Thursday, January 27, 2011

Legal Practitioners and Law Professors Call Out the Law School Money Changers

From Will Meyerhofer, former Biglaw associate and current psychotherapist:

“If it was true supply and demand, #1 ranked Harvard and #100 ranked Hofstra wouldn't have the same tuition. But they do, the same as stupid Washington University, which is so stupid it's in Missouri. "It's underrated." Bite me. Are we saying that Hofstra's worth the same money as Harvard? That people would pay anything to go to Hofstra? No, they don't have to pay anything to go to Hofstra. That's the point.

You cannot, on the one hand, say you want to lower the number of students while on the other hand incentivizing them to go. But you're not incentivizing the students, are you? It's a wealth transfer to universities. That's why you want to directly limit the number of schools while keeping the payments to the rest of them intact. More for you. And if you have to throw Mr. Wallerstein under the bus to hide this truth, well, sacrifices have to be made.”

Steven J. Harper, adjunct professor at Northwestern University School of Law, also came out in support of David Segal’s article.

“Last Sunday, The New York Times asked: Are law schools deceiving prospective students into incurring huge debt for degrees that aren't worth it?

Of course they are. U.S. News & World Report is an aider and abettor. As the market for new lawyers shrinks, a key statistic in the magazine's infamous rankings is "graduates known to be employed nine months after graduation."

Any job qualifies--from joining Cravath to waiting tables. According to The New York Times, the most recent average for all law schools is 93 percent. If gaming the system to produce that number doesn't cause students to ignore the U.S. News' rankings altogether, nothing will.” [Emphasis mine]

He goes on to state:

“The glut of law school applicants, as well as graduates seeking big-firm jobs to repay their loans, leaves law school administrators and firm managers with no economic incentive to change their ways. The profession needs visionaries who are willing to resist perpetuating the world in which debt-laden graduates are becoming the twenty-first century equivalent of indentured servants.[Emphasis mine]

Again, this came from a member of a law school faculty - not from a bitter scam-blogger.

Check out this article from John M. Dolin, adjunct professor at Capital University Law School. The piece is entitled, “Opportunity Lost: How Law School Disappoints Law Students, the Public, and the Legal Profession.” His conclusion:

“But it is now time, long past due, to face the truth about legal education and, more importantly, to do something about it. The truth is that we are not building competent lawyers. The truth is that the current system is out of date and only held in place by a self-perpetuating, entrenched professorate. The truth is that we have the knowledge and the means to build a better, more competent lawyer. The truth is that we can do a much better job. We know the truth about legal education. The important question for the future of legal education and our profession is, do we have the will?” [Emphasis mine]

Jerome Kowalski, law firm management consultant, published the following, back in September 2010:

"And, indeed, if you have reached this point in this note, in the unlikely event you haven’t already come to other obvious conclusions, here they are: (a) law schools must stop behaving like the beauty schools of 1990 and (b) law schools should make full, fair and candid disclosure to every law school applicant (before they even remit the application fee) and have each applicant sign a document that he or she has read the disclosures and understands them.”

Brian Tamahana, professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, put himself on the line back on June 13, 2010 – by supporting these scam-blogs.

“The law graduates posting on these sites know the score. They know that law schools pad their employment figures—96% employed—by counting as “employed” any job at all, legal or non-legal, including part time jobs, including unemployed graduates hired by the school as research assistants (or by excluding unemployed graduates “not currently seeking” a job, or by excluding graduates who do not supply employment information). They know that the gaudy salary numbers advertised on the career services page—“average starting salary $125,000 private full time employment”—are actually calculated based upon only about 25% of the graduating class (although you can’t easily figure this out from the information provided by the schools).”

Back on September 2, 2009, Dan Slater, former litigator, wrote that there are too many schools producing far too many lawyers.

“If it means shrinking classes, don’t count on it. Limiting education is un-American, not to mention anticapitalist, even if many law schools appear to profit from what may charitably be called an inefficient distribution of market information.

