Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Berkeley Law Dean Opposed Dropping LSAT Requirement, Finds Way To Accomplish Same Thing

Berkeley Law Dean Opposed Dropping LSAT Requirement, Finds Way To Accomplish Same Thing

Dean says school quitting US News rankings because they overemphasize LSAT/GPA.

https://youtu.be/H3GEKCFpPCM

On November 17, 2022, University of California Berkeley School of Law became the third law school (after Yale and Harvard) to announce it would not participate in US News’ law school ratings. That decision seems to have been motivated at least partly by opposition to the weight US News accords to admissions test scores. Oddly, the school’s dean had previously opposed an American Bar Association proposal to discontinue its testing requirement, which itself seems partly motivated by a desire to evade a potential Supreme Court ban on racial discrimination in admissions. California already prohibits such discrimination.

Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky explained the decision in a letter to the community. Like Yale and Harvard, Berkeley complained that US News’ ratings create ‘perverse incentives.’ These include:

  1. The survey counts student debt: “Look[ing] at student loan debt without appropriate context, creating incentives for law schools to admit high-income applicants (and those from high-income/high-wealth families) who can ‘afford to pay,’ and will not take on much student loan debt… We have recently revised [the school’s loan repayment assistance program] to make it even more helpful to our graduates pursuing public interest and public service careers. US News… measur[es] student debt but ignor[es] how schools are helping students who need assistance to repay it.”
  2. The survey disincentivizes need-based aid: “Incentiviz[ing]the elimination of need-based aid. We have preserved a need-based aid program because we believe it is the right thing to do, but if we eliminated it we could certainly increase median LSAT scores and GPA by channeling all resources into recruitment of those students.”
  3. The survey measures how much schools pay per student: “One of the most pernicious aspects of the US News rankings is its measure of per student expenditures. There is no evidence that this correlates to the quality of the education received. This works to the disadvantage of schools that have lower tuition and therefore lower per student expenditures. US News discounts per student expenditures in some areas of the country by a cost-of-living adjustment that has nothing to do with educational quality.”
  4. The survey counts students receiving law school public interest fellowships as not fully employed, and law school graduates pursuing graduate degrees as unemployed: “[W]e provide students a fellowship for a year after graduation to work in a public interest organization. These positions include a salary comparable to an entry-level position in public service or public interest… But US News does not count these students as fully employed… every year some pursue Ph.D. and MBA degrees… these graduates count as “unemployed” in the US News methodology.”

Item number three is a little tough to follow. It seems Berkeley is worried that it won’t stack up well when the amount it spends on students per capita is compared to that of other schools. Chemerinsky offers two justifications for that. First, “This works to the disadvantage of schools that have lower tuition.” That seems to imply UC-Berkeley has comparatively low tuition, but does it? Despite being a state school, the school charges in-state tuition of $56,858 and out-of-state tuition of $62,143. That’s hardly bargain-basement pricing. Besides, state schools receive funding from their states. So why should Berkeley be disadvantaged by a look at how much it spends on its students?

Chemerinsky also complains that US News discounts per student expenditures by a cost-of-living adjustment. Ah, okay. The Bay area isn’t cheap. But none of this seems unreasonable. Why shouldn’t US News adjust expenditures based on cost-of-living?

Maybe UC-Berkeley just doesn’t spend much on its students?

One wonders how much it spends on non-educational expenses like administrative staff?

Pay particular attention to item number two. “[I]f we eliminated [need-based aid] we could certainly increase median LSAT scores and GPA by channeling all resources into recruitment of those students.” In other words, Berkeley Law is giving need-based aid to a substantial number of students with below-par test scores and grade point averages. Chemerinsky’s letter doesn’t identify those students, or explain why the school wants to admit them in the first place. But, given the context, we can make an educated guess.

The context is, the Supreme Court recently heard argument in two cases challenging racially discriminatory policies by which schools demand higher admissions test scores from Asian and white students than from Hispanic and black students. The University of California system filed an amicus brief supporting the universities, in which it complained, “UC’s Race-Neutral Measures Have Been Inadequate to Achieve the Educational Benefits of Diversity.”

