By: Zack Valdman Since the 2009-2010 admissions cycle, law school applications have been steadily decreasing or at best remaining the same each year. While the initial reduction in applicants may have been due in large part to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the lack of normalization to pre-2008 levels has worried countless law school admission officers.
In addition to the quantity problem law school admission offices are facing, a quality problem also exists with the applications. According to research done by Professor Ogden at the University of St. Louis: “33 percent of law school entrants had median LSAT scores of 160 or higher in 2013, compared with 40.8 percent in 2010 (the LSAT is scored on a scale between 120 and 180). Conversely, first-year students with scores of 149 or lower rose from 14.2 percent to 22.5 percent” (CBS News). With the rising cost of a legal education and the dearth of qualified law school applicants, it seems as though many law schools, especially lower tier schools, find themselves in a bind between a decrease in admissions requirements or fielding smaller class sizes in the future. With most deciding on the former, what this means for the legal profession in the future remains to be seen. On the bright side, law school enrollment seems to be stabilizing in law schools throughout the country. The precipitous drop in applicants has finally ceased in the past few years, with application numbers leveling out and even increasing slightly over the past year. With this, however, comes the question of whether this shift is a reversal of the bottoming out trend previously seen or the beginning of a new normal that law schools and the legal profession will simply have to adapt to. I believe that although law school numbers will not rebound to their pre-2008 financial crisis level, nevertheless law schools should begin to see a steady increase in applicants as the gloom and doom pessimism that has been associated with the legal profession for the past decade or so dies down while the legal job market improves. The legal profession is one that has withstood the test of time in the United States, and regardless of the fairly modern negativity towards the future in many circles, the profession, just like the law, is ever adept at adjusting and surviving even the most turbulent of times. This time is no different. Works Cited 1. http://www.nationaljurist.com/prelaw/why-flat-enrollment-great-news-law-schools 2. https://www.lawschooltransparency.com/reform/projects/Admissions-Tracker/?show=NatlApps 3. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/reduction_in_law_school_admissions_favor_applicants_in_several_ways 4. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/law-schools-are-admitting-students-they-would-have-rejected-years-ago/
0 Comments
By: Spencer Dirrig Conflict is brewing in Northeast Spain as the Catalonian government ramps up its defiance in the face of Spanish threats. The Catalonian Parliament voted on September 6th, 2017 to hold a referendum on Catalan independence. The referendum, scheduled for October 1st, would ask Catalonians whether they wish to remain part of the Spanish nation, or so they support independence and the creation of their own sovereign state.
Naturally, the government in Madrid is not pleased by this development. In fact, the Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, has publicly asked the constitutional court to nullify the vote and any subsequent result. However, in the face of threats from above, the Catalonians are standing firm. “With its own language, a recorded history of more than 1,000 years as a distinct region, and a population nearly as big as Switzerland's [7.5 million], Catalonia's claim to nationhood is serious” (BBC). According to BBC, “The pro-independence Catalan government has been preparing for the 1 October vote for months. In a bill announced on Wednesday it said a Yes vote would be followed within 48 hours by a declaration of independence.” In an attempt to quash the referendum, Spain’s Government is taking legal, political and financial action against the Catalan State. So, is the vote legal? BBC explains that “The constitutional court argues that Spain's constitution does not allow regions to unilaterally decide on sovereignty.” In this, the Spanish government sees their saving grace: a legal challenge to the legitimacy of any referendum vote. The Institut De Dret Públic (Institute of Public Law) at the University of Barcelona states that, for the Spanish Government, “the legal basis for its position is founded on the fact that the Constitution of 1978 does not provide expressly for a referendum of the characteristics noted above, in line with the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution.” Additionally, the central government “finds support for their position in the Judgment of the Constitutional Court (JCC) 103/2008, which seems to exclude the possibility of any popular inquiry regarding the identity and unity of a sovereign entity except a constitutional reform referendum involving all of the Spanish citizens.” While the State Courts have continuously sided with the Spanish Government’s interpretation of their Constitution, the Catalans reject their authority. The Catalan Government responded to the legal challenge with international law, minority rights protections and standard European precedent. Concerning International Law, the Catalonians turn to the United Nations for authority. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, states that “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Catalan President Carles Puigdemont affirmed his commitment to this principle in a statement declaring “The people of Catalonia are a sovereign subject and as such exercise the right to decide their political status freely and democratically” (Politico). The Spanish Government, as well as the national courts, contend that the Spanish Constitution must be the final authority on domestic affairs and subsequently claim that the rights of sovereign people apply to the entire Spanish populace, not just the Catalan nation. The Constitution of Spain, Section 2 states: “The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.” The government argues that the Catalonians have been granted the right to self government through their devolved state parliament but that power does not usurp the national parliament’s authority. The Catalan Government and their supporters also draw strength from similar popular independence referendums in western countries in the past twenty five years. The Catalans point to the Quebec Referendum for independence from Canada held in 1995 (Failed: 49.42% Yes, 50.58% No) and the more recent Scottish Independence Referendum held in 2015 (Failed: 44.70% Yes, 55.30% No). Though the legal and political battle playing out before the scheduled referendum is one with a long history, the actions taken by the Spanish Government to impose their authority have been astoundingly unjust and oppressive in nature. BBC reports that “Spain's national police force, the Guardia Civil, has been deployed to enforce the suspension of the referendum, searching for election materials.” These reports describe Mayors being “called in for questioning by prosecutors for agreeing to facilitate the vote locally.” Additionally, the Spanish Government is now threatening to withhold any and all public funding to Catalonia unless they cease the referendum. In an interview with Reuters news agency, the Prime Minister said, “These measures are to guarantee that not one euro will go toward financing illegal acts.” Citing evidence from numerous government reports, the European Free Alliance (an organization supporting self-determination across Europe) claims that the Spanish Government “criminalizes a former head of government for organizing a non-binding consultation; Urges police to confiscate ballot forms and ballot boxes; Raids newspapers with police forces; Prosecutes the speaker of the Catalan parliament for allowing a debate on the referendum; Limits freedom of speech and freedom of association; Shuts down websites with information on the referend; and Convokes mayors in front of a court for assisting in the organization of the referendum.” In regards to the will of the Catalonian people, these actions on behalf of the Spanish Government are simply reprehensible. The Spanish government is no longer “defending their constitution.” Government officials have employed autocratic methods of control and oppression to, ironically, defend “rule of law.” From a political standpoint, the Spaniards are playing right into the secessionist’s hands. We’ve seen in Scotland and Quebec that, when the federal government allows a region to determine their own future, they are far more likely to vote to reject independence. However, by denying Catalonians the right to vote, infringing on their right to free speech and withholding public funds, the Spanish government is igniting stronger secessionist sentiments. The government’s confiscation of ballots, raiding newspapers, prosecution of political activists and limits on the freedom of speech, have changed the game: this is no longer a legal disagreement: it is militant oppression of a free minority community. The Spanish government cannot logically employ tactics that so clearly violate the basic political rights of the Catalan minority while simultaneously demanding respect for the Spanish rule of law. This is no longer a domestic Spanish issue of authority as its membership within the European Union contradicts the government’s actions. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 11 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” The Spanish Government’s decision to combat the Catalonian Referendum have strictly violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights - directly interfering in the Catalan people’s expression of their political and cultural opinions. As such, the nations of the European Union and the United Nations must intervene in order to secure the political liberty of the Catalan minority in this political conflict before the situation escalates further. Works Cited Constitute. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "Catalonia Referendum: Separatists Rally around Mayors in Barcelona." BBC News. BBC, 16 Sept. 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "Catalonia Referendum: Spanish State Poised to Seize Catalan Finances." BBC News. BBC, 15 Sept. 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "EU Charter of Fundamental Rights." EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - European Commission. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "EUR-Lex Access to European Union Law." EUR-Lex - 12012P/TXT - EN - EUR-Lex. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "Home." Referèndum 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. Jackson, Patrick. "Catalonia's Collision Course with Madrid." BBC News. BBC, 16 Sept. 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. Torres, Diego. "Catalans Rile Madrid with ‘self-determination Law’." POLITICO. POLITICO, 05 July 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. Vintró, Joan. “LEGALITY AND THE REFERENDUM ON INDEPENDENCE IN CATALONIA .” idpbarcelona.net/docs/blog/legality_referendum.pdf. By: Eleni Christofides It is no secret that the United States leads the world in incarceration rates, particularly for non-violent offenders convicted on drug charges. This problem has a shocking trend nationwide, and separately in Ohio, women’s rate of incarceration grows as the men’s rate has fallen in recent years (1, 2). Since incarcerated women are struggling to support children, often as single parents, there is a unique strain on families as mothers go through the arduous court process, from arrest to pretrial stages to incarceration. In addition to the shame and confusion from facing criminal charges, court fees create another crippling pressure — especially when considering the trend of rising monetary bail, with average amounts increasing by more than $30,000 between the years of 1992 and 2006 (3). Particularly for low-income and indigent people, this is an oppressive cost that becomes its own punishment, before innocence or guilt has even been determined. This also means that many low-income parents who are unable to post bail are kept in custody before their trial, frequently for weeks or even months (3). For a family that is already struggling to make enough money to support themselves, that leads to weeks or months without being able to work, to provide childcare, or even see their families. It also makes it more difficult for a defendant to aid in the preparation of their own case, if they cannot reach their attorneys in a timely manner or visit their offices.
