The article describes law school deans as being puzzled, dismayed and even angered by the results and the conclusion by the test administrators that the drop in bar passage is not representative of issues with the test but that "the group that sat in July 2014 was less able than the group that sat in July 2013." Brooklyn Law School's Dean was so incensed that he called for a mass apology to his entire class of graduates.
I'm no expert but I'm actually puzzled by the deans' puzzlement. My understanding is that law schools have been graduating way too many lawyers than justifiable by the need in the legal market and most schools have been slashing admissions standards.
These articles are just a small sampling of those addressing the legal market burst bubble:
From the last article referenced above: "Prospective law students are already responding to the dismal job
market. Applications to law school are expected to hit a 30-year low
this year — down as much as 38% from 2010. Some law schools have
responded by shrinking their class sizes, and there have been
predictions that in the not-too-distant future some lower-ranked law
schools might have to close entirely."
Shrinking class sizes means shrinking budgets - less students generate less money. So most law schools have relaxed their admissions criteria to enroll students who may not have otherwise made the cut. So, why the surprise that these students may not be as strong when it comes to passing the bar exam?
The New York Law Journal article included these stats:
"Brooklyn Law School saw a 9.5-point decrease, to 84.5 percent from
last year's 94, which had been a record for the school. But the academic
profiles for the class of 2013 and class of 2014 were nearly identical,
Allard pointed out: both had median LSAT scores of 163. Indeed,
the credentials for the national classes of 2013 and 2014 were identical
as well. Each had median LSAT scores of 157 and median GPAs of 3.42,
according to Law School Admission Council data."
Now, I'm no statistician. However, I know lawyers and most of them don't have the mathematical expertise to be spewing statistics. In the hands of attorneys, statistics are often misused and carelessly inserted to provide weighty authority to faulty arguments.
Here's my question for a statistician - what does a median really represent? Does this data actually support the conclusion that the credentials for the classes of 2013 and 2014 are identical? I doubt this. In fact, it's my guess that despite sharing the same median LSAT score and GPA, the credentials of the national classes of 2013 and 2014 are not exactly identical.
The median is simply the measure of the center of the data. Here's more helpful info I googled (from http://www.nedarc.org/statisticalhelp/basicStatistics/measuresOfCenter/median.html):
"When the mean and the median are the same, you know that the dataset is "normally distributed." When the mean and the median are different, you know that the data are "skewed" in some way."
So, this naturally begs the question, what are the mean GPAs and LSAT scores for the national law school classes of 2013 and 2014? The answer to this may help settle the question of declining bar passage, probably the natural consequence of the actions taken by law school deans that now leaves them dumbfounded.
