You could make three salient objections to the reasoning so far. "(1) MB, students know whether they're coming in with low numbers relative to other students. (2) Once they show up, they've assumed the risk of lower bar performance. And anyways, (3) why should law schools be held accountable? The bar exam is the student's problem."

(1) An observant student may notice that they fall below the 25th percentile GPA/LSAT numbers that are reported to the US News rankings. But how would they possibly be able to infer their statistically predicted bar performance from this information?

This is the 'have it both ways' argument: students apparently know so much already that there's no need for schools to disclose anything further. Do we really think students know that much to begin with? (I don't.) Or, if we accept that proposition as true, what possible harm would result from disclosing information that apparently students are already well familiar with?

(2) The doctrine of assumption of the risk typically extends only to risks that are reasonably apparent to the party in the transaction. If you go to karate school, you assume the risk of getting kicked in the head. However, you don't assume the risk of contracting tuberculosis from the instructor. One risk is apparent; the other is not.

The bottom 10% of law school classes end up struggling in ways that are not predictable purely from their numbers. Students with the same numbers, who go to lower ranked schools, often perform better on the bar. One theory, which I buy into, is that the entering credentials disadvantage widens into something larger as students learn less effectively in classes that are pitched above their skill level.

But regardless of the reason, these mysterious factors seem to materially impact bar performance in the long term. Even if the students assume the risk of coming in with low numbers, they aren't assuming the risk of these mystery factors.

(3) I call bullshit on that one. From the ABA's own accreditation requirements:

Chapter 3. Program of Legal Education
Standard 301. OBJECTIVES

(a) A law school shall maintain an educational program that prepares its students for admission to the bar and effective and responsible participation in the legal profession.

Yep, it's right there at the top of the list. You laugh, but there are law school deans who are sanguine about URM underperformance on the bar. Apparently their view is that even without a bar passage credential, the J.D. has career value.

Um, sure, unless you want to be a lawyer. Also, that opinion is directly contrary to the ABA requirements. I would hate to be a dean who had to testify under oath during a deposition in a lawsuit challenging these practices.

Let me finish with a couple other interesting bits from the ABA accreditation requirements regarding admissions:

Chapter 5: Admissions
Standard 501. ADMISSIONS.

(a) A law school’s admission policies shall be consistent with the objectives of its educational program and the resources available for implementing those objectives.

(b) A law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its educational program and being admitted to the bar...

Standard 509. BASIC CONSUMER INFORMATION.

A law school shall publish basic consumer information. The information shall be published in a fair and accurate manner reflective of actual practice.

Interpretation 509-1:
The following categories of consumer information are considered basic:

(1) admission data; ...
(3) enrollment data and graduation rates; ...
(8) placement rates and bar passage data.

16 Jun 06