The context is, the ABA is considering dropping its requirement that law schools require admissions tests. (The proposed change was approved by its accrediting body, the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, and is pending approval by the ABA House of Delegates.)

The context is, 20% of US News’ law school ranking score is based on test scores and grade-point averages.

LIF previously speculated that the ABA’s proposal is motivated by a desire to help law schools continue their racially discriminatory admissions policies by moving them underground. Without objective test scores, it will be harder to prove the schools are discriminating. The schools’ recent action in quitting the test-influenced rankings supports that theory.

Coincidentally, Chemerinsky was one of about 60 deans who signed a letter to the ABA last September, opposing its proposal to drop the testing requirement. This, on the grounds that eliminating the objective requirement would likely reduce diversity.

We believe that, if the proposed amendment to Standard 503 were adopted in its current form, it likely would be detrimental to law schools’ goals of bringing in diverse classes of students and, ultimately, to the diversity of the legal profession. For if law schools abandon the LSAT (or some other validated test) in their admissions processes, something else will take its place. We do not know what those things will be, but it is quite possible – we think probable – that greater emphasis will be put on GPA, written or verbal recommendations, the reputation of undergraduate institutions, admissions officers’ familiarity with those institutions, or other subjective factors. Will reliance on these other criteria produce more or less racial, socioeconomic, or other forms of bias than exist under current admissions practices? We don’t know for sure, because not enough data or research is available to predict the effects of abandoning the LSAT (or another test) as an admissions factor. But it is distinctly possible – and again, we think probable – that the change will result in greater reliance on factors that are more prone to bias than test scores.

Without the LSAT as a factor, law schools may be less willing to take a chance on students who do not perform well on GPA or other metrics because they worked to put themselves through school, had to care for family, or other reasons, but would enhance the diversity of our institutions and ultimately the profession (emphasis added).

Did Chemerinsky change his mind? Or has he just seen the writing on the wall? Should the Supreme Court ban racially discriminatory admissions, testing would provide unwelcome evidence if those practices continue under the table. Other top schools – Stanford, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, Michigan, and Duke – also announced they were leaving U.S. News rankings.

Cornell and University of Chicago are so far sticking with the rankings, as are lesser-known schools like Cumberland and Jones law schools in Alabama. In a letter to students explaining the school’s decision, University of Chicago Dean Thomas J. Miles offered an ode to free expression:

As our University is dedicated to the free expression of ideas and to questioning viewpoints, our aim is not to suppress opinions. Rather, we should encourage prospective students to apply critical thinking and reach their own conclusions about what value the rankings add… What makes the Law School distinctive is its unabashed enthusiasm for the life of the mind—the conviction that ideas matter, that they are worth discussing, and that a single viewpoint or style of thought should not be imposed. Instead, our faculty expose students to contrasting views, confident in students’ abilities to think critically and choose their own paths… Our commitment to the core missions of excellence in scholarship and teaching has made our Law School eminent…

To what ideas was Miles referring, and why did he refer to excellence in scholarship? As Miles suggests, readers may reach their own conclusions.

Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t ban discriminatory admissions, the state of California already does. Since 1996, California has prohibited racial preferences. (Michigan did the same in 2006. The deans of Michigan and UCLA law schools, both state schools, also signed the letter to the ABA that opposed dropping the LSAT.) One can understand why UC-Berkeley Law’s dean needs to be circumspect in explaining why the school wants to avoid the attention of a ranking system that would report about a school’s admitting certain students with lower test scores and grades.

12/1/22 Edited to clarify item #4 above.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“UC’s Race-Neutral Measures Have Been Inadequate to Achieve the Educational Benefits of Diversity.”

What, exactly, are the “educational benefits of diversity?” Nobody has quantified that. Likely because the don’t exist.

What is obvious are the downsides: lowered standards, which lead to less qualified students. They are tacitly admitting that their “preferred minorities” can’t cut it without the lowered standards, and that their race is directly responsible. The elimination/reduction of needs based financial aid and shifting to a race based financial aid system is just racism that says blacks and hispanics just can’t cut it without the helping hand of the white guilt leftist.

“Without the LSAT as a factor, law schools may be less willing to take a chance on students who do not perform well on GPA or other metrics because they worked to put themselves through school, had to care for family, or other reasons, but would enhance the diversity of our institutions and ultimately the profession (emphasis added).”

If the LSAT is not the metric, then what is? Race? Aptitude and ability don’t count anymore?

The final exam has now moved to the courtroom itself, where the rules are the same for everyone. Unless we eventually apply some sort of affirmative action for the rules of evidence etc., they will fail themselves, society, and most importantly, their clients.

Will the law schools be liable for turning out lousy students?

    Milhouse in reply to Dimsdale. | December 1, 2022 at 10:26 am

    “Without the LSAT as a factor, law schools may be less willing to take a chance on students who do not perform well on GPA or other metrics because they worked to put themselves through school, had to care for family, or other reasons, but would enhance the diversity of our institutions and ultimately the profession (emphasis added).”

    If the LSAT is not the metric, then what is? Race? Aptitude and ability don’t count anymore?

    He just said what it will be. It has to be something, so it will end up being things like GPA, which are less fair than the LSAT. A student’s GPA can be depressed for reasons that have nothing to do with lacking ability, e.g. taking care of family. Such a student will have a lower GPA, but will do well on the LSAT. Getting rid of the LSAT will hurt such a student.

    diver64 in reply to Dimsdale. | December 1, 2022 at 3:08 pm

    Got me. I went to 2 Universities and never saw any educational benefit in diversity. I did see Professor to Student ratio, quality of Professors, quality of classes and types plus independent study and internship opportunities as a thing.

I guess we will be able to get our JD from Costco next. They will be on the same aisle as the Brawndo.

I’m so old, I remember when scholarships were awarded on merit, with adjustments based on need. They did it to make sure very capable students were not weighed down by cost. But, that was Texas then, and this is California, now.

California is where they have social promotion at the doctoral level.

Who will hire a lawyer chosen on skin color and not on ability?
The ones yammering about white privilege.
You get what you give. Enjoy your miserable slide back into slavery.

Steven Brizel | December 1, 2022 at 8:43 am

The law schools that are dropping out of the rankings and reliance on GPAs and LSAT scores are signalling that these toney schools will find a way to maintain quotas and provide remedial writing sections for students who can’t write a sentence in normal Englisg

E Howard Hunt | December 1, 2022 at 8:51 am

I couldn’t care less that admission standards are lowered at law schools. Unlike the medical profession, there are far too many practitioners, and what’s more I will not be whisked away in the middle of the night by ambulance for an emergency legal consultation with an unknown lawyer. Maybe this assault will act to lower the inflated legal fees charged by even the most incompetent attorney.

    Dimsdale in reply to E Howard Hunt. | December 2, 2022 at 8:54 am

    But this is one of the reasons there are too many. They take in those that can’t perform, but graduate them so they won’t be racist, or sexist or whatever.

    Remember the old saying: “first in your class, last in your class, they still call you doctor?” Well that was when there were still standards for getting in, so the difference between first and last was for the top 10% of students in the country.

    Now what do we have? White guilt and fake racism doesn’t win court cases; merit and ability do.

The survey counts students receiving law school public interest as not fully employed

What is this supposed to mean? What is “receiving law school public interest”, and does it constitute a paid full-time job?

    Milhouse in reply to Flatworm. | December 1, 2022 at 10:29 am

    Look again. Perhaps that’s a sentence that was mangled when you saw it but has since been fixed. It makes perfect sense as written now.

How about we just get rid of law school requirements as well? If the LSAT is a problem the bar exam will also be a problem for the same reasons cited in opposition to the LSAT. Law school doesn’t teach anyone how to be an attorney instead it teaches how to think, research, write and present arguments consistent with the legal profession.

Get rid of all of it. Go back to apprenticeship and reading the law to become an Attorney. Then hold the individual Attorneys responsible for their mistakes by suspending them or baring them from future practice. Let the public decide if their Attorney is capable just as they do their banker.

    “If the LSAT is a problem the bar exam will also be a problem for the same reasons cited in opposition to the LSAT.”

    Look for the bar exam to be the next tree to be chopped down.

    All this dancing because the left insists that we ignore the two room elephants, the differences in cognitive ability, the propensity to exhibit anti-social/criminal behavior.

    Charles Murray, Facing Reality (2021),

    “The charges of white privilege and systemic racism that are tearing the country apart float free of reality. Two known facts, long since documented beyond reasonable doubt, need to be brought into the open and incorporated into the way we think about public policy: American whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have different violent crime rates and different means and distributions of cognitive ability. The allegations of racism in policing, college admissions, segregation in housing, and hiring and promotions in the workplace ignore the ways in which the problems that prompt the allegations of systemic racism are driven by these two realities.”

They will instead infer (“conjure”) competence and take a knee to em-pathetic appeal. Case-in-point: Diversity (e.g. racism), Inequity, and… is Exclusion (DIE) doctrine.

The survey measures how much schools pay per student: “One of the most pernicious aspects of the US News rankings is its measure of per student expenditures. There is no evidence that this correlates to the quality of the education received.

Thank you. That is 100% correct, but it’s surprising that he would admit it. Now do the same for primary and secondary schools, or explain why what is true for tertiary schools is somehow not true for primary and secondary. Be sure to account for the overwhelming existing evidence that it is true. And draw the inevitable conclusions for public education policy.

So why should Berkeley be disadvantaged by a look at how much it spends on its students?

Who says he’s worried about Berkeley? He criticized the rankings because they unfairly discriminate against schools with lower tuition. That makes the rankings wrong.

Chemerinsky also complains that US News discounts per student expenditures by a cost-of-living adjustment. Ah, okay. The Bay area isn’t cheap. But none of this seems unreasonable. Why shouldn’t US News adjust expenditures based on cost-of-living?

He says why: because such an adjustment “has nothing to do with educational quality”.

Maybe UC-Berkeley just doesn’t spend much on its students?

Maybe. As he says, spending is not a valid measure of outcome. That’s been known for decades, and has been a major talking point on the right.

One wonders how much it spends on non-educational expenses like administrative staff?

That’s be included in per-student spending.

They aren’t entirely wrong that US News rankings are based on perverse incentives for all kinds of higher ed.

In fact, much of the watering down of difficulty and rigor for university study is due to schools that want to push up their 4 yr graduation rates and freshman retention rates precisely for gaming those metrics on the US news rankings. There’s no index of rigor in the rankings, so easing the difficulty of courses is the natural administrative push for those incentivized by rankings.

The racial discrimination dodge is definitely troubling though.

Will the Dean welcome the young man from Baltimore
who graduated from the top half of his class with
0.40 GPA to attend his law school??

Does either California or Michigan actually enforce their bans on racial discrimination in admissions? I’m fairly sure they don’t, and most schools have gone to great lengths to hide how they do it, mostly by claiming “holistic admissions” aren’t the race-based tools they obviously are.

I am just an MD. When I took the LSAT I realized that the analytical reasoning section was just a complicated game with no connection with the law. but nets millions of dollars for LSAC. When I started studying for the GRE I found I could buy a book on Amazon called ’30 REAL GRE essays’-and the essay questions on the GRE NEVER change. I made serious fun of these tests when I applied to Harvard-but they had no sense of humor. So the law will grind on-grimly.

    Dimsdale in reply to NC91. | December 2, 2022 at 8:59 am

    There is probably more challenge in AP exams. They change their questions all the time and exert great controls on who gets to see them etc.