Law School

[Anonymous]

Exlawdean wrote:In the aftermath of the Students for Fair Admissions decision, I thought it might help if I made some comments that put it into context.

First, although the opinion is literally about undergraduate admissions (at Harvard and at UNC) I don't know anyone who thinks this decision does not apply to law school admissions programs.

Second, this decision has been anticipated, at a general level, by most law school admissions offices, ever since the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

Third, at the very end of his opinion, Justice Roberts laid out what the majority wants. Race can be taken into account at an individual level, if it directly connects to character traits and abilities in the individual that the school values. It is worth quoting this short section:

"nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. . . . A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race."

Fourth, the majority claimed to be irked by the inability to measure the benefits from diversity, the central rationale for the predominant system that the majority struck down. No one that I have talked to will hazard a guess whether the new, retail approach to considering race that Roberts' opinion describes in the quoted language above, will need to produce measurable benefits in order to survive.

Fifth, I have heard suggestions that admissions offices can just move to using wholesale proxies for race -- think of preferring people from certain zip codes -- and avoid the thrust of the majority opinion. I think that is wrong. Such a wholesale approach will likely fall quickly if challenged in court. The quoted language, and other language from section VI of the majority opinion, rejects such an attempted work-around, IMO.

Sixth, re-configuring the admissions process to conform to Roberts' opinion can be done, but it will be expensive. Producing the tailoring that Roberts demands will likely mean hiring additional admissions officers. There are other possible responses, but I won't go into them here.

That's all, for now. Have a great 4th.

Thank you for starting and participating in this thread.

I do not understand your sixth point in light of your third point. Why would any admissions process need to be reconfigured ? Why would additional AOs need to be hired to conform to Chief Justice Roberts opinion ? In my view, this is a very simple and inexpensive transition--eliminate race boxes from the admissions application and read the applicants' personal statement essays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

Not OP, but a lawyer. I think the LSAT tells you a lot about how well someone might do in law school, which is not the same necessarily the thing as how well they will do as a lawyer. But law school is all about teaching you how to "think like a lawyer," and that is basically logic/critical thinking/reading comprehension, which is what the LSAT tests.

The LSAT indicates how well a student might do in his or her first year of law school. Years two & three revert back to typical undergraduate memorization and application skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

Not OP, but a lawyer. I think the LSAT tells you a lot about how well someone might do in law school, which is not the same necessarily the thing as how well they will do as a lawyer. But law school is all about teaching you how to "think like a lawyer," and that is basically logic/critical thinking/reading comprehension, which is what the LSAT tests.

The LSAT indicates how well a student might do in his or her first year of law school. Years two & three revert back to typical undergraduate memorization and application skills.

Disagree. Rote memorization won't help you understand and perform legal analysis. I went to a first tier law school with larger-than-average classes where I had a lot of friends who were top of their class in undergrad but never did well in law school -- because they just didn't get it. Their undergrad memorization and application skills were fine. Their critical thinking was average at best. They struggled. Some failed the bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

Not OP, but a lawyer. I think the LSAT tells you a lot about how well someone might do in law school, which is not the same necessarily the thing as how well they will do as a lawyer. But law school is all about teaching you how to "think like a lawyer," and that is basically logic/critical thinking/reading comprehension, which is what the LSAT tests.

The LSAT indicates how well a student might do in his or her first year of law school. Years two & three revert back to typical undergraduate memorization and application skills.

Disagree. Rote memorization won't help you understand and perform legal analysis. I went to a first tier law school with larger-than-average classes where I had a lot of friends who were top of their class in undergrad but never did well in law school -- because they just didn't get it. Their undergrad memorization and application skills were fine. Their critical thinking was average at best. They struggled. Some failed the bar.

Our experiences at top tier law schools differ.

Also, I never used, or implied, the term "rote memorization" in my response. My phrase was "memorization and application". The only folks--very few--who failed the bar also finished at or near the bottom of the class.

I am not sure as to whether or not to believe your response; I would love to know your law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

First, as I emphasized above, these are my opinions. The LSAT score is, in part, an indicator of cleverness. The questions are difficult, and the ability to answer them is indicative of the ability of the prospective student to solve hard questions. LSAT score correlates well with GRE scores, with SAT scores, and, perhaps more importantly, with the ability to pass the bar exam in states with very hard bar examinations (e.g. California and New York). To be clear, I should point out that the correlation data is not just my opinion, but is a set of statistical relationships.

Second, there is no doubt that there is also a cultural component to the LSAT. There is also a cultural component to legal practice. Does this disadvantage those without the "right" cultural background? In my opinion, yes.

"right cultural background"

What?!?

Maybe he is referring to how one's culture typically resolves disputes ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

Utter nonsense.

If you reject the professor’s experiential comment so rudely, at least state your credentials and explain what your answer would be. After all, this is a discussion and Q&A thread. If you have no worthwhile contribution to make just STFU.

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:In the aftermath of the Students for Fair Admissions decision, I thought it might help if I made some comments that put it into context.

First, although the opinion is literally about undergraduate admissions (at Harvard and at UNC) I don't know anyone who thinks this decision does not apply to law school admissions programs.

Second, this decision has been anticipated, at a general level, by most law school admissions offices, ever since the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

Third, at the very end of his opinion, Justice Roberts laid out what the majority wants. Race can be taken into account at an individual level, if it directly connects to character traits and abilities in the individual that the school values. It is worth quoting this short section:

"nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. . . . A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race."

Fourth, the majority claimed to be irked by the inability to measure the benefits from diversity, the central rationale for the predominant system that the majority struck down. No one that I have talked to will hazard a guess whether the new, retail approach to considering race that Roberts' opinion describes in the quoted language above, will need to produce measurable benefits in order to survive.

Fifth, I have heard suggestions that admissions offices can just move to using wholesale proxies for race -- think of preferring people from certain zip codes -- and avoid the thrust of the majority opinion. I think that is wrong. Such a wholesale approach will likely fall quickly if challenged in court. The quoted language, and other language from section VI of the majority opinion, rejects such an attempted work-around, IMO.

Sixth, re-configuring the admissions process to conform to Roberts' opinion can be done, but it will be expensive. Producing the tailoring that Roberts demands will likely mean hiring additional admissions officers. There are other possible responses, but I won't go into them here.

That's all, for now. Have a great 4th.

Thank you for starting and participating in this thread.

I do not understand your sixth point in light of your third point. Why would any admissions process need to be reconfigured ? Why would additional AOs need to be hired to conform to Chief Justice Roberts opinion ? In my view, this is a very simple and inexpensive transition--eliminate race boxes from the admissions application and read the applicants' personal statement essays.

Very good question. I believe that the major application advisors (think Spivey) will change the way that they are advising applicants to craft their applications. From this point forward the applications will be crafted to show that the applicant has had to overcome challenges in some way that demonstrates an ability or character trait that will be (should be?) of value to the school. This will not be the advice only to diverse candidates. White candidates -- particularly those with less than stellar LSAT and UGPA -- will be urged to write this as well. And, maybe some others, as well. Each one of those statements must be read with care. And, anticipating litigation and discovery (because the majority made it easy for plaintiffs to get standing in such cases), the admissions officer must write an evaluation of the candidate on the same dimensions. The evaluation must be at least several sentences, explaining the degree to which they find the candidate's experiences, and the connection to valuable skills and character traits, believable and appealing. I would not merely rely on a check box. Further, I would not want a canned paragraph. We would need to be showing [i]individualized attention to comply. I think this will be on top of the other work that the admissions officers have to do. Until the volume of applications starts to shrink (see my previous post on demographics) we will need an extra admissions officer or two to do the work.[/i]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

Not OP, but a lawyer. I think the LSAT tells you a lot about how well someone might do in law school, which is not the same necessarily the thing as how well they will do as a lawyer. But law school is all about teaching you how to "think like a lawyer," and that is basically logic/critical thinking/reading comprehension, which is what the LSAT tests.

The LSAT indicates how well a student might do in his or her first year of law school. Years two & three revert back to typical undergraduate memorization and application skills.

Disagree. Rote memorization won't help you understand and perform legal analysis. I went to a first tier law school with larger-than-average classes where I had a lot of friends who were top of their class in undergrad but never did well in law school -- because they just didn't get it. Their undergrad memorization and application skills were fine. Their critical thinking was average at best. They struggled. Some failed the bar.

Our experiences at top tier law schools differ.

Also, I never used, or implied, the term "rote memorization" in my response. My phrase was "memorization and application". The only folks--very few--who failed the bar also finished at or near the bottom of the class.

I am not sure as to whether or not to believe your response; I would love to know your law school.

Believe it or don't, lol. I don't care -- I'm really just here for local business recommendations. As far as where I went to law school, like I said, it was top tier. And yeah, the folks who failed the bar tended to be at the bottom of the class, but those were the people who, like I mentioned, don't get it. A colleague went to law school at Stanford, and she didn't get it. Failed CA twice, finally passed DC after multiple attempts. Super smart, not great at thinking like a lawyer.

You say you went to a top tier law school as well, but I'm not sure whether or not to believe that. Or maybe you didn't go at all?

[Anonymous]

Exlawdean wrote:In the aftermath of the Students for Fair Admissions decision, I thought it might help if I made some comments that put it into context.

First, although the opinion is literally about undergraduate admissions (at Harvard and at UNC) I don't know anyone who thinks this decision does not apply to law school admissions programs.

Second, this decision has been anticipated, at a general level, by most law school admissions offices, ever since the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

Third, at the very end of his opinion, Justice Roberts laid out what the majority wants. Race can be taken into account at an individual level, if it directly connects to character traits and abilities in the individual that the school values. It is worth quoting this short section:

"nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. . . . A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race."

Fourth, the majority claimed to be irked by the inability to measure the benefits from diversity, the central rationale for the predominant system that the majority struck down. No one that I have talked to will hazard a guess whether the new, retail approach to considering race that Roberts' opinion describes in the quoted language above, will need to produce measurable benefits in order to survive.

Fifth, I have heard suggestions that admissions offices can just move to using wholesale proxies for race -- think of preferring people from certain zip codes -- and avoid the thrust of the majority opinion. I think that is wrong. Such a wholesale approach will likely fall quickly if challenged in court. The quoted language, and other language from section VI of the majority opinion, rejects such an attempted work-around, IMO.

Sixth, re-configuring the admissions process to conform to Roberts' opinion can be done, but it will be expensive. Producing the tailoring that Roberts demands will likely mean hiring additional admissions officers. There are other possible responses, but I won't go into them here.

That's all, for now. Have a great 4th.

CHIEF Justice Roberts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:In the aftermath of the Students for Fair Admissions decision, I thought it might help if I made some comments that put it into context.

First, although the opinion is literally about undergraduate admissions (at Harvard and at UNC) I don't know anyone who thinks this decision does not apply to law school admissions programs.

Second, this decision has been anticipated, at a general level, by most law school admissions offices, ever since the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

Third, at the very end of his opinion, Justice Roberts laid out what the majority wants. Race can be taken into account at an individual level, if it directly connects to character traits and abilities in the individual that the school values. It is worth quoting this short section:

"nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. . . . A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race."

Fourth, the majority claimed to be irked by the inability to measure the benefits from diversity, the central rationale for the predominant system that the majority struck down. No one that I have talked to will hazard a guess whether the new, retail approach to considering race that Roberts' opinion describes in the quoted language above, will need to produce measurable benefits in order to survive.

Fifth, I have heard suggestions that admissions offices can just move to using wholesale proxies for race -- think of preferring people from certain zip codes -- and avoid the thrust of the majority opinion. I think that is wrong. Such a wholesale approach will likely fall quickly if challenged in court. The quoted language, and other language from section VI of the majority opinion, rejects such an attempted work-around, IMO.

Sixth, re-configuring the admissions process to conform to Roberts' opinion can be done, but it will be expensive. Producing the tailoring that Roberts demands will likely mean hiring additional admissions officers. There are other possible responses, but I won't go into them here.

That's all, for now. Have a great 4th.

CHIEF Justice Roberts!

PP, are you Chief Justice Roberts? I can’t see anyone else wanting to point out this ‘slight’…. If so, many of us are concerned about your recent opinions.

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:I have a couple of questions:

1. Unauthorized practice of law (UPL) - My understanding is that there is no clear line where practicing law begins and ends outside of litigating in court and providing a legal opinion. It seems that traditional legal services are under assault by legal tech, the big 4/consultants, and general cost cutting. For example, shifting previous attorney roles to lesser paid compliance roles; having compliance consultants copy in-house counsel to obtain attorney-client privilege on certain matters; or tax accountants editing formation/merger documents. Do you see this trend continuing and how do you think it will affect the already saturated legal market? Should law schools do something either by changing what is taught or better defining the practice of law to protect the value of the JD? Law schools can only do a few things to help protect the value of a JD. Technological and economic changes will produce, in my opinion, a reduction in the demand for lawyers. One strategy is to emphasize teaching about practice areas that will (and I am guessing here) be more resistant to the incursion of AI. I started a class in Entertainment Law and Business for exactly that reason. The social and technological changes that buffet the entertainment industry would, I thought, make it less rewarding to "train" an AI machine on historical records. Similarly, the few law professors I know who think about such things have concluded that regulatory law (which for these purposes is an amalgam of courses on Administrative Law plus the subject matter courses on regulation, such as Environmental Law, Telecommunications Regulation, Securities Regulation, etc.) may fit the bill. Technological plus political changes often render the historical record to be of little use, except as prologue. We can also train our students how to use AI, likely part of the research and writing courses that one finds at every law school. I believe that most schools are anticipating doing so.

2. Legal education - It seems legal education has stagnated for sometime. What needs to be updates to contend with the current job market and prepare students for the future impacts of things like AI? Do you think schools can evolve to tackle these issues? Or will schools fail to evolve like after the introduction of ediscovery (where the big 4 ended up setting up ediscovery groups and the lawyers ended up in doc review)? Some of this I answered in the paragraph, above. I can't really predict. Some firms, such as O'M&M, have set up ediscovery shops inside their firms. The firms that evolve best will do better.

3. Cost - It seems to me that making law school a graduate program has allowed schools to exponentially up the cost due to the way loans are distributed (no caps for grad school loans, while undergraduate loans have caps). Did the institutions you worked at ever siphone money paid by the law students to subsidize other programs or initiatives that would not have a direct or indirect benefit on the law students? Yes. One of the schools took a substantial amount of money from both the Law School and the Business School and sent the money to the Medical School. And one of the universities explicitly took money from all academic units to fill in holes in the Athletic Department budget. It was beyond annoying. Given that law school admissions generally requires no pre-requisite classwork or specific work experience, it seems there would be a benefit to moving it back to a undergraduate degree to lower costs via the cap on student loans and by not requiring students to pay for a bachelors first. This is a topic with a long history. The most common suggestion is just lopping off the last year of law school. This would save 1/3 the cost. Judge Richard Posner was an advocate of this approach. Some suggest that we should adopt something more like the German system, where law is an undergraduate degree. Note that they also require a couple of years of post graduate internships. China, on the other hand, as well as Japan, have both moved in the opposite direction, setting up post graduate law schools. Where do you stand on maintaining the JD graduate scheme? If for the status quo, what are the benefits of keeping the JD a graduate degree? The main value, IMO, is that when we graduate our students and send them into the world they are older and more experienced. I think the real issue that you are having is that law school is so darned expensive, leading to huge debt loads. This is truly a recent phenomenon, and has been driven by (at least) two factors. First, the introduction of federally insured student loans several decades ago greatly increased demand for law school. As economics 101 tells us, when demand for something goes up, the price of that thing tends to rise. Second, the USN&WR rankings of law schools has included factors that prompted law schools to increase the costs of providing a legal education. Most directly, expenditures per student did that. Faculty/student ratio did that. At many schools the faculty/student ratio has almost doubled in the past 50 years. In addition, almost every law school has added enormous numbers of staff people in the past 50 years. They are in not just admissions and placement, but also in communications, student services (including therapists in some schools), facilities and maintenance, event staffing, etc. All of this costs money (which helps raise expenditures/student) and provides a more appealing experience. But it also drives up tuition, and the need for loans. These factors have turned law school into an extremely expensive endeavor. The easiest way to handle that would be to operate leaner, much as we did in the early 1970s. I must admit -- I would not like to try to implement the "rollback" this would require.

4. Curves/grading - How accurate do you think schools are at ranking students along the curve? After discussions with how some of my professors graded work, I was already concerned that there was some margin of error in ranking, but my law school experience led me to believe that it was higher than I imagined (eg, while drinking scotch on a plane). Some schools also have moved to the honors/pass/fail grading system. Do you think that system better captures students ability/potential?

Professors think about grading all the time. We worry about it. Here's what we know. 1. Students' grades correlate highly between courses. If a student gets an A in one course, the probability is high that the student will get an A in a second course. Thus, whatever it is that we are reacting to when we read exam answers, we (professors) tend to react in the same way. 2. Some of us use multiple choice question, similar to those on the bar examination. Students' scores on multiple choice questions correlate highly with their scores on answers to essay questions. 3. There has been grade inflation over the past 40 years. 4. Grading answers to essay questions is the most boring part of a law professor's job. That is unanimous. The most difficult task is paying attention when reading the 40th answer in a row to the same essay prompt. I don't condone drinking while grading, but I understand it. 5. We are profoundly uncertain about making small distinctions -- e.g. A or A-? -- but quite confident about making large ones -- e.g. A or B-?.

I apologize for having missed some of the posts along the way. I have been dealing with a bathroom redo and it has been consuming my time (and our money). I will attempt to insert italicized responses where I think I have a reasonable answer.

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

First, as I emphasized above, these are my opinions. The LSAT score is, in part, an indicator of cleverness. The questions are difficult, and the ability to answer them is indicative of the ability of the prospective student to solve hard questions. LSAT score correlates well with GRE scores, with SAT scores, and, perhaps more importantly, with the ability to pass the bar exam in states with very hard bar examinations (e.g. California and New York). To be clear, I should point out that the correlation data is not just my opinion, but is a set of statistical relationships.

Second, there is no doubt that there is also a cultural component to the LSAT. There is also a cultural component to legal practice. Does this disadvantage those without the "right" cultural background? In my opinion, yes.

"right cultural background"

What?!?

Maybe he is referring to how one's culture typically resolves disputes ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile. “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes.

Why is it disappointing? K-JDs have no life experience.

+1. It isn't just law schools that have a preference for some post-college work experience; employers do, too. K-JD tend to have less of a clue on the practical realities of how their clients' businesses operate. A little post-college experience goes a long way.

-- NU grad from the mid-90s. About half our class had work experience.

Both of you glossed over that he said - and I was referring to - that top schools do take people who have shown lower readiness. I’m not comparing a 21 year old and a 30 year old with otherwise equal applications. I’m comparing a 21 year old with all markers of higher bar pass rate potential than a 30 with lower markers for a bar pass rate potential. And while I would expect this at a lot of schools, I would not expect it at a top 10 school.

Interesting that there is so much discussion regarding "bar passage potential". While state bars vary in difficulty, few law students who attend the top 100 law schools have difficulty passing state bar exams. "Bar passage potential" is a low standard among the the top 100 law schools. Anyone achieving above a 151 or 152 LSAT score should be able to pass their state bar exam with a bit of preparation.

The relation between LSAT and passing the bar is probabilistic, and depends on not only LSAT but which state bar the graduate is taking. Some states have very difficult bar exams (think about California and New York). For such states higher LSAT scores are required to produce the same probability of passage as a lower LSAT has in an easier state (e.g. Pennsylvania).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:In the aftermath of the Students for Fair Admissions decision, I thought it might help if I made some comments that put it into context.

First, although the opinion is literally about undergraduate admissions (at Harvard and at UNC) I don't know anyone who thinks this decision does not apply to law school admissions programs.

Second, this decision has been anticipated, at a general level, by most law school admissions offices, ever since the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

Third, at the very end of his opinion, Justice Roberts laid out what the majority wants. Race can be taken into account at an individual level, if it directly connects to character traits and abilities in the individual that the school values. It is worth quoting this short section:

"nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. . . . A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race."

Fourth, the majority claimed to be irked by the inability to measure the benefits from diversity, the central rationale for the predominant system that the majority struck down. No one that I have talked to will hazard a guess whether the new, retail approach to considering race that Roberts' opinion describes in the quoted language above, will need to produce measurable benefits in order to survive.

Fifth, I have heard suggestions that admissions offices can just move to using wholesale proxies for race -- think of preferring people from certain zip codes -- and avoid the thrust of the majority opinion. I think that is wrong. Such a wholesale approach will likely fall quickly if challenged in court. The quoted language, and other language from section VI of the majority opinion, rejects such an attempted work-around, IMO.

Sixth, re-configuring the admissions process to conform to Roberts' opinion can be done, but it will be expensive. Producing the tailoring that Roberts demands will likely mean hiring additional admissions officers. There are other possible responses, but I won't go into them here.

That's all, for now. Have a great 4th.

CHIEF Justice Roberts!

PP, are you Chief Justice Roberts? I can’t see anyone else wanting to point out this ‘slight’…. If so, many of us are concerned about your recent opinions.

You clearly don’t know anything about legal writing.

[Anonymous]

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

First, as I emphasized above, these are my opinions. The LSAT score is, in part, an indicator of cleverness. The questions are difficult, and the ability to answer them is indicative of the ability of the prospective student to solve hard questions. LSAT score correlates well with GRE scores, with SAT scores, and, perhaps more importantly, with the ability to pass the bar exam in states with very hard bar examinations (e.g. California and New York). To be clear, I should point out that the correlation data is not just my opinion, but is a set of statistical relationships.

Second, there is no doubt that there is also a cultural component to the LSAT. There is also a cultural component to legal practice. Does this disadvantage those without the "right" cultural background? In my opinion, yes.

"right cultural background"

What?!?

Maybe he is referring to how one's culture typically resolves disputes ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile. “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes.

Why is it disappointing? K-JDs have no life experience.

+1. It isn't just law schools that have a preference for some post-college work experience; employers do, too. K-JD tend to have less of a clue on the practical realities of how their clients' businesses operate. A little post-college experience goes a long way.

-- NU grad from the mid-90s. About half our class had work experience.

Both of you glossed over that he said - and I was referring to - that top schools do take people who have shown lower readiness. I’m not comparing a 21 year old and a 30 year old with otherwise equal applications. I’m comparing a 21 year old with all markers of higher bar pass rate potential than a 30 with lower markers for a bar pass rate potential. And while I would expect this at a lot of schools, I would not expect it at a top 10 school.

Interesting that there is so much discussion regarding "bar passage potential". While state bars vary in difficulty, few law students who attend the top 100 law schools have difficulty passing state bar exams. "Bar passage potential" is a low standard among the the top 100 law schools. Anyone achieving above a 151 or 152 LSAT score should be able to pass their state bar exam with a bit of preparation.

The relation between LSAT and passing the bar is probabilistic, and depends on not only LSAT but which state bar the graduate is taking. Some states have very difficult bar exams (think about California and New York). For such states higher LSAT scores are required to produce the same probability of passage as a lower LSAT has in an easier state (e.g. Pennsylvania).

The New York state bar exam is NOT difficult--maybe you got the impression that it was/is difficult by using bar passage rates instead of required UBE (Uniform Bar Exam) results.

Prior to joining the UBE, the New York state bar was approximately the 33rd hardest bar exam.

Arizona has the highest required UBE score among the 41 jurisdictions that use the UBE. At least 21 states require a higher UBE score than does New York state. About 10 states do not use the UBE (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, California, Nevada, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Virginia) although this number may decrease.

[Anonymous]

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

First, as I emphasized above, these are my opinions. The LSAT score is, in part, an indicator of cleverness. The questions are difficult, and the ability to answer them is indicative of the ability of the prospective student to solve hard questions. LSAT score correlates well with GRE scores, with SAT scores, and, perhaps more importantly, with the ability to pass the bar exam in states with very hard bar examinations (e.g. California and New York). To be clear, I should point out that the correlation data is not just my opinion, but is a set of statistical relationships.

Second, there is no doubt that there is also a cultural component to the LSAT. There is also a cultural component to legal practice. Does this disadvantage those without the "right" cultural background? In my opinion, yes.

"right cultural background"

What?!?

Maybe he is referring to how one's culture typically resolves disputes ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile. “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes.

Why is it disappointing? K-JDs have no life experience.

+1. It isn't just law schools that have a preference for some post-college work experience; employers do, too. K-JD tend to have less of a clue on the practical realities of how their clients' businesses operate. A little post-college experience goes a long way.

-- NU grad from the mid-90s. About half our class had work experience.

Both of you glossed over that he said - and I was referring to - that top schools do take people who have shown lower readiness. I’m not comparing a 21 year old and a 30 year old with otherwise equal applications. I’m comparing a 21 year old with all markers of higher bar pass rate potential than a 30 with lower markers for a bar pass rate potential. And while I would expect this at a lot of schools, I would not expect it at a top 10 school.

Interesting that there is so much discussion regarding "bar passage potential". While state bars vary in difficulty, few law students who attend the top 100 law schools have difficulty passing state bar exams. "Bar passage potential" is a low standard among the the top 100 law schools. Anyone achieving above a 151 or 152 LSAT score should be able to pass their state bar exam with a bit of preparation.

The relation between LSAT and passing the bar is probabilistic, and depends on not only LSAT but which state bar the graduate is taking. Some states have very difficult bar exams (think about California and New York). For such states higher LSAT scores are required to produce the same probability of passage as a lower LSAT has in an easier state (e.g. Pennsylvania).

I believe that Pennsylvania requires the second highest minimum UBE score among the 41 jurisdictions that have adopted the UBE. New York state requires a much lower minimum UBS score than does Arizona or Pennsylvania.

[Anonymous]

Among the 41 jurisdictions that use the UBE (Uniform Bar Exam), these are the 21 jurisdictions that require a higher minimum UBE score than does New York state (NY requires a minimum UBE score of 266):

273 Arizona

272 Pennsylvania

270 Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington state, West Virginia, & Wyoming.

New York state requires a minimum UBE score of 266 as do Connecticut, Wash DC, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey,New York, South Carolina, and the Virgin Islands.

Although California is not a UBE state, the California state bar is widely recognized as a difficult bar exam due to its low passage rate--although California has a number of non-ABA law schools which are permitted to sit for the California bar exam.