Take, for instance, the employment statistics posted on the Web sites of three low-ranked law schools in New York City, the country’s biggest market for legal employment. All three advertise that 45 to 60 percent of their 2008 graduates who reported salary information are making a median salary of $150,000 to $160,000.”

On November 13, 2009, the Wall Street Journal wrote this article on the economic research paper by Herwig Schlunk, law professor at Vanderbilt University Law School:

“This essay treats a legal education as an investment, and asks the question of whether, based on known costs and expected benefits, such investment should be undertaken. The inquiry will necessarily differ from one potential law student to another. But for three posited “typical students,” the investment is shown to be a bad one.”

The job market is so bad that even the former editor-in-chief of the Chicago-Kent Law Review cannot find employment. But we need more law schools, right?!?!

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Fourth Tier Stench Pile: Golden Gate University School of Law

Tuition: The school lists tuition as $1270 per unit. This means that a full-time law student at Golden Gate “University” will be charged $38,100 - for the 2010-2011 academic year! And who doesn’t have that amount to spend on “education”?

Total Cost of Attendance: The school estimates that registration fees; room and board; books; transportation; health insurance; and personal expenses will add another $23,919 to the tab. This would bring the total, annual estimated COA to $62,019 - for a full-time student. For part-time students, the cost is only $53,129.

By the way, you can be certain that the school is only considering room and board, transportation and personal expenses, in terms of 9 months. Taking this into account, we should add $7,005 to the school’s nine-month estimate. This would take the total COA - for a full time student for the 2010-2011 school year - to $69,024.

Ranking: Okay, the cost of attendance is steep. Plus, San Francisco is a pricey locale. But the school’s distinguished reputation will more than make up for this immense investment, right?!?! Too bad the school has the distinction of being a fourth tier piece of trash - according to US News & World Report.

Alleged Employment Placement and Starting Salary Statistics: In its employment summary, the commode claims the following: 90.9% of the class of 2009 reported that they were working or pursuing an advanced degree within nine months of graduation.”

Yeah, sure it was - and Lauren Graham is still convulsing, while resting her calves and ankles on my shoulders, as I write this entry. Somehow, this fourth tier trash can was able to exceed the NALP overall employment rate of 88.3%. The toilet also asserts that the average starting salary reported by their graduates was $86,166.

By the way, on the bottom of page 2, you can see that 70.7 percent of those who went into private law practice worked in law firms of 2-10 attorneys. How much do you think these fresh toilet-lawyers are making?!

Average Student Indebtedness: USN&WR lists the average student indebtedness - for those members of the Golden GaTTTTe Univer$iTTTTy Law Class of 2009 who incurred law school debt - as $118,429!! A mere 88% of this commode’s particular graduating class took on such debt.

Faculty Salaries: Such levels of student debt make one curious as to how much the faculty is raking in. After all, “educators” care about their students, right?!?! Plus, this school places so much emphasis on “public interest.”

On page 7 of Golden Gate University’s 2009 IRS Form 990, we can see that the following “law professors” made out like bandits - in 2008. These figures represent TOTAL COMPENSATION for each particular “professor”: associate dean for graduate programs and “professor of law” Jon Sylvester, $201,571; “professor of law” and dean emeritus Peter Keane, $207,960; “professor of law” and director of the JD and LLM Environmental Law Program Alan Ramo, $168,695; and associate dean of academic affairs and “professor of law” Rachel Van Cleave, $185,006. Now, you can see why these people value “higher education” so much.

Entering Student GPA and LSAT Scores: We can see that the 75th percentile of entering students scored a 156 on the LSAT. Those in the 25th percentile had a score of 151. Those in the 75th percentile had a UGPA of 3.40, whereas those in the 25th percentile earned a 2.84 GPA during undergrad. If you have similar numbers, then you may end up at a fourth tier piece of trash. This is in regards to the full-time Day Program!

