This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-20
entitled 'Higher Education: Issues Related to Law School Cost and
Access' which was released on October 26, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
[Note: This report was revised on December 7, 2009, to incorporate
corrected information not available at the time of publication. The
figure on slide 13, on page 17, has been accordingly revised, and a
new figure has been inserted on slide 14, on page 18.]
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2009:
Higher Education:
Issues Related to Law School Cost and Access:
GAO-10-20:
Contents:
Letter:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Appendix II: Comments from the American Bar Association:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Summary of Law School Contacts:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 26, 2009:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable George Miller:
Chairman:
The Honorable John P. Kline:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
In order to participate in federal student financial aid programs, law
schools must be accredited by an agency recognized by the Department of
Education (Education).[Footnote 1] Accreditation is intended to ensure
that schools provide basic levels of quality in their educational
programs, and Education recognizes those accrediting agencies that it
concludes can reliably determine the quality of education provided by
the schools and programs they accredit. The American Bar Association's
(ABA) Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the
Bar serves as the main accrediting agency for law schools, and students
who attend one of the 200 ABA-accredited law schools can take the bar
examination in any jurisdiction in the country. There are also several
law schools that are accredited by other Education-recognized
accrediting agencies such as the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges. Graduates of some of these non-ABA-accredited law schools are
eligible to take the bar examination in their own state, but may not do
so nationwide.
The ABA's accreditation standards focus on a number of issues,
including schools' facilities, student support services, faculty,
admissions practices, and graduates' passage of the bar exam. Concerns
have been raised about how some of these accreditation standards may
affect the cost of attendance and minority access. In 2007, we reported
on the ABA's process for accrediting law schools and questions that had
been raised about the process.[Footnote 2] In this report, in response
to a mandate in the Higher Education Opportunity Act,[Footnote 3] we
examine the following questions: (1) How do law schools compare with
similar professional schools in terms of cost and minority enrollment?
(2) What factors, including accreditation, may affect the cost of law
school? (3) What factors, including accreditation, may affect minority
access to law school?
We briefed your staff on the results of our analysis on September 2 and
3, 2009, and this report formally conveys the information provided
during that briefing (see appendix I for the briefing slides). In
summary, we reported the following:
* Since 1994, tuition and fees at law schools and selected professional
schools have increased, and trends in minority enrollment have been
comparable across types of schools. At law, medical, and dental schools
during this time period, Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders
increased as a share of enrollment or stayed at about the same level,
while African American enrollment declined or stayed at about the same
level.
* According to law school officials, the move to a more hands-on,
resource-intensive approach to legal education and competition among
schools for higher rankings appear to be the main factors driving the
cost of law school, while ABA accreditation requirements appear to play
a minor role. Additionally, officials at public law schools reported
that recent decreases in state funding are a contributor to rising
tuition at public schools.
* Most law school officials do not cite ABA accreditation standards as
having an impact on minority access at their schools. Lower average Law
School Admission Test (LSAT) scores and undergraduate grade point
averages (GPA) may have negatively affected some African Americans and
Hispanics.
We used the following methodologies to develop our findings. To compare
law schools with similar professional schools in terms of cost and
minority enrollment, we selected medical, dental, and veterinary
schools based on Education's list of first-professional degree programs
and the availability of cost and enrollment data, and analyzed data on
tuition and enrollment from Education's Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) for these schools. We determined that
IPEDS data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by
testing them for accuracy and completeness, reviewing documentation
about systems used to produce the data, and interviewing agency
officials. Additionally, we analyzed data from the ABA and the
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on students' law and
medical school debt. To determine the reliability of these data, we
interviewed ABA and AAMC officials about limitations with the data
collected and uses of the data. We found these data to be sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. We adjusted the historical tuition, fee, and
debt data for inflation using the gross domestic product price index.
To examine what factors, including accreditation, may affect law school
cost and minority access, we reviewed documentation from the ABA and
the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), and analyzed LSAC's data on
law school acceptance rates. We also interviewed officials from 22 law
schools, including 19 ABA-accredited schools and 3 schools accredited
by other agencies recognized by Education (non-ABA-accredited). We
selected this nonprobability sample to reflect a range of
characteristics, including institutional control (public, private not-
for-profit, private for-profit), geographic location, school size,
minority enrollment, and average LSAT score (see table 1). Finally, we
spoke with a diverse group of law students from 1 ABA-accredited and 1
non-ABA-accredited school, student representatives from 2 minority law
student associations, and officials from the ABA and LSAC.
