The dean admits that greater expansion might well push his über-toilet into "accepting students that may struggle to pass the bar exam". Indeed, already the LSAT score at the 25th percentile is a horrible 146, and the admission of 15 more students, to say nothing of a greater number, would likely send that score tumbling. It is difficult to imagine where the U of North Dakota could find even 15 more students per year without dipping at least a few points on the LSAT, and probably quite a few.
The dean's statement amounts to a shameful admission that the law school as it stands hovers just above the threshold for students of truly horrible calibre—those who would struggle to pass any bar exam. It is a predatory institution that puts its existence, and the advancement of its faculty, ahead of the needs and interests of its students.
There simply is no need for a law school in North Dakota, especially one that draws its so-called students principally from the marginal group that will struggle with any bar exam if it does manage to graduate. Rather than coming up with a few million dollars and thinking of admitting even worse trash, the dean should have the honesty to concede that his über-toilet should be wound up as soon as possible.
How is any law school going to attract more students when law school applications are on a downward slide? They are lucky if they can keep 85 new students enrolling let alone get 100 students to enroll
ReplyDeleteEspecially a law school in North Dakota, not exactly a location of choice. One might not be surprised if a Pepperdine increased its enrollment, but an über-toilet in Grand Forks, North Dakota, would not lure many people by location alone.
DeleteAttracting students should be easy enough, using the method that occurred to the dean: simply lower standards by admitting people with scarcely a prayer of passing a bar exam (or even graduating). It's wholly unethical, but when has that ever stopped a law-school scamster?
So the Dean is talking about "accepting students that may struggle to pass the bar exam". Where is the ABA on this? Why aren't they regulating this? Why on earth would a law school be allowed to enroll students, who then get "student loans" guaranteed by the federal government, who may very well never even get a license to practice law in the first place, because they cannot pass the Bar Exam? I don't give a hoot about law school grades, journal, all of that, but I would be very reluctant to hire or rely upon a lawyer who failed the Bar Exam, on their first attempt, no matter the excuses. If after 4Y of college, and 3Y of law school, and a Bar Exam Prep Course, you still fail.. .then maybe you shouldn't be a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting question: should the public get to know how many attempts at the bar exam a lawyer has made? I'm not sure that I would reject a lawyer just for having failed the exam on the first try, although I would reject one for failing it again. But the public doesn't usually get to know this information. Perhaps it should be made public. (Old Guy passed on the first and only try, without taking any sort of bar-prep course.)
DeleteThe ABA’s rules for accreditation do prohibit the admission of students with little hope of joining the bar, but they are observed largely in the breach.