The school is bringing in kids who have no shot in hell of ever practicing law. Remember, under the current $tudent loan $y$tem, the school has an incentive to bring in as many students as they can. It bears no risk of its greedy, foolish decisions.

Well, the sewer of law does have the 39th best public interest program - according to NaTTTional Juri$TTT magazine.

Conclusion: This school is a waste of space. The commode is ranked in the FOURTH TIER, and yet has the unmitigated gall to charge its students $38,100 per year in tuition. If you want to go in public interest, you DO NOT need to incur an additional $120K-$180K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, in order to do so.

If you do not mind making $35K per year, and living in a ratty-ass studio apartment at age 35, then go ahead. If you are fine with a high-sodium diet of Ramen Noodles - and with never owning a home or starting a family - then, by all means, sign on the dotted line. On second thought, if the thought of owing MASSIVE amounts of student loans - coupled with TTTT job prospects - does not keep you up at night, then please voluntarily commit yourself to the nearest mental hospital.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Second Tier Septic Tank: Seattle University School of Law

Tuition: For the 2010-2011 school year, a full-time student at this law school will be charged $38,502! Yes, that amount is in US currency.

Total Cost of Attendance: The commode estimates that the total COA - for 9 months - will be $56,259. The school lists the 11 month figure as $59,945. Thus, we can figure that the 12 month total COA will be roughly $61,788.

Ranking: Attending this school will set you back financially. But the institution’s reputation will surely make this a worthy investment, right?!?! Somehow, US News & World Report has $eaTTle Univer$iTTy Sewer of Law listed as the 86th greatest, most amazing and fantastic law school in the United States - in a seven-way tie, by the way.

Supposed Starting Salary Statistics: The commode claims that 100% of its Class of 2008 responded to the graduate survey. Eight percent of those who became lawyers went onto to become solo practitioners. In addition, 56.7% of this cohort went into toiletlaw firms of 2-10 attorneys. Grab the plunger, $eaTTle Law grads!

Average Student Indebtedness: US News reports that the average student indebtedness - for those members of the Seattle University Law Class of 2009 who incurred law school debt - was $95,572. Fully 91% of this commode’s particular graduating class took on such toxic debt.

Faculty and Administrator Pay: Let’s see how well the faculty members are doing, in comparison to their graduates. For this info, we head to page 36 of Seattle University’s 2009 Form 990.

We can see that then-dean of the law school, Kellye Y. Testy, made $383,457 in TOTAL COMPENSATION, for 2008. She now occupies the same position at the University of Washington School of Law. However, she is not the only law faculty member to live fat off of the federal student loan $y$tem. Here are some other figures for the same tax year:

We can see that Al Roker, a.k.a. Tayyad Mahmud, “professor of law and director of the Center for Global Justice,” made $214,477 in TOTAL COMPENSATION. Annette Clark, “associate professor of law” made an even $228,700 in TOTAL COMPENSATION. Lastly, “professor” Eric Chiappinelli raked in $400,325. Yes, this bowtie-wearing “educator” made in excess of $400K. Who says “higher education” doesn’t pay off?!?! By the way, look at this excerpt from his bio:

“Dean Chiappinelli's current research interests include nonprofit governance and the relation between corporate law and family dynamics.”

I suppose Chiappinelli might be interested - from an academic standpoint, of course - in the effects that mountains of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt will have on a person’s ability to start a family. Who knows? Maybe Eric A. Chiappinelli will also take some interest in the societal effects of such debt.

According to this graph, for 2005-2006, the school offered full-tuition scholarships to exactly 0.0% of its students. The commode did provide half-tuition scholarships to 1.3 percent of it students.

Look, as a student at this overpriced toilet, you can write onto the prestigious Seattle Journal for Social Justice. Yes, that will impress the hell out of legal and non-legal employers alike, right?!?!

“If these [for-profit trade school] programs keep growing, you’re going to wind up with more and more students who are graduating and can’t find meaningful employment,” said Rafael I. Pardo, a professor at Seattle University School of Law and an expert on educational finance. “They can’t generate income needed to pay back their loans, and they’re going to end up in financial distress. [Emphasis mine]

It doesn’t get much better than this! This “educational finance expert”/”law professor” is telling the New York Times that for-profit schools are garbage pits - when he works at a grossly-overpriced diploma mill. You have reached the heights of hypocrisy, Rafael Pardo.

Conclusion: Seattle University Sewer of Law is a pathetic waste of space. It overcharges its students for an inferior product. Graduating from a toilet law school with $100K-$130K in student debt will not benefit anyone - other than the administrators and “professors” at this dump site.

Friday, January 14, 2011

The Law School Game: Repeat Players v. One Time Consumers

This article is entitled, Options for Student Borrowers: A Derivatives-Based Proposal to Protect Students and Control Debt-Fueled Inflation in the Higher Education Market.

The basic gist of this 72-page article is that the burden should be placed on those who benefit from the system. After all, student loan companies and law schools are in the position of the well-informed, repeat player. They make serious cash, in the current scheme. Therefore, the student should not bear the brunt of the risk – which is currently the case. Students simply do not understand the job market, whereas the schools know how to play the game. These “institutions of higher learning” can also fudge the numbers, thereby providing an overly-optimistic picture of the industry.

On page 49 of the PDF, i.e. page 115 of the journal, the authors write the following:

“Just as businesses can reap profits from useful yet abnormally dangerous activities, the higher education enterprise of law schools and student loan lenders invariably profit from successive batches of virgin law students. Law schools and lenders are the sophisticated, well-informed, repeat players in this market.” [Emphasis mine]

What’s that you say, lemming? How can I say that the law schools lie? Take a look at the following sources:

“Morse acknowledged that some law schools game the rankings, which take into account the percentage of graduates with jobs at graduation and those with jobs nine months after graduation.”

We can also look at 11th-ranked Duke Law’s “Bridge to Practice” program for unemployed JDs. Perhaps, we can look at the 48th-greatest American law school, SMU Dedman’s “Test Drive” program, whereby the school pays employers to place unemployed law grads in internships. If you prefer, we can look at 60th-most phenomenal law school in the land, Univer$iTTy of Miami Sewer of Law – and the fact that the commode will pay public interest employers to hire its students.

On page 3 of the electronic version of David Segal’s NYT piece, you can see that fourth tier trash can Thomas Jefferson School of Law admits that it includes those JDs who could not be contacted in its supposed 92% placement rate.

By the way, NALP lists an overall employment rate of 88.3% for the JD Class of 2009. In total, 44,000 graduates competed for a paltry 28,901 jobs requiring a law degree. Look at the numbers of JDs who went in solo practice, those who returned to their prior job, lawyers working as short-term research assistants, etc.

If you are a licensed attorney or JD working at Radio Shack, you are “employed” for the purposes of NALP, ABA, and US News. Because you went to law school so that you could make $7.65 an hour, right?!?!

But why would the law schools lie, you ask?! From Page 1 of Segal’s piece:

“If you’re a law school and you add 25 kids to your class, that’s a million dollars, and you don’t even have to hire another teacher,” says Allen Tanenbaum, a lawyer in Atlanta who led the American Bar Association’s commission on the impact of the economic crisis on the profession and legal needs. “That additional income goes straight to the bottom line.”

Are you still wondering why law schools would fudge the numbers?!

Furthermore, here is a listing of average student indebtedness for each law school’s graduating 2009 class, provided by US News & World Report. See where your school is listed. Also, make sure that prospective law students see this chart. This is, by far, the best ranking provided by US News, with regards to “legal education” in this country.

“The University of San Diego School of Law has continued its rise in the latest version of the US News Law School Rankings. In the 2011 version, USD Law has jumped from #61 to #56, and is now on the cusp of Tier 1 status.”