Table 1: Summary of Law School Contacts:
Type of law school: ABA-accredited;
Total number of law schools: 200;
Sample size: 19.
Type of law school: ABA-accredited; Public;
Total number of law schools: 81;
Sample size: 9.
Type of law school: ABA-accredited; Private, not-for-profit;
Total number of law schools: 113;
Sample size: 9.
Type of law school: ABA-accredited; Private, for-profit;
Total number of law schools: 6;
Sample size: 1.
Type of law school: Non-ABA-accredited;
Total number of law schools: 11;
Sample size: 3.
Type of law school: Non-ABA-accredited; Public;
Total number of law schools: 1;
Sample size: 0.
Type of law school: Non-ABA-accredited; Private, not-for-profit;
Total number of law schools: 7;
Sample size: 2.
Type of law school: Non-ABA-accredited; Private, for-profit;
Total number of law schools: 3;
Sample size: 1.
Type of law school: Total;
Total number of law schools: 211;
Sample size: 22.
Source: GAO analysis of Education and ABA data.
[End of table]
We conducted this performance audit from March through August 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Education and the American Bar Association for review and comment. The
Association of American Medical Colleges and the Law School Admission
Council received selected excerpts of the report to review the findings
related to the respective data they provided, and we made changes as
appropriate. Education had no comments on the draft report. The ABA
said that the report was generally accurate, balanced, and fair. See
appendix II for the ABA's comments.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties
and will make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
this report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made key
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Higher Education: Issues Related to Law School Cost and Access:
Briefings for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions and the House Committee on Education and Labor:
September 2009:
Overview:
* Research Objectives:
* Scope and Methodology:
* Summary of Findings:
* Background:
* Findings:
Research Objectives:
In response to a mandate in the Higher Education Opportunity
Act,[Footnote 4] we addressed the following questions:
1. How do law schools compare with similar professional schools in
terms of cost and minority enrollment?
2. What factors, including accreditation requirements, may affect the
cost of law school?
3. What factors, including accreditation requirements, may affect
minority access to law school?
Scope and Methodology:
To address our research objectives, we:
* Reviewed documentation from the American Bar Association (ABA) and
the Law School Admission Council (LSAC).
* Identified medical, dental, and veterinary schools as the most
appropriate similar professional schools based on the Department of
Education’s (Education) list of first-professional degree programs and
the availability of cost and enrollment data on these schools.
* Analyzed data on tuition and enrollment from Education, the ABA,LSAC,
and the Association of American Medical Colleges, and found these data
to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
- Data from Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) covered the period from 1994/1995 through 2007/2008.
- Data on acceptance rates reflected the period from 2000/2001 though
2007/2008.
- Data on student debt covered 2001/2002 through 2007/2008.
We interviewed:
* Officials from 22 law schools, including 19 ABA-accredited schools
and 3 schools accredited by other agencies recognized by the Department
of Education (non-ABA-accredited).
- We selected this nonprobability sample to reflect a range of
institutional control (public, private not-for-profit, private for-
profit), geographic location, school size, minority enrollment, and
average Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score.
* A diverse group of law students from one ABA-accredited and one non-
ABA-accredited school.
* Representatives of two minority law student associations, the ABA,
and other professional associations.
* We conducted this performance audit from March to August2009, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
* Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
* We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Summary of Findings:
Multiple Factors May Affect Law School Cost and Access; Accreditation
Requirements Do Not Appear to Be a Major Driver:
Since 1994, tuition and fees at law schools and selected professional
schools have increased, and trends in minority enrollment have been
comparable across types of schools. At law, medical, and dental schools
during this time period, Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders
increased as a share of enrollment or stayed at about the same level,
while African American enrollment declined or stayed at about the same
level.
According to law school officials, the move to a more hands-on,
resource-intensive approach to legal education and competition among
schools for higher rankings appear to be the main factors driving law
school cost, while ABA accreditation requirements appear to play a
minor role. Additionally, recent decreases in state funding are seen as
a contributor to rising tuition at public schools.
Most law school officials do not cite ABA accreditation standards as
having an impact on minority access at their schools. Lower average
LSAT scores and undergraduate grade point averages (GPA) may have
negatively affected some African Americans and Hispanics.
