LAW IN THE SERVICE OF HUMAN NEEDS CUNY SCHOOLLAW CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 65-21 MAIN STREET FLUSHING, NEW YORK 11367 Michelle J. Anderson 718-340-4201 Dean and Professor of Law fax: 718-340-4482 ‘August 8, 2007 Carl C. Monk Executive Director Association of American Law Schools 1201 Connecticut Avenue. N.W. Suite 800 Washington. D.C. 20036-2717 Dear Mr. Monk: Thank you for sending me the Site Evaluation Report to the Association of American Law Schools (“AALS”) on the membership application of the CUNY School of Law. 1 want to take this opportunity to thank Chair Dean Rivkin, The Honorable Joseph Beca. and Professors Claire Germain, Mary Kay Kane, and Randolph Stone for their thorough and incisive work in developing and writing the report The faculty AALS Committee at the CUNY School of Law prepared this letter in consultation with Professor Elliott Milstein at American University School of Law. whom we have retained as our AALS Readiness Consultant. As you requested, this letter will provide the AALS Membership Review Committee with a few factual corrections to the rsport and descriptions of significant developments at the school that have occurred since the site visit, We have noted these items in rough order of their appearance in the report. (1) Update on Stabilization and CUTRA Accounts ‘At page 6. the report describes the Law School's Stabilization and CUTRA accounts as “Iwo University budget surplus accounts that ensure that the Law School dozs not in fact operate at a deficit.” Since the site visit, the City University of New York has merged these accounts and streamlined the process for spending them. ‘The Stabilization balance. which resulted from budget surpluses in earlier years, has now been transferred into the CUTRA account. Tuition revenue in excess of the annual revenue target will continue to accrue to CUTRA. The entire account, valued at over one million dollars, can now be used to make cne-time purchases or to supplement our personnel services budget without requiring approval from the Central budget office.CUNY School of Law 2 (2) Update on Institutional Support for Scholarship At page 8. the report notes that the long term status of the recent influx of money to support faculty scholarship at the Law School from CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein “remains unclear."! Since the site visit, Chancellor Goldstein has agreed to baseline all the scholarly support monies he granted in FYO7 for faculty research assistants. travel. and summer research stipends on an ongoing basis in our budget. As a result. the $95,000 for scholarship support and $65,000 for summer research stipends will now be a permanent part of our budget going forward. (3) Update on Strategic Planning Process The report describes the Law School's intention to begin a Strategic Planning process at pages 9- 10 and in Appendix B at 1-2, Since the site visit, our Strategic Planning has been proceeding apace. We are preparing for a Strategic Planning retreat in the Fall semester. As you know Hastings Law Professor Leo Martinez. from the AALS Resource Corps has agreed to be one of ur retreat facilitators and we are seeking a second. Our Strategic Planning Committee has surveyed the faculty on the School's strategie priorities for the next five years. Those surveys consider many of the issues raised in the report. including how best to field private law courses, enhance our grading consistency, and maintain our improved first-time Bar Exam passage rate. We see setting specific goals, timetables, markers of success, and contir gency plans as central to the Strategic Planning process. (4) Update on Adjunct Professors in Clini Program The report describes the status of adjunct professors with fulltime teaching loads in our clinical program at page 15 and in Appendix B at 2. Since the site visit, we have begun the process of converting three adjunct positions in the Clinic to Instructor positions, which will better describe their actual duties and communicate a stronger expression from the institution that these fulltime professors are vital members of the Law School community, (5) Update on Faculty Governance Load At page 15. the report indicated that the CUNY Law faculty “has labored under a heavy governance load.” Since the site visit. in an effort to better balance the zovernance obligations of the faculty with their obligations for teaching and scholarship, we have further limited the faculty's average governance load, previously at three committees each. We assigned 88% of faculty members to no more than two committees for the coming academic year. We will continue to limit faculty committee obligations to an average of two going forward, (6) Correction on Minimum LSAT Score Required for Admissions The report at page 25 indicates: "The report highlights the same issue at page 18 ("It is unclear whether this additiona suppor will become permanent”) and at page 38 (“Whether this support will continue at its present level i stil uncle”)CUNY School of Law - 3 With the Pipeline to Justice program in place, CUNY will no longer accept students who have an LSAT below 150. If student is admitted into the Pipeline program. they will only be admitted into CUNY Law if they can bring, their LSAT score above 150 through Pipeline training, ‘To clarify. only those Pipeline to Justice students who obtained a 150 0° better on their LSAT were offered antomatic admission into the Law School. Because the Law Schoo! Admissions Council, which administers the LSAT. counsels schools against using an absolute cut-off for LSAT scores in their admissions processes.” we treat each LSAT score as a range of possible scores across a narrow band. Consistent with this practice. seven Pipeline students who scored just below 150 were told that they could still gain admission to CUNY ~aw if they completed the second part of the Pipeline program (covering critical writing and thinking skills) with a grade of Bor better. Five of these students are matriculating in the entering class of 2007. (7) Correction on Chart of NYS Law Schools First-Time Taker Pass Rate The report at page 30 reproduces a chart entitled “New York Law Schools July Bar Exam First- Time Taker Pass Rate.” but it swaps a few rows of data and thereby inadvertently lists CUNY’, 25-75 percentile LSAT data for the 2005 entering class incorrectly. Here is the complete chart in correct form: NEW YORK STATE LAW SCHOOLS JULY BAR EXAM FIRST-TIME TAKER PASS RATE, 2003-2006 Tan Sehoor Fot | 27S percenile | —JulyO3 | dulyoe | dutyos Tay06 rc Tsar (sentring clay Comal 131 a a 95% 93% NYU 336 168.172 7 7 34 95 ‘Columbia 285 168.173 96 94 30. 95 ‘St. John's 268 158-163 35 87 9 31 Fordham 28 168.167 86 88 88. 90 Cardozo, 292 162-166 88 30. 86, 90 Brookiyn 375 T6l-164 8 8 $4 85. Buffalo 197 152137 3 80. 80 a Albany. 218 153157 6 78. 78. 88. STATE AVG 78 7 76. 9 New York Lave et] Ts 7 6 74 a Syracuse BH 153-157, a 76, B 31 Pace 198) 153-156 74 74 7 83 Touro 135) 150-153, a o 65 79 CUNY, 109) 139-156 33 o a 7 Hofstra 293 135-160 66 o 7 73 2 The LSAC urges schools to“[a}void improper use of cutoff scores.” I expan below which no applicams will be considered) are strona discouraged Wairess Procedures,” at htp iw sae orgs. aspPurel ul-oIT LSAT scores (those Law Schoal Admission Council, "LSAT. inness-Procedures.ssp