Friday, December 2, 2016
Booyah: On December 1, 2016, the ABA Journal featured a Stephanie Francis Ward piece that was entitled “10 to 15 law schools could close if enrollment keeps shrinking, higher-ed market analyst says.” Enjoy this spectacular opening:
“Although there’s been a contraction in the law school market, tuition continues to rise, including at private institutions that take first-year students with lower LSAT scores and have high attrition rates, says Robert Zemsky, a professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania. Zemsky predicts several of these schools will close if trends continue.
His study, Mapping a Contracting Market, analyzed 171 law schools and found that enrollment dropped by 21 percent at private law schools between 2011 and 2015. At public law schools, enrollment dropped by 18 percent. Zemsky also analyzed attrition rates at schools within both categories.
He found that while private schools with the lowest attrition rates and the best LSAT scores had the highest market price per student, those with the highest attrition rates and the worst LSAT scores still cost more than private institutions seen as second or third-tier law schools. Zemsky’s use of market price also figures in scholarships and grants received from schools, rather than just the listed tuition prices.
“You’d think the least attractive school would charge the lowest price. What they’re doing is admitting students with relatively low LSAT scores, and charging them a high price for gambling on them,” says Zemsky, who presented his findings at a recent Chicago conference hosted by the Access Group Center for Research & Policy Analysis.
If the law student market contracts further, it’s possible that between 10 and 15 schools will close, says Zemsky, a founding director of Penn’s Institute for Research on Higher Education. He notes that law schools are already losing money.
“You can’t continue to muddle through and hold your breath,” he told the Chicago audience on Nov. 16. “You can only hold your breath for so long.” [Emphasis mine]
Short of open admissions, enrollment will continue to decline. Smarter college graduates are avoiding law school in droves. At the rate of tuition increases, even waterheads are reconsidering this route. What the hell is the point of following a proven path to financial ruin?!?
Prior Forecasts: Back on November 3, 2016, Paul Caron wrote a TaxProf Blog entry that was headlined “After Indiana Tech, How Many More Law Schools Will Close? 20? 80? Will A Top 25 School Be Among Them?” Look at this conclusion:
“The likelihood of law school closures has been a hot topic among law school professors and bloggers for the past two years.
Jerry Organ, of University of St. Thomas, compared today’s law school environment to what happened to dental schools in the 1980s. Ten percent closed due to a significant decline in the number of applicants. Could 10 percent of law schools shut down, he asked?
Dorothy Brown, of Emory University School of Law, believes a top law school will shut down in the next two to four years. “Primarily, the law school would have to be hemorrhaging a lot of money over a sustained period of time with no end in sight,” she wrote. “Not just a one-time deficit, but millions of dollars in deficits over a sustained period.”
And David Barnhizer, of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, said 80 law schools are at risk of closing. “Just as the legal employment market is over-saturated due to the surplus numbers of graduates law schools pumped into the system over the past twenty years, the productive capacity of the law school ‘industry’ is entirely out of balance with all foreseeable need for law graduates,” he wrote. “Given the direction the traditional employment markets for lawyers are heading no more than 80-100 law schools could easily serve America’s need for new law graduates.”
In a Kaplan Test Prep survey, 65 percent of law school admissions officers thought it would be a good idea if at least a few law schools closed.” [Emphasis mine]
I’m sure none of those admi$$ion$ cockroaches felt that their dung heap should be closed. Not a single one!
Back on October 3, 2012, Brian Leiter prognosticated that up to 10 ABA toilets could be shuttered within 10 years. His piece was labeled “Predictions about Closings of ABA-Accredited Law School Over the Next Decade.” To wit:
“That 15% think no law schools at all will close may be wishful thinking, but perhaps there is a sound explanation for thinking that correct. My own opinion was that we'll see several law schools close during the next decade, but probably not more than ten--and that was the majority view among readers by a wide margin. Most vulnerable are going to be free-standing law schools that are relatively young. Relatively young law schools part of universities that are in vulnerable financial shape are also likely candidates.” [Emphasis mine]
Conclusion: Since then, Hamline Sewer of Law merged with William Mitchell Commode of Law – and Indiana TTTTech Law $chool announced that it will shut down in July 2017. Thomas Cooley has “affiliated” with Western Michigan University and still had to close up its Ann Arbor campus, one among several . Other cesspits have been purchased by larger schools, such as Texas Wesleyan selling its ass to Texas A&M. Several ABA schools have had to slash support staff and buyout “professor” contracts. Enrollment continues to drop, and schools are taking in dumber students. Do you get the picture yet, cretin?! This is excellent news for humanity, but a blow to the greedy academic pigs. Again, do not piss away your future just so these “educators” can buy a vacation home or lease another Mercedes.
Posted by Nando at 5:21 AM
Sunday, November 27, 2016
The News: On November 25, 2016, the Valley Morning Star published a piece from staff writer Danya Perez-Hernandez, under the headline “Will Valley get a new law school?” Take a look at this opening:
“A new legislative year is bringing renewed hope for Rio Grande Valley lawmakers who hope to establish a law school in the area.
“The law school is a natural progression as our demographics grow, as our population grows,” said Eddie Lucio III, D-Brownsville.
“There are some great, very talented young professionals who for financial reasons or reasons related to family cannot travel to San Antonio, which is our nearest law school.”
Lucio III and Armando “Mando” Martinez, D-Weslaco, both filed legislation — House Bill 169 and 46, respectively — last week calling for the establishment of a public law school in either Cameron or Hidalgo County.
Just like with the creation of the medical school at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, for which legislation was filed more than 70 years ago, the idea is to lay the groundwork for the creation of the law school.
The Valley had been slated at some point by the UT System Regents as the next best place for a medical school and, according to Lucio III, the same should be said for the law school.
“If you look at other parts of the state — Houston, Dallas, San Antonio — everybody has a law school,” Martinez said. “We believe that we are able to compete with the rest of the state, and we want to be able to provide that opportunity to our bright students here.”
The bills call for any university system to establish the law school and, even though UTRGV might be the first to come to mind, the fact that there has been more interest from other systems, like Texas A&M, expanding to the region opens up more avenues.
“So you are not only saying the University of Texas School of Law,” Martinez said. “You are saying ‘Any public university that would like to create a law school in Texas, here, we have the framework for it and now you can do it.’” [Emphasis mine]
Did anyone notice that these moronic legislators failed to mention the lawyer glut in this nation?!?! By the way, Houston and Dallas are huge metropolitan areas – and San Antonio is a large city. According to this Wikipedia page, Hidalgo County is the eighth largest in the state. And Cameron County had an estimated 406,220 people as of the 2010 census. Do you think that either area can support a new toilet, lemming?!?! If so, then you are likely in the 142 LSAT crowd.
Other Coverage: On November 25, 2016, “Old Guy” authored a hilarious OTLSS entry, which was entitled “Texas legislators contemplate yet another law school.” He is spot on with regards to the foolishness of the “need” for a new public toilet in that state. Enjoy:
“Scant weeks after the notorious law school at Indiana Tech announced its closure, legislators in Texas proposed the opening of a law school in the southernmost part of the state:
Why? Because "everybody [else] has a law school". A perfect reason! Why shouldn't every half-ass town in the state get its share of the pork barrel?
In addition, "[t]here are some great, very talented young professionals who for financial reasons or reasons related to family cannot travel to San Antonio, which is our nearest law school". (Wrong: the nearest law school is at the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey.) The same argument was deployed at Indiana Tech: pity the many "great, very talented young professionals" (even though actually most of the students there were well past 30) who are so poorly served by the mere four other law schools in Indiana and the thirty-odd within a four-hour drive of Fort Wayne!
Not a word is said about demand, quality, prospects for employment, or even the experience of so many failed or failing law schools, including some in Texas itself. Such paltry considerations should not scupper the latest hackademic boondoggle…Just open the goddamn law school and ask questions later.” [Emphasis mine]
Hell, the waterheads did not even mention the fact the UNT Dallas Commode of Law is not yet fully accredited by the American Bar Association cockroaches. This is a group that regularly approves any structure that has bookshelves, couches, internet access, and a fax machine!
Need for More Schools in Texas?: As you can see, Texas is already home to nine ABA-accredited commodes. The only decent school among the whole group is the state flagship university. After the University of Texas, the drop off in quality or name brand is severe. Even SMU and the University of Houston are middling trash heaps.
Conclusion: The idiots pushing this measure are merely trying to add some “prestige” and pork to their little corner of Texas. Take a moment to reflect on your idea, fools. Can you picture in your little minds – for one microsecond – legions of debt-strapped law grads being able to make a decent living while representing broke-ass dirt farmers and welfare recipients in your community?!?! Here is the reality of the situation: even when Wanda has some discretionary income, she is more likely to piss that money away on an Xbox for her 32 year old man-child husband. In the alternative, she will use those funds on an ankle tattoo that she has wanted for some time. Yet, you are willing to waste revenue on exploring this path. Go back to your coloring books and Play-Doh.
Posted by Nando at 6:39 AM
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Ouch!: On November 21, 2016, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “California’s Bar Passage Rate Reaches 32 Year Low.” Take a look at this opening:
“All bar exam results from the July 2016 administration of the test have officially been released, and in California’s case, it seems that the absolute worst may have been saved for last. The results of the state’s exam were scheduled for mailing on Friday, and test-takers were able to see whether their names were on the pass list on Friday evening.
Save for a few states, bar passage rates have continued to decline nationwide, and many have been waiting to see if California’s passage rates for the July 2016 exam would tank as badly as they did in July 2015, which were the worst the state had seen in nearly three decades. If you thought last year was bad, just wait until you see this year’s results.
According to a press release from the State Bar of California, the overall pass rate for the July 2016 exam was 43 percent, while the pass rate for first-time takers was 56 percent. In July 2015, the overall pass rate was 46.6 percent, and the pass rate for first-time takers was 60 percent. Although California’s overall pass rate dropped by 3.6 percentage points, its examinees seemed to be more able than test-takers in other states. The state’s mean scaled MBE score was 1421 compared with the national average of 1403.
Perhaps that bright spot ought to be taken with a grain of salt, because this is the lowest overall pass rate California has seen for the July administration of the bar since results were released in the fall of 1986, when only 44.4 percent of all test-takers passed the exam. The state hasn’t seen an overall pass rate this low in 32 years. In fact, this passage rate is historically mediocre — it’s actually the third-lowest summer passage rate the state has seen since 1951, when the July passage rate was just 37.6 percent.” [Emphasis mine]
Imagine incurring outrageous amounts of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for a law degree, only to then fail the bar exam. That is a waste of three years of time, money, energy. This represents a loss of significant loss of income as well. But at least the law school pigs were paid up front, in full, right?!?! While this pass rate also includes graduates of out of state ABA commodes, California-accredited schools, and non-accredited cesspits, these results are pathetic.
Press Release: On November 18, 2016, the state bar issued a release entitled “State Bar Announces Results for July 2016 California Bar Examination.” Read the portion below:
“The State Bar of California's Committee of Bar Examiners reported today that 43 percent of the applicants passed the July 2016 General Bar Examination (GBX). If the 3,332 people who passed the July 2016 exam satisfy other requirements for admission, they will become members of the State Bar, and therefore licensed to practice law in California.
Preliminary statistical analyses show that of the 7,737 applicants who took the GBX, 66.7 percent were first-time takers. The passing rate for the 5,164 first-time applicants was 56 percent overall. The passing rate for the 2,573 applicants repeating the examination was 17 percent overall.” [Emphasis mine]
Of note, at the end of the page, you will see the following: Membership now stands at more than a quarter-million. That figure pertains to active lawyers in the state of California. Still want to join this GLUTTED field, Dumbass?!?!
According to this Sacramento Bee story from December 16, 2015, the state’s population exceeded 39 million. If we go with a conservative estimate, and divide 39 million by 250,000 attorneys, then that means there is a lawyer for every 156 people in California.
Other Commentary: JDU denizen “cocolawyer” started a thread labeled “California Bar Passage Rates…” on November 22, 2016. Check out the following remarks:
"cocolawyer (Nov 22, 2016 - 1:56 pm)
Well if you look at overall pass rate it's 43%. This is the lowest pass rate for the July Exam in California in over 30 years.
Basically, the exam is getting easier, but the students are stupider. I hope firms are paying attention. You may want to pay your 3-6 years even more because they will be having to babysit brain dead mouth breathers.
jcad (Nov 22, 2016 - 2:09 pm)
“The trend in California is similar to the trend in New York and perhaps we should extrapolate from that to have such trend apply nationwide.
[T]he number of passers who are ABA approved California school grads (who are also first takers) was about 66% of those who passed the July 2012 exam.
July 2012 = 3157 passers
July 2016 = about 2100 passers
This reduction in ABA California school grads who are first takers and who passed is similar to the reduction seen in New York.”
Conclusion: Don’t put it past the law school cockroaches to point to the continuing decline in bar passage rates nationally – and resultant drop in recently licensed attorneys – as proof that we need more law students and graduates. After all, low-income families need representation in legal matters. Of course, if you owe $160K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, but do not have a law license, then you are not in a position to help those broke bastards. For $ome rea$on, the “professors” and deans conveniently “forget” to mention that fact.
Posted by Nando at 5:24 AM
Saturday, November 19, 2016
The News: On November 16, 2016, Dan Filler posted a Faculty Lounge entry labeled “ABA Places Charlotte Law On Probation & Censures Valpo Law.” Check out this excerpt:
“Today, the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar announced it is placing Charlotte Law School on probation for non-compliance with ABA Standards 301(a), 501(a), and 501(b). The remedial steps ordered include: The Law School shall, by December 15, 2016, supply to the Committee its admissions data and admissions methodology, which includes the Law School’s admissions practices and policies, for the fall 2017 entering class. Where factors other than grade point average and LSAT are used to support an admissions decision, the Law School shall report those factors, explain how they are determined and applied in the review of applicant files, and report on any analyses that have been done or are contemplated to review the outcomes of admissions decisions based on these factors.
Until the Law School is determined by the Accreditation Committee or the Council to be operating in compliance with Standards 301(a), 501(a), and 501(b), each semester, within 30 days of the completion of the assignment and distribution of semester grades for the Law School’s students, the Law School shall advise each Law School student, in writing, of the following, in the same communication: (a) the North and South Carolina first-time bar examination passage rates, by class quartiles, for Law School graduates sitting for the North and South Carolina bar examinations over the six administrations preceding the semester for which results are known; and (b) the class quartile into which the student then falls. The Law School shall provide evidence to the Managing Director’s office, within five days of its distribution to students, that the required information has been appropriately and timely communicated.
At the same time, the ABA Committee censured Valparaiso Law for non-compliance with Standards 501(a) and 501(b). The notice is here. The remedial steps ordered for Valpo were similar.” [Emphasis mine]
The pigs were placed on two years of probation, by an organization known to be extremely forgiving when it comes to enforcing its own pathetic standards. However, the American Bar Association clowns also has a track record of always restoring full accreditation to its foulest toilets. After all, they want more trash pits producing tons of law graduates unnecessarily.
Other Coverage: On November 17, 2016, the Charlotte Observer published reporter Michael Gordon’s article, “Charlotte School of Law promises higher pass rates after landing on probation.” Enjoy this opening:
“After years of falling test scores, the Charlotte School of Law has been placed on two year’s probation by its accrediting agency.
In taking the action, the American Bar Association has publicly criticized the for-profit school’s admission standards and its plummeting pass rates on the bar exam.
The ABA, which fully accredited the Charlotte school in 2011, has given the school 30 days to deliver a report on how it plans to fix the problems.
The school also is required to tell students how many are passing the bar exam.
The passing rate, 45 percent on the most recent exam this summer, is the lowest in North Carolina, a full 20 percentage points beneath the state average. Faculty turnover has been a growing problem, and as with many law schools, enrollment has fallen.
Failure to meet the bar association’s demands carries a list of penalties, from fines and censure to a loss of accreditation. An unaccredited school means the students can’t qualify for federal loans or take the bar exam in many states.
Charlotte School of Law Dean Jay Conison, says the school already has a comprehensive plan in place to increase the requirements for incoming students while adding programs and academic support to improve student performance on the bar exam.
“We are extremely disappointed over the news we got Monday,” he said, but added. “We have an obligation to make some improvements. And we have a very, very comprehensive plan that we are very confident in.” He predicted the school would be back in ABA compliance well within the two-year window.” [Emphasis mine]
The bitches and hags at this cess pit admit and enroll cretins, KNOWING full well that a significant portion of each class does not have the acumen to pass a bar exam. Yet, they need to get their claws on more federal student loan dollars – so they take in a plethora or dumbasses every year. How “honorable,” huh?!?! Look at these LSAT and UGPA numbers for CharloTTTTe SOL, courtesy of Law School Transparency.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the American Bar Association cockroaches are merely trying to appear competent. They had a little heat earlier from the U.S. Department of Education, and now the bastards need to “show” that they are indeed enforcing their own accreditation “standards.” Since the ABA routinely restores full accreditation to any commode it places on probation, do not expect anything different this time. See Whittier, Western School of Law, La Verne, etc.
Look for CharloTTTTe Sewer of Law to dissuade graduates from taking the bar exam. Perhaps, they will institute a baby bar, in order to weed out the real weaklings after first year. Or they might offer to pay idiots not to take the test. In the alternative, they may turn the last two years of schooling into a bar prep program. The slimy cockroaches will need to do something. As noted earlier, for the Fall 2013 entering class, the 25th percentile score was 141 and the 75th percentile LSAT was 149. For Fall 2015, those numbers dropped to 140 and 145, respectively. That indicates lower exam passage rates for this toilet, as long as the state bars hold up their standards.
Posted by Nando at 6:49 AM
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
The TTTTT Nerve: Back on October 19, 2016, North Texas Daily published a Tiffany Ditto piece that was entitled “UNT unaccredited law school to buy Dallas building where Lee Oswald was shot.” Take a look at this opening:
“UNT Dallas is paying the city of Dallas $1 for the city’s former municipal building with plans to house UNT’s law school there. But the building will cost $56 million to renovate, and UNT’s law school is still not accredited, officials said.
The university has been negotiating the deal with the city for the last 10 years, Law School Chancellor Lee Jackson said. The city of Dallas is donating the building, the land it sits on and $16 million worth of restorative work.
“We believe the location is ideal for a public law school because of the many courts and law firms in the downtown Dallas area,” Jackson said in an email.
After a decade of planning and gaining the state’s approval to issue $56 million in bonds, UNT is finally able to acquire the building, Jackson said. The long-term bonds will be issued by UNT but the state of Texas will reimburse the debt and interest.
The city of Dallas has already invested $16 million into restoring the building’s exterior walls, stabilizing the structure and demolishing of the interior of the building.
Renovation of the inside is set to begin January 2017 by UNT’s architects. The goal is to modernize the inside so that it can function as a 21st-century law school while keeping its old charm. James Maguire, vice chancellor of the law school, will oversee the architectural changes made to the interior of the building, but he could not be reached for comment.