Background: Law School Accreditation:
To be eligible to participate in federal student aid programs, a
postsecondary school must be accredited by an agency recognized by the
Department of Education.[Footnote 3]
* The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to
the Bar is recognized for accrediting law schools.
* Some law schools that are not accredited by the ABA have obtained
accreditation from other agencies that are recognized by the Department
of Education.
Graduate and professional students at these schools may be eligible to
borrow up to $20,500 per year in federal Stafford loans, as well as
additional Graduate/Professional PLUS loans.
Background: ABA Accreditation Requirements:
The ABA’s Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools
establish requirements with which law schools must comply to be
accredited by the ABA.
Standards focus on issues such as curriculum, student support, faculty,
and admissions.
As of June 2008, 200 law schools had received ABA accreditation.
* Nine of the 200 were provisionally accredited.
* Since 1952, only 8 institutions have applied for but never received
accreditation.
Background: A J.D. Degree from an ABA-Accredited Law School Provides
Eligibility to Take the Bar Exam in Any U.S. Jurisdiction, and for Some
States It Is a Prerequisite:
Figure: Map of the United States indicating the following:
[Refer to PDF for image: map]
J.D. for ABA-approved school not required:
Alabama;
Alaska;
Arizona;
Arkansas;
California;
Colorado;
Connecticut;
District of Columbia;
Hawaii;
Illinois;
Kentucky;
Louisiana;
Maine;
Massachusetts;
Michigan;
Missouri;
Nevada;
New Hampshire;
New Mexico;
New York;
Ohio;
Oregon;
Pennsylvania;
Rhode Island;
Tennessee;
Texas;
Utah;
Vermont;
Virginia;
Washington;
West Virginia;
Wisconsin;
Wyoming;
J.D. for ABA-approved school required:
Delaware;
Florida;
Georgia;
Idaho;
Indiana;
Iowa;
Kansas;
Maryland;
Minnesota;
Mississippi;
Montana;
Nebraska;
New Jersey;
North Carolina;
North Dakota;
Oklahoma;
South Carolina;
South Dakota;
U.S. Virgin Islands:
[Ed of figure]
Background: Educational Pipeline: African Americans and Hispanics Have
Lower Educational Attainment than Whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders,
Reducing the Pool of Potential Law School Applicants:
[Figure: illustrated chart: refer to PDF for image]
Educational Attainment for 25-to 40-Year-Olds in 2007:
Asian/Pacific Islander:
High school diploma[A]: 94%;
Some college: 78%;
Bachelor's degree: 59%.
White:
High school diploma[A]: 93%;
Some college: 66%;
Bachelor's degree: 35%;
African American:
High school diploma[A]: 87%;
Some college: 52%;
Bachelor's degree: 19%.
Hispanic:
High school diploma[A]: 65%;
Some college: 34%;
Bachelor's degree: 13%.
Source: GAO analysis of 2007 American Community Survey data.Educational
Attainment for 25-to 40-Year-Olds in 2007.
Note: Unlike other data sources used in this report, the American
Community Survey collects data on a sample of the population. All
differences in levels of educational attainment between racial/ethnic
groups are statistically significant.
[A] High school diploma includes equivalent qualifications, such as the
GED.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Comparing Professional Schools—Cost: Tuition and Fees at Law
and Other Professional Schools Have Increased since 1994:
[Figure: horizontal bar graph: refer to PDF for image]
Average annual percentage increase in tuition and fees, 1995-1996
through 2007-2008:
Law:
Public university (in-state tuition): 7.2%;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): 4.8%;
Private university: 3.9%.
Medicine:
Public university (in-state tuition): 5.3%;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): 4.1%;
Private university: 2.4%.
Dentistry:
Public university (in-state tuition): 7.0%;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): 5.2%;
Private university: 4.3%.
Veterinary:
Public university (in-state tuition): 4.0%;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): 4.2%;
Private university: 1.6%.
Median tuition and fees for the 2007-2008 school year:
Law:
Public university (in-state tuition): $14,461;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): $27,383;
Private university: $33,042.
Medicine:
Public university (in-state tuition): $22,048;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): $41,645;
Private university: $41,392.
Dentistry:
Public university (in-state tuition): $22,395;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): $43,102;
Private university: $51,204.
Veterinary:
Public university (in-state tuition): $16,012;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): $36,047;
Private university: $37.818.
Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.
Note: All figures have been adjusted to 2009 dollars.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Comparing Professional Schools—Cost: Average
Professional School Debt for Law School Graduates Has
Risen since 2001:
[Figure: line graph: refer to PDF for image]
Average debt of graduates, by year:
Year: 2001-2002;
Public University: $54,408;
Private University: $82,078.
Year: 2002-2003;
Public University: $52,627;
Private University: $83,826.
Year: 2003-2004;
Public University: $55,073;
Private University: $86,211.
Year: 2004-2005;
Public University: $55,886;
Private University: $86,215.
Year: 2005-2006;
Public University: $57,778;
Private University: $88,170.
Year: 2006-2007;
Public University: $58,710;
Private University: $90,274.
Year: 2007-2008;
Public University: $59,324;
Private University: $91,506.
Source: GAO analysis of American Bar Association data.
Note: ABA data are based on unweightedaverages, and all
figures have been adjusted to 2007 dollars. Data were
not available prior to 2001.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Comparing Professional Schools—Cost: Average
Professional School Debt for Medical School Graduates
Has Risen since 2001:
[Figure: line graph: refer to PDF for image]
Average debt of graduates, by year:
Year: 2001-2002;
Public University: $99,231;
Private University: $133,144.
Year: 2002-2003;
Public University: $103,297;
Private University: $136,867.
Year: 2003-2004;
Public University: $110,315;
Private University: $139,578.
Year: 2004-2005;
Public University: $113,793;
Private University: $142,536.
Year: 2005-2006;
Public University: $117,269;
Private University: $144,731.
Year: 2006-2007;
Public University: $120,756;
Private University: $147,626.
Year: 2007-2008;
Public University: $124,183;
Private University: $148,954.
Source: GAO analysis of Association of American Medical
Colleges data.
Note: AAMC data are based on weighted averages, and all
figures have been adjusted to 2007 dollars. Data were
not available prior to 2001.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Comparing Professional Schools—Cost: Grants and Scholarships
Can Lower the Net Cost of Tuition and Fees for Some Students:
All professional degree programs we examined offer institutional aid–
such as grants, scholarships, tuition remission, and loan repayment
assistance–that can lower the cost of attendance for students who
receive it. For example according to ABA data, in 2006-2007:
* Public law schools provided an average of $3,271 per capita in
institutional aid, which offset median resident tuition by about24
percent and median nonresident tuition by about 12 percent.
* Private law schools provided an average of $7,542 per capita in
institutional aid, which offset median tuition by about 24 percent.
In addition to receiving institutional aid, students at law, medical,
dental, and veterinary schools are able to apply for a number of
federal grants and scholarships, such as Scholarships for Disadvantaged
Students from the Department of Health and Human Services, and Thurgood
Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program assistance through the
Department of Education.
Finding 1: Comparing Professional Schools—Enrollment: Since 1994-1995,
African Americans Have Declined as a Share of Enrollment in Law
Programs, while Their Share of Medical and Dental Enrollment Has
Fluctuated:
[Figure: vertical bar graph: refer to PDF for image]
Percentage African American:
Year: 1994-1995;
Law: 7.5%;
Medicine: 7.2%;
Dentistry: 5.4%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 7.5%.
Year: 1996-1997;
Law: 7.2%;
Medicine: 7.5%;
Dentistry: 4.9%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 8.0%.
Year: 1998-1999;
Law: 7.1%;
Medicine: 7.2%;
Dentistry: 4.7%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 8.5%.
Year: 2000-2001;
Law: 6.9%;
Medicine: 7.0%;
Dentistry: 3.6%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 8.9%.
Year: 2002-2003;
Law: 6.6%;
Medicine: 7.1%;
Dentistry: 5.0%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 9.2%.
Year: 2004-2005;
Law: 6.5%;
Medicine: 7.2%;
Dentistry: 5.0%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 9.5%.
Year: 2006-2007;
Law: 6.5%;
Medicine: 6.9%;
Dentistry: 5.4%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 9.5%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.
Note: Comparable data on average enrollment by race/ethnicity were not
available for veterinary medicine programs. Data are for non-Hispanic
African Americans.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Comparing Professional Schools—Enrollment: Since 1994-1995,
Hispanics Have Increased as a Share of Enrollment in Law and Dental
Programs, while Their Share of Medical Enrollment Has Fluctuated:
Percentage Hispanic:
Year: 1994-1995;
Law: 5.2%;
Medicine: 5.6%;
Dentistry: 4.8%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 4.7%.