Modern-day bail practices affect certain groups more than others, entitling those who can afford the fee to pretrial release while those who cannot afford it are forced into dismal situations that can become prophetic for the outcomes of their cases. This system effectively creates a modern-day debtor's prison. Perhaps, some might say, if there is evidence that the current system is effective at protecting society, then the discrepancy is defensible and based in something other than discrimination. However, there is no evidence to suggest that monetary bail makes a community inherently safer (4). A possible remedy to this situation is the introduction of an alternative bail practice that does not disproportionately affect low-income families. It should also improve community safety while improving the likelihood that those facing trial return for their court date. This could include the use of a risk assessment tool, in order to determine the possibility that a suspect will pose a danger to the community or fail to appear. This would gauge risk through factors such as prior convictions or failures-to-appear, community ties and familial responsibilities, unemployment, history of violence, and severity of the current charges — all of which are supported by research as reliable (5, 6). For those rated as low-risk, they would be released on their own recognizance and notified as their court date approaches. This will allow them to maintain their responsibilities at home and make arrangements before standing trial. A formal risk evaluation system might still be vulnerable to discriminatory practices, but this simply means that a new system should be thoroughly researched before being instituted and should only include necessary factors in determining real risk. The struggle in instituting such a policy would no doubt include the appeal to public perception: while many polls show public support for community-based alternatives to bail (3), there will still be resistance to the idea of deferring a greater number of people to the community who are suspected of committing a crime. Citizens might reject the idea that current bail practices don’t make them safer and that an alternative could better balance public safety and the individual rights of justice-involved persons. This is why, as with most legal reform attempts, it is vital to educate the community on which policies work and which policies do not. Certain practices may give people peace of mind because they sound like the most “common sense” options, but policy must be driven by evidence-based practices if it is to be worthwhile. If the average person (and average voter) can understand which practices truly make them safer, rather than simply provide the illusion of safety, it is more likely that such reform can succeed. References: 1. The Sentencing Project. Fact Sheet: Incarcerated Women and Girls. November 2015. http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Incarcerated-Women-and-Girls.pdf 2. American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. A New Prisoners Report: How Does Ohio Compare? October 31, 2014. http://www.acluohio.org/blog-posts/a-new-prisoners-report-how-does-ohio-compare 3. Justice Policy Institute. Bail Fail: Why the US Should End the Practice of Using Money for Bail. September 2012. http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailfail.pdf 4. Prison Policy Initiative. Detaining the Poor: How money bail perpetuates an endless cycle of poverty and jail time. May 10, 2016. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/incomejails.html 5. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Ohio Risk Assessment System. January 2013. http://www.drc.ohio.gov/oras 6. Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. Creation and Validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System Final Report. July 2009. http://www.ocjs.ohio.gov/ORAS_FinalReport.pdf By: Casey Aguinaga On Monday September 18, a Kaplan Test Prep survey questioned law school admissions boards about potential changes in admissions. Answers from 128 schools showed a 9% uptick from 2016 to 25% of schools stating that they planned on eventually including the GRE in admissions decisions. The LSAT - which until this point had been the sole standardized law school admissions exam - tests individuals on intensive reading, writing, analytical and logical reasoning abilities that administrators of the exam insist are integral skillsets to survive the rigors of law school. On the other hand, the GRE encompasses a broad range of testing points, ranging from verbal and quantitative reasoning to critical thinking that most graduate schools use as an admissions requirement. This shift indicates attempts by law school admissions boards to diversify the range of applicants they get by including a more STEM-friendly and technologically accessible admissions test. Furthermore, it reveals a push from the legal education community to increase the pool of applicants during a time when application rates are stagnated.
However, doubt as to whether the GRE is an accurate predictor of law school success still remains since so few law schools have officially adopted this change. Among the schools that have begun implementing the GRE into their admissions processes are University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law, Harvard Law School, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and Georgetown Law School. Each schools’ dean of admissions maintains that including the GRE offers a more inclusive approach to filling spots in their respective schools. Opponents of adopting the GRE as a standard for admissions argue that the LSAT exclusively “tests the analytic and logical reasoning that are critical for law school success,” according to Elizabeth Olson’s New York Times article. However, only time and extensive quantitative research will reveal which – if either – of the standardized tests is a better predictor of law school success. Works Cited |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |