The Long Arm of the LSAC...

A week ago, we interviewed LSAT Blog's Steve Schwartz on tips to beat the LSAT. Amongst other things, Steve strongly urged prospective law students to take LSAT prep tests in the course of their preparation. Doing so, it turns out, is increasingly difficult. As LSAT Blog reports, LSAC has "pulled the plug" on a number of prep tests making them more or less unavailable for eager students:

[According to] LSAC's website (click on "The Official LSAT PrepTests") . . . it [is] no longer selling PrepTests 39, 40, 41, and 42. This mean[s] that not only has LSAC failed to publish another book of 10 exams, forcing students to pay $8/exam, and not only is its shipping incredibly slow, but now it[ has] made PrepTests 39-42 difficult to obtain.

The story makes little sense at first blush--why, after all, would LSAC withhold a valuable commodity that prospective law students would willingly line up to pay top dollar for? You don't need a 180 LSAT to guess the answer: test preparation companies (some of whom have already been accused of monopolizing the LSAT market) are willing to pay more via hefty licensing fees. So, in essence, the juggernaut test preparation industry can access all 60 existing LSAT exams while regular students self-studying only have access to 49 past exams.

And, to make matters worse, it turns out the test preparation companies end up getting "more" for "less." They pay only $194.00 for the 60 exam set as compared to the $208.00 a self-study student would need to pay for the 49 exams that are generally accessible. Of course, the test preparation companies only get such a "deal" because they're buying in such large quantities; it's simple economics. But when the practical result is to disadvantage others who (perhaps) cannot afford to fork over $1500 for an LSAT course, maybe that's a problem?

Are Law Schools Overreacting to the Annual Exodus of Students? (UPDATE)

Yesterday, I asked whether law schools were overreacting to the difficulties posed by increased transfer admissions. In particular, I reported a tipster's account of the administrative response to the transfer process undertaken by Brooklyn Law School; an account which was, as noted, corroborated by other former Brooklyn Law School students who had transferred after their first year.

Although I encouraged readers to not single out Brooklyn Law School, the story predictably generated much controversy and--in some cases--anger. I promised to provide an update in the event I was contacted by the school's administration and am pleased to do so now, having received the following e-mail communication from Associate Dean Beryl Jones-Woodin:

1) You report that we actively seek to encourage students who are considering transferring to remain at Brooklyn Law School. This is accurate. We are proud of the education we provide our students and are enthusiastic about the students we have admitted. We want to encourage them to remain as members of our community.

2) We do not prevent students who are thinking of transferring from using the services of our Career Center. They are barred from using these services only after they transfer.

3) Students who have been selected for a journal or for the Moot Court Honor Society do not lose their positions until they have notified us that they will definitely be transferring to another school.

4) We do discourage faculty members from writing clerkship letters of recommendations for students who have transferred to other schools because we believe that our faculty members’ primary responsibilities are to our students who are seeking the same positions. Students who are attending other law schools can secure recommendations from their professors at their new schools. Faculty members may nevertheless write letters if they wish.

We are grateful for Dean Jones-Woodin's response; her willingness to address our story and set the record straight speaks very well for the school.

Given the array of sources who indicated that Brooklyn had a categorical rule against allowing former transfer students to use Brooklyn faculty as references for clerkship applications, I followed up to inquire as to whether the recommendation policy she described in her message had recently been changed. I have yet to hear back, and will update this posting when I do. Regardless, I am sure this policy will be very welcome news to former Brooklyn transfers who are currently contemplating applying for a clerkship next fall; "discourag[ing] faculty members from writing clerkship letters" is a lot better than "prohibiting" them from doing so.

------

UPDATE (Apr. 7, 6:00 PM): Dean Jones-Woodin has confirmed that it has "always been [Brooklyn's] policy to discourage, but ultimately allow, faculty members to write in support of clerkship candidates who transfer."

Over 30? Rejected!

I found this article on DNA India, discussing a rule passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) on September 18, 2008, which limits the ability of anyone "above 30 years of age . . . [to] join [a] post graduate three-year [legal educational program in India]."

The resolution is being challenged by Shabnam Mulani, a 39-year-old "police constable who wants to better her understanding of the law as [she hopes] it will aid in her job." The article notes:

Mulani's hopes of studying law this year were thwarted by the BCI resolution as she had exceeded the age limit. In her petition, Mulani states the age bar deprives her and others like her of their fundamental right, and scuttles their intellectual and educational growth . . . [and her counsel has c]alled the decision "ridiculous, vague, arbitrary, senseless, and absolutely unjust besides being unconstitutional."

Aside from its (apparent) discriminatory underpinnings, one has to question the economic rationale for such a rule given the news of increased legal outsourcing to India.

Are Law Schools Overreacting to the Annual Exodus of Students?

With spring semester drawing to a rapid close, law students across the country are contemplating transferring. There are plenty of reasons to transfer, and it is an option many students consider. The increased popularity of transferring has brought with it a corresponding increase in incoming transfer classes, along with vigorous efforts to successfully integrate incoming transfers into the existing law school class.

But it has also brought about some less-than-welcoming reactions from schools unwilling to lose their students to the transfer process. A few weeks ago, Above the Law reported that Loyola (L.A.) Law School was barring potential transfers from participating in the school's on campus interview program. We've heard rumblings of similar tactics being used at other schools--the apparent goal being to convince students to stay put. As a tipster who transferred from Brooklyn Law School tells it, for example, the "efforts" began shortly after requesting a transcript even though the school was never expressly apprised of any transfer plans:

They told me . . . they would mail all my OCI firms saying that I would not be interviewing there any more and wouldn't tell them where I transferred. They also threatened me with the writing competition and my moot court saying that they may not be able to hold a spot for me as long as I'm transferring.

The (threatened) adverse consequences extended far beyond the short-term, however. According to our tipster, Brooklyn Law School's administration used an additional ploy that they have since made good on:

They specifically told me they will not let any professor give me a letter of recommendation for clerkships, [pursuant to] school policy [and] used this as a threat to get me not to transfer.

Our tipster's story has been confirmed by other former Brooklyn Law School students. I attempted to contact Brooklyn Law School to inquire as to whether the policy our tipster described remains in effect, and will update this posting later in the day should I hear back.

While I cannot fault schools for calculatedly choosing to devote school resources to students who continue to be paying customers, I have to wonder whether such tactics are truly necessary. Are law schools overreacting to the problems posed by increased transfer admissions?

------

UPDATE (Apr. 7, 4:30 PM): I have posted an update to this story here.

The Wave of the Future? We hope...

We were recently informed that an Admissions Dean of a top-tier law school was offering candid advice to prospective law school candidates via a student-based online message board. While we had our doubts initially, we are able to formally confirm that Paul Pless, Assistant Dean for Admissions and Financial Aid at the University of Illinois College of Law is, in fact, the poster posting as "Pless" on the Top-Law-Schools Message Board.

Noting that he believes law school admissions should be more "transparent," Dean Pless explains his intentions and rules for discussion at the beginning of the (currently) 33-page thread:

I thought I would take the opportunity to answer questions anyone might have about the University of Illinois College of Law. Couple of ground rules:

I won't answer questions about your specific application (just email me directly and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have)

I won't discuss other law schools

Other than that, have at it. I won't be online all the time, but I will try to check every day and answer questions.

And he's kept his word. So far, he's addressed a wide-array of (prospective) student questions ranging from job prospects, to scholarships and everything in between. His answers have been informative, thoughtful and--to be deliberately redundant--candid. Above all, they yield interesting insights into the otherwise furtively guarded admissions process. We thus recommend that every prospective law student peruse through the thread, and we believe that many current law students and practitioners will find this to be of interest as well.

More importantly, however, we believe that Dean Pless' approach of availing himself in cyberspace is an important innovation that should be followed by other law school admissions deans. Law school is a big, risky investment that is (far too) often made in an abundance of haste or misinformation. By providing a direct avenue for public correspondence, law school admissions deans can both foster a greater sense of their school's virtues, and ensure that the clientele to be served are more informed--and thus better prepared to enter law school. Whether it's done via pre-existing message boards or a school-developed website on a secured server, we hope other law school admissions officers will follow suit.

This is a positive development for everyone involved, and we're delighted to share it with you.