Year: 1996-1997;
Law: 6.3;
Medicine: 6.4%;
Dentistry: 5.2%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 5.3%.
Year: 1998-1999;
Law: 6.1%;
Medicine: 6.4%;
Dentistry: 4.8%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 5.8%.
Year: 2000-2001;
Law: 7.0%;
Medicine: 6.0%;
Dentistry: 5.1%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 6.2%.
Year: 2002-2003;
Law: 6.6%;
Medicine: 6.2%;
Dentistry: 5.3%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 6.6%.
Year: 2004-2005;
Law: 7.4%;
Medicine: 5.9%;
Dentistry: 5.2%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 7.0%.
Year: 2006-2007;
Law: 7.5%;
Medicine: 5.9%;
Dentistry: 5.6%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 7.5%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.
Note: Comparable data on average enrollment by race/ethnicity were not
available for veterinary medicine programs.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Comparing Professional Schools—Enrollment: Since 1994-1995,
Asians/Pacific Islanders Have Increased as a Share of Enrollment in Law
and Medical Programs, while Their Share of Dental Enrollment Has
Fluctuated:
Percentage Asians/Pacific Islander:
Year: 1994-1995;
Law: 5.4%;
Medicine: 14.3%;
Dentistry: 17.1%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 5.2%.
Year: 1996-1997;
Law: 6.1;
Medicine: 15.5%;
Dentistry: 19.5%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 5.9%.
Year: 1998-1999;
Law: 6.3%;
Medicine: 16.8%;
Dentistry: 20.0%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 6.2%.
Year: 2000-2001;
Law: 6.3%;
Medicine: 17.5%;
Dentistry: 19.3%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 6.3%.
Year: 2002-2003;
Law: 6.6%;
Medicine: 18.5%;
Dentistry: 19.3%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 6.5%.
Year: 2004-2005;
Law: 7.5%;
Medicine: 18.6%;
Dentistry: 17.7%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 6.8%.
Year: 2006-2007;
Law: 7.8%;
Medicine: 18.7%;
Dentistry: 17.6%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 6.9%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.
Note: Comparable data on average enrollment by race/ethnicity were not
available for veterinary medicine programs.
[End of figure]
Finding 1: Comparing Professional Schools—Enrollment: Since 1994-1995,
Whites Have Declined as a Share of Enrollment in Law, Medical, and
Dental Programs:
Percentage White:
Year: 1994-1995;
Law: 76.4%;
Medicine: 68.6%;
Dentistry: 62.9%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 78.8%.
Year: 1996-1997;
Law: 73.9;
Medicine: 64.8%;
Dentistry: 60.9%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 76.8%.
Year: 1998-1999;
Law: 72.3%;
Medicine: 64.5%;
Dentistry: 60.6%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 75.6%.
Year: 2000-2001;
Law: 69.3%;
Medicine: 61.4%;
Dentistry: 62.5%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 74.5%.
Year: 2002-2003;
Law: 69.3%;
Medicine: 61.9%;
Dentistry: 60.4%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 73.7
Year: 2004-2005;
Law: 67.3
Medicine: 61.7
Dentistry: 597%;
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 72.9
Year: 2006-2007;
Law: 65.1
Medicine: 60.8
Dentistry: 58.2
Pool of potential applicants (bachelor's degree conferred): 72.2
Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.
Note: Comparable data on average enrollment by race/ethnicity were not
available for veterinary medicine programs. Data are for non-Hispanic
whites.
[End of figure]
Finding 2: Factors Affecting Cost: The Change to a More Hands-on,
Resource-Intensive Approach to Legal Education and Competition among
Schools for Higher Rankings Reportedly Have Affected Cost:
Officials from most ABA-accredited schools we interviewed reported that
changes in the approach to legal education have affected cost,
particularly in the areas of faculty and staff. These changes include:
* increased emphasis on hands-on clinical experiences, and smaller
skills-based courses;
* increased diversity of course offerings–e.g., international law and
environmental law; and;
* increased student support–e.g., academic support, career services,
and admissions support.
Officials at most of the ABA-accredited law schools we spoke with
and student representatives reported that schools compete to attract
students and faculty and to increase their U.S. News and
World Report ranking. This competition has had an impact on cost
because:
* Rankings are determined in part by such cost-related factors as per
student expenditures, student-faculty ratio, and library resources.
* According to law school officials, schools offer clinics and diverse
elective courses to compete for students.
* To attract the best faculty, school officials reported that they may
offer higher salaries.
Finding 2: Factors Affecting Cost: ABA Accreditation Is Reportedly Not
a Major Driver of Cost:
Officials from most ABA-accredited schools we spoke with reported that
ABA accreditation requirements were not a major driver of cost
increases in legal education.
Officials from more than half of the ABA-accredited schools we spoke
with stated they would meet or exceed some ABA accreditation standards
even if they were not required. School officials noted that the
standards often follow market trends and changing approaches to legal
education.
* For example, according to ABA data, student-faculty ratios are
generally lower than the ABA standards require (20:1).
* Officials from most of the schools we spoke to said they would offer
skills-based courses and clinical opportunities (which are required by
the ABA standards) in response to shifting expectations about the
experiences students will need to be successful in the legal field.
Officials from a few ABA-accredited schools noted major capital costs
that may be required to meet ABA accreditation standards, such as
library expansion, may be covered by endowment funds or alumni
donations.
However, accreditation may increase costs for a small number of
schools.
* Officials at one ABA-accredited school reported increasing spending
on bar exam preparation support in response to ABA concerns about its
bar passage rate.
* Officials at some ABA-accredited schools said that ABA accreditation
standards related to libraries may impose costs because they find the
standards do not clearly describe the required size and organization of
library collections.
* Officials at two of the three non-ABA accredited law schools stated
they would have to spend significant resources to become ABA-
accredited. [Footnote 4]
In some instances, accreditation standards may limit experimentation
with potentially lower-cost approaches. For example, officials at some
of the ABA-accredited and all of the non-ABA-accredited schools we
contacted said the standards could affect schools that wanted to take
steps such as:
* expanding the role of non-tenure track and adjunct faculty,
* developing predominantly electronic libraries, and,
* delivering courses online.
Finding 2: Factors Affecting Cost: Officials at Public Law Schools
Report That Decreased State Funding Has Contributed to Increased
Tuition and Fees:
Most public law school officials we spoke with emphasized recent
decreases in state funding as a contributor to rising tuition.
The tuition and fees at some public schools rival those of selective
private institutions. For example, in 2008, six public law schools had
resident tuition and fees greater than $30,000.
A limited number of public law schools have maintained relatively low
prices, but their tuition is increasing:
* In 2008, public law schools in the South had the lowest tuition and
fees, for both residents and nonresidents, while tuition was highest in
the Northeast.
* The average annual percentage increase in tuition was highest in the
West and in the South.
Finding 3: Minority Access to Law School: Acceptance Rates for Each
Racial/Ethnic Group Have Followed Similar Patterns since 2000, with
African Americans Having the Lowest Rates of Acceptance:
[Figure: line graph: refer to PDF for image]
Acceptance rate:
Year: 2000;
White: 75%;
Asian/Pacific Islander: 68%;
Hispanic: 54%;
African American: 44%.
Year: 2004;
White: 60%;
Asian/Pacific Islander: 56%;
Hispanic: 48%;
African American: 35%.
Year: 2008;
White: 73%;
Asian/Pacific Islander: 67%;
Hispanic: 57%;
African American: 42%.
Source: GAO analysis of Law School Admission Council data.
Note: The acceptance rate is the percentage of applicants in each group
who were accepted by at least one law school. During the time period
shown, the Law School Admission Council allowed applicants to select
only one racial/ethnic category.
[End of figure]
Finding 3: Minority Access to Law School: With a Few Exceptions, Law
School Officials Do Not Cite ABA Accreditation Standards as Having an
Impact on Minority Access at Their Schools:
Most law school officials, students, and minority student group
representatives we interviewed focused on issues such as differences in
LSAT scores, academic preparation, and professional contacts, rather
than accreditation standards, to explain minority access issues.
However, officials from some law schools reported that accreditation
standards may affect minority access. For example:
* An official at one ABA-accredited law school said the ABA’s standards
related to bar passage and admissions make schools less likely to admit
applicants with low LSAT scores because they put the schools at risk of
not meeting these standards. Officials at a few other ABA-accredited
schools said that the bar passage standard did not affect their own
admissions policies, but could affect access at less selective schools.
