United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

HIGHER EDUCATION

Issues Related to Law 

School Accreditation 

March 2007 

 

GAO-07-314 
Contents 

Letter 1

Appendix I Briefing Slides 5 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education 28 

Appendix III Comments from the American Bar Association 30 

Abbreviations 

ABA American Bar Association 

Education Department of Education 

NACIQI National Advisory Committee on Institutional 

 Quality and Integrity

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. However, 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. 

Page i GAO-07-314 Higher Education
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

March 8, 2007

The Honorable George Miller 

Chairman 

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and Labor

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones 

House of Representatives 

In order to participate in certain federal programs, such as federal student

financial aid, postsecondary institutions must be accredited by an 

accrediting agency recognized by the Department of Education 

(Education). Accreditation ensures that schools provide basic levels of 

quality in their educational programs, and Education recognizes those 

agencies it concludes can reliably determine the quality of education 

provided by the schools and programs they accredit. Since 1952, 

Education has recognized the American Bar Association (ABA) as an 

accrediting agency for law schools. ABA accreditation is important to the 

195 law schools it accredits because it allows their graduates the flexibility 

to take the Bar exam in any jurisdiction in the United States.

The Department of Education requires that all recognized accrediting 

agencies periodically reapply for continued recognition. The Secretary of 

Education’s accreditation advisory group, the National Advisory 

Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), considered the 

ABA’s most recent application for continued recognition in December 

2006. The ABA was originally scheduled for review in December 2005, but 

Education postponed it twice based on the large volume of public 

comments that had to be reviewed, as well as concerns about the ABA’s 

diversity standard. To address your interest in these issues, we answered 

the following questions: (1) What is Education’s process for recognizing 

accrediting agencies? (2) What is ABA’s process for accrediting law 

schools? (3) What concerns have been raised about the ABA’s 

accreditation process? 

We used the following methodologies to develop our findings. To 

understand Education and ABA processes related to accreditation, we 

reviewed relevant laws and regulations, ABA accreditation standards, and 

Page 1 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
documents pertaining to the ABA’s application for renewed recognition. 

We also interviewed Education officials, ABA representatives, and four 

law school administrators. To identify the concerns that have been raised 

about ABA’s accreditation process, we reviewed third-party comments 

submitted to Education in advance of the NACIQI meeting. We also 

attended the December 2006 public meeting that NACIQI held to consider 

ABA’s application for continued recognition, and reviewed the transcript 

of the meeting. Finally, we analyzed ABA data on first-year law school 

enrollment and found the data sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We 

conducted our work between October 2006 and February 2007 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We briefed your staff on results of our analysis on February 9, 2007. This 

report formally conveys the information provided during that briefing. In

summary, we reported the following findings: 

• Education has established criteria for recognizing an accrediting 

agency and has mechanisms in place to assess compliance with the 

criteria. Agencies found to be in compliance with Education’s criteria 

can be approved for up to 5 years. There are also mechanisms in place 

to defer or deny an agency’s recognition. 

• ABA has established standards for approval of law schools and has 

mechanisms in place to assess compliance with the criteria. Law 

schools are eligible for provisional approval when they demonstrate 

that they are in substantial compliance with each of the standards, and 

must demonstrate they are in full compliance to be fully approved. 

• Some Education staff, law school administrators, and other thirdparties have raised concerns about ABA’s accreditation process, 

particularly with respect to the transparency and consistency of the 

process, as well as the legality of its diversity standard, which requires 

schools to demonstrate they are reaching out to underrepresented 

groups. Based on concerns that ABA is not fully in compliance with 

regulatory provisions that govern accreditation, Education and NACIQI 

have recommended that the Secretary of Education renew ABA’s 

recognition for a period of 18 months, rather than the maximum period 

of 5 years. 

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of 

Education and the American Bar Association for review and comment. In 

written comments, Education provided technical comments and 

clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. In particular, 

Page 2 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
Education clarified that its recommendation suggested that NACIQI 

require ABA to submit interim reports on ABA’s compliance with all 

criteria for accreditation recognition, not just the diversity standard as 

stated in the draft. We revised our report accordingly. However, we note 

that the recommended interim reporting requirements focus heavily on the

diversity standard. Education also expressed concern about our 

characterization of why NACIQI excluded from its recommendation the 

additional reporting requirements related to diversity, as Education had 

recommended. Our report correctly notes that NACIQI did not think 

additional reporting related to the diversity standard was necessary 

because Education had not identified any instances in which ABA 

inconsistently applied the diversity standard or provided evidence that law 

schools had been compelled to violate existing state laws. However, 

Education thought our report should also note that NACIQI did not 

address Education’s broader concern that ABA had not demonstrated that 

it has effective controls in place to prevent inconsistent application of the 

standard as required by the recognition criteria. While Education is correct 

that NACIQI did not discuss this concern specifically, it addressed these 

concerns by affirming Education’s recommendation to limit ABA’s 

recognition to a period of 18 months. Education’s comments appear in 

appendix II.

