The Shark

law school admission council files suit against testmasters

[julie anne]

Just months after its battle with Blueprint LSAT Prep found TestMasters on the losing side, Testmasters and its founder Robin Singh may have to head back to court once again.

The Law School Admission Council filed a complaint Sept. 4 in a Pennsylvania district court seeking damages for  breach of contract and copyright infringement against TestMasters, confirmed an LSAC representative.

According to the complaint, which was posted to Scribd, the Law School Admission Council, beginning in 1992, granted TestMasters limited licenses to copy certain LSAT materials. These licenses had specific requirements that had to be met by TestMasters.

More recently, LSAC granted a license effective Aug. 1, 2007 to July 31, 2009 that required TestMasters to provide "an accounting of the number of students enrolled and questions used (as relevant), on or about February 1st or July 31st of each year."

The complaint states that TestMasters failed to account for the students and the questions used by the deadline, and further states that the company failed to pay a $900,000 licensing fee. 

LSAC seeks to stop TestMasters from further use of the test materials and to get them to destroy all the copies of LSAT materials in their possession.

What does that mean for law school hopefuls?

Users of Top Law Schools, an online forum where users discuss law school admissions, hypothesized that the law suit could mean shutting down TestMasters classes, even those that have already been paid for.

According to one user, who claims to have been the one to post the original complaint:

"I am the one who posted that information. I did it to warn potential LSAT students to be careful with their money. ... TestMasters is using these materials unlicensed *right now*, and they may be shut down at any moment."

Check out the complaint on Scribd.

Check out what users of Top Law Schools have to say.

(Hat tip to The Shark commenter "Merkin", who posted a link to the complaint)

testmasters v. blueprint: it's all over for real.

[julie anne]

The sun has set on a four-year showdown between law school admission test preparation companies Testmasters and Blueprint Test Preparation, which I took to prepare for the December LSAT.

Here's a bit of the release from the Blueprint website:

"After over four years of litigation, a 25-day trial spanning over three months, and more alcohol imbibed by the defendants than was strictly speaking healthy, the trial between Testmasters and Blueprint is done. Finito. Gone like Donkey Kong.

On June 15, 2009, Judge William Highberger entered the statement of decision and DENIED the permanent injunction sought by Testmasters against Blueprint and UPHELD the jury's verdict."

Read the decision in full here.

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, because, dude, it's summer, here's my understanding of what went down:

Blueprint Test Preparation was started several years ago by former Testmasters instructors, who started Blueprint four months before the end of their Testmasters teaching gigs. According to Testmasters, since Blueprint founders were disloyal to the company, they had to pay back wages earned from Testmasters during those last four months and any profit earned from Blueprint during those four months.

Testmasters representatives also implied that Blueprint materials were derived from Testmasters' materials.

A jury last year found that Blueprint and its employees were liable on some causes of action. The jury awarded damages to Testmasters, in the amount of 1% of the originally sought amount. Judge Highberger upheld the jury verdict, and further stated that Blueprint materials were distinct from Testmasters' materials.

Some of the Testmasters more PR-y tactics used during the litigation included: disseminating inflammatory fliers about Blueprint on college campuses, editing deposition videos for use on a website called "Blueprint Blues," and an endless stream of cease and desist letters.

If you're a Law 360 subscriber, you can read a story they wrote here.

LSAT-takers hope to put off the inevitable.

[cynthia foster]

The Penn State Daily Collegian (via the ABA Journal) is reporting that 2 out of 5 takers of the LSAT are planning to apply to law school "in part to avoid having to look for employment."

Kaplan Test Prep surveyed 1,040 0Ls about their motivations for attending law school.  Additionally, the company saw an increase of 6.4% in the sheer number of exams administered.

"The Kaplan survey also found 67 percent of those surveyed listed the potential earning power of being a lawyer as affecting their decision to apply to law schools, and 54 percent plan on someday running for political office."

Good look with that earning power thing, kids. Something tells me the face of associate compensation is changing right before our very eyes.

berkeley professor spends years developing alternative to lsat.

[julie anne ines]

While I was preparing for the December 2008 LSAT, I couldn’t help but find other things the acronym stood for besides “Law School Admissions Test”. Lame, stupid and tedious. Long, scream-inducing, anxiety-stirring tripe. Long shot at T14.

It wasn’t just that the test is difficult. For me, it was. I also couldn’t understand how law schools could gauge how successful of a law student I would be from how effectively and quickly I could jump through logical reasoning, reading comprehension and logic game hoops. I didn’t think they could.