* Officials at a non-ABA-accredited school reported that seeking ABA
accreditation would require them to institute much stricter admissions
standards, to the potential disadvantage of minorities with lower
average LSAT scores.
Finding 3: Minority Access to Law School: A Variety of Elements
Contribute to the Strength of an Individual’s Application Package:
Officials at nearly all of the schools we spoke with said that they
consider a number of elements in an application package, including:
* LSAT score,
* Undergraduate GPA,
* Letters of recommendation, and,
* Personal statement.
Admission to law school depends, in part, on the strength of the
overall package.
Finding 3: Minority Access to Law School: Lower Average LSAT Scores and
Undergraduate GPAs May Have Negatively Affected Some African Americans
and Hispanics:
According to LSAC's analysis, African American and Hispanic law school
applicants had lower average LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs than
white and Asian/Pacific Islander applicants.
LSAC cautions that LSAT scores should not be the only admissions
criterion, and that scores are only a partial predictor of first-year
law school performance.
Some law school officials said that schools compete for minority
applicants with above-average LSAT scores.
However, according to representatives from LSAC, the ABA, some law
schools, and one minority student group, schools are reluctant to admit
applicants with lower LSAT scores because the median LSAT score is a
key factor in the U.S. News and World Report rankings.
Officials from a few schools noted that their reluctance to admit
applicants with lower undergraduate GPAs stems from a concern that
these students would be less able to compete academically in law
school.
Finding 3: Minority Access to Law School: Various Factors May Influence
Differences in LSAT Scores among Racial/Ethnic Groups:
Officials from law schools and LSAC and law students suggested a number
of reasons for the LSAT score gap:
* Differences in academic preparation throughout the educational
pipeline.
* Resources for preparation: African American and Hispanic students, a
higher proportion of whom come from low-income backgrounds compared
with whites, may be less able to afford to take LSAT prep courses or
time off to study for the LSAT.
* The broader pattern of racial/ethnic differences in standardized test
scores.
- The Higher Education Opportunity Act required Education to enter into
an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study
to identify any race, ethnicity, or gender bias in the content and
construction of standardized tests used for admission to institutions
of higher education.[Footnote 5] An interim report is due from the
academy in August 2010.
Finding 3: Minority Access to Law School: African American and Hispanic
Applicants May Have Fewer Professional Contacts to Draw Upon in the
Application Process:
Officials from two ABA-accredited law schools and some law students
said that African American and Hispanic law school applicants may be
disadvantaged because:
* Fewer applicants in these groups may have contact with lawyers or
other professionals who could advise them on aspects of the application
process, such as how to prepare for the LSAT.
* These applicants may have fewer contacts to write letters of
recommendation.
Finding 3: Minority Access to Law School: Law School Cost May Affect
Minority Students, but It Is Unclear How Cost Influences Students’
Decisions to Apply to and Enroll in Law School:
Some law school officials we interviewed stated that rising law school
tuition may have disproportionately affected minority students, a large
proportion of whom are low income.
Officials from two ABA-accredited schools and one minority law student
association we interviewed said that some minority students may have
faced challenges securing private or federal Graduate/Professional PLUS
loans because of poor credit or the lack of a cosigner.
Cost is one of a number of factors that may affect the decision to
apply to and enroll in law school. Because data are not readily
available on how potential applicants make these decisions, the impact
of cost on minority access is unclear.
Finding 3: Minority Access to Law School: The Percentage of Law Schools
Whose Tuition Can Be Fully Funded through Lower-Interest Stafford Loans
Has Decreased over Time:
[Figure: line graph: refer to PDF for image]
Percentage with tuition under Stafford limit:
Year: 1994-1995;
Public university (in-state tuition): 100%;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): 97.4%;
Private university: 80.4%.
Year: 22001-2002;
Public university (in-state tuition): 97.4%;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): 67.9%;
Private university: 18.3%.
Year: 2007-2008;
Public university (in-state tuition): 80.2%;
Public university (out-of-state tuition): 22.2%;
Private university: 10.7%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IPEDS data.
Note: The total Stafford loan limit for graduate students was $18,500
from 1994-1995 through 2006-2007, and $20,500 in 2007-2008.
[End of figure]
Finding 3: Minority Access to Law School: Law School Officials Reported
Various Efforts to Improve Diversity:
At some of the schools we contacted, officials said that they actively
recruit minority students, for example, by visiting universities with
high percentages of minorities and participating in summer institutes
to help minority students prepare for law school.
