African-American and Mexican American Enrollment at U.S. Law Schools Dropping

[Anne]

Very interesting article on the Columbia Law website: http://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2010/january2010/lawschool-enrollment

Excerpt: "The percentage of African-American and Mexican-American students enrolled at U.S. law schools declined in the last 15 years, even though students in both groups improved their grades and LSAT scores, a new study finds. Percentages for both groups dropped even though 3,000 more first-year seats became available according to Columbia Law School’s Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic..."

[Trainwreck]

Did they give any reason why?

Or maybe I should read the article, huh? 

[Anne]

They don't really give a reason why, they just explore the trend and explain what it means for law school diversity. It's a very interesting phenomenon, particularly when you consider that, for both of these groups, LSAT scores and UGPAs have gone up, in addition to a general increase in available incoming class seats. The site referenced in the article, http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/salt/, has a wealth of numerical indicators, info and charts to back up the trend. Definitely worth a look.

[Anne]

The WSJ has gotten into the game now, too: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/07/study-as-us-grows-more-diverse-law-student-population-whitens/

[Ashley O]

The WSJ has gotten into the game now, too: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/07/study-as-us-grows-more-diverse-law-student-population-whitens/

That's a weird article. It's kind of subtly racist "law schools are growing paler" -- I mean, who says that in polite company? Then it goes on to say that the cause is US News rankings leading to high LSAT score cutoffs are the cause. But from what I've read and seen on various sites, being an URM with a good LSAT score is a real advantage, and even being an URM with a middling score doesn't knock you out of contention from even the top law schools. 

[Amby]

Does it matter?

[Anne]

Does it matter?

I can't quite believe I'm rising to the bait on this, but it does matter in terms of law school diversity and the kind of experience you'll have in law school. The less URMs, the less well-rounded your experience will be, the more homogeneous your resulting education will turn out to be, and the less interesting law school will be. We don't live in a one-color world, and I'd like to think that those who seek to make laws are getting the most varied experience possible while training to make those laws.

Also, I'm seeing a pattern here, Amby. Isn't this the third or fourth of your posts that featured a version of the "Who cares?"/"Does it matter?" query?  Inquisitive, involved minds will do better in law school than ambivalent ones.

[Jack Daws]

Anne, don't do it!

[Anne]

The WSJ has gotten into the game now, too: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/07/study-as-us-grows-more-diverse-law-student-population-whitens/

That's a weird article. It's kind of subtly racist "law schools are growing paler" -- I mean, who says that in polite company? Then it goes on to say that the cause is US News rankings leading to high LSAT score cutoffs are the cause. But from what I've read and seen on various sites, being an URM with a good LSAT score is a real advantage, and even being an URM with a middling score doesn't knock you out of contention from even the top law schools. 

You're right to a degree, but the US News rankings argument also holds a great deal of water. Unless you're the top 10 law schools (in which case your status really doesn't change regardless of where your ranking goes--your caché remains), you're going to want to make sure the LSAT/UGPA numbers of your incoming class are at least solid, if not high. Rankings are still the primary way that students make application decisions, and if you're not ranked high then you won't get as much applicant attention, and thus fewer applicants with not-as-stellar credentials will chose to apply, which will lower your incoming LSAT/UGPA numbers, which can lower your US News ranking, and so on. It's a vicious circle, and it will cut out most applicants with middling LSATs or UGPAs even if they are URMs.

Truthfully, we should move away from these national rankings and go to regional ones based strictly off bar passage rates, employability, and law firm hiring popularity. Have you ever seen the US News ranking formula? Odd at best, placing importance on near-inconsequential factors. It's the industry standard, though, and won't change in the near-future, if at all. I always ask my students go probe much deeper than just rankings when making application decisions--you want to get the full picture of the institution, and not just its numbers.

[Anne]

Anne, don't do it!

I KNOW! I'm cowering in my chair now. 

[Amby]

Anne, don't do it!

I KNOW! I'm cowering in my chair now. 

Why? Because you know your argument is weak?

[Amby]

Does it matter?

