Download Full Volume - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.37Table 5Bar Pass RateBar Review Class ParticipationUDC-DCSL2007-2008Class ParticipantBar Pass RateFirst AttemptOverall 68.8%Bottom Half of Class 52.1%Source: UDC-DCSLNon ParticipantBar Pass RateFirst Attempt73.9%42.9%PercentageImprovement-5.10/09.2%E. Statistical TestsThe next step was to test whether the differences observed in the bar skillsclass was a statistically significant factor in the increased rate of bar passage.First, we tested how the course affected the class as a whole, and top half andbottom half of the class separately, again as measured by UDC-DCSL GPA usinga chi-square (X 2 ) test. 128We can reject the null hypothesis for the whole class. The increase in bar passageoverall from taking the bar skills review class was statistically significant(X 2 =l1.02, p=0.0004).129 We can also reject the null hypotheses for the bottomhalf of the class (X 2 =7.23, p=0.0269). For the top 50 percentile we cannot rejectthe null hypothesis (X 2 =1.25, p=0.5353).The results differed for the PTEX 2007-2008 period. For the class overall wecannot reject the null hypothesis (X 2 =1.86, p=0.3906). We also cannot reject thenull hypothesis for the bottom half of the class. Because of the few number of128 See, e.g., Jellum & Reeves, supra note 15, at 674 n.168 ("[The chi-square test determines] ifa difference between the percentages of individuals in two groups responding to the same treatment issignificant at a specified probability level. That is, how likely it is that the observed response-ratedifference could be due imply to chance or due to another plausible hypothesis."). The chi-squaretests used in this paper use a 2 x 3 matrix, with first time passage, eventual passage, and no passage, ascompared to whether the bar review class was taken or not. The null hypotheses are that the PTEXcourse did not improve the bar passage rate for either the top or bottom half of the class, or the classas a whole.129 Statistical significance shows how likely a result is due to chance. It does not necessarilymean there is a strong relationship. This paper follows the convention of researchers in this area, andelsewhere, of using a 5% significance level, meaning that the results have a 5% chance of not beingtrue.
38 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWobservations the Fisher's Exact Test was used for the bottom half of the class for2007-2008,130 resulting in p=0.8627, which was not statistically significant.F. LSA T Scores and Bar Passage RatesAs noted above, UDC-DCSL set a LSAT floor on admissions of 144 in the2003 academic year. 131 There was a substantial change between the admissionsof low LSA T score students over the study period. Prior to 2007, 70.3 % of UDCDCSL students had LSA T scores below 150. For students graduating in 2007 and2008 only 46.6% of the students had LSAT scores below 150. More significantly,5.,1 % of the students in the 2007 and 2008 graduating classes had an LSAT scorebelow 145. In contrast, 29.1 % of students who had a LSAT below 145 graduatedin the 2003-2006 period. Thus, the data does support the contention that UDCDCSL became more selective over the study period, particularly vis-a-vis at-riskstudents. For students with LSAT scores below 150 there was a 19.0% improvementin first time bar passage for students taking the PTEX practicum (Table 6).Table 6Bar Pass RateBar Review Class ParticipationUDC·DCSL2007·2008Class ParticipantNon ParticipantPercentageImprovementBelow 150 First TimeBar PassageSource: UDC-DCSL50.0%31.0% 19.0%In this case the null hypotheses was that the PTEX class did not improve barpassage rate for the bottom LSAT group. We can reject the null hypothesis forthe bar skills essay writing class for low LSA T students in the 2003-2008 period130 See, e.g., Eric Weisstein, Fischer's Exact Test, WOLFRAM MATHWORLD, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FishersExactTest.html (last updated Nov. 19,2010). The Freeman-Halton extensionof the Fisher Exact Probability Test was used. The Fisher Exact Test is another test used tocompare nonrandom associations of categorical variables. The test is used for small samples.131 See Gail L. Heriot & Christopher T. Wonnell, Standardized Tests Under the MagnifyingGlass: A Defense of the LSA T Against Recent Charges of Bias, 7 TEX. REV. L. & POL. 467, 475 (2003).(LSATscores are preferred over undergraduate GPAs because undergraduate GPAs are a function ofthe difficulty of undergraduate majors, institutions, and grade inflation),
Page 2: University of the District of Colum
Page 6 and 7: University of the District of Colum
Page 8 and 9: 2 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRWr OF COL
Page 10 and 11: 4 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 12 and 13: 6 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTIUcr OF CO
Page 14 and 15: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. UNIVERSIT
Page 16 and 17: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 11In resp
Page 18 and 19: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 13uated f
Page 20 and 21: YES WE CAN. PASS THE BAR.The Univer
Page 22 and 23: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 17C. Iden
Page 24 and 25: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 19The Pro
Page 26 and 27: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 21Accordi
Page 28 and 29: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 23calcula
Page 30 and 31: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 25The Ame
Page 32 and 33: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.ing the su
Page 34 and 35: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 29writing
Page 36 and 37: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 31tion, s
Page 38 and 39: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 33activit
Page 40 and 41: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.35Table 2B
Page 44 and 45: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 39(X 2 =4
Page 46 and 47: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.41ApPENDIX
Page 48 and 49: 44 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF C
Page 50 and 51: 46 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF C
Page 52 and 53: 48 UNIVEI~SITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 54 and 55: 50 UNIVm~SITY OF TilE DISTRICr (W C
Page 56 and 57: 52 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTIUCr OF CO
Page 58 and 59: 54 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICI' OF
Page 60 and 61: 56 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF C
Page 62 and 63: 58 UNIVEI~SITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF
Page 68 and 69: 64 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 70 and 71: 66 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICI' OF
Page 72 and 73: 68 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF C
Page 74 and 75: 70 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 76 and 77: 72 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 80 and 81: 76 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF C
Page 82 and 83: 78 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICI" OF
Page 84 and 85: 80 UNIVERSUY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 86 and 87: 82 UNIVERsrrv OF TilE DISTRICT OF C
Page 88 and 89: 84 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF C
Page 90 and 91: 86 UNIVEHSITY OF TIlE DISTHICr OF C
Page 92 and 93:
88 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE Disnucl' OF C
Page 94 and 95:
90 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF C
Page 96 and 97:
92 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DIS"IlUcr OF
Page 98 and 99:
94 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF C
Page 100 and 101:
96 UNIVERSITY OF TI IE DISTRICr OF
Page 102 and 103:
98 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF C
Page 104 and 105:
100 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
104 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF
Page 110 and 111:
106 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTIUCr OF C
Page 112 and 113:
108 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF C
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
112 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF C
Page 118 and 119:
A DISCUSSION ON THE DISTRICT OF COL
Page 120 and 121:
IGNORING THE LAW FOR EXPEDIENCY'S S
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
134 UNIVEI{SITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 138 and 139:
136 UNIVEI~SITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF
Page 140 and 141:
138 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 142 and 143:
140 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRIC(, OF
Page 144 and 145:
142 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICf OF
Page 146 and 147:
144 UNIVEHSITY OF TI IE DISTRICT OF
Page 148 and 149:
146 UNIVEI~SITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
152 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF
Page 156 and 157:
154 UNIVEI~SITY OF THE DlsTRlcr OF
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
158 UNIVEH.srrv OF THE DISTRICr OF
Page 162 and 163:
160 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTIUcr OF
Page 164 and 165:
162 UNIVERSITY OF TilE Dls'nucr OF
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
166 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF C
Page 170 and 171:
168 UNIVERSfrY OF HIE DISTRICr OF C
Page 172 and 173:
170 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICt' OF
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
174 UNIVEI{SITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
178 UNIVEltSl'l'V OF THE DISTIUCI'
Page 182 and 183:
180 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT (W
Page 184 and 185:
182 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
188 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICt' OF
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
JURISPRUDENCE FOR A DIGITAL AGE: FR
Page 196 and 197:
JURISPRUDENCE FOR A DIGITAL AGE 195
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
THE CHILD ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
THE CHILD ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECfION
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS:A CASE A
Page 228 and 229:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 227under
Page 230 and 231:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 229ual,
Page 232 and 233:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 231Day c
Page 234 and 235:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 233who,
Page 236 and 237:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 235sions
Page 238 and 239:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 237Omars
Page 240 and 241:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 239ment.
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
244 UNIVERSfl"Y OF TIlE DISTRICT OF
Page 246 and 247:
246 UNIVI ~ I(SITY 01 ' TI l E DIST
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
256 UNIVERSITY OF nlE DIS'IlUCT OF
Page 258 and 259:
258 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTIUcr OF
Page 260:
show all

Download Full Volume - UDC Law Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?