Second, here's Brian Tamanaha's latest screed, where he accuses law schools of running afoul of Standard 501(b), which requires that law schools only admit applicants who "appear capable" of becoming lawyers because Interpretation 501-3, which proposes a rebuttable presumption of failure at 20% non-transfer attrition.
[Interpretation 501-3] was adopted to prevent schools from admitting large numbers of unqualified students, collecting tuition, then failing them out. In particular, the concern motivating the new interpretation was that law schools in danger of violating bar passage standard 316 might protect their bar pass rate by dismissing students they perceive to be a high risk of failing the bar....There's a chart with numbers for those geeks so inclined. Apparently, the ABA's standards are so warped that they've ensnared long-successful programs like Capital and Golden Gate.
The 509 reports indicate that 14 law schools have run afoul of interpretation 501-3, thus incurring a presumption that they have violated Standard 501(b).
The presumption is obviously rebuttable, but let's rebut anyway!
First, the employment market is red-hot. Do we know why these students are leaving? If they've found a different million-dollar train, why is that the good-hearted school's fault? Wouldn't Widener be the victim in that case?
Second, a twenty percent attrition means an eighty percent success rate (math!). That's pretty darned good! Imagine if you're a tax driver and only 20% of your passengers die on the way to their destination. You're probably turning a profit!
Third, even if we assume that these students are "unqualified" (whatever that means), why is this even a bad thing? Law schools are giving people a chance to better themselves, to take a dice roll at their greatest ambitions. Isn't that worth a $75k fedloan voucher? Isn't that open road American dream worth leaving ensuring the future of a variety of educational institutions, some of which are Harvard and some of which are borderline mafia-run divebars? And what of the other students - aren't you harming them by telling law schools not to fish for minnows anymore?
Fourth, what does "appear capable" of graduating and passing the bar even mean? The typical maternity ward is full of spongy things that appear capable of someday being lawyers, and that's before we consider intelligent animals and various stains on walls.
Exactly what anti-capitalist interests is the ABA protecting, anyway?
Why does he even bother? At most the ABA, once in receipt of a "valid" complaint, will dither and cogitate and then issue a slap on the wrist-if that-to the offending schools. How else can you explain why TJS and Western and (fill in the blank) are still open?
ReplyDeleteOther than a few outliers which were going to close anyway(Infilaw has made its money, time to move to the next gravy train, for example), the ABA is in the business of keeping ABA accredited law schools open, period full stop.
2018 will end as 2017 did; with maybe-maybe-a school or two closing, but still with 100+ too many law schools.
Convincing response, LSTC. I apologize and disavow my screed.
ReplyDeleteThe ABA has no shame. It won't even give teeth to its ridiculous "rebuttable presumptions" and other devices designed to allow the über-toilets to get away with the most heinous of crimes. Evidently it will do just about anything to promote the law-school scam.
DeleteDon't be difficult:
ReplyDeleteInterpretation 501-3 A law school having a cumulative non-transfer attrition rate above 20 percent for a class creates a rebuttable presumption that the law school is not in compliance with the Standard
Rebuttable presumption = affected schools telling the ABA to kiss their butt.
Just exactly how can the presumption be rebutted that a toilet school where so damn many people fail out is admitting large numbers of unsuitable students? Are we expected to believe that so many students, though otherwise capable, just aren't putting forth the required effort? If so, why aren't the divine souls in the admissions offices identifying that risk?
DeleteAnd why hasn't the ABA even contemplated the possibility of a meaningful LSAT score below which a candidate is presumptively inadmissible?
As much as I want to leave a snarky response, I believe that if/when the ABA loses its accreditation authority, it will be because it promulgates standards and interpretations like this but does not enforce them.
Delete