I can't quite believe I'm rising to the bait on this, but it does matter in terms of law school diversity and the kind of experience you'll have in law school. The less URMs, the less well-rounded your experience will be, the more homogeneous your resulting education will turn out to be, and the less interesting law school will be. We don't live in a one-color world, and I'd like to think that those who seek to make laws are getting the most varied experience possible while training to make those laws.

Also, I'm seeing a pattern here, Amby. Isn't this the third or fourth of your posts that featured a version of the "Who cares?"/"Does it matter?" query?  Inquisitive, involved minds will do better in law school than ambivalent ones.

If this is your argument, shouldn't you be much more worried about the composition of congress? Who cares what kind of school experience lawyers have. They are still located on a campus full of "varied" people

And yes, most of what I read really doesn't matter. People worry about too much stupid stuff already.

[Anne]

Does it matter?

I can't quite believe I'm rising to the bait on this, but it does matter in terms of law school diversity and the kind of experience you'll have in law school. The less URMs, the less well-rounded your experience will be, the more homogeneous your resulting education will turn out to be, and the less interesting law school will be. We don't live in a one-color world, and I'd like to think that those who seek to make laws are getting the most varied experience possible while training to make those laws.

Also, I'm seeing a pattern here, Amby. Isn't this the third or fourth of your posts that featured a version of the "Who cares?"/"Does it matter?" query?  Inquisitive, involved minds will do better in law school than ambivalent ones.

If this is your argument, shouldn't you be much more worried about the composition of congress? Who cares what kind of school experience lawyers have. They are still located on a campus full of "varied" people

And yes, most of what I read really doesn't matter. People worry about too much stupid stuff already.

I won't really get drawn into a teenage argument, so this is the last I'll say on this: I AM worried about the composition of Congress. The Old (Largely White) Boy Network is not who I want creating laws for a country that is increasingly multi-cultural and racially varied. You can't pretend that a white middle-class male is always going to know what would best serve a country composed of elements from every race, culture and ethnicity in the world. However, there isn't much one can do about the composition of Congress (or the Senate, or the White House) without also worrying about the composition of law schools, since that's where the majority of those running for gubernatorial, congressional, senatorial, and presidential positions will emerge. You're taking a top-down view on an issue that can't be corrected without grassroots effort. If we knowingly keep law schools primarily white, then we're keeping the political echelons of our country primarily white, and your argument (which was vague, poorly presented, and fully of holes to begin with) completely disintegrates.

As to your second (mildly irrational, I might add) comment that a class full of only white kids is still diverse because it's still located in a "varied" campus, I have to wonder if you should perhaps broaden your reading list and personal experience. Are you really telling me that an ethnically-homogeneous, isolated group of people discussing legal issues will still have a multifaceted view on what they're discussing simply because they're in the middle of a campus that is racially balanced? That's like telling me that I can take a gas-station hot dog, eat it outside a five-star restaurant, and then claim to have eaten a Michelin-quality meal. Quality doesn't occur by osmosis, Amby, and neither does diversity (which includes not only being surrounded by, but also listening to, discussing, and being familiar with as many points of view as you can be).  

Finally, if most of what you read "doesn't really matter," then I wonder at your decision to attend law school in the first place. Be wary of the dismissal of what you read. Your last statement reeks of adolescent my-parents-are-so-stupid-I-won't-listen angst. History only repeats itself when we don't pay attention to it, and reading (and remembering) is the only thing that will keep us from repeating past mistakes and not recognizing harmful patterns. Law school is not a place to go and disregard everything you're taught, bolstering this complete apathy with the flimsy claim that "people worry about too much stupid stuff already." Law school is a place where you learn about the legal structure of the country and world you live in, and prepare to change it. You can't do that either with anger or apathy, both of which you have in spades.

I'm not advocating that schools shut out white kids, or admit students (of any race) that don't measure up to the standards they seek. However, I am advocating the importance of diversity within any organization that can potentially churn out future leaders of cities, counties, states, and the country.

