Autumn leaves

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2010/2010–2011

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

Table of Contents

Greetings from the Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Committee Reports 2009–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Committee Reports 2010–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Board of Trustees Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Evaluation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

LLM Expanded Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Global Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

DiscoverLaw.org. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Forum Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Electronic Services to Law School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

FlexApp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

LSAT Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Race/Ethnicity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Social Science Research Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Financial Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Selected Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Legal Education Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Member Law Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Board of Trustees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Committee Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

LSAC Principal Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

© 2012 by Law School Admission Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

Greetings from the Chair

This has been a time of challenge and great change—at law schools, LSAC, and nearly everywhere else. With the decline of the economy, budgets have tightened, applications have dropped, and candidates have faced increased financial uncertainty. LSAC has worked hard to keep the admission process humming and schools and candidates in communication. It has continued to subsidize school attendance at forums—in fact, it’s added a very successful Canadian forum—and helped ensure that admission officers can attend the annual meeting, probably the most important opportunity for professional development and education. Progress hasn’t been as smooth as hoped. Law school budgets are still under pressure, test numbers are down by double-digits, and LSAC itself has had to continue to dip into its reserves. Still, our dedicated and innovative volunteers have brought much energy and fresh ideas to our fast-changing field. Together with the hard-working staff at Newtown, they have implemented several new programs in a surprisingly short time and continued to press forward with many established initiatives. It’s amazing how much energy, smarts, and goodwill LSAC has to draw on. Evaluations was the first big new project. It aimed to complement and regularize some of the existing letter of recommendation process. By making it easier and less time-consuming both for evaluators to provide information and admission officers to see and understand it, it tried to bring more information about the candidate into the admission process. That information, it was hoped, would be largely different from what LSAC had provided before. It covers a wide range of candidate attributes, which admission officers told LSAC was important for legal education— attributes like honesty, integrity, leadership, and ability to work with others. The information, while not scored in any traditional way, is comparative, which facilitates judgments across a wide range of talents, hopefully leading to more diversity and vibrancy in the admitted class. Evaluations appeals primarily, of course, to those interested in looking beyond the “numbers” and to candidates who think they may bring to a class something the numbers themselves don’t well reflect. If that helps lessen today’s worrying over-reliance on test scores, so much the better. FlexApp ™ was the next. It allows a school to create its own electronic application by combining common and school-specific questions. The common questions are based on a thorough review by volunteers and staff of existing applications. They reflect those questions most schools already ask—ones about contact information, demographics, educational background, and employment, for example. Schools do not, of course, have to include any of these questions in their e-app, although most schools will want to include many of them. Using a common question on the e-app provides two advantages—the work has already been done for the school, and information will automatically flow to that school’s e-app if an applicant has already answered that particular question for another application. These advantages ease the gathering of information for both the school and the applicant. Schools may also create their own school-specific questions—as many as they wish. They can then customize the order of all their questions—both common and school- specific—to appear on their e-app in a specific order. (And each school can have up to nine different e-apps for different programs!) This current admissions year shows the great opportunity FlexApp has given schools to present themselves creatively and distinctively.

Dan Ortiz Chair, LSAC Board of Trustees (2009–2011) John Allen Love Professor of Law and Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law University of Virginia School of Law

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

In addition, LSAC carried forward on its global outreach program—stretching its flag to several new countries and many new schools, particularly in India—and consolidated two programs long in development—DiscoverLaw.org ™ and the Skills Readiness Inventory. The former aims to attract to law members of groups historically underrepresented; the latter to help people in the pipeline to better acquire the skills necessary for law school and a successful career. It is hoped that both will create more diverse and better prepared law school classes and, in the long run, help the profession better serve those in need. Without both our amazing volunteers and committed staff at Newtown, none of this would have happened. The leadership in Newtown and of LSAC’s many committees, work groups, and task forces, however, deserves special thanks, particularly Dan Bernstine. He provided much of the gumption and imagination that made these initiatives succeed. Because of the continuing economic downturn and change in regulatory environment, LSAC is now facing greater uncertainty and greater challenges than ever before. I have no doubt that under Dan’s leadership it will overcome them. Luckily, Steve Willborn, LSAC’s new chair, is equally entrepreneurial, imaginative, and energetic. I wish them both luck as they move the organization forward.

3

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

Committee Reports | 2009–2010

SERVICES AND PROGRAMS

The Services and Programs Committee oversaw the development of the new LSAC Evaluation Service, the enhanced services for LLM applicants and law schools, the activities of the Financial Aid Advisory Group, and the revisions to the Statement of Good Admission and Financial Aid Practices . It hosted “sound off” events at selected LSAC forums, and discussed moving to a more common electronic application. Additional recommendations to the Board: Fund summer workshops and regional outreach grants; donate to the National Mock Trial Championship; continue to subsidize registration fees for one representative from each law school for the annual meeting; delay the release of personally identifiable information on applicants holding multiple deposits until May 15; change index reporting for applicants with degrees from international schools or ungraded US undergraduate schools; discontinue charges for the use of CRS; use the highest score in Official Guide grids and in the LSAC data search; and discontinue duplicate LSAT accommodations packets sent to a law school. The Data Review Work Group: This group advised on ways to enhance the reports provided by LSAC to law schools, and it encouraged online availability of those reports. The Work Group also continued developing a content guide that would enhance effective use of the data that LSAC provides. National Recruitment Calendar Subcommittee: This group, composed of prelaw advisors and law school representatives, discussed ways to encourage coordination of recruiting events throughout the country.