A few of the schools we contacted are involved in initiatives to help
address the pipeline issue, such as mentoring programs for minority or
low-income high school students.
Nearly all the schools we contacted have a variety of support services
for students once they enroll, such as academic support programs and
career counseling. Officials at a few schools said that these services
had expanded in recent years.
Officials from some public institutions reported that their efforts to
increase minority access are constrained by legal restrictions against
considering race in admissions.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the American Bar Association:
ABA:
Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice:
American Bar Association:
Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar:
Office of the Consultant on Legal Education to the American Bar
Association:
321 N. Clark Street:
Chicago, IL 60654-7598:
(312) 988-6738:
FAX: (312) 988-5681:
E-mail: legaled@abanet.org:
[hyperlink, http://www.abanetorg/legaled]
October 2, 2009:
Via Email and Via UPS Overnight:
George A. Scott:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
General Accountability Office:
441 G St., NW, Room 5970:
Washington, DC 20548:
RE: Draft Report: Issues Related to Law School Cost and Access (GAO-10-
20):
Dear Mr. Scott:
I am writing to provide comments from the American Bar Association
("ABA") Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (the
"Section") on the draft report, Issues Related to Law School Cost and
Access. First, let me commend you and your staff on the professionalism
with which you conducted the research and produced the report. In our
interactions, you were always thoughtful and respectful. AS a result of
these efforts, the Section believes the draft report is generally
accurate, balanced and fair. While we do not necessarily agree with all
of the reported comments by respondents, we see no material mistakes or
errors in the objective data and information reported. This is a
thorough and professional presentation.
The Section staff made every effort to cooperate fully and in a timely
fashion with your data requests and to provide other relevant
documentation. We believe we responded to your questions and presented
information and data to your staff demonstrating that, while there are
certain costs associated with accreditation (both direct costs and
compliance costs), those costs have been a de minimus factor regarding
the growth in the costs of legal education over the last twenty years.
We are pleased to see the conclusion stated on page 2 of Mr. Scott's
draft transmittal letter stating that "According to law school
officials, the move to a more hands-on, resource intensive approach to
legal education and competition among law schools for higher rankings
appear to be the main factors driving the cost of law school, while ABA
accreditation requirements appear to play a minor role". Your
conclusion, based upon the sampling done of law school deans and
others, replicates the conclusions reached by the Section in its own
study of law school costs conducted in 2002/03.
We were also pleased to see the statement that "Most law school
officials do not cite ABA accreditation standards as having an impact
on minority access at their schools." We believe that, in the context
of the report, this statement refers to the absence of a "negative"
impact on diversity efforts by law schools. The ABA Standards, of
course, encourage law schools to have a diverse student body, faculty
and staff. The data shows substantial growth in diversity of the
professorate and the number of deans of ABA-approved law schools over
the last eight years (2000-2008) and also shows growth, although
relatively slower, in minority enrollment during the same period (20.6%
vs. 21.9%).The findings in the report confirm the Section's conclusions
on the diversity issues.
I wish to express the appreciation of the Council and staff of the ABA
Section for a carefully and professionally done report. Thank you for
the opportunity to respond to it.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Hulett H. Askew:
Consultant on Legal Education:
cc: Jerome C. Hafter, Esq.
Honorable Christine M. Durham:
Henry F. White, Jr., Executive Director:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
Debra Prescott (Assistant Director) and Eve Weisberg (Analyst-in-
Charge) managed this assignment. Lauren Gilbertson and Perry Lusk made
significant contributions in all facets of the work. In addition,
Lawrance Evans, John Mingus, Dae Park, and Elizabeth Wood provided
methodological support; Carolyn Taylor provided subject matter
expertise; Craig Winslow provided legal assistance; Jessica Orr
provided writing assistance; and James Bennett developed graphics for
the report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 20 U.S.C. ß 1099b(j).
[2] Pub. L. No 110-315, sec. 952, § 3001(i), 122 Stat. 3078, 3473
(2008).
[3] 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(j). In 2007, we reported on Education’s process
for recognizing accrediting agencies and law school accreditation
issues. See GAO, Higher Education: Issues Related to Law School
Accreditation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-314]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2007).
[4] These schools are accredited by other accrediting bodies recognized
by Education.
[5] Pub. L. No. 110-315, § 1110, 122 Stat. 3078, 3496 (2008).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: