Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Wipe Thoroughly: Which ABA-Accredited Diploma Mills Have the Most Unemployed Graduates?

Toilets on Parade: On May 24, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “The Law Schools With The Most Unemployed Graduates (2016).” Take a look at this straightforward opening:

“How is the employment scene looking for recent law school graduates? We’ll start with the good news: compared to the class of 2015, a larger percentage of 2016 law school graduates were able to find full-time, long-term jobs where bar passage was required (that were not school-funded) within 10 months of receiving their degrees. About 62 percent of 2016 graduates landed these plum jobs, up from 59 percent in 2015. 

Now, for the bad news: the good news we just discussed wasn’t so good after all, as the total number of desirable law jobs recent graduates landed declined by 4 percent since 2015 — that’s 1,033 fewer jobs. The only reason that the overall employment rate increased is because there were 2,860 fewer law school graduates trying to secure jobs. As we mentioned previously, this is the third straight year that the declining number of law graduates has propped up the employment rate while the number of law jobs actually declined.

So, with fewer law school graduates competing for jobs, one would assume (or hope) that would mean that fewer law school graduates were unemployed 10 months after receiving their degrees, right? Wrong. produced several helpful charts based on law school employment data for the class of 2016. Today, we will highlight the most alarming chart of all, the 20 law schools with the highest percentage of unemployed graduates. Here are the top 10 law schools on that chart for your sadistic viewing pleasure: 

1. Charlotte Law: 30.88 percent 
2. Southwestern Law: 28.97 percent 
3. Thomas Jefferson Law: 28.57 percent 
4. Florida Coastal Law: 27.76 percent 
5. Valparaiso Law: 24.38 percent 
6. U. San Diego Law: 24.31 percent 
7. Elon Law: 23.60 percent 
8. LaVerne Law: 23.53 percent 
9. Chapman Law: 23.42 percent 
10. U. Pacific McGeorge Law: 23.02 percent (corrected) That was depressing.” [Emphasis mine]

You will notice that all ten of these trash cans have the following in common: (a) they are private schools; and (b) they are low-ranked landfills. They each offer piss poor employment prospects – even for those who end up in the top 10%-20% of the class. Huge tuition will be rammed down your throat, as a student at any of these “institutions of higher learning.” Still want to sign on the dotted line at any of these piles of excrement, Dumbass?!?!

Charts and Graphs: On May 16, 2017, featured a Karen Sloan article entitled “Where the Law Jobs Are: The 2016 Edition.” The text was essentially covered by Above the Law in its entirety.!/publish-confirm

Go to the charts and select the entitled “Unemployed.” Here is the next group of ten, foul garbage heaps, as listed by

11. University of San Francisco School of Law: 22.86 percent
12. Golden Gate University School of Law: 20.54 percent 
13. University of Oregon School of Law: 20.16 percent 
14. Western Michigan University Cooley Law School: 19.48 percent 
15. Willamette University College of Law: 19.30 percent 
16. DePaul University College of Law: 19.23 percent 
17. Santa Clara University School of Law: 18.60 percent 
18. Campbell University Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law: 18.45 percent 
19. Barry University School of Law: 17.41% 
20. Liberty University School of Law: 17.24%

That listing only includes one public school. Starting to see a pattern here, genius?!?! Anyone enrolled at any of the 20 piles of waste above is simply too damn dumb to represent other people in legal matters. Would you want any of these clowns to draft a simple will for your grandmother?! Perhaps you would be okay with these dunces filing a small claims action on your behalf. Then again, if you have an Associate’s degree or some common sense, then you are most likely capable of writing it up yourself and presenting your side well in a less formal court setting. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust these idiots to order food for someone else at a restaurant. Hell, I’m not sure I would feel confident letting any of these morons drive me around in a car. 

Conclusion: In the final analysis, if you even consider any of these 20 cesspools, then you deserve your fate. If you end up owing $200K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – and the only job you can land is “sandwich artist” – who cares? You chose to attend a pathetic pile of rot for your “legal education” – and you should have done some basic research, fool! If you bothered to look up job outcomes for these commodes – for more than five minutes – then you decided to ignore the data. Do not try to seek sympathy on this site. The information has been out there for damn near a decade. And best of all, it is free to peruse. Think about that when you are “freelancing” as a dog walker, Bitch. Be nice to the successful people who hire you, and they might tip you. Also, don’t forget to pick up Buddy’s turds either. Hell, those who pay will likely be younger than your ass too, Stupid.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Cretins Keep Applying to Law School While Fewer Sudents Overall Seek to Enroll in ABA Diploma Mills

Dummies Not Heeding the Message: On June 13, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “Law School Brain Drain Continues To Wreak Havoc.” Here is the full text of her article:

“Hot on the heels of the news thatstudents with terrible LSAT scores are applying to law school in droves comes an update from the Law School Admission Council that there are fewer applicants seeking law school admission for the upcoming academic year. As of June 2, 52,853 applicants sent 343,393 applications to ABA-accredited law schools for the 2017-18 academic year. While applications are up by 1.4 percent, the number of applicants has dropped by 0.5 percent.

As we previously discussed, the number of law school applicants with LSAT scores of less than 150 has increased by 146 percent over the course of the past 10 years. This is distressing for a number of reasons, and Dean Paul Caron of Pepperdine Law told Karen Sloan of as much in this interview: 

“It’s not a great thing for the profession or for law schools when the best and the brightest are not going to law schools in the same proportion that they have gone in the past,” Caron said in an interview Monday. He said that it’s not a surprise that if LSAT scores are down, three years later, students are having a harder time passing the bar. 

“It’s not a ringing endorsement for the profession,” he said. 

What is to be done about the law school brain drain? According to Dean Caron, it’s up to law schools to make the legal profession more appealing to millennials. That might not be an easy task, given recent graduates’ inability to pass the bar exam coupled with their burgeoning debt loads. How many recent law grads would recommend going to law school? The answer, we fear, is not many. 

Until the wisest of millennials can be convinced that law school is worth the high cost, we may continue to feed the cycle of dismal bar exam passage rates, producing yet another generation of unhappy, unemployed, or underemployedlaw school graduates. This does not bode well for anyone.” [Emphasis mine]

Waterheads continue to enroll in law school, and you know that they will end up in garbage heaps that provide weak-ass employment prospects. Furthermore, the dolts will perform worse on the bar exam. Of course, you will then see more pigs publicly bitch and cry that the test is too damn hard for their inferior graduates. Yet, those same swine have no problem charging those idiots $35K+ in annual tuition.

Other Coverage: On June 13, 2017, the New York Law Journal re-published a David Ruiz piece entitled “Fewer Law School Applicants in Line for Upcoming School Year.” Take a look at this opening:

“The number of law school applicants has dropped for the upcoming academic year, according to new data released by the Law School Admission Council. 

The numbers, as of June 2, show that American Bar Association-accredited law schools received 343,395 applications from 52,853 applicants for the 2017-18 school year. Compared with last year, applications are up 1.4 percent, but the actual number of applicants dropped 0.5 percent. 

Those totals are coupled with increasingly mediocre performance by prospective law school students taking the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT. 

The number of law school applicants who scored more than 160 on the LSAT has gone down 35 percent since 2010, according to Paul Caron, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law and editor of TaxProf Blog. Inversely, the number of law school applicants with LSAT scores lower than 150 has gone up 146 percent since 2010.” [Emphasis mine]

Does anyone with a functioning brain stem think – for one microsecond – that this is a good trend for the commodes?! That is a huge drop in applicants who scored higher than 160, while at the same time dunces have flooded to law school.

Now, scroll down to this conclusion:

“Caron said it is up to law schools and lawyers to make the legal profession appealing to millennials. He said there are valid criticisms of both the LSAT and the bar exam, but that focusing only on tests ignores the other side of the problem. 

"There's been a decline in the top student coming to law school," he said. "The data is irrefutable there."

Of course, more ABA-accredited diploma factories – including quite a few of the name brand schools – are now accepting the GRE in lieu of the LSAT. The pigs do so, under the veil of “opening the doors of the profession to more people.” In the end, they merely use this to attract more lemmings.

Conclusion: The fact that those with higher LSAT scores are choosing to avoid law school speaks volumes about this gutter “profession.” Those young men and women understand that if they do not get into an elite school, then their employment outlook will not justify the expense of three years of their lives – and an additional $150K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. The prospects for TTT grads is MUCH worse. The lawyer job market in this country is GLUTTED, and only a damn fool would argue otherwise.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

ABA Cockroaches Grant Provisional Accreditation to University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law

Another Public Toilet: On June 7, 2017, Joe Patrice posted an ATL entry labeled “The ABA Is Giving Us A New Law School.” He seems to think that this is a positive development. Read the entire text below and draw your own conclusion:

“The ABA has granted provisional accreditation to the University of North Texas Dallas College of Law, giving us one more real law school in the already crowded market of law schools. The difference is… this is a good thing.

This isn’t to say the world really needed another law school. Hell, TEXAS didn’t need another law school. But what UNT offers is critically important to the legal academy — it’s cheap. While America faces the troubling lawyer supply conundrum of too many lawyers for declining top-flight jobs and simultaneously not enough lawyers for public interest and underserved market roles, UNT is filling the niche of providing a low-cost legal education for people who won’t then run away from lower-paying work. In fact, UNT makes expanding legal education to low-income communities part of its mission, offering its scholarships based on financial need, not on LSAT mastery. 

So, obviously, the ABA dragged its heels on accrediting UNT because after years of gleefully accrediting diploma mills to tend to the relatively affluent — or at least those credit-worthy enough to be relatively affluent on paper — they suddenly had concerns that these law students might not be able to pass the bar exam. Apparently not charging an arm and a leg triggered the ABA’s spidey sense. We can’t start giving out law degrees here! Lawyers might start actually helping people! 

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and offered UNT provisional accreditation (as we would have if we were in charge). This doesn’t absolve UNT of its obligation to put its graduates in a position to work in the profession — UNT may be half the cost of Texas, but that’s still a lot of money — and we’ll continue to hold them to the fire if they’re failing to mint lawyers capable of paying back their education. 

But it’s good to see a school proving that lawyers can be made without a mountain of debt. If only some other schools would pay attention.” [Emphasis mine]

The problem is still that Texas has a GLUTTED legal market. This has been documented for years, by Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. The state already has NINE other damn ABA-accredited schools! Texas A&M purchased Texas Wesleyan’s trash pit in 2013. Outside of the diploma mill at the University of Texas, the rest are filth. I don’t see how adding one more toilet to the mix is a good thing.

Other Coverage: On June 8, 2017, the Dallas Morning News featured a Nanette Light piece that was entitled “On its second try, UNT-Dallas law school gets provisional accreditation.” Check out this opening:

“Three years ago, UNT Dallas College of Law opened its doors as an unaccredited college in downtown Dallas with a bold plan to teach a diverse group of students while keeping tuition low. 

But success for the city's first public law school hinged on one key factor: accreditation. 

On Tuesday, the university announced it receivedprovisional approval for accreditation from the American Bar Association. The full accreditation process will take about three years. Until then, the school has the same privileges as full accredited colleges, meaning students can still take the bar exam. 

Royal Furgeson, the law school's dean and a former federal judge, called the milestone a relief.

Sometimes you rise up in your [money-stuffed] bed at 3 in the morning thinking, 'My God, this is really important to a whole lot of people, and we just can't let them down,'" said Furgeson, who was home recuperating from back surgery when he received the news.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, accreditation was important to the administration and “law professor” pigs at the Univer$iTTTTTy of NorTTTTTh TTTTTexa$ aTTTTTT Dalla$ Commode of Law. Otherwise, many – but not all - of the waterheads who applied to that cesspit would instead try to get into any of the other numerous garbage heaps located in the state.

By the way, William Royal Furgeson Jr. - in his capacity as a federal “judge”/politician in black robe – appears to have outrageously abused his power against a defendant. When you have a moment, read this piece. The fact that this evil man is the dean of this law school speaks volumes. Of course, most of the applicants to this toilet will not bother to look him up. Hell, I did a quick Google search of the bastard – only because his name sounded vaguely familiar. Took me five seconds. Look up “Jeff Baron Royal Furgeson” and grab some popcorn. One wonders if the pig’s conscience ever bothers him at night, regarding his conduct in that case.

Tuition: For the 2016-2017 academic year, in-state tuition was $15,133 – and non-residents were charged $27,264. Fees account for another $546, for all students. Don’t forget living expenses. So even Texas residents living with mom and dad will incur cost for transportation, personal, loan fees, etc. I also can’t imagine too many parents allowing a 25 year old staying with them rent free. My guess is that if they do, they will lose patience with you and then make your life a living hell.

Conclusion: The American Bar Association would accredit a ham sandwich, so this is no surprise. Also, the dolts have been making new dung pits wait until their second year of application, before giving them provisional accreditation. They have to give the appearance of being judicious, after all. This is the equivalent of an easy girl in high school or college turning down the occasional guy – only to blow him two weeks later in her trailer park home or in his dingy-ass apartment. So much for “standards, huh?!?!” At any rate, the addition of new law school in Texas is a moronic idea. Also, most of their graduates are NOT going to represent low-income clients. Instead, they will return to their old jobs or become insurance agents. You can do that without a law degree.

Monday, June 5, 2017

California Bar Passage Rates Continue Descent Into the Toilet, in February 2017: Overall Pass Rate of 34.5 Percent

Flush!: On June 1, 2017, Above the Law featured a Staci Zaretsky piece entitled “California Bar Exam Results By Law School (February 2017).” Look at this prelude:

“Shocking results from the February 2017 administration of the California bar exam were released on May 12, 2017. Given the disappointing overall pass rate, people have been wondering about the pass rates by law school ever since. 

The only information we’ve had until now has been the frighteningly low overall, first-time taker, and repeat taker pass rates of 34.5 percent, 39 percent, and 33 percent, respectively. We also knew the overall pass rates for first-time takers who attended ABA-accredited law schools, both in-state (45 percent) and out-of-state (39 percent). Granted, February pass rates are generally lower than July pass rates due to the number of repeat takers, but here at Above the Law, we are focused on first-time takers, and these pass rates are very, very low.” [Emphasis mine]

Two paragraphs later, ATL gets down to assessing the performance for each ABA-accredited diploma mill: 

“Which in-state law schools did the best on the test, and which schools did the worst? We now pass that information along to our readers, with the caveat that it only includes California law schools that had at least 11 first-time and repeat takers, or no first-time takers and at least 11 repeat takers. The Bar disseminates information in this manner to help shield the identities of graduates of law schools that had fewer test-takers during each administration of the bar exam. 

Here’s a list we’ve created of pass rates for first-time takers on the February 2017 administration of the exam for all ABA-accredited California law schools that had 11 or more test-takers for the exam. Take a look:

• Santa Clara: 69 percent 
• Loyola (LA): 67 percent
• Western State: 67 percent 
• UCLA: 64 percent 
• Pepperdine: 59 percent 
• U. San Diego: 53 percent 
• McGeorge: 50 percent 
• California Western: 45 percent 
• Golden Gate: 33 percent 
• U. San Francisco: 31 percent 
• UC Hastings: 27 percent 
• Southwestern: 24 percent 
• Thomas Jefferson: 24 percent” [Emphasis mine]

In a just world, anyone who attends the worst toilets on this list would not be eligible for federal student loans – and would instead need to come up with collateral and obtain private funding for their garbage “legal education.” Then again, “higher education” is a financial windfall – for the institutions.

Other Coverage: On May 15, 2017, JD Journal published a Teresa Lo piece, under the headline “February 2017 California Bar Exam Results – Almost 2/3 of Applicants Failed.” Enjoy this opening:

“On Friday, the California State Bar released its official test results, and only an abysmal 34.5% of test takers were able to pass the notoriously difficult exam. The passage rate for first-timers was slightly better, but it was still an unimpressive 39%. These rates were a decline from last year where the overall passage rate was 35.7 percent, and the first-time takers’ passage rate was 45 percent. In California’s press release, Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, the Executive Director of the State Bar of California, acknowledged the decline and the Board stated it was conducting an investigation, which will begin May 15. “I’d like to congratulate the applicants who passed the Bar Exam,” Parker said. “Regrettably the pass rate shows a continuing decline, a trend happening nationally. The State Bar is committed to a better understanding of the problem to determine how to address it.” [Emphasis mine]

Still want to take the plunge, Dumbass?!?! You can already see that the law school pigs will make a major push to have the state bar exam simplified, for their cretinous students and graduates. Hell, why not make it as difficult as a Driver’s License test, right?!?! After all, California already has an incredible GLUT of attorneys. This has been well-documented for years.

Conclusion: Do you see what the weak performing trash pits have in common, genius?!?! Yes, they are rated in THE FOURTH TIER – by US “News” & World Report. Somehow, special snowflakes/waterheads will continue to ignore all the warning signs – and they will enroll in these foul piles of excrement. Remember, idiots have dreams too. However, seeing that you are essentially required to incur an additional $175K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for a chance to enter a ridiculously oversaturated lawyer job market – should at least make you reconsider. 

The plain truth is that you are MUCH better off remaining in your current job, work your ass off, make real connections with those in your field, and try to separate yourself from the pack. That does not require you to piss away three years of your life, or to accumulate outrageous sums of student debt in the process. However, if you had such insight, then you would not even think of going to law school in the first place. Enjoy trying to repay those massive loans on a paltry $41K annual salary, Bitch.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

School’s Out Forever: Celebrate the Closing of Indiana Tech Law School

Glorious News: On May 31, 2017, the Indiana Lawyer published a Marilyn Odendahl article that was entitled “Indiana Tech’s closing of law school leaves unanswered questions.” Enjoy this wondrous opening:

“Little more than a week after graduation ceremonies, Indiana Tech Law School was well on its way to extinction.

The name had been removed from the building, the Fort Wayne law school’s website redirects visitors to the main Indiana Tech homepage, and all mentions of the legal education program had been scrubbed from Indiana Tech’s homepage. Neither Dean Charles Cercone, former interim dean andrĂ© douglas pond cummings nor university spokesman Brian Engelhart returned phone calls or emails. 

Questions are unanswered about the final steps being taken to close the school, what will happen to money given for endowed scholarships, where will the materials in the law library go, what will be done with the curated art collection, and how the $15 million building, constructed especially for the law school, will be repurposed. 

The American Bar Association, which provisionally accredited the law school, has not spoken publicly about the closure since it issued a statement that Indiana Tech would have to follow the procedure for ceasing operation outlined in Rule 34 of the ABA Rules of Procedure for the Approval of Law Schools. The U.S. Department of Education did not respond by IL deadline to an inquiry about any role it has in the closure and how much federal loan debt Indiana Tech law students have. 

While silence has prevailed outside the school, members of the Class of 2017 said the atmosphere inside changed immediately after the university announced in October 2016 its plans to shutter the legal education program at the end of the academic year. 

A planned legal conference on campus was cancelled, support staff were pulled from the building and the receptions and informal gatherings held periodically with the faculty stopped. The day after the announcement, students saw workers measuring the classrooms and evaluating how the space could be reused.

The Indiana Institute of Technology, which opened the law school in August 2013, cited a $20 million loss as the primary driver behind the decision to close. Still, the 2017 graduates were angered by the university’s action. They opted to hold their own graduation ceremony, off campus at the Allen County Public Library, so they would not have encounter retiring Indiana Tech President Arthur Snyder at the main commencement May 13.” [Emphasis mine]

You’re welcome, bitches! Frankly, the university did the right thing, in rectifying their earlier mistake. Hell, the administration lost $20 million on that joke of a law school – and they didn’t have a large endowment to support this peTTTTT projecTTTTT. The graduates could have held their little ceremony in a Starbucks – site of their future employer. Plus, the “educators” can pack that curated art up their ass.

Other Coverage: On May 15, 2017, the Indiana Lawyer featured another piece from Marilyn Odendahl, this one under the headline “Last class graduates from Indiana Tech Law School.” Review the following excerpt:

“The class did have a private hooding ceremony the evening of May 12 at the Allen County Public Library in downtown Fort Wayne since some did not want to include the university in their celebration. About 17 graduates attended the event with their families and received their degrees from law school dean Charles Cercone and associate dean Charles MacLean. 

“That was basically our ceremony which was very meaningful and important because we had stuck together and gotten through this process,” [60 year old Philip] Davis said.

Waiting for the main commencement exercises to begin, Davis and his four classmates stood apart in the sea of black caps and gowns. They were clustered under the sign designating where the law school graduates should stand and talked quietly amongst themselves. 

Snyder presided over the 96th Indiana Tech graduation and his last as the leader of the university. Despite criticism for opening a law school in 2013, a time when lawyers were struggling to find J.D.-required jobs, Snyder championed the new venture. His retirement coincides with the school’s closure.

The law school graduates were among the first to enter the arena, taking seats near the commencement stage. As Cercone called their names, they walked across the stage, had the hood placed on their shoulders and proceeded back to their chairs. No mention was made that they were members of the final law school class.

Noah Moore, who relocated from Jackson, Mississippi, to attend Indiana Tech Law School, called the graduation day bittersweet.

“We put in a lot of hard work,” Moore said of the Class of 2017. “That’s what actually makes (this day) bittersweet and kind of has me upset. Our hard work can’t be overlooked.” [Emphasis mine]

Did hip hip and the law extraordinaire AndrĂ© Douglas Pond Scummings appear as the DJ for that sad event? By the way, Noah Moore: no one cares about all your “hard work,” which consisted of studying commercial outlines and listening to boring lectures. Now make that a large latte.

Conclusion: The idiots at Indiana Institute of Technology – not to be confused with ITT Tech – ignored the warnings about opening a law school in the midst of a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. legal job market. Hell, why not open up a penmanship class at the school? Or teach students how to operate a horse and buggy? Those skills will surely come in super-handy, right?!?! Don’t feel bad about this “institution of higher learning” losing $20 million on this stupid, greedy venture. Instead, rejoice over the fact that potentially hundreds more were spared financial ruin – in the form of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt.

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Arizona Summit Law Sewer to Pay $1.5 Million Surety Bond Against Closure

Pay Up, Bitches!: On May 25, 2017, the Arizona Republic published an Anne Ryman piece entitled “Arizona Summit Law School told to create financial safety net for students as precaution.” Take a look at this opening:

“A private law school in Phoenix recently put on probation by the American Bar Association is being required to put money aside to reimburse students if the school were to close. 

The Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education, the for-profit-college licensing agency, voted Thursday to require Arizona Summit Law School to post a $1.5 million surety bond to guarantee students would be repaid should the school fail. 

"It's just to protect the public, just in case," said Keith Blanchard, the board's deputy directory. 

Arizona Summit officials said the school has no plans to close and is preparing for its incoming fall classes. 

School argues against bond 

The board requested the bond because the school was recently put on probation for low passage rates on the State Bar exam. The institution's sister school under the same ownership, the Charlotte School of Law, is also on probation by the Bar. The U.S. Department of Education announced in December it was pulling Charlotte's federal student-loan funding. 

Arizona Summit officials argued before the board that the bond wasn't necessary and would send a negative message to prospective students.” [Emphasis mine]

What kind of negative message would that send exactly? That your commode had a 29.5% first-time bar passage rate on the February 2017 Arizona Bar Exam – and a 24.6% passage rate for the same test in July 2016? Or that the commode is currently on probation by the ABA, a notoriously lax organization when it comes to holding member schools accountable for their noxious actions? Something tells me your typical applicant will not be bothered by this latest bond.

Other Coverage: On May 26, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “Law School Ordered To Post $1.5M Surety Bond In Case It Closes.” She addresses that concern in her conclusion below:

“If the fact that graduates of Arizona Summit have shown year after year that they’re unable to pass the bar exam on the first try hasn’t spooked prospective students, then a little $1.5 million surety bond certainly won’t do them much harm. After all, they seem to be immune to all of the negative information about the school that would cause others to run in the opposite direction.

Trish Leonard, the board’s president, said she “really [felt] a bond [was] required,” likely due to the fact that if Arizona Summit were to suddenly shutter, the state’s Student Tuition Recovery Fund would be completely tapped out. The school’s additional bond would act as further consumer protection and insurance for law students who would otherwise be left between a larger rock and a harder place than they already are if the school were to close. 

If this isn’t a sign to get out while the getting is still good, we’re not sure what is. Best of luck to those who decide to remain at Arizona Summit Law School.” [Emphasis mine]

Here is the full text of Old Guy’s take, from May 26, 2017 – “Arizona Summit must post $1.5M agains possible closure.” Enjoy!

“The licensing board in Arizona has just required Arizona Summit (Arizona Scum Pit) to post a $1.5M bond with which to reimburse the students in the event of the toilet school's closure.

Only 30% of Arizona Scum Pit's graduates who attempt the bar exam pass it on the first try. At 74%, the rate for the other two law schools in Arizona, both of which are Tier 4 institutions (, is still disgraceful.

Arizona Scum Pit and its fellow Tier 6 institutions Charlotte (Harlotte) and Florida Coastal (Horrida Coastal) make up the notorious InfiLaw scam-chain of profit-seeking law schools. All three are in trouble. Harlotte has lost access to federally guaranteed student loans, and Horrida Coastal may join it next year.

Arizona Scum [P]it is on probation by the American Bar Association. Arizona Scum Pit told the board "that the bond wasn’t necessary and would send a negative message to prospective students". Which negative message? That Arizona Scum Pit is at risk of closing before they complete their Mickey Mouse degrees? If lemmings present and prospective haven't noticed that by now, they won't catch on just because the toilet has to post a bond with the state. Nothing, evidently, would get their attention.” [Emphasis mine]

Hell, if the moronic applicants were told the school was located on a Superfund site, they would not be dissuaded from choosing this trash pit. It’s sad really.

Conclusion: As you can see, this private toilet is a mess. You would be better off wrestling a crocodile than attending this pile of rancid fecal matter. At least then, you would not be FINANCIALLY RUINED for the rest of your life. Plus, if things went wrong with the croc, your family would probably still be able to collect on your life insurance policy in the former scenario. Avoid this school the same way that you would stay away from meth-addicted prostitutes.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

University of South Carolina Opens New $80 Million Law School Building; Dung Heap Still Ranked 88th Best by US “News” & World Report

Bottoms Up!: On May 20, 2017, the Charleston Post and Courier published a Mike Fitts article, entitled “University of South Carolina hopes new law school building woos students, boosts rankings.” Take a look at this opening:

“After almost two decades of waiting, the University of South Carolina School of Law is moving into an elegant new $80 million building that its dean hopes will be a boost in the competition to land the best and brightest. 

“We know it’s had an impact on faculty recruiting already,” Dean Robert Wilcox said last week. “We hope it will have a similar impact on recruiting students.”

Students will begin taking classes on the top floor of the three-story building this summer as the school moves out of its 1970s-era structure, which has only small windows and few spaces for the kind of collaborative learning that is a part of legal education today, Wilcox said.

How outdated was the old building? When originally built, it had no women’s bathrooms. 

The former law school, which will become undergraduate classrooms, likely was a hindrance in attracting top-quality students and likely hurt the college in nationally published rankings, Wilcox said. USC's law school is tied for 88th in U.S. News & World Report rankings and stands ninth out of the 12 Southeastern Conference colleges with law schools. 

“I’ve never known how many students didn’t come because of the old building. I’m quite certain that none came because of the old building,” said Wilcox, a Charleston native who graduated from the law school in 1981. “We have really sent the message that the school has arrived.” 

That arrival has taken years of fundraising and a long march to get the project launched. Planning began before the year 2000, but the money required to start construction was slow to come in, prompting some in the state’s legal community to worry about the school’s success and focus. 

“There was a concern that the building had become the mission of the school, which is not what you want,” Wilcox said.” [Emphasis mine]

What a pre$TTigiou$ “institution of higher education,” huh?!?! Wow, 88th greatest, most phenomenal law school in the entire damn country! What a remarkable accomplishment!! This tidy sum should surely boost the commode into the stratosphere of “legal education.” Hell, it could even end up as “high” as 69th or 73rd “best” law school in the country someday.

Other Coverage: On May 16, 2017, The State featured an article from Avery G. Wilks, under the headline “USC unveils new $80 million law school.” Here is the full text of that piece:

“The University of South Carolina Tuesday unveiled its new, $80 million law school building – a swanky, 187,500-square-foot facility that occupies nearly an entire city block at Bull and Gervais streets.

The building is expected to help the USC School of Law recruit “top-flight” students and faculty, dean Robert Wilcox said. Wilcox also expects it to help with the law school’s No. 88 national ranking in the widely watched U.S. News and World Report rankings. 

“You don’t go up in a ranking just because you have a new building,” Wilcox said. “But you go up in a ranking if you can bring in the students you need and if you can do the research you need and if your academic program is good enough to really raise your reputation. 

“We have a feeling that as people come into the school – we host some conferences here and things – while the building doesn’t count directly into the numbers, it will have an impact on the reputation.” 

A few things to know about the law school’s new digs:

▪ The building features 17 classrooms, ranging in size from 20 to 95 seats, and two realistic courtrooms, including one that also can be used as a 300-seat auditorium. 
▪ The judge’s bench in the larger courtroom is the original heart-pine S.C. Supreme Court bench from the 1870s. 
▪ USC paid for the building with $20 million from the Legislature, $18 million in private donations and borrowing. 
▪ New students will begin to use the building for summer classes starting June 1.” [Emphasis mine]

Don’t confuse this cesspit with the 19th rated USC Gould College of Law, i.e. the one located in Los Angeles. And many of those grads go onto teach grade school! Anyone who thinks or believes that a shiny new law school building is going to attract “top flight” law students is a damn fool. If some college student in Columbia, South Carolina scores a 175 on the LSAT, he is going to attend a real law school – not the local toilet. Also, I don't care if that bench was hand crafted by Roger B. Taney - and used by Jefferson Davis!

By the way, how many new urinals and commodes does the new building contain? That is important since that will give the best reflection of the prevailing job market for University of South Carolina JDs. Also, it is sickening that the bitches and hags had to get $20 million of the loot from state taxpayers. Then again, politicians and “educators” have never lost a wink of sleep spending an ass-load of other people’s money – on stupid projects!

Conclusion: The Univer$iTTy of SouTTh Carolina Sewer of Law is still a middling trash pit. Being rated as the co-88th best law school is the equivalent of being a beauty show contestant with the most feminine hands. No one gives a damn. You are dealing with college graduates, i.e. people who should have a modicum of intelligence. Yet, the dean of this pile of manure, Cockroach Robert Wilcox, is acting as though he is trying to recruit to high school football players who want to don 13 different uniforms during the course of the season. In the end, pretty much all schools are engaged in the “higher education” arms race. You dolts put $80 million into a new building, as opposed to a significant scholarship fund for students. Other schools are doing the same thing. But you anticipate an influx of pupils who are smart enough to get into Ivy League law schools, right?!?!
Web Analytics