Who gives a damn, kid? If you want to stay in San Diego – and you don’t mind taking out more than $109,657 in additional, non-dischargeable student loans – then go ahead and sign on the dotted line. And make sure to refrain from wetting your pants, in case this toilet seeps into the “first tier.”

In the final analysis, it simply does not matter if your school is ranked 48th, 67th, 83rd or 112th. Schools play the ranking game, and then make a big deal when they from the third tier to being ranked 86th. The brutal reality of the situation is this: legal employers are not impressed with such a jump. And they sure as hell are not fooled by such “improvements.” Your law degree still says $yracu$e Univer$ity on it.

Remember, the administrators and “law professors” at these diploma mills get paid up front, in full. You, the student, are the one left with mountains of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt to re-pay.

Schools lie, when it will benefit them. Keep that in mind when you are being bored to death in your Professional Responsibility course. Then again, the law school industry is run by hypocrites.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Law School Shills Featured in The New York Times

David Segal of the New York Times put together one hell of a piece in the Business section of the Sunday edition, with regard to the law school racket. Seeing that several administrators interviewed in this piece engaged in deception, it is only fitting that they be called out on this blog. By the way, I have emailed the law faculty members featured below a link to this blog entry. Let’s see if any of them have the balls to answer the call.

On page 5 of the electronic version, Steven Greenberger - assistant dean of faculty at DePaul University Commode of Law - states the following:

“Who’s to say to any particular student, ‘You won’t be the one to get the $160,000-a-year job,’ ” says Steven Greenberger, a dean at the DePaul College of Law. “I think they should have all the info, and the info should be accurate, but saying once they know that they shouldn’t be allowed to come, that’s predicated on the idea that students are really ignorant and don’t know what is best for them.”

Guess what, genius? MOST prospective law students - and American college students, in general - are ignorant of the job market for lawyers. Many are also unaware of the impact that NON-DISCHARGEABLE student loans will have on their lives. I suppose you have not seen this in a law review article, so it may be difficult for you to digest.

On page 45 of DePaul University’s 2009 IRS Tax Form 990, you can see that Glen Weissenberger, then-dean of the college of law, made $339,874 in base compensation - for 2008. He also made $52,500 in bonus & incentive compensation; 19,599 in “other“ compensation; $18,400 in deferred compensation; and $12,509 in non-taxable benefits - for the same year. In sum, Weissenberger made $442,882 in TOTAL COMPENSATION for 2008. I am sure that Steven Greenberger has many rea$on$ to keep the gravy train rolling.

On page 4 of the Times article, David N. Yellen, dean at the Loyola University-Chicago Sewer of Law, spewed forth this nonsense:

“We ought to be doing a better job for our students and spend less time worrying about whether another school is five spots ahead,” says David N. Yellen, dean of the Loyola University Chicago School of Law. “But in the real world you can’t escape from the pressures. We’re all sort of trapped. I don’t know if anyone is out-and-out lying, but I do know that a lot of schools are hyping a lot of misleading statistics. [Emphasis mine]

Oh, you feel trapped, David?!?! How do you think your grads feel when they are taking on an average of $89,786 in law school debt- with pathetic job prospects?! It’s no big deal, right?! After all, only 75% of the LUC Law Class of 2009 incurred such debt.

“When I was a candidate for this job,” said Phillip J. Closius, the dean of the University of Baltimore School of Law, “I said ‘I can talk for 10 minutes about the fallacies of the U.S. News rankings,’ but nobody wants to hear about fallacies. There are millions of dollars riding on students’ decisions about where to go to law school, and that creates real institutional pressures. [Emphasis mine]

Phillip J. Closius, dean of the University of Baltimore Sewer of Law goes onto say:

“You can call it massaging the data if you want, but I never saw it that way,” he says. Weaker students wound up with lighter course loads, which meant that fewer of them flunked out. In his estimation, a dean who pays attention to the U.S. News rankings isn’t gaming the system;he’s making the school better.

I wonder why you never saw this as dishonest, Phillip. (Exactly how does gaming the system make the school fundamentally better?) Then again, your students took out an average $86,133 in law school debt; and 84% of the Class of 2009 took on such debt. I wonder if your debt-soaked students would have taken on such debt, had you provided accurate info.

“A number of law schools hire their own graduates, some in hourly temp jobs that, as it turns out, coincide with the magical date. Last year, for instance, Georgetown Law sent an e-mail to alums who were “still seeking employment.” It announced three newly created jobs in admissions, paying $20 an hour. The jobs just happened to start on Feb. 1 and lasted six weeks.

A spokeswoman for the school said that none of these grads were counted as “employed” as a result of these hourly jobs. In a lengthy exchange of e-mails and calls, several different explanations were offered, the oddest of which came from Gihan Fernando, the assistant dean of career services. He said in an interview that Georgetown Law had “lost track” of two of the three alums, even though they were working at the very institution that was looking for them.”
[Emphasis mine]

On page 3, Gihan Fernando, assistant dean of career services at Georgetown University Law Center has the sheer audacity to claim that he cannot track down two of the grads that worked for the school. Right - and Salma Hayek just broke into my house, ripped my clothes off and pinned me up against the wall.

I have saved the most egregious example for last. From the third page of this article:

“Beth Kransberger, associate dean of student affairs at Thomas Jefferson, stands by that figure, noting that it includes 25 percent of those graduates who could not be located, as well as anyone who went on to other graduate studies — all perfectly kosher under the guidelines.

Like lots of administrators, she defends the figures she gathers and laments that so many other schools are manipulating results.

“You need to take the high road,” she said. “Schools that are behaving the most ethically want students who come to law school with their eyes open.”

Beth Kransberger, associate dean of student affairs at fourth tier trash heap TTTThoma$ Jeffer$on $chool of Law stands by the placement rate that her school published. That’s nice, isn’t it?! Beth, you work at one of the most sickening fourth tier toilets in the entire country. You can’t track down graduates?! No problem!! Just count them as “employed”!!

As you can see, those members of the TJ$L Class of 2009 who incurred law school debt took out an average of $131,800 in law school loans; furthermore, 95% of this unfortunate graduating class took on such debt. This is the highest debt figure and percentage - as listed by US News & World Report.

Go to page 25 of this festering commode’s 2009 Form 990, to see how well these gluttons are making out - on the federal teat.

In the final analysis, these administrators are too entrenched and $elf-intere$ted to evaluate the system objectively. Any meaningful change MUST come from outside pressure. The ABA does not have what it takes to limit the damage; in fact, they are more than happy to accredit pretty much accredit any proposed law school. Because that will help reduce the glut of attorneys, right?!

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Sweltering Jesuit Stink Pit: Saint Louis University School of Law

Tuition and Fees: We can see that full-time law students at Saint Louis University will be charged $35,090 in tuition – for the 2010-2011 school year. In contrast, part-time students, attending 8-11 credit hours a semester, will only be charged $25,560 for this academic year. And who doesn’t have $25K to play around with, right?!

This page also shows that mandatory fees for full-time law students amount to $222.50 per semester, or $445 per year. Part-time students need only piss away $127.50 per semester on such fees. Also, at the bottom of the page, you can see that optional university parking is $170 minimum per semester!! A student who attends law school here for the full three years is looking at spending over $1000 on parking!!

Ranking: Okay, so the school charges a minimum of $170 in parking fees – per semester. This private Jesuit school also charges its full-time students in excess of $35K per year. (When will Jesus kick the change-makers out of this place?) Surely, the school’s reputation will justify this expense, right?! Some publication calling itself US News & World Report lists this school in the tremendous third tier of American law schools.

Alleged Employment Rate: This third tier toilet states the following, with regards to placement:

“92 percent of School of Law alumni are employed within six months of graduation over the past five years.”

