Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Whatever happened to Henry Simons? (fp)

Wow -- that's some very scary poll results (kw)

The scarlet ankle bracelet. (fp)

Every good article should have one idea. (fp)

Family values in market turnover culture. (fp)

Banks really create value: probably $58 billion in overdraft fees & credit card penalties in 2009. (fp)

A Citizens United dream: Exxon could have deployed 10% of its 2008 profits to outspend every presidential and senatorial candidate that year. (fp)

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets promises to adopt your pet if you are raptured. (fp)

Habermas doesn't tweet, but does interview well. (fp)

Lessig on Google, copyright, orphans, and the future of access to information. (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Kristina on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • PrometheeFeu on The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rewards

    • PoNyman on Very scary poll results

    • Civ Pro King on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • ParatrooperJJ on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • Lotta on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Alan on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Colin Crowe on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Glomarization on Links and short thoughts on Amazonfail

    • Vinca on Book Review: Divergent Opinions: Why Community Matters — A Review of Sunstein’s Going to Extremes

    • A.J. Sutter on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

    • Keri Brooks on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Illinois on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Ken Rhodes on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Ken Rhodes on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

  •  

    Site Meter

Law School Diversity and U.S. News

posted by Solangel Maldonado

Some of you may have seen the recent study finding that the percentage of African-American and Mexican-American students in law school has decreased in the last fifteen years.  The study found that although there are 3,000 more first-year seats available today than in 1993 (the number of law schools has increased from 176 to 200), few of those seats are being filled by African-American or Mexican-American students.  As a result, African-American and Mexican-American students comprise a smaller percentage of the entering law school class than they did in 1993.  According to the ABA, the same trend is true of Puerto Rican law students, but that is not the case with all minority law students.  In fact, both the number and percentage of law students who self-identify as “Other Hispanic,” Asian, or Pacific Islander increased significantly from 1993 to 2008.

The number of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans applying to law school has not changed significantly over the last 15 years.  Some years, the applicant pool has been smaller than in 1993, and in other years, it has been larger, but all in all, these groups have been applying to law school in “relatively constant numbers.”   Admittedly, the applicant pool is small, but it does not explain why the percentage of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans in law school has declined over the last fifteen years.  Why aren’t these groups filling some of the 3,000 first-year seats that have been added since 1993? 

One reason is that few African-Americans and Mexican-Americans actually get into law school.  Although the undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores of African-American and Mexican-American students have improved over the last 15 years, their LSAT scores are still somewhat lower than those of other applicants.  This explains, in part, why these applicants are rejected by all of the law schools to which they apply at much higher rates than white applicants.  “From 2003-2008, 61 percent of black applicants and 46 percent of Chicano applicants were denied acceptance at all of the law schools to which they applied as compared to 34 percent of white applicants.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger recognized that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest” and most of us find that our classes are enriched when we have a diverse group of students.  The discussion of transracial adoption in Family Law, or damages in Torts, for example, is much more nuanced when students provide multiple perspectives.  I am not suggesting that white, heterosexual, Christian, middle-class individuals cannot have rich discussions with multiple perspectives, but we all learn more when we are surrounded by individuals whose backgrounds and life experiences are different from our own.  I am reminded of a comment made by a student after a class on transracial adoption last year.  This student was usually very vocal, but that day she had been very quiet.  I asked her if everything was alright and she said that she did not feel comfortable discussing transracial adoption when there were no African-American students in the class and that she felt that she was talking about African-Americans behind their back.  I mentioned that I have written about transracial adoption and I make a point to introduce various perspectives.  She replied:  “I know you do, but it’s just not the same.”  She’s right.  It’s not the same.      

I believe that law school administrators and faculty are sincere when we express concern about the lack of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans in law school.  So why do we continue to disproportionately reject these applicants?  Some scholars argue that law schools’ desire to rise in the U.S. News & World Report Law School rankings has led to an over-reliance on LSAT scores when making admissions decisions.  The median LSAT of a law school’s entering class counts for 12.5% of the U.S. News overall ranking and students often base their choice of law school primarily on the rankings.  In addition, private employers’ decisions to conduct on campus interviews at certain law schools and not others are based partly on the rankings. 

Commentators debate whether the LSAT is a good predictor of success in law school, and thus should be a factor in the rankings.  However, even if the LSAT has some predictive value, aren’t there other variables, such as diversity, that U.S. News should consider when determining law school rankings?  If we believe, to quote Justice O’Connor, that “diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society,” shouldn’t diversity be a factor in the rankings, along with the LSAT, undergraduate GPA, student-faculty ratio, etc.?  Shouldn’t the rankings reflect what we, as lawyers and educators, believe are the essential elements of a quality legal education?


 January 19, 2010 at 12:23 pm   Posted in: Law School (Rankings)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (2)

  1. Maryland Conservatarian - January 20, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Diversity as a factor in rankings? I’m assuming you mean skin-deep diversity as opposed to political or view-point diversity because I can only imagine the howls from the faculty lounge when a Dean of Admissions suggests trawling College Republican get-togethers for potential applicants in an effort to boost that law school’s rankings.

  2. David - January 27, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    There is already plenty of college republicans studying tax and corporate law. Bravo.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Adam Benforado
Mark Edwards
Michelle Harner
Kristin Johnson
Jeffrey Kahn
Alex Kreit
Viva Moffat
Adam Steinman










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress