Sunday, August 21, 2016

Arizona Summit Law School Will Require Its Students to Pass Mock Bar Exam, Before They Can Graduate

For Profit Excrement: On August 17, 2016, the ABA Journal published a Debra Cassen Weiss piece that was entitled “Arizona Summit Law School seeks university affiliation, requires mock bar exam passage.” Check out this opening:

“Updated: The Arizona Summit Law School is taking a new step in a bid to bolster its reputation. 

The school plans to partner with a major university, Above the Law reports. 

Summit president Don Lively says in a press release that the school is “negotiating with a few universities that share our mission and values.” Among other things, the affiliation will strengthen Summit’s reputation, make its program more affordable and reduce tuition dependence, according to Lively.

The school is also taking some steps to improve its first-time bar pass rate. Only 30.6 percent of first-time test takers from the law school passed the July 2015 bar exam, and only 38.1 percent of first-timers passed in February 2016. 

One of the steps, noted in the press release, is a program that targets students who are members of historically or economically disadvantaged groups. It offers full scholarships plus $5,000 in living expenses to students with an LSAT score of 150 or above. 

Above the Law reports on a second step being taken by the school. 

The blog obtained an email informing students that beginning in May 2017, they will have to pass a mock bar exam as a graduation requirement. The email signed by Dean Shirley Mays strongly encourages students to take the school’s bar preparation class and notes that it can be taken for credit.” [Emphasis mine] 

What the hell did you expect, bitches?!?! You admit people with garbage LSAT scores. Did you think that was going to translate into decent bar passage rates? Then again, all you pigs thought about was getting your hooves on those federal student loan dollars!

TTTT Email From the Dean: On August 17, 2016, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry that was labeled “Law School Notorious For Graduates Failing The Bar Exam Makes Passing Mock Bar Exam A Graduation Requirement.” Below is the conclusion of the email from Cockroach Shirley Mays:

“While we are confident that our graduates have the potential to succeed, it also is clear that all of us need to make adjustments in response to our graduates’ recent bar exam performance. In balancing your interest in keeping your fall schedule with the responsibility we have to make you bar ready before you graduate, we have reconsidered and removed the graduation requirement that December 2016 and May 2017 graduates take the pre-bar prep class. We want you to take ownership of your success and make your own informed decision based on what is best for you… 

I strongly encourage each of you to take the pre-bar prep class. It will help prepare you to take the bar exam. The pre-bar prep class will have as a final a mock bar exam which will contribute significantly to your grade. Taking the mock bar exam will afford you the opportunity to receive feedback about your strengths and areas of improvement going into the bar exam. It also will give you a taste of what you will experience two months after graduation as you prepare for the February or July 2017 bar exam… 

Please note, effective with the May 2017 graduates, even though taking the class is not a requirement, a passing score on a mock bar exam will be a graduation requirement. We will share these specifics in a subsequent email early next week.

Warm regards, 

Dean Mays” [Emphasis mine]

It’s nice to see that this wench has such confidence in her students’ abilities to pass the bar exam, huh?!?! Also, it always comes down to the lemmings “taking ownership” of their own success or failure.

Other Coverage: On August 20, 2016, OTLSS featured a dybbuk post titled “Arizona Sadist Law School To Increase its Bar Passage Rate by Preventing its Students from Graduating Until They Can Pass a Mock Bar Exam.” Enjoy the following excerpt:

“Beginning with the graduating (or, uh, possibly not graduating) class of 2017, students at ASLS will be required to pass a school-designed mock bar exam prior to receiving their JD. This is reminiscent, somewhat, of the so-called "baby bar" that California administers to students at unaccredited law schools. Of course, unlike at Sadist, the California baby bar is designed by the state's Committee of Bar Examiners, not by the individual schools, is initially administered at the end of the first year of legal study, and its passage rates are collected and reported. So students at these schools have clear expectations and early feedback. 

In response to an inquiry from the ABA Journal, Sadistic Dean Shirley Mays pricelessly griped that her school’s bar passage rate would be 42%, or even 46%, instead of 30%, but for the fact that its best students routinely transfer to other schools. For a sports analogy, imagine how delighted you would be as a diehard fan of a perennial last place team if the coach complained that the team might still be in last place,but by a lesser margin, if only its best players would stop accepting mid-season offers to play for better-performing rivals.” [Emphasis mine]

The commode is feigning concern for its graduates’ fate. As long as the check clears, that is all that matters. 

Conclusion: Do you see real law schools cooking up such nonsense?!?! Listen up, Arizona $ummiTTTT Law Sewer students: Take ownership of your failure on the bar exam. But make sure to enroll here, and stay for the full three years. Despite your 143 LSAT score, we believe that you can achieve great things. Go out there and change the world! If you can’t get a law license, then you can certainly make a difference at State Farm or at Costco. Do your TTTT proud!

Monday, August 15, 2016

ABA Cockroaches Actually Recommend Not Accrediting University of North Texas Dallas College of Law

Welcome News: On August 8, 2016, the Dallas Morning News publised an article from reporter Holly K. Hacker, under the headline “UNT Dallas Law School in danger of not getting accredited.” Enjoy the following excerpt:

“Dallas’ first public law school is in danger of not being accredited because it enrolls too many struggling students, a new report said. 

The UNT Dallas College of Law also has a shaky financial plan, according to a key advisory group of the American Bar Association, which accredits the nation’s law schools. 

The group advised against accreditation — a crucial seal of approval. 

In Texas, only graduates of accredited schools can take the Texas bar exam. And they must pass the exam to practice law in the state. 

The recommendation is a huge blow to the law school, part of the University of North Texas at Dallas. The law school was years in the making before it opened in downtown Dallas two years ago with the goal of serving a diverse student body and charging low tuition. 

School leaders broke the news to students Friday. Dean Royal Furgeson said Monday that the disappointing recommendation is not final. School leaders will go before a council of the bar association in October and argue why the school deserves accreditation.

“We’re glad we have a chance to go to the council and make our case, which we will do vigorously,” said Furgeson, a former U.S. District judge. If that doesn’t work, he said, “We’re gonna do whatever it takes to get there.” Schools can reapply. 

In the meantime, the college would ask the Texas Supreme Court to let its graduates to take the state bar exam. The school will graduate its first class this year.” [Emphasis mine]

Perhaps, the ABA cockroaches figure that they must publicly show that they have some standards. Then again, the rodents have accredited dozens of steaming excrement piles that charge insane amounts in annual tuition.

Other Coverage: On August 10, 2016, the ABA Journal posted a Stephanie Francis Ward story that was entitled “New Texas law school not recommended for ABA accreditation.” Look at this wondrous opening:

“The ABA’s accreditation committee has recommended that the University of North Texas Dallas College of Law not receive accreditation, the school’s dean told the ABA Journal, and he plans a response. 

“We will get a fair hearing,” says Royal Furgeson Jr., UNT Dallas Law’s dean and a former U.S. district court judge in the Northern District of Texas. “We’ll tell the council that there’s a giant need for affordable law schools like us, and we’re going to meet that need.”

Barry A. Currier, the ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, said the council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar does not comment on pending recommendations. 

The recommendation presents an interesting contrast between accreditation requirements and law school intent. According to the Dallas Morning News, the ABA committee cited a large number of students with low LSAT scores at the school, and was concerned that students were being admitted who would be unable to pass the bar exam. The article also notes that last fall, one-fifth of the school’s first-year class was placed on academic probation. Additionally, the school admitted 17 students who were dismissed from other law schools, mostly for bad grades. 

But it is just this type of student that led Furgeson to become the founding dean of UNT Dallas Law. A 2014 Huffington Post article said, “Furgeson and his admissions staff are relying less on GPA and LSAT scores … in favor of recommendations and life experience.” [Emphasis mine]

Of course, the pigs state that they are now in favor of recommendations and “life experience.” This is code for “We will take anyone with a pulse.” Hell, why not give applicants additional points for a personal statement as to why they want to go to law school?!?! If they manage to type up such a letter – and have less than 10 grammatical or spelling errors – perhaps they can even get a partial scholarship, i.e. tuition discount.

In-State Tuition: For $ome rea$on, the swine provide these figures on a per semester basis. I suppose they feel that the price tag does not look quite so steep when it is presented this way. At any rate, Texas residents attending this cesspool will face tuition and fees of $15,859.90 – for the 2016-2017 academic year. By law school measures, that is affordable. However, remember this is a three year program, and opportunity costs and living expenses should also be considered before taking the plunge. Also, take garbage job prospects into account, genius.

Non-Resident Tuition: Those foolish enough to move to Texas, in order to attend this trash pit, will be charged $27,989.10 in tuition and fees – for the 2016-2017 school year. That is a steep price, especially for a commode with no alumni base or proven results. If you have a decent job, I don’t understand why you would even contemplate enrolling in such a toilet.

Conclusion: The Univer$iTTTTTy of NorTTTTTh TTTTTexa$ Dalla$ Commode of Law is trying to justify its decision to admit those who have little chance of passing the bar exam, by stating that it factors in life experience and recommendations. So if the shift manager at Starbucks writes a nice letter for Dumbass, then that should be given serious weight?! Real law schools don’t care about anything other than strong LSAT scores and perhaps an undergrad degree from a top university. I wouldn’t bet against the ABA eventually accrediting this sewer.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Bloomberg Calls for Crackdown on ABA-Accredited Toilets With Weak-Ass Bar Passage Rates

The Gauntlet is Thrown Down: On August 8, 2016, Bloomberg published a Megan McCardle piece that was entitled “Crack Down on Law Schools That Don’t Pass the Bar.” Check out this wonderful opening:

“The American Bar Association is considering a plan that would endanger the accreditation of any law school where fewer than three-quarters of the students pass the bar within two years. 

That is setting up a battle within the organization, pitting critics of two very different problems against each other. Those who are worried about the glut of law graduates who can’t get jobs want to crack down on law schools that have shored up their finances by admitting students who may not be able to pass the bar exam. But those who are worried about a lack of diversity in the profession fear that any crackdown on accreditation could disproportionately hurt schools that strive to bring more minorities into the field. 

Law schools have been suffering in recent years. The once-lucrative financial industry that used to use a whole lot of legal services has gotten a lot less lucrative, limiting the ability of armies of law-school grads to charge vast sums for their services. 

Meanwhile, computers and international outsourcing have begun to nibble away at a lot of the tedious but necessary work that used to consume the labor of thousands of young lawyers, like reviewing documents for discovery requests.

Companies like LegalZoom, meanwhile, are competing for the business that used to be the bread and butter of many law graduates: simple wills, leases and so forth. 

And state-level tort and medical malpractice reforms have somewhat cramped the style of people like John Edwards who got rich off class-action and personal-injury lawsuits.

Thanks to the internet -- and a decision by the ABA to force schools to publish data on employment -- news of these difficulties spread quickly among prospective students. So while law school has traditionally been a refuge for young workers who were pummeled by a recession, that’s not what happened this time. Instead, the number of applicants plummeted. 

This placed law schools in an uncomfortable bind. Schools are optimized to a certain size of class. They have the number of classrooms and tenured professors that they expect to need in order to teach those students. Those things are expensive, and cannot be easily shed. With applications falling, schools had to decide whether to maintain their admissions standards (reducing the size of the incoming class), or maintain their student target (by lowering admissions standards). Unsurprisingly, a whole lot of them chose the latter.” [Emphasis mine]

Hell, drug fiends have a higher standard of decency. At least, those turds are providing their marks with a little something for their money.

Other Coverage: On August 9, 2016, the Law School Truth Center blog featured an entry labeled “Shameful Bloomberg Publishes Scamblogger Message.” Take a look at this excerpt:

“Unquestionably, Bloomberg is a respected media organization. Thus, while I was disheartened to read the title of this piece, I was re-heartened by the symphonic content of the 3rd and 2nd to last paragraphs and figured the above was a misnomer: 

Also, everyone who enrolls in law school is a consenting adult. Why should the ABA prevent people from taking a risk that they understand and accept? It’s true that the very same low-income and minority applicants who tend to score lower on the LSAT will also be most hurt if they are hit by high debt and poor job prospects. 

There’s something uncomfortably paternalistic about saying that the elites of the ABA accreditation committee need to swoop in and save these applicants from themselves. 

Bingo, Ringo. If there's one thing a butt-rapist likes to hear, it's the phrase "consenting adult." When law students get barebacked by a two-headed pine-cone, it's because they voluntarily chose such activities. What, you want a bunch of metaphorical anal gangbang virgins representing your real estate conglomerate? 

Once full disclosure is made of the risks and rewards, which every law school in America does in a quaint theory completely unmoored from the gravity of Planet Realism, it's absolutely paternalistic to set LSAT cut-offs and bar passage rates. Heck, it's paternalistic to even have a bar exam. The free market is fully capable of determining good lawyer from bad. 

But then we have the devastating conclusion. 

As long as the bar exam remains a significant barrier to practicing law, one of the obligations for schools that admit students with low LSAT scores is to prepare a large majority of them to pass the exam. Any school that fails to do so is not serving these students, but preying upon them. The American Bar Association would be right to revoke its accreditation.

Far from the paternalism concerns of the previous paragraphs, the writer now is seeking to hold law schools (non-fiduciary, non-principal third parties) responsible for the individual failures of their customers. Essentially, people of this mindset would completely ignore the actual quality level of instruction in favor of evaluating a multi-million dollar institution based on how a few students do on an inherently biased test.” [Emphasis mine]

The author’s writing style is reminiscent of Stephen Colbert’s faux conservative persona. You should follow that blog, for a comical take on the law school scam.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school pigs do not give one damn about YOU, the student or recent graduate. You are a mere pawn in their game. The swine appeal to young people’s sense of idealism and “public service.” Guess what, bitch: when you owe $164,823.12 in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, you are not in a position to take a job with legal aid that pays $35K per year. Plus, with falling admi$$ion$ “standards” in place at ABA trash pits, MANY of you will not even pass the bar exam. The minute all your student loan checks clear, the cockroaches could not care less about you or your financial health. That is because the bitches and hags are paid up front, in full – while you are left holding the bag, Stupid.

Saturday, August 6, 2016

News Flash: The Law School Pigs Do Not Give One Damn About Minority Students or Graduates

ABA Seeks Higher Bar Passage Rates and Pisses Off the Rodents: On August 3, 2016, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog published a Jacob Gershman piece that was entitled “Tougher Bar-Passage Standard for Law Schools Sparks Objections.”  Look at this opening:

“Bar-exam passage rates and racial diversity are two flashpoints in the legal industry. The two are now bumping against each other as the legal establishment weighs a proposal to tighten law school accrediting standards. legal education reporter Karen Sloan reports: 

Factions are again forming in the battle over the American Bar Association’s bar-passage standard for law schools, with diversity and consumer advocates at odds over a proposal to strengthen the rule. 

The ABA is considering a plan that would require 75% of a law school’s graduates who sit for a bar exam to pass the test within two years. The proposal has been floated amid a perplexing trend of declining bar exam scores nationwide and increasing attention on the racial make-up of the profession. 

A number of law school deans and the largest nationwide black law student association are objecting to the proposed standard, expressing concern about its potential impact on schools with larger minority student populations. 

If adopted, the new standard would “jeopardize the existence of traditionally minority law schools and ultimately erase the profession’s modest gains in diversity over the last several decades,” states a July 29 letter co-signed by the deans of more than a dozen law schools. The deans represent schools “designed to serve historically underrepresented minority population,” including Howard University, Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University and Florida A&M University.” [Emphasis mine]

These ass monkeys conveniently “forget” to mention that by attending a garbage law school, the student – minority or non-connected white – is already limited in his job prospects, from Day One. Biglaw firms are not going to hire your TTT educated carcass, and the federal government would rather hire a gerbil than give you a chance. Later on, this gem:

“Proponents of the 75% rule say low-performing schools aren’t advancing the goal of greater diversity. 

“Graduates who fail the bar exam cannot diversify the profession. Instead, these graduates suffer substantial personal and financial costs,” wrote Ohio State University law professor Deborah Jones Merritt, who studies legal education. “Maintaining the accreditation of law schools with poor bar passage rates, on the contrary, is a counterproductive way to diversify the profession.” [Emphasis mine]

That is crystal clear! If you cannot pass the damn bar exam, then you cannot obtain a law license – with the exception of Wisconsin candidates who attended law school in the state. Furthermore, if firms or clients are unable or unwilling to pay for your legal services, then you cannot make a living as an attorney. How the hell is that person adding to the diversity of the “profession”?!?!

The TTTT LeTTTTer: On July 29, 2016, a total of 20 cockroaches wrote a comment letter to the ABA Council for the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Check out this filth:

“We, the undersigned deans of ABA-approved law schools, the National Bar Association, the Society of American Law Teachers, East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association, and former Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso of the California Supreme Court, strongly object to the Council’s proposed changes to Standard 316. In contrast to the American Bar Association’s history of narrowing the opportunity of minorities to enter the legal profession through law-school admissions quotas and other barriers, the ABA today extols the virtues of diversity and the need to welcome more African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans into the profession, which, disturbingly, remains one of the least diverse in the country. 

The Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has, nonetheless, proposed a set of changes to Standard 316 that would, if adopted, jeopardize the existence of traditionally minority law schools and ultimately erase the profession’s modest gains in diversity over the last several decades. Moreover, the proposal would place minority bar examinees at a distinct disadvantage relative to their non-minority counterparts. 

Diversity Set Back Decades

Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos currently constitute a little over 30 percent of the country’s population. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, a mere 4.6 percent of American lawyers are African American and 5.1 percent are Hispanic or Latino, and the ABA has made little recent progress in improving these numbers. Over the last fifteen years, for example, the number of black lawyers has grown an anemic 1.2 percent and the number of Hispanic lawyers has increased by less than one percent. Minority communities, it should come as no surprise, remain woefully underserved.” [Emphasis mine]

These bitches and hags are vile, sick people. They are not concerned that minority JDs typically have fewer connections, or that they also incur outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. They are also more prone to attending ABA-accredited dung heaps and cesspits.

Conclusion: The pieces of trash who wrote and co-signed that letter to the ABA could not care less about dark-skinned law students or graduates. Hell, they don’t give a wet fart about poor whites who enroll in law school. They simply want to keep the scam rolling along – and they will use any pretense at their disposal. 

Take a hard look at all of the excrement piles on that list: St. Thomas University, Howard, Thurgood Marshall Sewer of Law of Texas Southern University, Southern University Law Cesspool, University of the District of Columbia, North Carolina Central University, Florida A&M, Loyola University New Orleans, Barry University, Widener, Golden Gate Commode of Law, VermonTTT, Western State Commode of Law, Mississippi College Sewer of Law, California Western, WhiTTTTier, TTTTouro Law CenTTTTer, University of La Verne, TJ$L, and Florida Coastal. Do you see one single quality program in that entire lineup?!?! That speaks volumes about the swines’ motivation.

Monday, August 1, 2016

ABA Cockroaches Bestowed Full Accreditation Upon University of La Verne College of Law

Belated Congratulations, Pigs: On March 14, 2016, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin published a Monica Rodriguez piece that was entitled “University of La Verne law school receives full accreditation from American Bar Association.” Look at this opening:

“It took time and a great deal of effort, but the University of La Verne College of Law has achieved a long-sought goal: full accreditation from the American Bar Association. 

The blessing comes after previous attempts were stymied by a low first-time bar passage rate. University President Devorah Lieberman said the achievement brings to fruition a dream of founding dean and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Paul Egly, who opened the school in 1970. 

As he envisioned it, the university’s law school would prepare students to not only practice law locally but also “live up to the mission of the university,” she said, referring to the college’s commitment to social justice. 

Earning the recognition sends out a message about the program, Lieberman said. “It communicates the University of La Verne law school can be seen as an equal to any other” American Bar Association-approved school, she said. 

College of Law Dean Gilbert A. Holmes, who has been at the university since 2013, was happy to receive the news but even more pleased for those who have been with the college longer than he has...  

The school initiated the process to become ABA accredited in the late 1990s, Holmes said. 

It wasn’t always easy. 

In 2010, the school was at risk of losing its provisional accreditation when the American Bar Association took notice of the college’s 2009 first-time bar passage rate, which at the time was 34 percent.” [Emphasis mine]

As if these cockroaches would know a thing about hard work. I’m sure they’ve read about, observed, and studied the concept though. By the way, moron: La Verne COL is not equal to Yale or Stanford.  Hell, Third Tier Drake is better.  Also, good luck fighting for "social justice" when you're working in retail - or selling insurance premiums - as a La Verne Law grad.  Later on, the author noted the following:

“What’s next for the College of Law?

“First of all we continue to strive for excellence,” Holmes said. The goal is to prepare top-notch legal professionals and to provide services that benefit students, the community and those in the field of law.

The program will continue to implement innovative programs, such as its new “true tuition model,” which Lieberman called Holmes’ brain child. Implemented in 2014, it the program cut tuition from $39,000 to $25,500 a year for full-time students and to $19,000 a year for part-time students.

It makes ULV’s College of Law the most affordable American Bar Association-accredited law school program in the state, and prompted an increase enrollment, Holmes said.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, featuring first-time bar passage rates of 34 percent, recently, is a great sign of excellence, right?!?! Then again, it went up to 56 percent for the Class of 2015. However, that figure is still embarrassing. Imagine if an accredited medical school featured similar success on the licensing boards.

TTTTT Press Release: On April 14, 2016, the swine posted a press release, written by Melissa Pinion, that was labeled “College of Law Earns Full ABA Accreditation.” Check out this portion:

“The University of La Verne College of Law on March 14 received full accreditation from the American Bar Association, an accomplishment gained through the implementation of innovative programs that have increased accessibility, enrollment and success for its students. This ABA action raises the College of Law from its provisional status, which it received in March 2012. 

“We are pleased the ABA has recognized and affirmed the important work of the College of Law in developing future legal leaders in the community,” said President Devorah Lieberman. “Our pursuit has never ceased in realizing the dream Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Paul Egly had in 1970 to bring an accredited law school to Inland Southern California. This action is testament to the power of that dream. I would like to thank former University of La Verne President Steve Morgan for helping shepherd the law school through the journey preparing us for this moment of full accreditation.” [Emphasis mine]

This story is still featured prominently under the Current News tab of the trash pit’s web page.  They are proud of this accompli$hmenTTTTT.

Ranking: Attaining full accreditation will not improve this toilet’s reputation. The Univer$iTTTTTy of La Verne Commode of Law was still listed as “Unranked” – by US “News” & World Report. This is the equivalent of fifth tier. And that is after 40 years of being in taxpayer-subsidized business.

Conclusion: Avoid the Univer$iTTTTTy of La Verne Commode of Law – at all costs. I don’t care if they give you a full scholarship and a car. You are MUCH better off remaining in your current job and trying to work your way up to management – or earn a raise or bonuses. This pile of excrement was founded in 1970, and it took 42 damn years to obtain provisional accreditation – from an organization that hands out the credential as if it was candy. That tells you all you need to know about this place.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

TTT Smells of Desperation: Tier Tier Commode Vermont Law School Seeks Federal Loan for Debt Relief

Desperate-Ass Measures: On July 24, 2016, VT Digger re-published an article from Valley News reporter Matt Hongoltz-Hetling, under the headline “Vermont Law School Seeking Federal Loan to Ease Debt Costs.” Check out the following excerpt:

“Vermont Law School is hoping to borrow $15 million from the federal government to help restructure its debts and take advantage of lower interest rates.

VLS officials said the school has put the worst of its financial woes behind it, and the proposal would fund a land-lease transaction involving its 15-acre South Royalton campus.

“It means significant operating savings for VLS,” said [Pig] Lorraine Atwood, vice president of finance at the school, which she said currently spends about $1.2 million annually to service about $13.5 million in debt. 

The school, which has an annual budget of $28 million, is hosting a public information meeting at 5 p.m. Thursday at Oakes Hall about the plan, which would create a land-lease agreement with a separate entity, VLS Campus Holdings LLC.

The law school would continue to own its land and 22 buildings, which have a combined net book value of $22 million, according to Atwood. 

The school is seeking the loan from the USDA’s Rural Development Community Facilities Direct Loan Program, which develops “essential community facilities” in rural areas.” [Emphasis mine]

As you can see, the bitches and hags will do and say anything, in order to keep their turd law school afloat. Honestly, the swine would sell their filthy asses to Satan – in exchange for serious money. Later on, the piece contained this information:

“Atwood said the federal loan program has funds, but she was unsure as to whether the effort would bear fruit. 

“We don’t know if we’ll be successful, but we’re doing everything we can to qualify for it,” she said.

Atwood said the law school’s prominent role within the Royalton community makes it a good fit for the program.

The school operates the South Royalton Legal Clinic for low-income residents, a state library, a community day care center, and a fitness center, all of which are open to the community. It also has joint agreements with the town that support joint infrastructure and employs 135 faculty, not counting adjunct professors.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, who gives a damn about those community facilities that actually serve people in rural areas, right?! These jackals would take money from children with cancer!

Other Coverage: On July 26, 2016, Kathryn Rubino posted an ATL entry labeled “Facing A Decline In Enrollment, Law School Seeks Federal Loan For Some Debt Relief.” Take a look at this beautiful opening:

“What would you do if enrollment at your law school had declined by 33% since 2011?

It certainly isn’t an enviable position to be in, but that is what is facing administrators at Vermont Law School. Though the enrollment rates have leveled off, the decrease in the amount of students paying tuition has left financial issues the school is still dealing with. VLS has a renowned environmental law program and is the only law school in the state of Vermont, but that hasn’t stopped it from hitting on hard times. 

One possible solution the school is trying is applying for a $15 million loan from the USDA’s Rural Development Community Facilities Direct Loan Program, which, at a lower interest rate than the $13.5 million in loans they currently have, would mean a reduction in the $1.2 million they pay annually to service the loans.

The USDA program may strike those unfamiliar with the institution as an awkward fit for a law school, but let’s not forget that Vermont Law School holds the distinction of being the American law school that is the furthest from a stop light (27 miles away). Ted Brady, state director of Vermont and New Hampshire for USDA Rural Development, agrees that VLS may just be a good fit for the program, as reported by VT Digger:

“Institutions of higher education are especially vital to rural communities,” Brady said. “Vermont Law School is a great example of an essential community facility that not only provides a vital service to Vermonters, but also anchors the community’s economy and culture.”

Their loan application includes provisions for a land-lease transaction for its 15-acre campus with a separate entity, VLS Campus Holdings LLC. According to Lorraine Atwood, vice president of finance at the school, VLS would continue to own the land and the buildings that make up the law school.” [Emphasis mine]

Of course, the cockroaches would continue to own the land and the buildings. What would you expect from such rent-seeking leeches?!?! “Law professors” and deans have NO INTEGRITY! Hell, they would gladly take money and food from malnourished infants. They wouldn’t miss a wink of sleep either. After all, it is better to use those resources on fat pigs, right?!?!?

Conclusion: You can bet your ass that the 132nd-ranked cesspit known as VermonTTTT Law Sewer will get the funds. The cockroaches will do whatever it takes to survive. They will enroll waterheads, admit a higher percentage of weaker applicant pools, merge, sell to an established college or univer$ity, start two-year JD programs, combined with colleges for 3+3 degrees, etc. Keep in mind that the USDA is run by spineless, ball-less nitwits, many of whom have the initials JD behind their names.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Open Letter to the Incoming JD Class of 2019

Recent Warning: On July 19, 2016, the Boston Globe published correspondent Isvari Mohan’s piece, which was entitled “Put down that law school application before it’s too late.” Take a look at this opening:

“I’m going to bet that many of you have considered going to law school. Whether you’re a scientist, a doctor, an engineer, a businesswoman, or a stereotypical liberal arts grad, you might have thought that law school would help you with something. 