Yeah, sure they were – and Lauren Graham just locked her ankles around my waist and used my torso as a scratch pad. For $ome rea$on, the commode does not list average starting salary info. Maybe, SLU Law grads make so much money that the school is embarrassed to publish those figures.

Average Student Indebtedness: USN&WR shows that the average student indebtedness - for those members of the $ainTTT Loui$ Univer$iTTTy JD Class of 2009 who incurred law school debt – was $99,000. Fully 80 percent of this unfortunate graduating class took on additional, NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for law school.

Faculty and Administrator Salaries: Surprisingly, no member of the law faculty was among the 12 highest-paid employees or officers at this university. However, this document lucidly illustrates the higher education scam. Simply head over to page 21 of the school’s 2009 IRS Form 990, under Part V Endowment Funds, where you can see that the university “suffered” investment losses of $199,364,219 in the span of one year. I guess Jesus is not immune from the recession/fundamental restructuring of the economy, either.

On page 39 of this tax document, Jesus, a.k.a. Saint Louis University, reported $15,000,000 in revenues from his securities/closely held stock. Lastly, go to page 49. The school received $224,233,044 in net patient service revenue, plus $321,626,828 in tuition and fees. This means that the university took in $545,859,872 in Related or Exempt Function Revenue – for 2008!! This is on top of the $55,538,770 the school raked in via “Revenue Excluded from Tax under IRC 512, 513, or 514.”

Who says “higher education” doesn’t pay off?!?! The school only took in $601,398,642 in tax-exempt revenues in a single year. Does anyone out there still believe that these non-profit “in$titution$ of higher learning” are looking out for their students and graduates?!?!

“The mission of Saint Louis University is the pursuit of truth or excellence for the greater glory of God and for the service of humanity. The university seeks excellence in the fulfillment of its corporate purposes of teaching, research, health care and service to the community.”

I suppose that strapping your students with mountains of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt is in line with His teachings, right?!?! Which gospel is that in again?

Look, we can see that Joel K. Goldstein, “Vincent C. Immel professor of law,” is a specialist on the vice presidency. Wow! I guess this school is worth the cost of admission, after all. From this list, you will notice that Thomas Eagleton was a visiting faculty member at this commode. George McGovern named Eagleton his as VP nominee in 1972, but dumbass failed to disclose that he had been hospitalized for mental health reasons on three separate occasions. I wonder if Joel K. Goldstein ever collaborated with Eagleton on his vice presidential “scholarly” research.

According to Law School Numbers, in 2005-2006, the sewer of law provided full-tuition scholarships to 4.8% of its students. Another 11.8 percent received half-tuition scholarships. How many of them held onto their scholarships after grades were turned in?

Conclusion: $ainTTT Loui$ UNiver$iTTTy $chool of Law is a pathetic waste of space that happens to over-charges its students. The fact that it is a Catholic/Jesuit school makes this even more reprehensible. At least the public schools are less expensive, the private schools that are not affiliated with a religious institution are not seeking to profit off of Jesus, and the for-profit trash cans are at least (somewhat) honest about their de$ign$.

Also, keep in mind that you will be competing against law students from 19th-ranked Washington University in St. Louis – as well as other strong, regional schools – for the limited number of lawyer positions in the area. Why would a Biglaw firm want to hire your ass when they can go after students from this stellar school?!

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Ring in the New Year with Fourth Tier Capital University Law School

Tuition: A full-time student attending the private “institution of higher learning” known as Capital University Law School - for the 2010-2011 school year - will be charged $1106 per credit hour. Seeing that a typical full-year course load is 30 hours, a full-time law student at Capital can look forward to paying $33,180 in tuition - for a single year!

Total Cost of Attendance: Since this commode only provides living expenses for those who intend to live on campus and purchase the “meal plan,” we will rely on estimated living expenses from the other law school in Columbus. Ohio State lists this figure as $15,584; Comprehensive health insurance is estimated to be $1,546; and the cost of books/supplies is listed as $3,860.