5

DIVERSITY COMMITTEE

The Diversity Committee pursued its agenda of increasing the numbers of persons from underrepresented minority groups in legal education and the legal profession. The focus was to improve and enhance existing initiatives, and also to create new ones. Highlights of the 2009–2010 year include the following. DiscoverLaw.org: The interactive website leveraged social networking and other technology to engage and educate students about law school and the legal profession. An information hub answered students’ questions about legal careers; offered access to admission experts who answered questions about becoming a lawyer; provided an inspirational e-community that shared real-life success stories; gave updates about the latest news, resources, and events; and scheduled podcasts and webinars on topics designed to assist students in becoming successful law school applicants, matriculants, and graduates. Twenty campus coordinators were trained and hired to promote awareness of the DiscoverLaw.org campaign, which was reflected in the increased number of site registrants. (For information about DiscoverLaw.org’s pilot regions, see page 19.) October 2009 saw the highest number of registrants in any month since the campaign began in 2008. In February 2010, a new record was set.

Other noteworthy highlights of the campaign:

• More than 120 LSAC-member schools participated in DiscoverLaw.org Months in 2009–2010.

• More than 68,000 unique visitors went to the website as of March 31, 2010.

• 71 percent of all DiscoverLaw registrants were undergraduate or high school students.

• 70 percent of all DiscoverLaw registrants came from diverse populations.

Diversity Matters Award: The first Diversity Matters Awards were presented at the 2010 LSAC Annual Meeting and Educational Conference. This newly instituted award recognized those LSAC- member law schools that have demonstrated the highest levels of outreach efforts to racially and ethnically diverse students. DiscoverLaw.org PLUS Programs: In 2009–2010, three new programs were chosen from a very competitive pool of proposals submitted: University of Baltimore School of Law, Ohio Northern University—Claude W. Pettit College of Law, and The University of New Mexico School of Law. Each program received a grant of up to $100,000 a year for three years. Academic Assistance Workshop: In 2010, four one-day topical workshops were conducted. They included Teaching 21st Century Students with Technology (in May 2010 at Florida Coastal), Learning How to Counsel Students (in June 2010 at Elon), Newcomers Workshop (in August at Western State), and Creating and Maintaining a Successful Bar Preparation/Support Program (in September at McGeorge).

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

DIVERSITY COMMITTEE (CONTINUED)

Black and Latino Applicant Study: An LSAC institutional researcher completed a study of African American/Black and Hispanic/Latino applicants who were not admitted to law school to find out why they did or did not reapply in a subsequent year. For those who chose not to apply, the survey was designed to find out what influenced their original decision to apply and what they chose professionally or educationally instead. The goal of the study was to help Black and Latino applicants focus their application choices and avoid unnecessary expenditures of time and money. The findings were published on LSAC.org.

HACU/HBCU Forum Subsidies: A five-year analysis of utilization and costs of subsidies provided to HACU and HBCU institutions was provided to the subcommittee.

LGBT Efforts: Preproduction began on a new video to address LGBT issues and concerns. This new video was designed to replace the previous LGBT video, Outlooks . The video was to be completed in time for the fall recruitment forums. The LGBT Subcommittee moved the survey portion of the Out and In brochure to the diversity section of LSAC.org, allowing for quicker and more frequent updates.

Regional Outreach Grants: Outreach grants supported recruitment events in Nova Scotia, Canada; Chicago, Illinois; and Tulsa, Oklahoma.

NJ LEEP and LSAC’s Law-Related High School Program: LSAC contracted with NJ LEEP to bring its successful model—developed for Seton Hall University in Newark—to Trenton and Camden. The partnership was designed to provide a full year of law-related education for students and professional development for teachers at Trenton Central High School West.

7

FINANCE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Financial Matters: The Committee recommended a proposal—which was approved by the Board— to raise candidate service fees by a three-year average of the Consumer Price Index for Services (CPI-S) rather than the previous method of using the annual CPI-S, which was LSAC’s practice since 2004. The committee reviewed the FY2011 budget and recommended its approval by the Board. The committee began a “cost exercise” to try to estimate the revenues and expenses from the many activities of LSAC. Legal Matters: The Committee continued to monitor a number of legal issues, including LSAC’s data-release policy, data security and privacy issues, test-taker policies, intellectual property, and a review of IRS Form 990. The Chairs of the Audit Committee, Misconduct and Irregularities Subcommittee, and Investment Policy Oversight Group met with the Finance and Legal Affairs Committee and provided updates on each group’s activities.

