1L Attrition Rates : Beg the ABA to do away with ALL these CESSPOOLS

[Matlock!!!!]

From Paul L. Caron, TaxProf Blog:

LawSchoolNumbers.com ranks the 195 law schools by 1L attrition rates.  (The ABA Section on Legal Education publishes aggregate attrition rates, and each school's attrition rate is available on its official ABA data sheet.)  Here are the 25 law schools with the highest attrition rates according to LawSchoolNumbers.com, along with the school's 2009 U.S. News overall ranking:

   1. Whittier (51.5% 1L attrition, #161 in U.S. News)
   2. Touro (37.4%, #171)
   3. Golden Gate (36.9%, #174)
   4. Western State (32.6%, not ranked)
   5. Jones School of Law (32.3%, not ranked)
   6. Widener (30.5%, #179)
   7. St. Thomas University (28.5%, #174)
   8. Barry (27.6%, #181)
   9. Liberty (27.1%, not ranked)
  10. Thomas M Cooley (26.0%, #181)
  11. Florida Coastal (23.7%, #171)
  12. California Western (23.6%, #156)
  13. Valparaiso (23.4%, #143)
  14. Florida International (23.3%, #153)
  15. Capital (22.8%, #161)
  16. Louisville (22.5%, #100)
  17. North Carolina Central (22.1%, #168)
  18. Detroit Mercy (21.9%, $163)
  19. Nova Southeastern (21.8%, #158)
  20. Oklahoma City (21.0%, $168)
  21. Willamette (21.0%, #137)
  22. Western New England (20.7%, #171)
  23. Northern Kentucky (20.2%, #156)
  24. University of The District of Columbia (20.0%, #181)
  25. Franklin Pierce (19.9%, #131)

With the economy and the over over abundance of law schools and graduates, how in good conscious can the ABA justify keeping these school accredited.  They are all abominations.  And Louisville.... SHAME ON YOU!

[RobWreck]

Perhaps I'm misreading things, but is this attrition rate due to academic dismissal alone or does it include withdrawal for economic reasons and transferrign students? If it's purely 'failed out', it's rediculous. If it includes those that transferred out to better schools, then is such a high rate any real surprise?

[Ninja1]

Perhaps I'm misreading things, but is this attrition rate due to academic dismissal alone or does it include withdrawal for economic reasons and transferrign students? If it's purely 'failed out', it's rediculous. If it includes those that transferred out to better schools, then is such a high rate any real surprise?

These are the overall attrition numbers, both for academic and "other" reasons.

[Matthies]

Why does this matter? I mean call me crazy, even if these numbers were pure academic dismissals, where does it say people should not be kicked out of law school if they can’t maintain a certain GPA. What bothers me more is that this is the NORM at the vast majority of schools. I’m sorry maybe I’m a male private part here but if you can’t pull better than 2.0 at a law school with a B+ curve over 3 years you should not be graduating with a law degree. That’s doing a bigger disservice in my view to the profession than schools that actually kick people out. Most law schools are degree mills, you matriculate you graduate. If some schools choose to actually kick some of those people out who can’t really hack it by lowering their curves to the point that some people actually have to fail out instead of graduating anyone with a pulse, I don’t see how that’s bad for the profession.

[Matlock!!!!]

With out doing an excessive amount of research on this, I think it's fair to look at the schools in question and realize that they are letting in sub-standard applicants with no chance of success.  These schools make a living off the 1L tuition of these dreamers. And the attrition doesn't stop at 1L.  Many schools, Williamette comes to mind, are not afraid to "cut bait on you" as late into your 3L year.  At that point they realize they have to protect their bar passage rate, as meager as it may already be.  Also, do you see many people matriculating INTO any of these schools?  That answer I know.... NO. 

If you're in the bottom quartile of your class, you should be worried, ITE.  At that point, the onus is on you.

[nealric]

I’m sorry maybe I’m a male private part here but if you can’t pull better than 2.0 at a law school with a B+ curve over 3 years you should not be graduating with a law degree.

I'm pretty sure most of these schools curve to a C or even C-.

Frankly, I'm not really all that up in arms that these places exist. I do think peoplpe should be sure they know what they are getting into before starting at these schools.

[Matthies]

With out doing an excessive amount of research on this, I think it's fair to look at the schools in question and realize that they are letting in sub-standard applicants with no chance of success.  These schools make a living off the 1L tuition of these dreamers. And the attrition doesn't stop at 1L.  Many schools, Williamette comes to mind, are not afraid to "cut bait on you" as late into your 3L year.  At that point they realize they have to protect their bar passage rate, as meager as it may already be.  Also, do you see many people matriculating INTO any of these schools?  That answer I know.... NO. 

If you're in the bottom quartile of your class, you should be worried, ITE.  At that point, the onus is on you.

But where is the students liabality? I mean its like smoking, everyone knows it will kill you, but people still smoke. Is that the fault of the ciggreetee companines but the not the smokers? I'm not a big fan of blaming schools becuase studnets are stupid. The schools exists to give people a chance that can't get in anywhere else, the students choose to enroll, there is no gun to thier head. I'm just not a big fan of making rules to save people from thier own individual choices. For some people this schools will be an end to a means. So long as attrition is not 100% I don't see a problem with buyer be ware.

[Matthies]

I’m sorry maybe I’m a male private part here but if you can’t pull better than 2.0 at a law school with a B+ curve over 3 years you should not be graduating with a law degree.

I'm pretty sure most of these schools curve to a C or even C-.

Frankly, I'm not really all that up in arms that these places exist. I do think peoplpe should be sure they know what they are getting into before starting at these schools.

I think you missed my point, my point is not what these schools curve to, but that most schools curve to the point that you can't really fail out unless you TRY. Hence you get into a school with a B+ curve your going to graduate so long as you at least show up on test day. At a school that curves to a C, this is NOT the case. So the studnets with a 2.0 at a B+ school becoames a lawyer yet that same studnet had he gone to a C cruve shcool would have been drumed out.

[Matlock!!!!]

I used to believe as you do Mathies... why try to save anyone? It's their life.

But I am concerned that the ABA has accredited WAY to many schools for the opportunities that are available.  Also, at many of these schools your paying tuition equal to that of the T14-Tier 1.  That, imho, is an abomination.  Hell, at LEAST make it affordable.

I would also like to add I have NOTHING against T2, T3, T4 schools that are regionally located and offer a lower priced opportunity for people to attend and practice in that area... ie, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana... etc..  Those schools actually serve a needed purpose.  It just seems obvious to me, that the only thing keeping the above institutions afloat, is not their reputation and service, but the failures of those the schools knew had no chance to hack it in the first place.  The following review was from a couple of years ago, but the message is still relevant:

http://www99.epinions.com/review/educ-Law_Schools-All-California_Western_Law/content_335894187652

[Matthies]

I used to believe as you do Mathies... why try to save anyone? It's their life.

But I am concerned that the ABA has accredited WAY to many schools for the opportunities that are available.  Also, at many of these schools your paying tuition equal to that of the T14-Tier 1.  That, imho, is an abomination.  Hell, at LEAST make it affordable.

But wouldn't then be a better argument to say the ABA should unaacredit all the law schools ranked ABOVE the one you go to? I mean if low ranked schools are just putting out a ton of new grads who can't find any jobs anyway they really arn't compeating with you anyway. It seems the thing that would help everyone is to just unacredit all the schools ranked above yours, everybody but the Yalie wins! The point is niether answer is as simplstic as we want it to be. There is no good answer other than you takes your chances there are no gaurntees in life. The ABA's role is not to provide everyone with a good paying law job, nither is the the LAW SCHOOLS JOB. A law schools grants you a JD, its a school, not a headhunter. Its the studnets job to find a job, not the schools or the ABA's job to find you a job. The promise you one thing, they will provide you with the clases neccassry to get the JD. Nothing else. If students want to hold the school resposible for getting them a job, that's anouther thing, and a diffrent argument, but its not what schools promise to do for you. Yes schools publish job stats, schools also publish stats on thier law reviews and clubs, that does not mean they are garntunteeing you a spot on one. Studnets need to realize, and take resposeblity for the fact a school is a school and nothing more.