemming to survive.
DeleteI was a WNEU lemming, although I did get a 164 on the LSAT and passed the bar first time no problem. Job market beyond awful. Heads up to anyone going there, its a dump. You were warned. I understood and was never planning on practicing.
Deleteactually, the question ought to be:
ReplyDeleteWhat does somebody have to do to get rejected from Suffolk?
If you have bad credit and aren't eligible for unlimited GradPlus loans, you'll get rejected so fast your head will spin.
DeleteIf you are currently in default on a federal loan, or if you are male and not registered for Selective Service, then you are ineligible for that sweet, sweet, student loan nectar.
DeleteTo be fair, one would expect a high rate of admi$$ions at Cooley, which publishes its formula (a straightforward weighted sum of LSAT score and GPA) and thus lets people figure out for themselves whether they'll be received into Cooley's warm embrace. Presumably a lot of the people who fail to meet Cooley's exacting standards simply don't bother to apply.
ReplyDeleteOld Guy
Chicago-Kent,Represent,
ReplyDeleteAccepts 62 percent,
You go, Dean Harold Krent!
He*l Yeah! Chicago-Kent forever!
DeleteKrent and his merry band of con artists will shortly be hoovering up the dregs that even JMLS wouldn't accept.
The wealthy professors living on the North Shore will get a little anxious look in their eyes and talk about the decline in student quality, but they'll fold in the end. Got to keep those federal loan conduits rolling in, and I have to make payments on my boat.
Cash Rules Everything Around Me. CREAM get the money. Dolla Dolla bill y'alll....
How soon till law schools have acceptance rates over 100$?
ReplyDeleteCooley might mail acceptance letters out in those packets of coupon clippers for the supermarket.
Or you might find a Thomas Jefferson admission notice unexpectedly jammed into your mailbox along with a fistful pizza advertisements and steam cleaner discounts.
This is a great blog that covers a lot of territory, including news, opinion, and research. Since it's also a service blog, let me warn any prospective law students about law schools with very high acceptance rates. Just getting into a law school doesn't make it worth attending. The limited employment prospects coming out of those schools barely make them worth attending for free, let alone while incurring massive, life-destroying debt. Of the 29 schools that Dybbuk listed, I can only think of two that might be worth attending, and even then only with local connections and a full-tuition scholarship.
ReplyDeleteWe now have grade inflation to ensure that people with only a brain stem graduate with over a 3.0. The problem is that darn LSAT. It obviously needs to be replaced by a test that is faster to take, faster to grade and is more reliable, i.e., graded on a pass/fail basis. Therefore, as supported by law deans everywhere, the LSAT will be replaced by the FART (Fast and Reliable Test). From now onwards, if you can pass the FART, you automatically get accepted into the law school of your choice.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that test would be especially popular at the Beantown schools.
DeleteThe really ingenious thing about the new FART test is that even people who cut the FART, pass the FART.
DeleteThe FART. A perfect companion to grade inflatus.
DeleteOld Guy
Of course, many law schools may consider that passing the FART is too onerous for all candidates which is why they will decide to waive the FART in specific cases, possibly for the sake of diversity, etc.
DeleteI sense a surging growth market for the law schools here....who better to practice criminal law than actual criminals?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/wilson/mt-juliet/2015/03/04/mt-juliet-dropout-goes-drug-dealer-law-school/24388389/
How long before they start hanging fliers in probation offices?
Quit cribbing ideas from the Law School Truth Center. Please note we're still setting our litigation budget for the year!
Deletehttp://lawschooltruthcenter.blogspot.com/2015/03/law-schools-should-go-to-prison.html
(It's a great idea, though!)
So you're accusing him of cribbing from you? That's defamation per se!
DeleteTrust me, you don't want to get to know his lawyer. :(
Their lawyer graduated from a Supermax, while your lawyer only did 1-3 at a minimum security institution.
ReplyDelete-Barry
A professor speaks about the death spiral --
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/09/law-schools-are-in-a-death-spiral-maybe-now-theyll-finally-change/
"But while faculty cannot be terminated, their summer research stipends can be."
DeleteShe goes through some iteration of 'there's no way to cut faculty salaries or terminated tenured faculty' several times. Yes, there is. A school may have to declare a financial emergency to do so, but these law schools can reorganize to lower their overhead costs. Unlike every other industry, they'd rather go out of business than cut their salaries. I guess it's because the people running these places have their golden parachutes and don't care if this is the end of the line - they're old enough to retire.
A typical law school could cut salaries by 25% without losing a single profe$$or.
DeleteOld Guy
Some commenters have mentioned it might be useful to look at the increase as a ratio over the prior time's acceptance rate. I can't make a neat table, but here's the info, sorted by high-low.
ReplyDeleteNorth Carolina Central 2.44
Univ. of Maryland 2.35
Univ. of Louisville 2.26
Univ. of North Carolina 2.22
Univ. of Florida 2.10
Univ. of Illinois 2.10
Boston Univ. 1.95
Univ. of Arkansas-Fayetteville 1.94
McGeorge 1.92
Univ. of Connecticut 1.86
Boston College 1.83
Brooklyn Law School 1.83
Indiana Univ.-Bloomington 1.82
Samford 1.81
American 1.79
Lewis and Clark 1.72
Southern 1.71
Southwestern 1.69
Univ. of California- 1.69
Southern Illinois 1.67
Catholic 1.67
Cardozo 1.67
George Washington 1.67
Univ. of San Francisco 1.61
Elon 1.60
Chicago-Kent 1.59
Marquette 1.59
Univ. of Puerto Rico 1.56
Northern Illinois 1.56
St. Mary’s 1.56
Pace 1.55
DePaul 1.55
Oklahoma City 1.55
Univ. of South Carolina 1.54
Charleston 1.54
Chapman 1.53
Loyola-Chicago 1.53
Univ. of Denver 1.51
Indiana Univ.-Indianapolis 1.51
South Texas 1.50
John Marshall (Chicago) 1.46
Drake 1.44
Univ. of Baltimore 1.44
Univ. of Kentucky 1.44
Hofstra 1.42
Univ. of Nebraska 1.42
Louisiana State 1.41
Mississippi College 1.40
Univ. of South Dakota 1.39
Ave Maria 1.39
Northern Kentucky 1.38
Faulkner 1.35
St. Thomas (Minnesota) 1.33
Suffolk 1.26
I notice that Denver had an acceptance rate in 2014 of 62%, which was worse than Ave Maria, Faulkner University, and Mississippi College had achieved three years earlier. Denver is truly in its own private death spiral. The way its recruiters present themselves is absolutely horrible. Professors who went there hoping to ride the gravy train of "research" and "scholarship" are now being forced to each three classes a semester. It makes you wonder which black hole is sucking up all the tuition money.
ReplyDeleteDenver Sturm is starting to sound like a hell on earth. That could actually be a good thing. Quite frankly, anyone who accepted a job there hoping to build a lucrative career on the misery and failure of their students deserves a bit of punishment. One can only hope that after a few years, their consciences will kick in and they can find real jobs that contribute to society rather than exploiting it.
But..but..but...those "open road" narratives are SO valuable...! Surely such razor-sharp legal scholarship MUST be financed on the backs of incoming 1L students...!
ReplyDeleteLaw schools traditionally have been very tough on their students. Are they going to play nice these days? Looks like they'll take anyone with a working pulse now.
ReplyDelete