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

TEST DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

A summary of the key issues considered by the Committee is provided below.

Updates to the Validity Studies: The Committee discussed and made recommendations to staff regarding the implementation of corrections to the correlation coefficients that would address the effects of range restriction. The typical range of LSAT scores among members of an entering law school class has been shrinking. With regard to the LSAT Correlation Studies, this trend has led to a phenomenon known as the restriction of range effect, wherein the correlation calculated between two variables (e.g., LSAT and first-year average) is suppressed because of a lack of variability for one or both of the variables. The proper education of admission professionals to accompany such a change was also a component of these discussions. Funding for Psychometric Research Consultants and Summer Interns: The Committee recommended that the LSAC Board of Trustees approve the replenishment of funds to support external researchers to consult onsite with LSAC researchers on a regular basis. They also recommended the replenishment of funding for psychometric research summer interns for the summers of 2010 and 2011. Ongoing Projects: The Committee received regular reports and provided its input on ongoing work being carried out by LSAC staff. Areas included global issues, test security, the Skills Readiness Inventory, the Evaluation Service, development of the LSAT Handbook , revisions to registrant and test-taker racial/ethnic category choices, and collaborative research efforts with the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). Grants Subcommittee Matters: The Committee considered requests from the Grants Subcommittee and, where appropriate, made recommendations to the LSAC Board of Trustees for action. Issues included a request to appoint a selection committee to determine the Shelton Prize recipient rather than relying on Grants Subcommittee members, as well as several requested revisions to the Subcommittee’s funding guidelines that would bring the Subcommittee in line with National Science Foundation (NSF) guidelines. Research Proposals: Through the work of the Grants Subcommittee, the Committee considered 19 proposals for research funding. Three proposals were funded and two were returned to the researchers with advice to revise and resubmit their proposals. The Committee was responsible for the final funding decision for two of these proposals since the requested amounts were in excess of the Grants Subcommittee’s funding limit. Of these two, the Committee declined to fund one and will gather additional information from the principal investigators of the second before making a final funding recommendation to the LSAC Board of Trustees. Update to the Committee Description: The Committee recommended revisions to the committee description in order to provide a better reflection of its current role and activities.

.

9

Committee Reports | 2010–2011

SERVICES AND PROGRAMS

The Services and Programs Committee focus on LSAC data reports, technology services, new services, and many other issues of interest to law schools during the year. Following are some highlights of actions taken by the Committee. Forums: February forums were discontinued; the Los Angeles and Houston forums were repeated in the fall of 2010, the Chicago and Bay Area forums were planned for the summer of 2011, Bay Area forums were to be held on Saturday beginning in 2011, and the Texas forum was to be held in Houston henceforth. LSAC planned to support a Canadian forum each year beginning in 2010.

Data Review Work Group: This group completed its project, which resulted in both a binder and an online resource for admission officers to explore how to use LSAC data effectively.

Additional Recommendations: The Committee recommended the continuation of registration fee subsidies to one representative from each law school for the annual meeting, changes to index reporting for applicants with degrees from international schools or ungraded US undergraduate schools, use of the highest LSAT score in Official Guide grids and in the LSAC data search, use of a common dean’s certification form as an option for schools requiring the document, and employing a consultant to present financial aid workshops at forums and to be available at an information table during forums. The Committee continued to monitor the new LSAC Evaluation Service and recommend changes to account creation for evaluators and additional questions about the relationship between the applicant and the evaluator, recommended more topics specifically related to LLM admission professionals at LSAC educational workshops, oversaw the activities of the Financial Aid Advisory Group, recommended a new service to provide contact information to law schools for applicants who open but do not submit electronic applications, approved broadening the sources of letters of recommendation to include online credential services and university letter services, continued hosting “sound off” events at selected LSAC forums, and guided LSAC in the implementation of FlexApp. National Recruitment Calendar Subcommittee: This group, composed of prelaw advisors and law school representatives, met to discuss ways to encourage coordination of recruiting events throughout the country.

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

DIVERSITY COMMITTEE

The Committee continued its focus on improving and enhancing existing initiatives, in addition to creating new ones.

Prep 2011: This day and one-half workshop for prelaw advisors from HACU, HBCU, and Tribal Colleges was held in Orlando, Florida, January 23–25, 2011. Approximately 50 prelaw advisors convened at Florida A&M University College of Law to learn about LSAC programs and services as well as other diversity-related topics to assist them with advising their diverse students interested in a legal education. DiscoverLaw.org Prelaw Undergraduate Scholars Programs (DLPP, formerly PLUS): Georgia State University College of Law and University of Missouri—Kansas City School of Law were selected from a very competitive pool of proposals submitted. The chosen schools each received a maximum grant of $100,000 a year for three years. A total of five programs is expected to be in place by the summer of 2011. LSAC Diversity Video Products: In cooperation with the LSAC Communications group, new diversity-related videos were produced. The videos include the forum workshop introduction video, videos targeted to LGBT students, and profiles of diverse students. The videos were to be featured on DiscoverLaw.org. HACU/HBCU Forum Subsidies: These subsidies are designed to increase participation and forum attendance by students from HACU, HBCU, and Native American colleges. After reviewing the five- year spending analysis, and in an effort to simplify and expedite the application process, LSAC will award each eligible HACU, HBCU, and Native American institution a per diem based on the city where the forum is held. Legal Outreach Program: A two-year grant of (up to) $45,000 per year was awarded to the Legal Outreach Program for expansion of its pipeline initiative.

11

FINANCE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Financial Matters: At its fall meeting and as a follow-up to the cost exercise that began last year, the Committee conducted a general discussion of the services that LSAC currently provides at no charge. Under consideration was which charges might be imposed on either the candidates or the law schools if LSAC decides to disaggregate some of those services. In addition, the Committee and LSAC staff worked together to determine a fee proposal option to present to the Board. The proposed FY2012 budget was discussed, and the Committee recommended its approval by the Board. Legal Matters: The Committee considered legal issues related to state legislative initiatives. The Committee also continued discussion of test security issues, incomplete e-apps, and the development of the Committee charter. The Committee heard reports from the Audit Committee, the Misconduct and Irregularities Subcommittee, and the Investment Policy Oversight Group.

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

TEST DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

LSAC Products and Services: The Committee discussed LSAC products and services that had been previously introduced or were currently being developed or envisioned, providing input and suggestions. The possible development of an online LSAT preparation tool was discussed. Test Security: The Committee received updates on test-security procedures being implemented for the LSAT, as well as the types of test-security cases being investigated. Potential revisions to the current test-security procedures were also discussed. The Committee recommended Board approval of two proposed policy changes intended to enhance test security: (1) test takers with a reportable score of 180 be barred from repeating the test, and (2) approval of exceptions to the limitation of taking no more than three tests in two years be shifted from the law schools to LSAC. Ongoing Projects: The Committee received reports and provided input on global issues, the Skills Readiness Inventory, the Evaluation Service, admission-model research, standardized interviews, LSAT validity beyond the first year of law school, and collaborative research efforts with the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI)—all ongoing work carried out by LSAC staff. Research Proposal: The Committee considered and recommended Board approval of a funding request by Bernard P. Veldkamp and Cees A. W. Glas of the University of Twente for their research project titled Data Mining Applied to Testlet Response Modeling . The Board concurred with the committee recommendation and granted funding of this project. Research: The research activities of LSAC staff and external researchers resulted in the Committee’s approval of seven reports for publication. Through the work of the Grants Subcommittee, the Committee considered six full proposals for research funding and one request for additional funding of a previously funded research project. One full proposal and the request for additional funding were granted, and two proposals were returned to the researchers with advice to revise and resubmit them.

13

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

Board of Trustees Composition

Following a two-year-long examination and consideration of governance issues, the LSAC Board of Trustee’s Governance Work Group proposed amendments to the bylaws (with conforming amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation) in May 2011 to make the Audit and Investment Committees Board committees. The chairs of these Board committees are voting members of the Board. The LSAC chair will appoint the chair and members of the Audit and Investment Committees, subject to the full Board’s confirmation of these appointments. This addition of two new voting members brought the total number on the Board of Trustees to 20.

15

Evaluation Service

In August 2010, LSAC launched the Evaluation Service for law school applicants. The service, which is adjunct to, but separate from, the Letter of Recommendation Service, was designed to give recommenders an additional tool to assess whether an applicant is a good fit for law school and the legal profession. The Evaluation Service includes online-only ratings of 30 individual noncognitive attributes and skills in six categories, including

• intellectual skill;

• personal qualities;

• integrity and honesty;

• communication;

• task management; and

• working with others.

Schools can choose any combination of evaluations and letters of recommendation that they may wish to require or accept—up to four letters and four evaluations per applicant. For the 2011 application year, from August 2010 to August 2011, 131 schools accepted evaluations through the LSAC Evaluation Service. More than 45,000 evaluations were submitted by evaluators during this same time period.

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

LLM Expanded Services

In the spring and summer of 2011, LSAC rolled out an array of expanded services designed to support future LLM students and law schools from the time potential applicants begin their school search through their matriculation.

The services, located through a portal on LSAC.org’s homepage, include

• an online database of LLM programs, searchable alphabetically, geographically, or by area of interest;

• an LLM Letter of Recommendation Service;

• a transcript authentication and evaluation service;

• integrated online applications;

• law school access to applicant files;

• potential for comprehensive data gathering and reporting on the full scope of LLM/graduate law programs in the United States; and

• a candidate referral service that invites potential applicants to provide information about their background, interests, and law school preferences so that law schools may reach out to them.

17

Global Initiatives

As of May 2011, more than 30 law colleges in India had adopted the LSAT—India ™ as one admission criterion for their 2011 applicants. Among them are the IIT Kharagpur’s Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law (the only law school run by an Indian Institute of Technology) and Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) in Sonipat. Some others are UPES—Dehradun, KLE Society’s Law College—Bangalore, and JSS Law College—Mysore. LSAT—India was administered for LSAC by Pearson Vue, which has a satellite office in India. LSAC’s six-year project with the National Institute of Magistracy (NIM) in Romania came to a close in 2001. NIM is a branch of the Ministry of Justice that selects and trains lawyers seeking to become judges and prosecutors in Romania. This project helped NIM develop its own Romanian-language test of critical-thinking skills. It also gave LSAC a good source of data about the translatability of LSAT questions. In China, Peking University School of Transnational Law, a new graduate-level, English-language law school in that country, began in 2010 to use the LSAT (without the writing sample or unscored section) for admission purposes. LSAC began working to identify other Chinese law schools that may have interest in using the test as well.

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

DiscoverLaw.Org

LSAC expanded from the intitial four pilot regions (Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Houston, and Raleigh-Durham/Chapel Hill) to eight. In 2010, Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and Philadelphia began participation in the intensive DiscoverLaw.org campaign efforts. To increase awareness of the campaign, DiscoverLaw.org hired and trained 20 campus coordinators. In February 2010, a new record was set for the highest number of registrants in any month since the outset of the campaign. At the end of March 2010, more than 68,000 unique visitors went to the website. Nearly 100 distinct activities were conducted in 2011 by 85 member law schools participating in DiscoverLaw.org Months, a significant increase over the previous year’s numbers. These events reached out to racially and ethnically diverse students in high schools, community colleges, and the first two years of college. To build on this momentum, LSAC created the Diversity Matters Award, the first of which was presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting and Educational Conference. The second annual award was announced at the 2011 Annual Meeting and Educational Conference. The award recognizes a school that participated in DiscoverLaw.org Months by assigning points based on the number of students attending an event, the number of students in attendance who are from the targeted populations, the number of registrations completed online, and several other factors.

19

Forum Subsidies

To ensure that prospective law school applicants continue to have access to the greatest number and variety of law schools, LSAC waived the registration fee and subsidized hotel expenses for one representative from each law school in the 2009 fall season. Those forums were held in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Miami, New York, and Washington, DC. Other additions to forum activities included the creation of a preforum session (one hour prior) that combined guidance on how to get the most out of a forum visit with an application-process workshop. Included on the “What Do Lawyers Do?” panel was a career-services professional who offered current information on trends in legal employment.

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

Electronic Services to Law Schools

In September 2009, several enhancements to ACES 2 were made to make it easier to review applicant files, assign or reassign files to reviewers, and track the progress of files throughout the review process, all online. These changes made it possible for even more schools to opt for paperless admission file processing. In 2010, ACES 2 was rolled out for Canadian, Australian, and Puerto Rican schools. The ACES 2 team enhanced support for various Internet browsers used by member law schools, including updating Internet Explorer (IE); the team began working on Firefox enhancements as well. LSAC worked with an external firm to perform extensive browser-compatibility testing, and, in all, more than 800 compatibility tests for 70 different ACES 2 features were completed. Between August and October in 2010, LSAC helped member schools upgrade ACES 2 from IE6 to IE8, and began evaluating IE9. Work continued on browser support through 2011. The second Electronic Services Conference (ESCon) was held in the spring of 2010 in Las Vegas, Nevada. About 450 people attended, representing 165 member schools. Sixty-five percent of the attendees were admission professionals and 35 percent were information-technology professionals.

21

FlexApp ™

A dedicated team of managers, developers, quality-assurance analysts, network engineers, and technical and software specialists created FlexApp, an electronic application service, after the idea was introduced at the 2010 Annual Meeting and Educational Conference. FlexApp, conceived as a service that would be easy for applicants to use and that would clearly communicate to applicants the status of their application as they are working on it, was expected to launch in August 2011. LSAC designed FlexApp to make it easy for law schools to create their own, individually distinct electronic application, incorporating common and school-specific questions. Numerous online seminars and presentations offered by LSAC shared progress on FlexApp’s production with member law schools and provided valuable feedback that the team was able to incorporate into ongoing development of the product.

FlexApp went live in April 2011, in time for schools to use the service to produce their electronic application for availability in the next admission cycle.

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

LSAT Handbook

In June 2010, LSAC began shipping the newest primer on all of the LSAT item types. This book, The Official LSAT Handbook ™ , introduces the test taker to the skills that the LSAT is designed to assess. It includes sample questions and detailed explanations for Analytical Reasoning, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension questions. It also includes Comparative Reading, a subset of Reading Comprehension.

23

Race/Ethnicity Data

Beginning with the 2010–2011 school year, US academic institutions were required to report race/ethnicity data to the US Department of Education using new categories that allow for multiple race selection. LSAC is not obligated to follow the US Department of Education’s collection and reporting requirements. However, given that the majority of LSAC’s member institutions are US law schools, LSAC leadership determined that LSAC would make changes to the way it collects and reports race/ethnicity data. Consequently, starting with the June 2009 LSAT administration, LSAC implemented new race/ethnicity categories.

ABA Applicants by Ethnicity, Percentage of Total Application Population: 2009

Ethnic Group

2009

American Indian/Alaska Native

1 9

Asian/Pacific Islander Black/African American

11 64

Caucasian/White

Chicano/Mexican American

1 6 5 2 1

Hispanic/Latino

Other

Puerto Rican Not Indicated

ABA Applicants by Ethnicity, Percentage of Total Application Population: 2010

Ethnic Group

2010

American Indian/Alaska Native

1 8

Asian

Black/African American

11 60

Caucasian/White Hispanic/Latino

7

Native Hawaiian/Other/Pacific Islander

<1

Puerto Rican

2

Canadian Aboriginal

<1

Two or More Races/Ethnicities

4

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

Social Science Research Project

In December 2009, LSAC began linking law school applicant data to data from a national survey of college freshman conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The aim of the project is to explore who does and who does not apply to law school. The nationally distributed “Freshman Survey,” as it came to be known—which dates back to the 1970s—gathers information about first-year undergraduates, including their opinions and thoughts on a variety of subjects, such as choice of major and career aspirations. It also includes much information about socioeconomic factors that can affect a student’s career path. In combining LSAC applicant data with seven years of HERI survey data, researchers hoped to answer questions about how the backgrounds, experiences, and goals of undergraduates influence their decision to study law. The expectation is that this and subsequent research will positively influence “pipeline leakage points” that exist between high school and law school, especially among underrepresented minority students. LSAC researchers collaborated with HERI in formulating their findings and have shared them with members of the higher education community in general and the law school community in particular.

25

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

Research

The Law School Admission Council Research Grant Program funds research on a wide variety of topics related to the mission of LSAC. Specifically included in the program’s scope are projects investigating precursors to legal training, selection into law schools, legal education, and the legal profession. To be eligible for funding, a research project must inform either the process of selecting law students or legal education itself in a demonstrable way. Proposals are judged on the importance of the questions addressed, their relevance to the mission of LSAC, the quality of the research designs, and the capacity of the researchers to carry out the project. During the 2009–2011 biennium, the LSAC Test Development and Research Committee approved the following reports for publication, including internal staff research, research funded through the Research Grant Program, and contract research.

RESEARCH REPORTS

GRANT REPORTS

Research Report 09-02 Distributions of Kullback-Leibler Divergence and Its Application for the LSAT Dmitry I. Belov and Ronald D. Armstrong Research Report 10-01 Application of the M-Index for the LSAT Dmitry I. Belov and Ronald D. Armstrong Research Report 10-02 Application of the VM-Index for the LSAT Dmitry I. Belov Research Report 11-01 Optimizing Information Using the Expectation- Maximization Algorithm in Item Response Theory Alexander Weissman Research Report 11-02 Assessing the Impact of Topic Interest on Comprehension Processes Joseph P. Magliano, Amanda M. Durik, and Janet K. Holt

Grant Reports 10-01 The Educational Diversity Project: Analysis of Longitudinal and Concurrent Student and Faculty Data Charles E. Daye, Abigail T. Panter, Walter R. Allen, and Linda F. Wightman Grant Report 11-01 From 1L to 401K: A Pilot Study of the Later Stages of Lawyers’ Careers Nancy Reichman

27

LSAT TECHNICAL REPORTS

LSAT Technical Report 10-03 LSAT Performance with Regional, Gender, and Racial/Ethnic Breakdowns: 2003–2004 Through 2009–2010 Testing Years Susan P. Dalessandro, Lisa Anthony Stilwell, Jennifer A. Lawlor, and Lynda M. Reese LSAT Technical Report 11-01 The Performance of Repeat Test Takers on the Law School Admission Test: 2003–2004 Through 2009–2010 Testing Years Laura A. Marcus, Andrea Thornton Sweeney, and Lynda M. Reese

LSAT Technical Report 09-02 Analysis of Differential Prediction of Law School Performance by Racial/Ethnic Subgroups Based on 2005–2007 Entering Law School Classes Lynne L. Norton, Deborah A. Suto, and Lynda M. Reese LSAT Technical Report 09-03 Predictive Validity of the LSAT: A National Summary of the 2007–2008 Correlation Studies Lisa Anthony Stilwell, Susan P. Dalessandro, and Lynda M. Reese LSAT Technical Report 10-01 Analysis of Differential Prediction of Law School Performance by Gender Subgroups Based on 2005–2007 Entering Law School Classes Deborah A. Suto, Lynne L. Norton, and Lynda M. Reese LSAT Technical Report 10-02 The Validity of Law School Admission Test Scores for Repeat Test Takers: 2005 Through 2008 Entering Law School Classes Andrea Thornton Sweeney, Laura A. Marcus, and Lynda M. Reese

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

FUNDED RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

Law Firm Culture Project John M. Darley

Data Mining Applied to Testlet Response Modeling Bernard P. Veldkamp and Cees A. W. Glas The Production, Content, and Consumption of Legal Scholarship: A Longitudinal Analysis William Henderson, Olufunmilayo B. Arewa, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, and Andrew Morriss Senior Status, Gender, and Race in the Legal Academy Elizabeth Mertz The Path of the Law: Evolution of the Legal Profession, 1955–2007 Albert Yoon Opting in? Early Post-Law School Careers of Women and Men Lawyers in US and German Cities John Hagan, Gabriele Plickert, and Patricia Parker

Career Pathways in Law: A Study of Gender and Job Transitions Fiona M. Kay

A Study of the Relationship Between Bar Admissions Data and Subsequent Lawyer Discipline Leslie C. Levin and Fiona M. Kay

Law School Alumni Networks and Legal Labor Markets: An Empirical Investigation of Law School Graduate Career Attainment Christopher I. Rider Longitudinal Analysis of Applied Legal Education in the American Legal Academy David A. Santacroce and Robert R. Kuehn

29

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

Financial Reports

General

Diversity Initiatives

Total 2010

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010

Operating

Investment

Research

2009

ASSETS

Current assets:

Cash and cash equivalents

$

4,943,262

$

11,726,189

$

-

$

-

$

16,669,451

$

13,845,745

Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $540,906 and $548,358

362,918

40,396 161,657

403,314 161,657

1,734,919

Interest receivable Other receivable

138,987 478,421 175,472 997,653

-

Inventories

210,300 997,653

210,300 997,653

Current portion of test costs

Debt issuance costs, net of accumulated amortization of $87,004 and $77,875

208,427

208,427

217,556

Other current assets

1,228,552 7,951,112

1,228,552 19,879,354

1,865,044 19,453,797

11,928,242

-

-

Total current assets

Noncurrent assets:

Interfund receivable (payable)

11,210,180

(18,779,056)

5,926,929

1,641,947

-

-

Software development, net of accumulated amortization of $13,665,422 and $13,604,585

182,513

182,513

243,350

Long-term investments

154,182,966

154,182,966

133,576,774

Property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $17,578,085 and $15,234,957

15,536,956

1,305,831

16,842,787

18,198,146 1,071,628

Test costs, net of current portion

73,975

73,975

Other non-current assets

-

-

50,000

27,003,624

136,709,741

5,926,929

1,641,947

171,282,241

153,139,898

Total noncurrent assets

$

34,954,736

$

148,637,983

$

5,926,929

$

1,641,947

$

191,161,595

$

172,593,695

Total assets

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued expenses

$

4,705,815

$

134,003 578,693

$

-

$

-

$

4,839,818

$

3,479,877

Unrealized loss on futures

-

578,693 700,000 36,311 124,151 42,327

-

Current portion of long-term debt

700,000 36,311 124,151

700,000 44,914 137,605 52,581

Current portion of long-term capital lease

Accumulated postretirement benefits - current portion

Deferred rental income

42,327

Deferred applicant fees, net Total current liabilities

4,705,895 10,272,172 8,667,684 14,400,000

4,705,895 11,027,195 8,667,684 14,400,000

6,560,425 10,975,402 6,927,983 15,100,000

755,023

-

-

Accumulated post-retirement benefits - long-term portion

Long-term debt, net of current portion

Capital lease long-term portion

-

36,311

33,339,856

755,023

-

-

34,094,879

33,039,696

Total liabilities

NET ASSETS:

Unrestricted

General operating fund

1,614,880

1,614,880

1,614,880

Investment fund Research fund

147,882,960

147,882,960

131,075,725

5,926,929

5,926,929 1,641,947

4,959,010 1,904,384

Diversity initiatives fund

1,641,947 1,641,947

1,614,880

147,882,960

5,926,929

157,066,716

139,553,999

Total net assets

$

34,954,736

$

148,637,983

$

5,926,929

$

1,641,947

$

191,161,595

$

172,593,695

Total liabilitiesand net assets

31

General

Diversity Initiatives

Total 2010

Operating

Investment

Research

2009

Changes in unrestricted net assets: Revenuesand gains: Admission service fees: LSAT

$

31,562,502 18,032,581 5,783,000 (4,473,174)

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

31,562,502 18,032,581 5,783,000 (4,478,109)

$

27,280,506 16,307,301 7,181,326 (2,714,078)

Admission service fees: CAS

Publications sales

Fee waivers

(4,935)

Management services

452,400 181,198

452,400 181,198

406,595 153,944 993,545

Data service fees

19,360

1,069,735 1,213,621 3,173,979 8,342,905 8,683,840

Forum and workshop fees Other operating income Interest and dividend income

1,050,375 1,213,621

1,242,157 3,132,542

851

3,173,128 8,342,905 8,683,840

Net realized investment gains (losses) Net unrealized investment gains (losses)

