Search

The following report of descriptive statistics addresses the matriculating class of 2001-2007 according to their Law School Admission Council (LSAC) index. Generally, this report will offer information on the first time bar and ultimate performance on the Bar Exam of TMSL students. In addition, graduating GPA according to the LSAC index will also be reported. More specifically, the report can be used to address the following research questions: 1. What are the Bar passing percentages of a normal sample of the matriculating classes of 2001-2007 according to their LSAC index and their first-time and ultimate performance on the bar examination? a. What was the lowest LSAC index that produced a 75% First Time Bar Passing Rate? 2. What are the descriptive statistics of a normal sample of the matriculating classes of 2001-2007 according to their LSAC index and their graduating GPA? a. What percentage of students admitted with an index of below 2.5 finished with a graduating GPA of less than 2.5? 3. What is the statistical relationship between below 2.5 index scores and below 2.5 graduates to the Bar Passage? LSAC Index Scores are appended.

The following report gives the statistical findings of the July 2010 TMSL Bar results. Procedures: Data is pre-existing and was given to the Evaluator by email from the Registrar and Dean. Statistical analyses were run using SPSS 17 to address the following research questions: 1. What are the statistical descriptors of the July 2010 overall TMSL Bar students? a. What was the difference in scoring of the overall versus the First-Time Bar students? 2. What is the relationship of the subcategories, Times Taken the Bar, and Final Bar Score for the July 2010 TMSL Bar test takers? 3. What five subcategories were the best predictors of the July 2010 TMSL overall Bar test scores? 4. What were the statistical descriptors of the July 2010 TMSL First-Time Bar students (FTBs)? a. What was the difference in scoring of the Overall versus the First-Time Bar students? 5. What is the relationship of the subcategories and the Final Bar Score for the TMSL FTBs? 6. What five subcategories were the best Predictors of the July 2010 TMSL Bar Test Scores for the FTBs? Additional data is provided in six appendixes.

The following report gives the statistical findings of the 2010 Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL) Texas Bar results. This data was pre-existing and was given to the Evaluator by email from the Dean. Then, in-depth statistical analyses were run using the SPSS 17 to address the following questions: 1. What are the statistical descriptors of the February 2010 TMSL Bar students? 2. What is the relationship of the subcategories, Times Taken the Bar, and Final Bar Score in the February 2010 TMSL Bar test takers? 3. What subcategory served as the best Predictor of the February 2010 TMSL Bar test taking students to their Final Bar Score? After the analyses, a findings and summary section is written at the end of this report/study addressing each of the research questions. Theoretically, the Texas Bar Examination's educational components could be found by further evaluating the learning objectives that were tested upon in the subcategories. If the goal is to address curricula initiatives that affect the Texas Bar Exam, then further study of those objectives should be done. This high stakes test is very well designed and could serve as a baseline for further TMSL educational studies. The high effect size yields statistically significant results with a very low N. Therefore, it is suggested that learning initiatives based on objectives be measured (summative) by analyzing changes in those subcategories of the Texas Bar.

The following report gives descriptive and correlational statistical findings of the Grade Point Averages (GPAs) of the February 2010 and July 2009 TMSL First Time Texas Bar Test Takers to their TMSL Final GPA. Data was pre-existing and was given to the Evaluator by email from the Dean and Registrar. Statistical analyses were run using SPSS 17 to address the following questions: 1) What are the statistical descriptors of the first-time February 2010 and July 2009 TMSL Bar students' GPAs in conjunction with their Bar scores? and 2) What is the relationship of the Final GPA of the First Time Bar Test Takers and their GPAs? After the presentation of the data findings, a summary section is written at the end of this report/study addressing the above research questions.

The following report of descriptive statistics gives the passing percentages of the Bar examination for the Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL) for the calendar years of 2005-2009. A Five Year Analysis is given for the entire period, followed by Annual Analyses. This report is meant to serve as a continual update of the progress of the Law School in its effort to satisfy American Bar Association (ABA) Accreditation standards. Data collection and analysis for this report was described in the original report dated April 12, 2010. No new procedures were included. Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 17) and all data was reported in its original format. Furthermore, the previous and updated short summaries are included on each data page to further highlight the information given and to specifically address the question of percentage passing rate and percentage of reporting Pass/Fail.

The following report of descriptive/inferential statistics describes the population of students receiving the Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL) scholarship versus those who do not and their relationship with student Bar Passing rate and GPA. The timeline observed are the calendar years of 2005-2009. Data collection and analysis for this report was as follows: Step 1) Student data on the Bar Examination was entered into the University Database by the TMSL Registrar and a query was ran from BANNER giving Name, PASS/FAIL information, and date each student took the Bar from 2005-2009. Step 2) A separate spreadsheet was created containing only pertinent information for the Five Year Study (Scholarship Received, Semester/Year). Step 3) Students were labeled in the spreadsheet created (referred in step 2) according to the year and semester they graduated and then either a P -- Passing score on the Bar Examination (675 and above), F -- Failing the Bar Examination (674 and below), and U -- Unknown status of student Bar Examination Outcome (may not have taken, out of state non reporting, etc.) Step 4) the spreadsheet was given to the Asst. Dean of Academic Affairs and information concerning students receiving the TMSL scholarship were given (Y/N). Step 5) the spreadsheet was given back to the Evaluator and a statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 17) and all data was reported in its original format. Furthermore, short summaries are given after each data table.

The following report of descriptive statistics gives the passing percentages of the Bar examination for the Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL) for the calendar years of 2005-2009. A Five Year Analysis is given for the entire period, followed by a Three Year Analysis of years 2005-2007, 2006-2008, and 2007-2009. In addition, an Annual Analysis of the same data is given. Data collection and analysis for this report was as follows: Step 1) Student data on the Bar Examination was entered into the University Database by the TMSL Registrar and a query was ran from BANNER giving Name, PASS/FAIL information, and date each student took the Bar from 2005-2009. Step 2) A separate spreadsheet was created containing only pertinent information for the Five Year Study (Passing Score, Year). Step 3) Students were labeled in the spreadsheet created (referred in step 2) according to the year and semester they graduated and then either a P -- Passing score on the Bar Examination (675 and above), F -- Failing the Bar Examination (674 and below), and U -- Unknown status of student Bar Examination Outcome (may not have taken, out of state non reporting, etc.) Step 4) the spreadsheet was given to the Asst. Dean of Academic Support and Out of State Bar examinees Pass/Fail information was included after personal contact and official documentation. Step 5) the spreadsheet was given back to Program Coordinator and a statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 17) and all data was reported in its original format. Furthermore, short summaries are given on each data page to further highlight the information given and to specifically address the question of percentage passing rate and percentage of reporting Pass/Fail.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) National Longitudinal Study was undertaken primarily in response to rumors and anecdotal reports suggesting bar passage rates were so low among examinees of color that potential applicants were questioning the wisdom of investing the time and resources necessary to obtain a legal education. This study presents national longitudinal bar passage data gathered from the class that started law school in fall 1991. Data provided by students, their law schools, and state boards of bar examiners over a 5-year period are included in the summaries and analyses in the report. Summary statistics, graphical illustrations, and mathematical models were used to analyze and present the data. The eventual bar passage rate for all study participants was 94.8% (21,886 of 23,086). The eventual passage rate for all participants of color was 84.7%. The passage rate was lowest for African Americans (77.6%, or 1,062 of 1,368) and highest for White participants (96.7% or 18,664 of 19,285). Eventual pass rates were substantially higher than initial pass rates, and there were no differences in bar passage rate between men and women. Both law school grade point average and Law School Admission Test (LSAT) scores were the strongest predictors of bar examination passage for all groups studied. Although students of color entered law school with academic credentials, as measured by undergraduate grade point average and LSAT scores that were significantly lower than those of white students, their eventual bar passage rates justified admission practices that look beyond those measures. Five appendixes contain forms used to conduct the survey, some data analysis, and an explanation of the use of log odds. (Contains 9 figures and 39 tables.) (SLD)

The following report of descriptive statistics gives the passing percentages of the Bar examination for the Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL) for the calendar years of 2005-2009. A Five Year Analysis is given for the entire period, followed by Annual Analysis of the same data. This report is meant to serve as a continual update of the progress of the Law School in its effort to satisfy American Bar Association (ABA) Accreditation standards. Data collection and analysis for this report was described in the original report dated April 12, 2010. No new procedures were included. Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 17) and all data was reported in its original format. Furthermore, the previous and updated short summaries are included on each data page to further highlight the information given and to specifically address the question of percentage passing rate and percentage of reporting Pass/Fail.

The State Board of Law Examiners is responsible for administering bar examinations in the State of Maryland, investigating the legal competence and character and fitness of persons who seek a license to practice law in the courts of the State, and recommending to the Court of Appeals those candidates qualified for admission to the Maryland Bar. However, the board does not handle disciplinary matters related to attorneys. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, which is not subject to the Maryland Program Evaluation Act, is responsible for reviewing attorney conduct and overseeing attorney disciplinary matters.

The relationship between scores on a typical bar exam and the ability to practice law was investigated with 485 applicants who took the bar exam and a two day performance test involving basic oral and written legal tasks. Results indicated the two types of measures assessed similar but not identical skills. (Author)