Continuing with my series on the ABA Bar Passage Data Revised Spreadsheet, in this post I will focus on the 2015 Ultimate Bar Passage sheet.
In 2016, the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar proposed a new bar passage standard requiring that each law school attain a 75% ultimate bar pass rate within two years of graduation. At the time, I strongly supported the proposed new standard (see here and here), but the proposal was voted down by the ABA House of Delegates at the 2017 mid-year meeting. My understanding is that the ABA Council plans to submit the proposed standard for another vote this year, and there is a good chance that the Council will institute the rule even without the House of Delegates approval if it gets voted down again. Those who opposed the rule the first time generally made three arguments against it. The first argument was that there wasn't enough information about the effect that the change would have on law schools. The second argument was that enacting the rule would have a devastating and disproportionate impact on minority enrollment in law schools. The third argument was that a single nationwide standard was unworkable when there are law schools in 51 jurisdictions. The ABA Bar Passage Spreadsheet allows me to respond to all of these arguments. Having seen the results, I have modified my unqualified support for the proposed Standard; I conclude this post by suggesting a way to improve the standard to ameliorate its potentially harsh impacts.
Thanks to the Spreadsheet, we can see exactly how law schools would fare if the proposed 75% UBP standard is imposed. Of the 202 law schools on the spreadsheet, 183 would have met the standard for the 2015 graduating class and 19 would not. Let's look at the schools that had a ultimate bar passage rate under 75%.
Now, let's discuss each of these law schools to determine whether this was a one-time aberration based on the historically low bar pass-rate in July 2015, or whether these schools would be in real danger of non-compliance if the new rule were to go into effect. To provide some context, schools with a first-time bar pass rate above 65% generally make it t0 75% within two years, while those below about 55% usually don't (although there have been some exceptions). Schools between 55-65% are a mixed bag.
1. Arizona Summit: This school is on probation and had among the worst bar passage results in the country the last two years, 34.44% in 2016, 26.53% in 2017. Should lose accreditation and go out of business.
2. New England Law/Boston: New England originally reported a 65.63% first-time bar pass rate in 2015, so it was surprising to see their 2015 UBP at just over 60%. The trend is not looking good. 61.46% in 2016, 58.62% in 2017, and a very weak entering class of 2015 about to graduate. Although New England started improving its admissions in 2016, the school will struggle to get to 75% UBP for the foreseeable future.
3 and 4. Pontifical Catholic University of P.R. and Inter American University of P.R. : Both of these schools would appear to be in jeopardy under this new rule: Pontifical had a pass rate of 35.67% in 2016 and 34.65% in 2017. Inter American had a 31.33% rate in 2016 and a 37.30% rate in 2017.
5. University of the District of Columbia: UDC is in real trouble and unlikely to meet the new standard without dramatic changes. 49.46% first time pass rate in 2016, 40% in 2017. The school admits too many weak students with a bottom 25% LSAT at 145 and 2.6 GPA the last two years, and loses some good students who transfer to other DC schools. And the school's academic attrition rate is far too low for the caliber of students they are admitting. The school should be flunking out between 15-20% of the first year class.
6. Atlanta's John Marshall Law School: The school was recently cited by the ABA for violating the admissions standard, and just announced the closure of their Savannah Law Branch. This looks like just the beginning of their troubles. JM had a first-time bar pass rate of 45.93% in 2016 and 49.34% in 2017, so it is unlikely they will make 75% within two years. Unfortunately, at a time when they desperately need to improve the credentials of their incoming students, the school lowered its standards in 2016 and again in 2017, with a bottom 25% of 144 and 2.77.
8. Valparaiso: Former Dean Jay Conison ruined this school (before moving on to destroy Charlotte Law) and it could not be salvaged, despite recent efforts to improve admissions standards. The school is no longer accepting students and appears headed for closure. 49.3% in 2016, 46.6% in 2017. Prospects are not good.
9. Western Michigan University (Cooley): WMU-Cooley has been cited by the ABA for lax admissions, and for good reason. The bar pass rate has been low and is likely to go lower due to incredibly weak classes moving through. 48.13% in 2016, 45.95% in 2017. This school can't meet the new standard.
11. Ohio Northern: 70.17% in 2017, 76.19% in 2017. Ohio Northern does a very good job with students of modest ability. A true opportunity school.
12. Florida Coastal: Coastal came close with the class of 2015, but won't come close again for a while. First-time pass rate in 2016 was 40%, and 39.52% in 2017. 2018 also likely to be very weak. Coastal was cited by the ABA for admitting students who couldn't make it. They have tried to clean up their act starting in 2016, but it is not clear if these efforts will be enough to save the school.
UPDATE: South Texas College of Law Houston: Initially reported below 75% UBP rate, but has submitted revised numbers to the ABA, exceeding 90%. St. Mary's also initially reported being below the 75% rate and now reports a UBP of over 90%.
13. Golden Gate: 35.4% in 2016, 48.86% in 2017. Golden Gate got to 72% despite a 2015 first-time pass rate in California of 38.89%. With the caliber of students they have been admitting, it seems unlikely they will get to a 75% UPB anytime soon, unless California lowers the cut score.
14. University of South Dakota: South Dakota is in real trouble. 97.83% pass rate in 2013, 75.44% in 2014, 63.16% in 2015, 51.85% in 2016, and 46.0% in 2017. Very weak entering classes in 2015, 2016, and 2017. No wonder their Dean just stepped down. With their current trajectory, this could be the first state law school to go under (not counting Indiana Tech, which never really got off the ground). The ABA should place the school on probation.
15. Howard: 62.24% pass rate reported in 2015. 50.95% first-time pass rate in 2016, 77.55% in 2017 (a big turnaround). Not sure what is going on at Howard, but their students are definitely strong enough to meet the new standard.
16. North Dakota: Too early to tell. After a 64.38% in 2015, they dipped to 59.09% in 2016, then went up to 67.74% in 2017. Recently admitted classes are not very strong, but not as bad as South Dakota.
17. Barry: 50.25% in 2015, 45.83% in 2016, 56% in 2017. Admissions credentials improved in 2016 after a disastrous dip from 2013-15, but then fell again for 2017. Unlikely to meet the new ABA bar passage standard.
18. Whittier: Out of business and for good reason. Wouldn't have made new standard. 22.66% in 2016. 35.26% in 2017.
19. American University: American just missed the UBP standard by .06%. American's admissions practices are just fine, but its bar pass rate suffers from losing huge numbers of its better students to transfer attrition, primarily to Georgetown and George Washington U. Very consistent bar performance, 62.37% in 2015, 62.24% in 2016, 62.83% in 2017. Should have UBP very close to 75%, and should get a break from the ABA because of their unique transfer situation. American should also exercise caution in admitting California residents likely to return to California to take the bar, as American graduates have fared very poorly on the California bar.
Thomas Jefferson: had a 76.75% UPB for the class of 2015, but the bottom has since dropped out. 37.32% for 2016, 29.17% for 2017. On probation, with no reasonable prospect of turning things around.
LaVerne: 32.6% in 2016, 42.11% in 2017. Why did the ABA ever fully accredit this school?
Faulkner: 70.42% in 2016, but 50.68% in 2017 with very weak class entering class of 2014. 2015 and 2016 entering classes were extremely weak, so expect continued poor performance.
Appalachian: 33.33% in 2016, 60.97% in 2017.
Ave Maria: 58.33% in 2016, 52.78% in 2017. Ave Maria has improved its admissions and should be trending up.
University of Puerto Rico: 56.90% in 2016, 49.40% in 2017. This is the best school in Puerto Rico, but it will still struggle to get to 75% UBP. Puerto Rico has a substantially lower bar pass rate than any U.S. state (40.25%), so perhaps it should be judged on a different standard. Can you imagine the uproar if any U.S. state had a 40.25 first-time pass rate?
Southwestern: With a 50.64% first-time rate in California in 2015, Southwestern made it to a very respectable UBP of 82.89% by 2017. But with a first-time pass rate of 38.26% in 2016, they may not be able to duplicate this feat. SWs first-time pass rate was 52.78% in 2017. Southwestern would be fine in another state, but will continue to be challenged by California's tough cut score.
NC Central 58.23% in 2016, 57.14% in 2017. NC Central actually does pretty well considering the credentials of its students, but has been admitting too many students with little chance of success. NC Central was recently cited by the ABA for its admissions practices and has promised to tighten up admissions.
Southern: 61.59% in 2016, 57.81%. Strange things are happening at Southern, which I will cover in my next post.
Texas Southern: 60.28% in 2016, 60.00% in 2017. Cited by the ABA for lax admissions practices. Three very weak classes in the pipeline. Pass rate likely to go down before it goes up.
Touro: 59.26% in 2016, 60.81% in 2017. Very marginal students.
Suffolk: 59.84% in 2016, 60.69% in 2017, but incrementally stronger classes coming through in next three years.
In the vast majority of U.S. jurisdictions, the 75% UBP within two years standard is not unreasonably rigorous. Yet because of exceptionally tough bar pass standards in California and Puerto Rico, and a few other states, enforcing this new rule would require schools in these jurisdictions to raise admission standards to levels far above national norms, which would have a disproportionate and devastating impact on minority admissions. Outside these tough to pass jurisdictions, only schools with exploitative admissions policies that are admitting substantial (25% or more) numbers of very high risk or extremely high risk students should have any real cause for concern about meeting this standard. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, any school with a 25% LSAT at 147, and 25% UGPA of 2.80 should have no problem meeting the 75% UBP within two years. In some easier jurisdictions, like Illinois, Oklahoma, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, schools could probably safely go down one LSAT point to 146. This would allow law schools to still admit up to 20% very high risk students with 145-146 LSATs, and maintain high levels of diversity. Except in Puerto Rico, where English is a second language for many applicants, applicants with LSATs below 145 should rarely be admitted. Although limiting admissions of sub-145 students may have a modest impact on minority admissions, minority graduate bar passage rates would likely increase significantly if this general rule were applied. By contrast, in California, even schools with 25th percentiles above 149 and 2.90 are struggling to meet the 75% UBP standard. Forcing California law schools to raise admissions standards high enough to reliably meet a 75% UBP within two year standard would force California schools to exclude many talented minority students in the 145-149 LSAT range. Even very fine schools with talented study bodies have had first-time bar pass rates in the 50s and 60s in recent years, including Chapman, Santa Clara, Pepperdine, Pacific McGeorge, Cal Western, UC Hastings, and the University of San Francisco.
Accordingly, I propose an alternate variant of the 75% UBP Standard. "Schools shall demonstrate compliance with Standard 316 by achieving either a 75% ultimate bar passage rate within two years of graduation, or, in jurisdictions with 3 or more ABA-accredited law schools, by achieving an ultimate bar passage rate equal to or greater than the average first-time bar passage rate for ABA-graduates in that jurisdiction in the year of graduation, whichever is lower."
Adopting this alternate formulation would set the California UBP for 2015 at 63.70%, for 2016 at 60.05%, and for 2017 at 66.19%, and would set the Puerto Rico UBP for 2015 at 37.50%, for 2016 at 29.31% and for 2017 at 40.25%.
Law schools in several other states with significantly tougher than average bar exams would also get a break under this rule. For 2017, Arizona (3 law schools, 63.99% pass rate), North Carolina (6 law schools, 65.22% pass rate), Florida (12 law schools, 67.90% pass rate), Kentucky (3 law schools, 69.02% pass rate) Indiana (4 law schools, 72.88% pass rate), Georgia (5 law schools, 73.23% pass rate), and DC (6 law schools, 74.60% pass rate), would all have lower Ultimate Bar Pass rate requirements if my plan were adopted. My proposed rule would also protect law schools from fluctuations in bar grading from year to year. For example, Oregon (3 law schools, 63.97% pass rate in 2016) would have benefited from the rule for 2016, but when it changed its cut score, resulting in an increase in the state average to 82.55% in 2017, it would then fall under the 75% rule. Similarly, Louisiana (4 law schools, 72.73% pass rate in 2016) would have benefited under the rule in 2016, but when the state average increased to 76.85% in 2017, it would have fallen under the 75% rule. The mean average bar pass rate for the 51 jurisdictions with law schools was 75.62% in 2017. The median in 2016 was 75%.
Applying my proposed alternate rule, far fewer schools would still be in current danger of failing the bar passage standard, but many still would be, and it would be a significantly tougher standard than the current, completely toothless, Standard 316, and would close all of the loopholes that currently exist under the rule. My proposal would retain the virtue of the current proposal of being simple to follow and easy to administer and understand without attempting to force a one-size fits all approach on law schools in 51 jurisdictions with wildly divergent bar pass rates that have nothing to do with the quality of the students or the quality of the legal education being offered.
I welcome your comments on this proposal.
UPDATE: Under my proposed standard, instead of the 19 schools that would not have met the standard for 2015, only 12 would have failed the 75% or alternate UBP test. (I am not convinced that the numbers are right for Syracuse, and Wyoming, so maybe only 9.) Schools that would have made it under my proposed revision include: Pontifical Catholic and Inter American in Puerto Rico, Florida Coastal and Barry in Florida, Whittier and Golden Gate in California, and American and Howard in DC, due to low bar pass rates in these jurisdictions in 2015. The 9 schools that I am convinced would not have made it all admitted at least 25% high risk students and 7 out of 9 admitted at least 25% very high risk students in 2012. Here are the schools with their 25% LSAT for 2012: Arizona Summit (141), New England Law/Boston (145), UDC (148), Atlanta's John Marshall (148), Valparaiso (145), WMU-Cooley(142), Ohio Northern (145), South Dakota (146), North Dakota (145). Note to Deans and Admissions Committees: Keep your 25% LSAT at a minimum of 147 if you want to have a decent bar pass rate.
Isn't South Dakota that school mentioned in a prior blog post here that is messing with that Professor's tenure? Maybe if they focused on their students, instead of politics, they would have a better bar pass rate? Anyway, who would want to go to the State South Dakota when they commit environmental racism, in my opinion, by permitting DAPL on a Native American water shed? If they can't even stand up and protect their own residents, they could probably care less about some LAWYERS to be, in my opinion.
Northern Kentucky initially provided incorrect data to the ABA, and the ABA has now updated its spreadsheet. For the relevant reporting period, there were 131 graduates; 117 graduates are known to have taken a bar exam; and 100 of those exam takers passed within the two-year window. As a result, the two-year pass rate was 85.47%. We apologize for the incorrect reporting to the ABA.
Thank you Dean Rosenthal. I have updated the post and removed NKU from the list of schools that did not meet the 75% UBP Standard. Glad to hear that this was a mistake.
David, thanks for these posts. Toledo made initial reporting errors as well, which have now been corrected. We were above 80% both years. Our apologies for the initial errors.
Thank you Dean Barros, I have removed Toledo from the list of schools that did not meet the 75% UBP Standard. Keep up the good work!
Good to see your comments, and that you are doing so well.
"In this post, I will argue that within a few years there will be a shortage of entry-level lawyers. Law school enrollments have dropped so much that the demand for new lawyers will far exceed the supply of law school graduates. In a relatively short time, we will have gone from an environment where employers received hundreds of resumes for every open position to one where employers might not receive any resumes at all. … Stopping right here, we can say with virtual certainly that the class of 2017 will graduate into the best entry-level job market in recent memory."
Did you write those words, here in the FL?
How accurate was this prediction?
It would be great as well if Mr. Freedman would come back and do likewise.
anon^^^^From what I observe everyday in courtrooms across my practice jurisdiction,. prosecutor and public defender offices are overwhelmed. One prosecutor is working a room with close to 250 traffic offenders, with 15 attorneys seeking reducers or pleas and 10 pro se wanting trial because the copper couldn't possibly see them spee4ding 17 over the limit in a school zone. All the while, the judge requires her presence at the bench. My point? If the government would properly fund the court system, there would be plenty of entry level jobs. Nope, we a damn $25 billion dollar WALL, a voting commission chasing phantoms, Scott Pruitt's trips, a military parade and no taxes for the Koch Brothers.