The ABA said that the report was generally balanced and fair, and 

provided technical comments and clarifications, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. ABA expressed concern about our statement that it uses 

thresholds on bar passage and attrition rates to prompt further review. 

ABA emphasized that these thresholds are not used to determine whether 

or not a school is in compliance with the accreditation standards. We 

revised our report to clarify this issue. The ABA also provided updated 

data on law school enrollment that was not available to us at the time we 

conducted our briefing. Finally, with respect to the background 

information the report provides on non-ABA approved law schools, the 

ABA said the number of such law schools is much greater than indicated 

in our draft report. Specifically, ABA identified a number of California law 

schools that were not included on the list of non-ABA approved law 

schools that we obtained from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC). 

While the information from LSAC is not exhaustive, it provides the most 

complete source of readily-available data on non-ABA approved law 

schools. Additionally, because graduates of these law schools can sit for 

the bar exam in California, our overall message remains the same--

graduates of many non-ABA law schools can take the bar exam in the state 

where they earned their degree. ABA’s comments appear in appendix III. 

Page 3 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
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 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. Key contributors to this report include Jeff Appel (Assistant 

Director), Debra Prescott (Analyst-in-Charge), Summer Pachman, John 

Mingus, and Jim Rebbe. 

George A. Scott 

Acting Director, Education, Workforce, and 

 Income Security Issues 

Page 4 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Issues Related to Law School 

Accreditation 

Briefing for the

House Committee on Education 

and Labor

and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones

February 9, 2007

Page 5 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 6 GAO-07-314 

2

Briefing Overview

• Introduction

• Research Objectives

• Scope and Methodology

• Background

• Research Findings

• Next Steps in the Recognition Process

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 7 GAO-07-314 

3

Introduction

• Concerns have been raised about trends in law school 

enrollment for certain racial/ethnic groups.

• Questions have been raised about the transparency of the

American Bar Association’s (ABA) accreditation process for

law schools.

• Questions have also been raised about the extent to which 

ABA is consistently applying its standards.

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 8 GAO-07-314 

4

Research Objectives

1. What is Education's process for recognizing accrediting 

agencies?

2. What is ABA's process for accrediting law schools?

3. What concerns have been raised about ABA’s accreditation 

process?

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 9 GAO-07-314 

5

Scope and Methodology

To address our research objectives, we:

• Reviewed relevant laws, regulations, ABA accreditation standards, 

and documents related to ABA’s request for renewed recognition, 

including third party comments submitted to Education.

• Interviewed Education officials, ABA representatives, and four law 

school administrators about the accreditation process.

• Analyzed data from ABA on first-year law school enrollment, and 

found the data sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

• Conducted the review from October 2006 to February 2007 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 10 GAO-07-314 

6

Background

• To be eligible to participate in certain federal programs, such as

federal student aid, a postsecondary school must be accredited by

an accrediting agency recognized by the Department of Education.

• Education recognizes agencies that it determines to be reliable 

authorities in determining 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 is recognized for

accrediting law schools. 

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 11 GAO-07-314 

7

History of ABA as a Recognized Accrediting 

Agency

• First began approving law schools in 1921, and federally recognized since 

1952.

• Must petition for continued recognition at least every 5 years.

• Most recently reviewed in December 2006 after being postponed twice 

based on high volume of public comments and concerns about the legality of ABA’s standards related to diversity.

• As of January 2007, 195 law schools have received ABA approval.

• Seven provisionally approved; two on probation. 

• Since 1952, only eight institutions have applied for but never received

approval.

• According to ABA, it is not uncommon for law schools to apply more than 

once before being approved.

• Since 1990, 8 of 22 law schools were denied provisional approval at 

least once before being approved.

Background

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 12 GAO-07-314 

8

J.D. Degree from ABA-Approved Law School Provides

Eligibility to Take Bar Exam in Any U.S. Jurisdiction,

and for Some States It Is a Prerequisite

Background

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 13 GAO-07-314 

9

Graduates from Many Non-ABA approved Law

Schools Can Take Bar Exam in Their State

• Of the 41 law schools identified by the Law School Admission

Council as non-ABA approved, graduates from 37 can take bar

exam in their state.

• Over half of these schools are in California, which allows

graduates of non-ABA approved law schools in the state to take

the bar exam. 

• Seven of these schools offer J.D. programs through distance 

education, but the ABA will not accredit schools that require

more than 12 hours of credit via distance.

• Six of the 41 schools are in the process of applying for ABA 

approval.

• Five of these have not been open long enough to graduate their

first class of J.D. students.

Background

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 14 GAO-07-314 

10

Percent First Year Law School Enrollment for

Selected Minorities, 1971-2006

Background

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 15 GAO-07-314 

11

In Recent Years African American Enrollment Has 

Declined While Asian and Hispanic Enrollment Has 

Increased

Background

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 16 GAO-07-314 

12

Education Has Established Criteria for

Recognizing an Accrediting Agency

To establish eligibility accreditors must, among other things, demonstrate 

they:

• Have at least 2 years of accrediting experience.

• Have the capability to administer its accreditation activities.

• Are separate and independent, both administratively and financially, of

any related trade association or membership organization if the 

accreditor is recognized for federal student aid purposes.

Accreditors must have standards for assessing institutional or programmatic

quality, and consistently apply and enforce standards.

• Establish standards to assess quality in areas such as student 

achievement, admissions, curricula, faculty, facilities, support services, 

fiscal and administrative capacity.

• Establish regular intervals for reevaluating accredited institutions or 

programs, and processes for approving substantive changes.

• Make final accreditation decisions publicly available.

• Review complaints against itself in timely, fair, and equitable manner.

Objective 1: Education’s Process

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 17 GAO-07-314 

13

• Accreditor submits application for recognition.

• Education makes initial recommendation based on review of 

petition and third-party comments.

• Accreditor invited to respond with additional support, and 

Education modifies analysis and recommendation, as appropriate.

• Education forwards complete package to the Secretary of 

Education’s accreditation advisory group, the National Advisory

Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI).

• Following public meetings to consider each accrediting agency’s

petition, NACIQI recommends that the Secretary approve, deny, or

defer request.

• Secretary considers entire record of application, including 

Education staff and NACIQI recommendations, and approves, denies, or defers the request.

Objective 1: Education’s Process 

Education Has Mechanisms in Place to 

Assess Compliance with Criteria 

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 18 GAO-07-314 

14

• Approval – Agency recognized for up to 5 years.

• Deferment – deficiencies do not warrant immediate loss of 

recognition and agency should be able to demonstrate compliance 

within a maximum of 12 months.

• Denial – If agency fails to comply with criteria or is not effective in 

its performance.

• Limit, suspend, or terminate recognition of an already recognized 

agency—can happen anytime. 

• Agencies can appeal final decisions.

Objective 1: Education’s Process

Possible Recognition Decision Outcomes

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 19 GAO-07-314 

15

ABA’s Organizational Structure for 

Accreditation Activities

• ABA’s accreditation activities fall under the Section of Legal Education and 

Admissions to the Bar.

• Accreditation and compliance decisions are made by the Section’s Council, 

which is comprised of 21 voting members.

• The Section’s Accreditation Committee, which administers the ABA’s

accreditation process and has primary oversight responsibility for ABA 

approved law schools, generally makes accreditation recommendations to 

the Council.

• The Committee may make accreditation decisions without consulting the Council when schools seeking continued approval are found to be

sufficiently in compliance with the standards. 

• The Section’s Office of the Consultant provides assistance to the Council

and the Accreditation Committee.

Objective 2: ABA’S Process

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 20 GAO-07-314 

16

ABA’s Process for Accrediting Law Schools 

Includes Multiple Levels of Review

• School requesting accreditation completes application, data questionnaire, 

and self-study and is visited by a site evaluation team.

• Accreditation Committee reviews site evaluation team’s report of findings 

and materials submitted by school and as appropriate, makes final decision 

or recommendation to Council.

• Council makes final decision to grant, deny, or withdraw accreditation

based on Committee’s report and all application materials.

• ABA has requested that the Committee also be recognized by

Education as a decision-making body. 

• Due Process – Schools have the right to appeal accreditation decisions.

Objective 2: ABA’S Process

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 21 GAO-07-314 

17

ABA’s Standards for Approval of Law Schools

• ABA considers the extent to which law schools comply with

standards in the following areas:

• Organization and administration 

• Program of legal education

• Faculty

• Admissions and student services

• Library and information resources

• Facilities

• Provisional approval granted when schools demonstrate

substantial compliance with each of the standards; must

demonstrate full compliance to be fully approved.

Objective 2: ABA’S Process

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 22 GAO-07-314 

18

Data Collected on a Range of Indicators

• Data elements collected annually:

• First-time bar passage

• Attrition (academic, transfers, etc.)

• Employment of graduates

• LSAT scores/Undergraduate GPA

• Student to faculty ratio

Objective 2: ABA’S Process

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 23 GAO-07-314 

19

Education, School Administrators, and Third-Parties Have 

Raised Concerns Regarding ABA’s Petition for

Recognition

• Education, some law school administrators, and others are 

concerned that ABA has unpublished standards, including minimum 

LSAT requirements.

• ABA says it follows its published standards and has no

requirement for a minimum LSAT score.

• ABA acknowledges that indicators such as low bar passage 

rates and high attrition can prompt further review of other areas, 

including a school’s support services and the credentials of 

entering students.

• First-time bar passage rate: < 70 percent overall or more

than 10 percentage points below state average.

• Academic attrition: about 15 to 20 percent.

Objective 3: Concerns

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 24 GAO-07-314 

20

Concerns Regarding ABA’s Petition for Recognition 

(cont’d.)

• Education and other third-parties have expressed concern about 

ABA’s diversity standard, which requires schools to demonstrate a 

commitment to having both a diverse student body and faculty.

• Education expressed concern that ABA will evaluate 

compliance with the standard based in part on the results

achieved and that ABA does not have sufficient controls in 

place to prevent inconsistent application of the standard. 

Additionally, Education is concerned that the lack of specificity about the requirements would lead the ABA to use unpublished 

criteria in evaluating compliance. 

• The Chair and Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights along with other third parties expressed concern that the

ABA’s diversity standard would put pressure on law schools to 

employ race conscious admissions and hiring practices, including racial or ethnic quotas.

Objective 3: Concerns

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 25 GAO-07-314 

21

Concerns Regarding ABA’s Petition for Recognition 

(cont’d.)

• The ABA and others defend the current diversity standard:

• According to ABA representatives, the standard only requires

schools to demonstrate that they are reaching out to groups

underrepresented in the legal profession. Quotas are not 

involved and it should not conflict with state laws that prohibit 

the consideration of race in hiring and admissions.

• Law school administrators we spoke to and those 

administrators who provided third-party comments, along with 

other commenters, were generally supportive of ABA having a 

diversity standard.

Objective 3: Concerns

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 26 GAO-07-314 

22

Concerns Regarding ABA’s Petition for Recognition 

(cont’d.)

• Education identified instances in which ABA was inconsistently

enforcing its standards by allowing some schools to exceed the 

maximum time allowed to enter compliance without adverse action

• According to ABA, each instance involved compliance in the

areas of bar passage rates or facilities, which cannot be readily

addressed in the two-year period schools are given to 

demonstrate compliance. 

• ABA has approved changes that make clear that if a school has

not been able to address noncompliance within the allowable 

two-year period, ABA must take adverse action or find good 

cause to extend accreditation.

Objective 3: Concerns

Higher Education
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 27 GAO-07-314 

23

Next Steps in the Recognition Process for 

ABA

• Because Education identified a number of compliance issues that ABA could not

fully address in advance of the NACIQI meeting, it recommended that NACIQI renew 

ABA’s recognition for a period of 18 months and require the ABA to submit interim

reports on its compliance with the criteria for recognition, with particular emphasis on 

the diversity standard.

• ABA representatives said they were able to address a number of the concerns

immediately, and the remaining items would be addressed by August 2007.

• At a public meeting on 12/4/2006, NACIQI recommended that the Secretary of

Education renew ABA’s recognition for 18 months; however, it did not recommend

any specific reporting requirements related to the diversity standard.

• NACIQI did not think the reporting requirements related to diversity were 

necessary given that Education had not identified any instances in which ABA

inconsistently applied its diversity standard or provided evidence that law 

schools had been compelled to violate state laws.

• The ABA is awaiting the final decision from the Secretary of Education on whether 

its recognition will be renewed.

Higher Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education 

of Education 

Page 28 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 29 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
Appendix III: Comments from the American Appendix III: Comments from the American Bar Association 

Bar Association 

Page 30 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
Appendix III: Comments from the American 

Bar Association 

Page 31 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
Appendix III: Comments from the American 

Bar Association 

Page 32 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
Appendix III: Comments from the American 

Bar Association 

(130264) Page 33 GAO-07-314 Higher Education
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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER