Argosy’s Law School

But judging them on one particular aspect is exactly what you are doing. You say they do a "decent job" because they have respectable bar exam pass rates. But those rates are only respectable because of their very high, non-respectable, attrition rates.

Here's the whole picture: if you enroll at a top California law school, the chances that you will be a practicing attorney in 3 years are in the 80-90% range. Attrition is low and bar pass rates are high.

But if you enroll at a bottom-ranked law school such as Western State, the chances drop to less than 50%. Attrition is high and bar pass rates are low to medium. That's the "whole picture".

The bottom-ranked ABA law schools (which include both for-profits and non-profits) survive only because of current government policies on student lending. In an unregulated market, investing tens of thousands of dollars to enroll at Western State would be perceived as a much riskier investment than enrolling at Stanford. It would therefore be much harder to get education loans as a Western State student than as a Stanford student. But under current laws, it is nearly impossible to default on student loans, and so the banks are equally willing to lend money in either case.

In the old days, when student loan default was possible, Western State existed as a CalBar-appproved school. They were CalBar accredited throughout most of their history, from 1966 to 2005; they've only been ABA-approved since 2005. As a CalBar school, Western State still had a relatively low success rate, but they charged much lower tuition than they do today, which mitigated the default risk. As an ABA school, Western State combines a low success rate with very high tuition, which is not a pretty combination.

 

I have to agree. The notion of open-enrollment schools is an appealing one--students can pursue their dreams and not be held back by either competition or some artificial barrier. However....

It costs a lot of money to find out whether or not each open enrollment student will make it at a for-profit school. And much of that is subsidized by taxpayers. But there is an alternative. It's called community college. I would prefer it if the for-profits were not allowed to accept lower-division students at all--or perhaps partnering with community colleges to provide low-cost, low-risk pathways.

And we can't lay it all on the student. When a university, even an open-enrollment one, accepts you, they're telling you two things. First, you can do this. Second, you can afford it. Often, neither is true. That's what I saw first-hand when teaching for UoP for 3 years.

It was the same dynamic that expanded the housing bubble--people assumed they were okay with their loans because the banks okayed the mortgages. Now we know the truth. Well, we know it regarding the for-profits, too. But money talks, and their money speaks loudly to politicians who, in turn, keep regulations to a substandard level. And that's why I've moved from ambivalence to suspicion regarding the for-profits. I say "suspicion" because I know there are some good ones out there. But then, they'd have no trouble with being properly regulated, if faced with that.

 

Well I guess I am judging them on one particular aspect then. To me, the Bar exam is the "final exam" for law schools. Ultimately, they should (and probably do) want their students to pass the bar exam. It's not different from if a student sat down and took a final for the class. I had classes with only one final exam. If you failed...you failed. It was a showing of what you had done for the past 15 weeks. It's a common thing in the UK to my understanding. You test, you pass, and it's normally accepted that the things you did prior to the test prepared you for the test. The presumption may not always hold true but generally speaking it's sound.

Now instead of addressing the Bar stats we are talking about their selectively and tuition. Both have nothing to do with bar passage results. UC-Davis has a higher tuition, is more selective, and ranks way higher. Western State has done better for first time takers than them for the past couple of years. That's a fact. Does that mean UC-Davis is a culprit as well? Can they be faulted? If a student graduates from there and doesn't get a job is the school to blame? It’s student’s responsibility. We are adults.

You have missed the big picture with Western State. Attrition is high but the pass rates are actually decent, at worse. It has consistently been above the state average. It has even managed to outperform a school that is ranked #29 in the nation (UC-Davis). When compared to a few other schools in California their tuition isn't high.

I don't blame it all on government policies. Personally I think that's just a fallback for a lot of people. The government does have something to do with it though. It's the people. The simple rules of supply and demand still are in effect. I'm not going to blame it all on the people but "c'mon". I walk into Walmart all the time. They are always doing advertising. They are always saying, "Buy this. The prices are affordable....” I just don't buy everything that their selling. It's about being responsible. It's about being an adult.

 

Let's look at a hypothetical example.

Suppose School A admits 100 students. Attrition is high, and 90 of them drop out or flunk out before reaching the Bar exam. Of the remaining 10, 8 pass the Bar exam. So the pass rate is 80%.

Suppose School B admits 100 students. Attrition is low, so only 10 fail to reach the Bar exam. Of the remaining 90, 70 pass the Bar. So the pass rate is 77.8%.

Given this scenario, you would presumably recommend that prospective law students attend School A instead of School B, because School A has the higher Bar pass rate. So School A must be better, right?

But let's look at it another way: if you enroll at School A, you have an 8% chance of practicing law in three years. But if you enroll at School B, you have a 70% chance. I would argue, given this scenario, that School B is the obviously superior choice, and I suspect that most people in the legal education community would agree.

Of course, this is an exaggerated scenario, but similar factors would have to be considered in a UC Davis vs. Western State comparison. And those factors help to explain why UC Davis is typically considered a far better law school than Western State, even if Western State's bar pass rate is a few points higher.

 

I think your jumping to an assumption on what I said. I never said that School A or B is better. That depends on a host of different factors. My original statement is that Western State was doing a decent job. They have a respectable bar bassage rate. I think most could agree that the bar passage rate is a fair assessment of how a school is performing overall when it comes to teaching their students. That's just my personal opinion though I guess. I view the bar just as if an individual was taking a test.

I don't know where your getting your stats from for the practicing law in three years. I would definitely have to look at those numbers though because they are way far apart. I would have to see how many people are actually gainfully employed and not just practicing law. I think that's a better assessment. People enter law school for different reasons. Some people actually never want to practice law (to each their own I guess) even though they are in law school. That wouldn't narrow the disparity down to a respectable level though. That's something to look into.

No school is perfect. If the main that you have to hit Western State on is attrition then that's not to be bad. It's definitely not good but it isn't a death sentence. I still don't think attrition speaks to how well they are teaching their students. I think that's more of a policy thing.

 

I would definitely agree that UC-Davis is considered a far better law school. That's the outward perception. Almost any school that has ranking is considered better than one that doesn't. That doesn't mean that the Western State isn't doing a decent job. U.S. News plays a large part in that perception. There have been numerous issues with their rankings. Even stories of schools "manipulating" things in an attempt to get higher numbers. It's all part of the "system" and games that I would say the majority of law schools are playing. The graduates I know from the higher ranked schools are the ones that are angrier than the graduates from lower ranked students. All due to expectations.