The building, at 106 South Harwood Street, was erected in 1914 and was home to Dallas’ city government for over 60 years. The building gained fame when Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and jailed there after assassinating President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Two days later, Jack Ruby shot Oswald while he was being lead out of the municipal building.
With millions of dollars being poured into the new law building, UNT hopes it will be able to acquire the accreditation needed from the American Bar Association to graduate students that can go on to be lawyers.” [Emphasis mine]
Yes, this deal reeks of a foul stench. Apparently, the pigs at the Univer$iTTTTTy of NorTTTTTh TTTTTexa$ Dalla$ Commode of Law believe in their vision so much that they have to rely on taxpayer funds to make their dreams come true! Sadly, state legislator idiots agreed to this scheme.
Other Coverage: Back on September 26, 2016, the Dallas Morning News featured a Robert Wilonsky story that was labeled “Despite accreditation woes, UNT ready to buy historic City Hall for downtown Dallas law school.” Make sure to read the following portion:
“Dallas' first public law school, in the heart of downtown, remains at risk of not being accredited by the American Bar Association. But that isn't stopping UNT Dallas College of Law from proceeding with long-standing plans to buy the old Municipal Building from the city.
On Monday morning, Lee Jackson, chancellor of the University of North Texas System, went to Dallas City Hall to outline its purchase plans for the 103-year-old landmark, which served as the city's fourth city hall until 1978. UNT plans to renovate the building, which is across the street from Main Street Garden, using $56 million in tuition revenue bonds approved by the state Legislature last year.
The city agreed to turn the building over to UNT at no cost but with an agreement that the historic structure be restored.
UNT first expressed interest in the old muni building a decade ago, and the City Council has repeatedly passed resolutions in support of planting a law school downtown. There was just one problem: Until it received the Legislature's blessings, UNT didn't have the money to make its dream tangible.
In the interim, the city is spending some $14 million in bond money to rehab the building's exterior, especially a rotting roof, and other pieces of the Beaux Arts building gone to seed because of deferred maintenance.” [Emphasis mine]
Of course the pigs expressed interest in more freebies. Was the old Texas School Book Depository building not available to lease, on the public’s dime?!?! What about the Texas Theatre, where this bastard was arrested? You couldn't get the city to shell out some cash to you for that location?!?! Perhaps, you could set up shop in an abandoned warehouse or homeless shelter. After all, these seem to be places where you can find your future grads.
Conclusion: As noted on the trash pit’s website, the Univer$iTTTTTy of NorTTTTTh TTTTTexa$ Dalla$ Commode of Law is currently not accredited by the American Bar Association cockroaches. Hell, these dolts typically approve any potential law school that has running water, bookshelves, a library, and a fax machine. It seems that the ABA cretins will eventually give their stamp of approval. However, YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE PART of a school that has no alumni base – and a garbage reputation. In the final analysis, only a moron would even consider attending such a pathetic in$TTTTTiTTTTTuTTTTTion.
Posted by Nando at 5:12 AM
Friday, November 11, 2016
Fourth Tier South Texas College of Law Changes Its Name Yet Again, for Second Time Within the Last Five Months
What’s in a Name?: On November 7, 2016, the Houston Chronicle published a piece from Gabrielle Banks, under the headline “Another new name announced for Houston law school.” Check out this opening:
“The dean of Houston's 93-year-old law school announced Monday morning the school will henceforth be known as South Texas College of Law Houston, on the heels of an injunction by a federal judge barring the school from using the name Houston College of Law while a trademark suit played out in court.
The new name is designed to avoid confusion with the University of Houston's Law Center while still helping potential students find the Houston-based law school.
Just after South Texas College of Law announced its Houston-focused name in June, the University of Houston regents sued for trademark infringement.
UH attorneys argued that those interested in their institution had become confused about with school was which when viewing the new branding at college fairs and online.
In mid-October U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison found that UH had a strong likelihood of prevailing at trial on the grounds that the new law school name prominently featuring the words Houston and Law along with a new red-and-white color scheme were likely to confuse consumers in the marketplace. The judge upheld UH's motion for an injunction.
At a subsequent hearing before Judge Ellison, Houston College of Law's attorneys acquiesced, agreeing to take down billboards and banners and revise Internet and letterhead branding. The attorneys said the school would share its new name confidentially with lawyers for UH Friday, and the parties complied with that agreement. If UH didn't see the proposed name as problematic, the downtown law school would move forward.
"We agreed to it and we don't have any problems with it at all," said Dona Cornell, general counsel for UH. As for the lawsuit, Cornell said, "I totally anticipate its going to be over in very short order." [Emphasis mine]
Who wouldn’t want to attend a cesspool named $ouTTTTh TTTTexa$ Commode of Law Hou$TTTTon?!?! Hell, senior centers are more selective in who they admit than this steaming pile of excrement! Furthermore, the bathroom stalls at old age homes smell better than a degree from this toilet.
Prior Name Change in June 2016: Back on June 23, 2016, Above the Law featured a Kathryn Rubino entry labeled “Law School’s Name Change Sparks Ire, Potential Lawsuit.” Take a look at this portion:
“Just yesterday we told you about South Texas College of Law’s decision to change its name to Houston College of Law. The only problem? A little less than four miles away there is already a University of Houston Law Center, and they share the same red school color.
Tipsters and folks on social media had an immediate reaction, nearly all of it negative. Changing your school’s name after 93 years is bound to be controversial, especially when there is a good chance the school could be confused with one significantly ahead of it in the U.S. News and World Report Rankings.”
And now, the University of Houston Law Center is weighing in on the issue. They are not pleased. From Dean Leonard Baynes:
It has come to the University of Houston’s attention that South Texas College of Law has announced that it is changing its name to Houston College of Law. The University of Houston Law Center has an established history of nearly 70 years in the City of Houston. The University of Houston is concerned about the significant confusion this creates in the marketplace and will take any and all appropriate legal actions to protect the interests of our institution, our brand and our standing in the communities we serve.” [Emphasis mine]
I’m sure it was a mere set of coincidences the pigs initially changed their name to Houston College of Law – and amended the school colors to match those of the University of Houston. What are the odds? Then again, I suppose the $TTTTCL cockroaches felt they could claim that this was an “error.”
Ranking: As you can see, $ouTTTTh TTTTexa$ Commode of Law-Hou$TTTTon is rated as a FOURTH TIER TRASH CAN, by US “News” & World Report. What a great distinction, huh?!?! Perhaps, the dolts only wanted to change their name to Houston COL in order to be placed earlier in the Rank Not Published section – since those garbage pits are listed alphabetically.
Conclusion: Avoid this cesspool at all costs, despite whatever name changes it undergoes in the next several months or years, lemming. In the final analysis, a TTTT law degree isn’t worth the paper it is printed on, fool. Case in point: full-time tuition at this ABA-accredited dung heap stands at $30,600 – for the 2016-2017 academic year. Have fun trying to repay back massive amounts of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, when you are relegated to jobs making $45K or less, per year, Bitch! Does that strike you as a wise investment, Stupid?!?!
Posted by Nando at 6:17 AM
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Passing the Buck: Pigs at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Blame Lazy Graduates for Lower Bar Passage Rate
Throwing JDs Under the Bus: On November 4, 2016, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry entitled “Law School Blames Lazy Graduates With Low GPAs for Abtsmal Performance On Bar Exam.” Check out this opening:
“While law schools across the country have tried to find a solution to their graduates’ bar exam problems, be it through blaming the test for being unfair or too difficult or allegedly begging their graduates not to take the exam at all, passage rates in many jurisdictions have continued to drop precipitously.
Law schools in New York are still a bit tense, and with good reason — after all, the overall pass rate of 64 percent for the state’s first administration of the Uniform Bar Exam in July 2016 was only a modest improvement over the results from the July 2015 exam, which were the worst New York had seen in more than three decades. One New York law school seems to have pinpointed the exact reason why its overall pass rate was so low. The school revealed in a recent email to all students that graduates with low GPAs and students who refused to work hard on studying dragged down the school’s overall pass rate. Which law school could it be?
The school in question is Hofstra Law School, and its bar passage rate has progressively slipped from 84 percent in July 2013 to 64 percent in July 2016. You can be sure that any law school with a 20 percentage point drop in graduates capable of passing the bar exam would search for the root cause of the problem, but like many law schools that have lowered their admissions standards in recent years, Hofstra’s quandary may be of its own doing.
Last night, Hofstra’s dean sent an email to current students about the school’s abysmal bar passage rate. That email contained the following information:
The July 2016 New York State Bar results were released, and our pass rate for first-time takers was 64 percent, a decline of 3 percent from the previous year. The average pass rate for first-time takers at New York schools was 83 percent. …
Hard work is truly an important factor in Bar success. Studies have found that students who complete at least 75 percent of their commercial Bar prep work have a significantly higher chance of passing the exam. Also, the strongest indicator of success continues to be a student’s final law school GPA. If you are currently ranked in the bottom 50 percent of your class, I strongly encourage you to reach out to our academic success advisors.
It’s no wonder Hofstra graduates with low GPAs have suffered when it comes to passing the bar exam. Take a look at how the law school’s admissions criteria have sunk since 2010, particularly in the 25th percentile range. Students who entered the school with those numbers may well have become graduates with low law school GPAs, which have been shown to correlate strongly with success (or lack thereof) on the bar exam.” [Emphasis mine]
It’s easier to blame supposed lazy-ass students for bar exam failures than it is to make changes at the school charging them outrageous sums of money in tuition. By the way, you cockroaches chose to admit and enroll those students. Furthermore, only half of any law school class can finish in the top 50 percent of that cohort. These weak “arguments” further illustrate that “law professors” truly are terrible at math.
Garbage Admissions Policy: Take a look at the Law School Transparency report for Hofstra University. Scroll down to the bottom of the page, to see the chart showing that the pigs have KNOWINGLY LOWERED their admi$$ion$ “standards” – in order to get more asses in seats, as the number of applications dropped. This is evidenced by the fact that first year enrollment was 365 in Fall 2010, as opposed to 251 in Fall 2015.
Here are the 25th percentile LSAT scores:
Fall 2010: 156
Fall 2011: 155
Fall 2012: 153
Fall 2013: 151
Fall 2014: 147
Fall 2015: 147
The median LSAT scores were 158, 159, 157, 154, 152, and 153 for the same respective years – and the 75th percentile results were 160, 160, 159, 157, 154, and 155. The 25th percentile LSAT in Fall 2010 was higher than the 75th percentile LSAT figure – at the same damn school – in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015! Do you understand the implications of those numbers, Lemming?!?!
The Toilet’s Ranking: As you can see, the Maurice A. Deane Sewer of Law at Hof$TTTra Univer$iTTTy is rated as the 111th greatest, most fantastic, and amazing law school in the entire damn country! Hell, it “only” shares this distinction with 11 other commodes. What a tremendous in$TTTiTTTuTTTion, huh?!?!
Tuition: This is incredible, folks. Full-time tuition at the Maurice A. Dean Sewer of Law – for the 2016-2017 academic year – stands at $55,860. How is that for a slap in the face? In comparison, full-time tuition at top ranked Yale Law School is $57,615, for 2016-2017.
Conclusion: Do not even consider applying to the rancid pile of fecal matter known as the Maurice A Deane School of Law at Hofstra University. Do you think – for one microsecond – that you will stand a chance competing against JDs from NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard or Yale, for the high-paying jobs needed to repay your NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt?!?! If so, then you do not possess the mental capacity to order food for yourself from McDonald’s. But if you do graduate from Hof$TTTra, then you may have a decent chance to scrub toilets for that establishment.
Posted by Nando at 6:02 AM