Using these figures, this adds another $20,990 to the tab. This would bring the estimated total COA - for the current school year - to roughly $54,170!

Ranking: The cost of attendance is a little steep, especially for those of modest means. But the school can surely justify this cost with its stellar reputation in the academic, legal and business communities, right?!?! Sure it can - and Jessica Alba ran her lips and tongue down my torso when the clock struck midnight on January 1st. You see, US News & World Report lists this school as a fourth tier pile of corroded waste.

Employment Placement: “For the Class of 2009, 87.6% of the graduates known to be seeking employment were employed or enrolled in a full-time degree program nine months after graduation.”

How many of these grads were working in the lumber section at The Home Depot? What percentage of this graduating class is selling insurance, teaching grade school, or stocking shelves at Office Max?! According to this same page, the school notes the following:

“Capital University Law School was founded in 1903 as an evening law program by the YMCA and as part of a national program to assure access to a legal education by all men and women who could not afford to attend a full-time law school.” [Emphasis mine]

How many people can afford to pay $33,180 in annual tuition now?!?!

Average Student Indebtedness: USN&WR lists the average student indebtedness for Class of 2009 Crapital Law grads who incurred law school debt at $98,531. Furthermore, 92% of this particular graduating class foolishly took on law school debt - for a TTTT law degree. Capital, indeed.

Law Faculty Compensation: Let’s juxtapose student indebtedness with the salaries and total compensation of the faculty. Heading to page 9 of Crapital University’s 2009 Form 990, we can see that the five highest-paid faculty members are “law professors.”

Jack Guttenberg allegedly worked 60 hours a week as dean of the commode of law, and made $253,485 in TOTAL COMPENSATION - for 2008. This piggy made $222,053 in base compensation plus $31,432 in “estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and other related organizations.”

Take a look at the following “law professors” and their TOTAL COMPENSATION for 2008: “international law expert” Daniel C. Turack made $206,841; “Newton D. Baker/Baker and Hostetler Chair of Law” Mark R. Brown “earned” $208,175; Roberta S. Mitchell made $206,192; Stanton G. Darling II raked in $183,206; and Mark P. Strasser made $189,356. Now you know where all that capital is going.

Entering Student GPA and LSAT Scores: This site shows that the 75th percentile of entering students, for the CapiTTTTal Univer$iTTTTy Law Sewer Class of 2009, scored a 156 on the LSAT. Those in the 25th percentile had a score of 151. Those in the 75th percentile had a UGPA of 3.51, whereas those in the 25th percentile earned a 2.94 GPA during undergrad. If you have similar numbers, then you may end up at a fourth tier piece of trash.

EDIT: The school has been in operation since 1903 - as the Columbus Law School. According to this Avvo rating/profile, Capital Law School has 5,709 total alumni. Of this figure, 1,131 members are inactive. ALSO, AMONG THESE 5,709 GRADUATES, ONLY THREE ARE JUDGES!!! And 153 have apparently received disciplinary sanctions.

Conclusion: This school’s graduates will be competing against OSU Law grads for jobs. Keep in mind that the top-ranked law school in the state, i.e. “The” Ohio State University, only charges Ohio residents $24,324 in tuition for the 2010-2011 academic year. If this is the best school you can get into - and you are NOT receiving a full-tuition scholarship and living at home - then you need to re-take the LSAT. Attending a law school that counts 3 judges among its alumni might not be a wise decision.

This school is a joke, and the stench of this place will not leave you in this lifetime. Remember, you DO NOT NEED to incur another $100K-$160K in non-dischargeable debt - for a TTTT law degree. In the end, you will be left with anemic job prospects. Do you want to consign yourself to a lifetime of debt servitude so that some “Newton D. Baker/Baker and Hostetler scholar” can make more than $208K annually?!?!
Web Analytics