minorities may be disserved by changing ABA accreditation standards.

[brian lauter]

It is no secret that minorities have been hit hardest by the subprime mortgage crisis. African Americans and Latinos were more than three times as likely to have a high cost loan. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, subprime foreclosures will affect about 8% of African Americans and 10% of Latinos, but only about 4% of whites.

However, some argue that minorities also benefited the most from the “mortgage innovations” that gave rise to the crisis. The argument is, or at least was, that subprime loans allowed more minorities to buy houses than ever before.

I’m discussing this because I see the same kind of Catch-22 situation percolating in the debate over the ABA’s stricter bar accreditation standards. The ABA has tightened its accreditation standards, requiring that at least 75% percent of a school’s graduates pass the bar in 3 of the past 5 years, or that the bar passage rate be within 15% of the state average.

As the American Lawyer reports in its latest, greatest Student Edition, many minority advocates argue that the tightened standards will disproportionately affect minorities. In response to the tightened standards, many schools have tightened their own admissions standards, raising their reliance on LSAT scores. Heavy reliance on LSAT scores has historically lowered minority enrollment (.pdf) at America’s law schools, so minority advocates argue that law schools will end up admitting fewer minorities as a result of the ABA’s tightening measures.

The problem here, though, is the same as with the subprime mortgage crisis. If the ABA kept its regulations loose, allowing schools with low bar passage rates to stay open, more minorities might have the opportunity to go to law school.  However, you can’t practice law without passing the bar, so at the end of their three years, minorities attending these law schools may be left holding a large bill for law school with no ability to pay it off.

Thus, the Catch-22. Minorities who want to become a lawyer or buy a house won’t have the opportunity under tightened rules governing accreditation or “mortgage innovations.” But if those rules are loosened, they still may not be able to reach their goals due to low bar passage rates at accredited law schools and bank foreclosures.

As with any Catch-22, the problem here is, by definition, impossible to solve without changing the premise. Perhaps instead of focusing our ire on the ABA’s standards, then, we should be focusing on changing the LSAT, or developing other indicators of bar passage success that aren’t as inherently discriminatory.

Comments

[Don't forget]

It's not only about bar passage, it's also about jobs. The WSJ did a story last year discussing the dismal state of the entry-level attorney job market. JD's are graduating into a glutted market, and sadly many of these people will NEVER be able to find work in any kind of legal capacity, whatsoever. How are minorities helped by sub-par schools that load them down with debt with no chance to be able to pay back that debt once they reach the other side of the tunnel?

[Judge by the Content of Their Character]

Wait, so the LSAT is "inherently discriminatory"? What evidence do you have that the LSAT discriminates against so-called "minorities" (not counting Asians, who don't count as "minorities" because they do as well as Whites even though they're a 4% minority of the population) besides the fact that blacks and Hispanics can't seem to do well on it? Do you seriously believe that plain English basic analysis, reading comprehension and logic games are somehow racist against anyone who is not White (or Asian)?

Since we're assume that a race-neutral test that result in racially disparate results is "inherently discriminatory," the NBA is 80% black so obviously the requirements for professional basketball are "inherently discriminatory" against Whites, Hispanics, Asians and American Indians.

[PoorWhite]

Let's cut to the chase and attack the Bar Exam since that is "inherently discriminatory" too.

[SpankyMcSimon]

Call me a racist, but isn't it reasonable to believe that blacks and hispanics are more likely to get foreclosed on because they are more likely to not pay their bills?

[Ace]

The problem is admitting people who cannot pass the bar. Somehow tweaking the LSAT does not solve the underlying problem. Look at it this way:

Under the current LSAT person X gets a 145, gets admitted to law school, and fails the bar. After your tweak of the LSAT, the same person gets a 160. They will still fail the bar. It is the same person. You will just make the LSAT a poorer predictor of bar exam success. In other words, the LSAT is only "inherently discriminatory" if it indicates that as a percentage of takers, more minorities will fail the bar than actually do fail the bar.

I wonder if LSAT scores for minorities would rise if more of them could afford the fees for LSAT prep courses? "Plain English basic analysis, reading comprehension and logic games" may not be inherently racist, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the average US public schools (much less those in less affluent and/or urban areas) provide good foundation for development of critical thinking. Sadly, college education does not seem to be making up for such deficiency. While LSAT serves a purpose, believe that greater emphasis should be paid to undergrad GPA and curriculum - judging work and progress over 4 yrs vs. performance on stressful 1-day exam. Won't even go into my personal opinion re: viability of most T3/T4 law schools...

[ancient 80s grad]

The premise that is obviously missing is whether higher LSAT scores are correlated with higher bar exam passage rates. If so, then it is not unreasonable for law schools to want higher LSAT scores, assuming that they want to stay in business. I suspect the LSAT is really just the messenger that is explaining that certain minorities are not getting the education they need to compete on the test, not that the test is somehow racist or non-predictive.

[.]

Idiot. Although this isn't state action, see Washington v. Davis. htfh.

Absolutely some people cannot afford LSAT prep class. Therefore these should be eliminated. Also, some people can't afford a High Quality UG school. So all colleges but those who are willing to provide an education for free should be eliminated. Also, some people had to work during high school and therefore could not do their homework and therefore got bad HS grades and therefore didn't get into a good college and therefore couldn't afford prep classes. The solution here is to eliminate High Schools. I would suggest administering the LSAT at birth, however some people are born in hospitals in low-income areas and the testing environment might be skewed. So i guess we're stuck with the LSAT existing as the only imperfect system in the world...