[Amby]

Gee, Anne, if you get this upset at mild prodding, what would happen if I fully unleashed some real arguments on you? I don't want you to melt down in the frenzy of responding.

The point of the article is that with better LSAT scores and even more opportunities than before, law schools have fewer representatives by percentage from certain groups. Note that the article is careful to say that the number of applicants from these groups is constant. If the total pool of available spaces is up, but one (or two) groups stay constant in number, then they will fall as a percentage against the whole.

The question here isn't why the percentages fell; that is answered in the article. The better question is why didn't the applicant numbers of these groups rise as more seats were available? There could be a lot of reasons: maybe they went into different fields, maybe they don't want to participate in a legal system they see as disadvantageous, maybe they don't want to spend three more years in school and need to make $$ now, and so on. Either way, the indictment isn't necessarily against the system of law schools (and by your somewhat questionable extension, Congress); it could equally be against the members of these groups as well.

Happy now? Or should I put a big  so you know I'm genuinely happy, and I really really really mean it?

 

[Anne]

Gee, Anne, if you get this upset at mild prodding, what would happen if I fully unleashed some real arguments on you? I don't want you to melt down in the frenzy of responding.

The point of the article is that with better LSAT scores and even more opportunities than before, law schools have fewer representatives by percentage from certain groups. Note that the article is careful to say that the number of applicants from these groups is constant. If the total pool of available spaces is up, but one (or two) groups stay constant in number, then they will fall as a percentage against the whole.

The question here isn't why the percentages fell; that is answered in the article. The better question is why didn't the applicant numbers of these groups rise as more seats were available? There could be a lot of reasons: maybe they went into different fields, maybe they don't want to participate in a legal system they see as disadvantageous, maybe they don't want to spend three more years in school and need to make $$ now, and so on. Either way, the indictment isn't necessarily against the system of law schools (and by your somewhat questionable extension, Congress); it could equally be against the members of these groups as well.

Happy now? Or should I put a big   so you know I'm genuinely happy, and I really really really mean it?

I'm glad to see you can formulate a semi-literate argument that revolves around more than the words "I," "don't," "care," "it," "doesn't," and "matter."

I will say, though, that my argument was more geared toward your response than the article itself. Regarding your position on the article, I would agree (GASP!) that you could definitely make the argument that it is not just the law schools or the law school admissions committees that bear the brunt of the blame--the URM groups share the burden, as well. It's definitely not a one-sided issue. It's enough of a problem that LSAC has initiatives such as Discover Law, which is geared towards putting the legal profession on the radar of URM groups in an effort to increase their applicant numbers. Taking a look at the applicant numbers for URMs on LSACnet.org, you can see that the applicant numbers for all minorities (not just African- and Mexican-Americans, but all URMs) peaked in 2003/2004 and has been dropping steadily ever since (save for Hispanic/Latinos, but their numbers are up only 300 from their 2004 numbers). The article doesn't really address that at all, as you mentioned, and that is really at the crux of this particular issue.

Another interesting stat, though, is the one presented by the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/education/07law.html?scp=3&sq=law%20school&st=cse) that came out at the same time the Columbia Law one did: "The number of black and Mexican-American students applying to law school has been relatively constant, or growing slightly, for two decades. But from 2003 to 2008, 61 percent of black applicants and 46 percent of Mexican-American applicants were denied acceptance at all of the law schools to which they applied, compared with 34 percent of white applicants." While they claim that it has to do with schools' reluctance to accept lower LSATs and UGPAs due to the effect they will have on their U.S. News (which may be the case, though you'll be hard-pressed to find any AdCom who'll say it out loud), the real question remains the same it always has been: Why do these URM groups score lower on standardized tests (be they LSAT, GMAT, GRE or SAT) than their Caucasian counterparts? Yes, their scores may have increased over the 15-year period quoted in the study, but they are still lower than non-URM applicants, and that affects their admissions chances.

It's a Hydra of a problem, and would involve a major change in rankings, law school admissions, and even the overall education system to even make a dent. Definitely interesting to analyze, though.