Apparently, there are those in the academic world who think the same way too. Criticism of the LSAT ranges from its accuracy at predicting law school success, to the hurdles it presents for some minority students, to its ability to find students who would make good lawyers.

But a team of professors at U.C. Berkeley say they have come up with a test that would be better at finding students who would succeed in the legal profession.

Retired professor Marjorie M. Schultz started investigating the matter after the passage of Prop. 209, which banned the consideration of race in school admissions.

The result of Schultz and colleague Sheldon Zedeck’s inquiry — which was funded by the organization that administers the LSAT, the Law School Admissions Council — was a test that measured not solely analytic ability, but also an individual’s ability to respond to hypothetical situations.

After administering the test to 1,100 practicing attorneys, the researchers concluded that while LSAT scores were not particularly useful “in predicting lawyer effectiveness, the new, alternative test results were — although the new test was no better at predicting how well participants would do in law school.”

Read what some admissions deans thought about the test here.

Got an opinion, or something else “LSAT” could stand for? Share your thoughts below!

all is fair in love and law school rankings.

[brian lauter]

Like any self-respecting law student, I have a special place in my heart for the U.S. News rankings.  For years I’ve obsessively followed them, yearning for that elusive rankings jump, and weeping like a jilted lover when my school’s ranking was swept up by the cruel winds of fate and dropped in lonesome, desolate places.

After dedicating my best years to this emotional rollercoaster, riding it again and again until I almost enjoyed the motion sickness, I’ve grown weary.  Now, with the seasoned bitterness of a twice-divorced middle aged bald man, I get my kicks watching schools ruin the U.S. News law school rankings through clever gamesmanship.

This is a good year for me in that respect. Here are my Top Five Law School “Admissions Innovations” Of 2008:

1.      Number one isn’t really a law school admissions innovation yet, but it could be soon.  Yesterday, TaxProf Blog reported that Baylor University is “paying admitted freshman to retake the SAT and offering large financial rewards for those whose scores go up by certain levels.”

a.     How it might work:

                                                               i.      The ABA now requires schools to report a student’s highest LSAT score when they take multiple tests, and median LSAT score is an important U.S. News metric.  So, law schools could offer financial incentives to students who, in the interest of obtaining higher scores, retake the LSAT post-admission without risking any rankings damage. 

b.     How much it matters:           

                                                               i.      Median LSAT – 12.5% of a school’s total score.

2.      Alabama Law School is offering to waive applicants’ application fees and give them a $20 iTunes gift card if they apply to Alabama Law School.

a.     How it works:

                                                               i.      The more people who apply to Alabama Law, the more they can reject, which translates to a lower the acceptance rate, which is a U.S. News metric.

b.     How much it matters:

                                                               i.      Acceptance Rate – 2.5% of a school’s total score.

3.      University of Michigan Law School’s Wolverine Scholars Program admits University of Michigan undergrads who have at least a 3.8 GPA and agree not to take the LSAT

a.     How it works:

                                                               i.      There is no LSAT score to report to U.S. News which is fine, and the 3.8 GPA will boost the median GPA of Michigan’s entering class.

b.     How much it matters:

                                                               i.      Median LSAT – 12.5% of school’s total score.

                                                             ii.      Median undergrad GPA – 10% of school’s total score.

4.      Many top law schools now admit students with sub-par LSAT scores and GPAs into part-time programs, letting them into the normal, full-time programs after a semester or two.

a.     How it works:

                                                               i.      The U.S. News rankings only factor in LSAT scores and GPAs for incoming full-time students, so schools are able to admit underperforming students without affecting the important LSAT and GPA based U.S. News metrics.

b.     How much it matters:

                                                               i.      Median LSAT – 12.5% of school’s total score.

                                                             ii.      Median undergrad GPA – 10% of school’s total score.

5.      Many claim that top schools have recently become more selective with their 1L admissions, preferring instead to take large numbers of transfers.

a.     How it works:

                                                               i.      Schools can be more selective in their admissions, admitting students with higher LSAT scores and higher GPAs, while admitting transfer students later who fill out their class populations but do not count toward their U.S. News rank, but will likely pass the bar.

b.     How much it matters:

                                                               i.      Acceptance Rate – 2.5% of school’s total score.

                                                             ii.      Median LSAT – 12.5% of school’s total score.

                                                            iii.      Median undergrad GPA – 10% of school’s total score.

Me?  I've got no problem with this.  Some question the morality of using these methods, but I see no evil in gaming a flawed and disproportionately powerful system.

biglaw success more dependent on social skills than rank and gpa, says ABA

[justin gosling]

The ABA Journal just published an article focusing on an associate's law school rank and GPA in determining on-the-job success. Their conclusion: "[l]aw school rank and GPA were only moderately predictive of success."

Good news, right? Unfortunately, the study only examined associates at a large, unnamed law firm, which means that the study's conclusions may not apply outside of the BIGLAW universe. The study is also limited by the fact that it "examined the attributes of lawyers who were already 'the cream of the crop'" and the GPA differentials ranged from "top grades" to "simply good grades."

Just using a student's GPA is problematic because differences between each law school's grading curve and different levels of rigor within each institution's curriculum. I would have liked to see the study use class rank (or percentile) rather than GPA because class rank is more accurate when comparing graduates from two different law schools. With these limitations in mind, it seems the study only concluded that there was not a large difference between students that did well academically, but attended schools ranging all the way down to... 30th.

You mean that there isn't a difference between associates birthed from the same mold? Shocking.

Still, I'm glad to see that an attempt was made to evaluate on-the-job success while taking law school rank and law school performance into account.

The study pinpointed 12 factors that indicated on-the-job success better than GPA and law school rank. The authors only revealed one of the factors—participation in group hobbies and collegiate-level athletics—because of the "proprietary nature of the study."

Since we're short on exact details, it did stand out to me when one of the study's authors commented that the "ability to adapt and get along with people contribute[d] to success more than technical expertise." Makes sense, right?  One's ability to work well with others is an important indicator of success because associates are people that must work with others, not transcripts filed away in a drawer. Until we have a study that uses a larger range of schools and a better way to compare students from different schools, it looks like the mysterious 12 factor test is probably a solid indicator of future performance.

The inability to correlate GPA/rank to on-the-job performance is similar to the problem of using LSAT scores as an indication of law school success. I wonder if an enterprising individual would be able to patch together a comprehensive study evaluating on-the-job success of practicing lawyers while using class rank, law school rank, and LSAT score as the basis for the study. That would be the coup de grâce.

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.

wednesday in a nutshell, linx-style.

[cynthia foster]

It's a slow day.  This is what distracted me:

• Environmental Law Scholar Michael Wara Joins Stanford Law School Faculty  (MarketWatch - this guy wrote a wave-causing paper on the failures of the Kyoto Protocol.  You can find that here)
• How to Land That First Job (lawjobs.com)
• Lavender Law '08 (Legal conference geared toward the LGBT community - notable seminars for law students include "Career Services and Job Search Strategies," "Making Law Schools a Welcoming Place for LGBT Students," and "From FAIR (v. Rumsfeld) to Equal: The Top Five Things Law Students Can Do to Address the Discrimination Inherent in the Solomon Amendment")
• On the Streets, 295 Arrests So Far (The Caucus, covering the protester arrests at the RNC, including [drumroll please] Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!)
• Law In a Nutshell, Wikipedia-Style (PrawfsBlawg)

And last, but not least, Arnold & Porter's new recruiting site, complete with drop down menus to guide you through various associates' "stories."  I assume they'll be invading Facebook shortly.  Let's all hold our collective breath!

reaction to the us news rankings overhaul: the blogosphere speaks out.

[abony holmes]

US News has released a thoughtful response to concerns about their proposed rankings overhaul. A week ago, Robert Morse of the US News blog The Morse Code floated the idea of including both full and part-time statistics in calculating law school rankings.

Yesterday Morse attempted to soothe the weary nerves of opponents to the overhaul by assuring them "… we're not planning on making a decision on this issue until fall 2008."  So what's everyone saying in the meantime?

We've got the reactions to the overhaul, after the jump.

the young ones, they just won't listen.

[justin gosling]

The upcoming June LSAT is just around the corner and I've noticed a lot of test takers plugging away at prep tests at my local tea shop.   I remember the days of struggling through a dozen or so course books and enjoying the challenge of a logic game.

Here's the problem: those kids taking LSAT have no idea what is in store for them.

One of my good friends is currently prepping the the LSAT and gave me a call last week because he was suffering from LSAT fatigue. He is like many test takers in that he wants to attend law school because it seems like the next logical career step (and he has nothing better going on). Attending law school is not for the faint of heart, but sometimes people latch onto it as a prospect because they don't see another viable career option, even though a legal education may not be the best decision for their future.

My theory is that there is a logical progression to our educational lives up until a certain point such as college graduation, a first 'good' job, or whatever else. Once we hit the last leg and can't see the next step, we panic. And then go to law school.