Most of the time, it won’t. 

Here’s why law school is a terrible idea for most people: 

It’s super expensive. At Georgetown, where I am a third-year law student, tuition runs about $56,000 a year. You’re almost certainly going to take out loans. They are going to be massive, probably around $100,000. And if you don’t have to take out loans, there are better ways to spend $200,000. Invest in a house, for example.

You won’t make as much money as you think. Many law schools have now been sued for fudging employment numbers, including top-tier law schools. The market for lawyers is just that much worse than what you’re made to think. Even if you land one of the highest-paying corporate law jobs at $180,000 a year in starting salary, at the hours you’d be working, that’s about $50 an hour. There are tons of other careers that will pay you $50 an hour and not require three years of education, never seeing your friends, and $100,000 in debt.” [Emphasis mine]

After listing several other valid reasons for eschewing law school, Mohan points out the following:

“Law is boring. It’s nothing like what you see on TV. You’re not going to be sitting at a carved wooden table, questioning the applicability of Citizens United to a new Supreme Court case. You’re also not going to be tearing down a witness on a stand. You’re going to be sitting in a cubicle and cranking out memos. 

Law is not going to help you save the world. In fact, you’re probably going to have to do the opposite – work for a corporate law firm and watch your billable hours – just to pay back your loans. Most nonprofits don’t even hire straight out of law school… 

Law is not going to make your parents/friends/significant other happy or proud of you. Or even if it does now, it’s not going to 10 years down the road when you’re miserable, never keep in touch with them, and are still paying off your debt.” [Emphasis in original]

If you are attending a non-elite law school, and your father is not a federal judge/pig, then you essentially have no shot in hell of landing a Biglaw position anyway. So that option is not available to THE VAST MAJORITY of law students or graduates. Get the picture yet, moron?!?! Is this starting to penetrate your little gray matter?

Prior Alarms: Back on October 13, 2015, the Hustle featured a Tucker Max piece labeled “Why You Shouldn’t Go to Law School.” Enjoy this meaty portion:

“Let me repeat myself: YOU SHOULD NOT GO TO LAW SCHOOL.

If you’re still thinking about law school start by asking yourself one simple question: 

“Why do I want to go to law school?” 

It’s an obvious question, but almost everyone overlooks or avoids it. So answer it, right now, to yourself. Then compare this reason to the list below. 

These are the six wrong reasons I hear most often. See if your answer is in this list.”

Here is his line item inventory:

I like arguing and everyone says I’m good at it.
I want to be like Jack McCoy from Law & Order [or insert your favorite legal TV show character].
It’s the only way I can think of to use my humanities degree.
I want to change the world/help homeless people/rescue stray kittens/do something noble.
I don’t know what else to do.
I want to make a lot of money.

If you are a pussy, you will be offended by Tucker Max. However, he went to Duke Law School. When it comes to “legal education,” he knows what the hell he is talking about, lemming. YOU, on the other hand, only have your “dreams” or feelings as a reference point.

On July 11, 2016, the Huffington Post featured an entry from Ishan Puri, under the headline “Should I Go To Law School?” After prefacing his article with the fact that law school is often a $200K+ decision, the author delineates the following moronic reasons for attending:

My parents want me to go
I want to make a difference/change the world
I want to make a lot of money
I don’t know what else to do
I want to be a lawyer

See a pattern, Dumbass?!?!  By the way, Puri is a Stanford graduate – as well as an entrepreneur and investor. This means that he too is significantly smarter than you, Bitch.

Conclusion: I and dozens of other people have provided enough facts, charts, graphs, and industry pig statements about the law school scam, for several damn years now. In fact, here is a free compendium of resources, lazy bastard. If you choose to overlook those figures – including average law student indebtedness – then you are WILLFULLY IGNORANT. How in the hell can you expect to competently represent clients on things such as deeds, covenants, property line disputes, contractual obligations, wills, estate planning, divorces, criminal matters, etc.?!?! You cannot even look out for your own financial well-being, fool!
Web Analytics