(19,584,915) (23,987,661)

STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010 Rental income Gain (loss) on disposal of equipment Total unrestricted revenues, gainsand other support 53,803,354 Expenses: Information systems 13,867,704 Testing services 9,605,458 Admission services 7,972,223 Operation and maintenance of the plant 4,565,680 Financial services 5,470,859 Council, events, meetings and forums 4,437,551 Communications and publication services 2,504,445 General and administrative services 2,044,777 Diversity initiatives 1,774,572 Research services 327,558 Legal services 2,116,713 Total expenses 54,687,540 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES (884,186) OTHER CHANGES IN NET ASSETS: Board designated appropriations for: Diversity initiatives projects Research projects General operating fund (excess) deficit 884,186 Purchase of property and equipment - Depreciation - INCREASE (DECREASE) IN UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS - UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS, BEGINNING OF YEAR 1,614,880 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS, END OF YEAR 1,614,880 $ $

874,207

874,207

656,517 (220,571)

-

21,074,080

-

14,425

74,891,859

10,847,208

13,867,704 9,605,458 7,972,223 4,926,558 5,994,742 4,521,331 2,507,548 2,044,777 3,208,166

12,395,059 8,894,247 8,248,054 5,832,142 4,680,030 3,349,411 2,263,140 2,396,541 2,525,223

360,878 523,883

83,780

3,103

1,433,594

275,696

603,254

493,098

10,668 895,429

2,127,381 57,379,142

1,544,729 52,621,674

275,696

1,520,477

20,178,651

(275,696)

(1,506,052)

17,512,717

(41,774,466)

(1,243,615) (1,243,615)

1,243,615

- - - - -

- - - - -

1,243,615

(884,186)

- -

(262,437)

17,512,717

(41,774,466)

16,807,235

967,919

131,075,725

4,959,010

1,904,384

139,553,999

181,328,465

147,882,960

$

5,926,929

$

1,641,947

$

157,066,716

$

139,553,999

BIENNIAL REPORT 2009–2011

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011

General

Diversity Initiatives

Total 2011

Operating

Investment

Research

2010

ASSETS

Current assets:

Cash and cash equivalents

$

4,938,019

$

11,228,798

$

-

$

-

$

16,166,817

$

16,669,451

Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $656,445 and $540,906

403,314 161,657

1,216,727

42,688 105,705 42,756

1,259,415

Interest receivable

-

105,705 42,756 291,341

Unrealized gain on futures

-

Inventories

291,341

210,300 997,653

Current portion of test costs

-

-

Debt issuance costs, net of accumulated amortization of $87,004 in 2010

-

-

208,427

Other current assets

1,106,272 7,552,359

1,106,272 18,972,306

1,228,552 19,879,354

-

11,419,947

-

Total current assets

Noncurrent assets:

Interfund receivable (payable)

(3,451,440)

(5,277,777)

6,984,191

1,745,026

-

-

Software development, net of accumulated amortization of $13,746,539 and $13,665,422

182,513

101,396

101,396

Long-term investments

-

169,894,803

169,894,803

154,182,966

Property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $19,608,416 and $17,578,085

15,686,271

1,281,853

16,968,124

16,842,787

-

73,975

Test costs, net of current portion

-

12,336,227

165,898,879

6,984,191

1,745,026

186,964,323

171,282,241

Total noncurrent assets

$

$

6,984,191

$

1,745,026

$

205,936,629

$

191,161,595

$

19,888,586

177,318,826

Total assets

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued expenses

$

4,588,996

$

143,181

$

-

$

-

$

4,732,177

$

4,839,818

Unrealized loss on futures

- -

- -

578,693 700,000 36,311 124,151 42,327

Current portion of long-term debt

Current portion of long-term capital lease

29,767 138,787

29,767 138,787 37,295

Accumulated postretirement benefits - current portion

Deferred rental income

37,295

Deferred applicant fees, net Total current liabilities

4,454,996 9,212,546

4,454,996 9,393,022

4,705,895 11,027,195 8,667,684 14,400,000

180,476

-

-

Accumulated post-retirement benefits - long-term portion

8,981,633

8,981,633

Long-term debt, net of current portion

-

-

Capital lease long-term portion

79,527

79,527

-

18,273,706

180,476

-

-

18,454,182

34,094,879

Total liabilities

NET ASSETS:

Unrestricted

General operating fund

1,614,880

1,614,880

1,614,880

Investment fund Research fund

177,138,350

177,138,350

147,882,960

6,984,191

6,984,191 1,745,026

5,926,929 1,641,947

Diversity initiatives fund

1,745,026 1,745,026

1,614,880

177,138,350

6,984,191

187,482,447

157,066,716

Total net assets

$

19,888,586

$

177,318,826

$

6,984,191

$

1,745,026

$

205,936,629

$

191,161,595

Total liabilitiesand net assets

33