Thursday, February 10, 2011

Flush This Second Tier Turd a Second Time: Villanova University School of Law

After leveling this dump last year, I was content to leave this pile of rubbish alone. In fact, in my first post, I did not mention that then-dean Mark Sargent resigned, after he was caught frequenting prostitutes. After all, he is only a man – and prostitutes can present such a problem to one’s defenses.

Here is the link to the entry, where I flushed this commode back on February 20, 2010. However, this was before I had accessed Guidestar, Law School Numbers, and USN&WR’s list of average law student indebtedness.

However, the new dean at this second tier sewage pit recently admitted that the school KNOWINGLY reported inaccurate info to the ABA. I simply could not let this travesty pass. Upon seeing this story, I had to inform Lauren Graham that she would not be climbing on top of me, and digging her nails into my torso, later on – as something more important came up.

Tuition: According to this supposed “Fact Sheet,” a full-time law student at Vanillanova will be charged $36,690 for the 2010-2011 school year. Last year, this figure amounted to $34,860. This represents an increase of 5.25%, in one year.

Employment and Salary Stats: From the same page, we can see that the school asserts that 93% of its 2009 graduating class was employed within nine months of graduation. Yeah - and Salma Hayek reported being unable to walk straight the next day 93% of the time, after spending the night with me.

Ranking: Apparently, lying and cheating did not pay off for this dump last year. As you can see, the school went from 61st most amazing, exhilarating and breathtaking to merely the 67th best law school in the land. That is according to a publication called US News & World Report. Evidently, increases in tuition are not tied to performance. After all, this second tier waste facility dropped six spots in the USN&WR rankings - but saw an increase in tuition of 5.25 percent.

Average Law Student Indebtedness: According to US News, the average student indebtedness – for those members of Villanova Law’s Class of 2009 who incurred law school debt – was $116,878. But don’t worry; only 89 percent of this particular graduating class took on such NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. I wouldn’t want any OVERPAID faculty members to lose any sleep, over this level of student debt.

Faculty and Administrator Pay: We will go to page 45 of Vanillanova Univer$iTTy’s 2009 Form 990, to see how well the “professors” are doing, in comparison to their debt-soaked students. Doing so, we realize that former dean and prostitution customer Mark Sargent made $330,744 in TOTAL COMPENSATION, for 2008. I suppose one can purchase/rent many prostitutes on that salary.

John F. Murphy, “professor of law” made $264,422 in TOTAL COMPENSATION for the same tax year. Richard Booth, “Martin G. McGuinn Chair in Business Law professor of law” raked in $246,664 in TOTAL COMPENSATION. See where your large sums of borrowed money go?!?!

On page 46 of the school’s tax form, take a look at the organization’s mi$$ion:

“Villanova University is a Catholic Augustinian community of higher education, committed to excellence and distinction in the discovery, dissemination and application of knowledge. Inspired by the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, the university is grounded in the wisdom of the Catholic intellectual tradition and advances a deeper understanding of the relationship between faith and reason.”

[Did you vomit yet?!]

“Through [Villanova spokesman Jonathan] Gust, the university provided the following written statement to the ABA Journal:

"Villanova University has learned that inaccurate admissions data was knowingly reported to the American Bar Association (ABA) by individuals at the Villanova Law School (VLS) for years prior to 2010.”
[Emphasis mine]

Conclusion: What’s that you say, Lemming?!?! Why would the school KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY lie to the ABA, you ask?! You may as well ask, “Why would any person or institution fudge numbers?” Because there is something to gain by lying!!

In the final analysis, this school is an overpriced sewer pit. The school offers courses in “Ethics and Professional Responsibility.” These concepts are beaten into the students’ minds, by overpaid, under-worked “law professors.” The sewer of law charges its students $36,690 for one year, in tuition and fees - and yet DELIBERATELY provided inaccurate/false information to the ABA. That tells you all you need to know about the ethics of this Catholic, Augustinian, non-profit “institution of higher learning“!!


  1. I drove past Villanova a few years ago. It is quite an impressive campus. Lots of very imposing stone buildings. I'm talking really awesome.

    It ain't cheap to maintain those sort of bricks and sticks.

    I heard somewhere that the law school can be the single most profitable school at the university.

    If that is the case with the Villanova School of Law, there would certainly be a motive to rake in big bucks and stretch the stats, (i.e. gotta maintain the magnificent campus and of course the big salaries.

  2. HAHAHAHAHAHahaaha this rant killed me. Took quite the effort to hold in my laughter in my early AM class at my TTT. Keep it coming Nando.

  3. Very funny post as usual. I just hope you don't go and get a heart attack going after the schools with such venom that's all.

  4. I think i'll gift the "Confession" iPhone app to the deans at this illustrious institution. Clearly they need it.

  5. "[T]he university is grounded in the wisdom of the Catholic intellectual tradition..."

    To be fair to 'nova, much of the "Catholic intellectual tradition" involved fudging their version of God into things where he didn't otherwise show up, so it's not like they were acting out of character.

  6. This country is finished. I don't know why supposedly smart people can't figure this out. It's pretty fucking obvious.

    Anyways there are not enough jobs for college grads. So the chimps end up going for a bullshit Master's or PhD. A JD I count as a bullshit MA. So all these jackoffs did was take themselves outta the job market for several more years. And it seems to me that we are missing something here. Oh. The schleps also took out more loans.

    Can you hear me lawyers and law students. The country is gone. Done. Frazzeld. Bamboozled. Fried. Fucked. With a cherry on top. You hearin' me yet?

    Okay once again: I wouldnt give you a $20 bill for this humungous (sic?) landmass of shit. Fucking thing is more trouble than its worth. The fucking thing is broke.

    Abandon this sinking pile of shit while you can. Kiss your wives and girlfriends goodbye. Watch this nation sink down from the shores of another nation. One where you don't have any loans.

    Thanks for reading through this. Don't fucking delete it. This advice will save more lives than this blog.

  7. Would love to hear Nando's thoughts on the following article about a provisionally-approved law school:

    More on the law school:

    Keep fighting the good fight, Nando.

  8. 10:30..where do you live? Some socialist paradise. Dont tell me China is better. As much as this country is going downhill, there is still no better a place to live.

  9. Don't worry about Lauren Graham. I took care of her for you. But she was deeply frustrated that you left and she took it out on me. She dug in her nails in really hard.

  10. The country is goign downhill, but it is better than most. But how can the other say their is no better place. How many countries have you lived in sir? If you had a lot of money you could be living in a tropical paradise. Of course you'd need to hire private security.

  11. I came upon here after reading the NYT article.. BTY i think that josh wallerstien dude has to be the biggest douche EVER.

    Anyways, lets just say I went to a higher ranked law school than 'nova in the philly area. And I happen to work for a very large law firm in NYC

    The problem with law school admissions with lower ranked schools i think is one of 'expectations'

    When law students reach out to me about jobs - I flat out tell them 'to look elsewhere' if I feel they won't cut it here. Hey somebody has to say it.

    While this might come across as conceded, not all of us can go to IVY law schools and then join a NYC Biglaw firm. Just like not all of us can be football players, singers, etc.

    Props to nando for busting the bubble. Hear his plea. I think he doesn't want people to become the failure he did and I admire that.

    do not go to a lower ranked school unless your expectation is 35K and a lot of debt.

  12. Hi again.. I'm the anonymous poster from above.

    I'll need to concede this point - mostly i was referring to third and fourth tier law schools. I will say in philly nova grads are respected (at least from my limited experience with them)

    So, nothing personal with nova

    Still think the overall message needs to get out.

    Law school is not cut out for everyone. If you are not good enough, don't do it

  13. Bravo, Nando! I think this Villanova re-post is your best work.

  14. @February 10, 2011 4:09 PM :

    Given the serious challenges you seem to face regarding the issues of spelling, syntax and punctuation, you must be even more self-satisfied you ended up with such a prime gig!

    My condolences to those around you, with the exception of your proofreading staff.

  15. ha!

    well i'm typing on my iphone so punctuation will have to take a back seat. Hopefully my point came accross though

  16. "well i'm typing on my iphone so punctuation will have to take a back seat. Hopefully my point came accross though

    February 10, 2011 4:50 PM"

    Not to nitpick, but that is also the incorrect usage for the word "hopefully".

    "Hopefully", when properly used, is adverbial, and denotes the doing of something with hope. The intent here would better seem to indicate the use of the phrase "it is to be hoped."

    (Not everyone has that kind of attention to detail, though.)

    --Strunk & White, "The Elements of Style"

  17. RE: That bit about Mark Sargent and the prostitution scandal:

    You'd think that a guy his age would all done with that sort of stuff. What an old horndogger!

    Someone ought to throw a bucket of ice cold water on him.

    But I guess the old saying is true: It's the last thing to go down before the coffin lid.

  18. Prior to Vatican II, the Church may have placed an interdict on this apostate institution.

  19. Speaking of proper English, check out our first-tier grad posting at 3:50:

    "I went to a higher ranked law school than 'nova in the philly area. And I happen to work for a very large law firm in NYC...
    While this might come across as conceded..."

    Conceded? How do you navigate seven years of post-high school education well enough to land a "very large law firm" job while still mixing up basic vocabulary?

    Not only is our education system overpriced and overvalued, it's failing to produce high-end graduates that speak and act like educated professionals. Even if this one's lying, I could easily make a list of other examples.

  20. @ J-Dog,

    It is pitiful that a first tier grad cannot grasp that “conceited” and “conceded” have entirely different meanings. A middle school kid of average intelligence should know the difference. But I suppose this error lies with the guy's iPhone, right?!

    To 10:30 am,

    What is the point of your rant? It is not exactly law-related. I can see that this country's best days are behind it, at least in terms of economic standing. In many ways, the new economy has directly contributed to the flood of entrants to college and graduate school. The fact remains when there are not enough jobs for college-educated people. For practical purposes, it does not matter if someone has 4 degrees behind their name. Likewise, if millions more go to college, millions of decent jobs will not suddenly appear. I will not delete your remarks, but try to post comments that are relevant to the topic and discussion.

    Richard Vedder, economist at Ohio University, notes that 17 million college-educated Americans are working at jobs that do not require a four-year degree. This article is from October 20, 2010. I know SEVERAL people with MBAs, MAs, JDs who are making $11 an hour, working as telemarketers, or getting by as part-time employees.

    Take a look at this chart. This Census info shows the level of education, in 2009. As you can see, there are 198,285,000 people residing here, who are age 25 and older. For the sake of simplicity, I took the gross number and multiplied it by the percentage of those who hold a Bachelor’s degree. Doing so, I came out with an estimated 37,674,150 Americans who hold a Bachelor’s degree.

    This includes Bachelor’s degree-holders who are 65-74, as well as those who are 75 and older. Many of these people are no longer in the workforce. To be fair, several of these older men and women are still in the workforce, to varying degrees. Keep in mind, that tons of Boomers cannot afford to retire - at least not to the extent that they would like.

    In sum, there are about 37.7 million residents with a four-year degree, and roughly 17 million cannot find employment in their given field. Sure, some idiots decided to major in Film Studies or German Expressionism. To be fair, a liberal education may be intriguing and help one “grow” intellectually. But, practically, these people cannot reasonably expect to land jobs in film or teaching expressionist literature.

    The fact remains that these people borrowed massive amounts of student loans to pay for their education. They were told - from infancy - that going to college would lead to better jobs. This is simply not the case. What MANY recent college grads can look forward to is working at a department store, slinging lattes, working at Barnes & Noble, stocking shelves at a video store, answering phones, selling shoes, unemployment, no health insurance, calls from creditors, and eating lots of Ramen noodles. Not quite what these impressionable kids had in mind, is it?!?!

  21. I agree, mistaking "conceded" with "conceited" (by the way, recall the "i" before "e" except after "c" rule for future iPhone reference) is definitely the sign of a dumbass, particulary a first-tier grad. You should be thankful you have a good job.

  22. Nando,
    Why don't you open your blog/site to advertisements? A TTT school basically stole from you, and now you can get some money back by exposing and humiliating these TTT schools.
    Also, I think you should have some rankings as well.

  23. Villanova is a toilet. Nobody cares if it's ranked 67th or 61st. Nobody even cares if the dean was banging hookers. The best thing it has going for it is the other toilets in Philly. You got Temple, Duquesne and a newer piece of garbage (Drexel). You want biglaw? Go to Penn or land in the top 5% of these shitters. And having connections helps.

  24. Nando and all you other grammar police out there. Obviously, the poster who used the word "conceded" as opposed to "conceited" made a typo. It happens. Particularly on blog comments where people don't proofread. He has a real job - unlike most of the posters here - and can't spend valuable time making sure every little punctuation is accurate. Simply put, unlike many of you, he has more important things to do.

    I always love it when I receive an opposing brief that focuses on small, irrelevant grammatical errors. That usual means they can't address the substance of my argument and I will win. I've never heard of a judge - and I clerked at the federal district court level - rule in opposition to a party based on a small typo.

    Focus on substance, people. At least if you want to be taken seriously.

    (And no, I did not proofread this post. I have more important things to do, like proofread real legal work.)

  25. @1:05 pm

    Again... while connections are a relevant factor, they no longer have as much leverage as they did back in the good ole' days (1990s lol). I know a number of people from my T25 law school who have parents in multiple-partner Big Law firms who couldn't even get hired despite the obvious nepotism.

    Just more reasons you shouldn't go to law school and should proceed with caution even when you have connections on your side.


    Host name:

    Hello, how are things going up at Drexel University today, cockroach? Thanks for the comments at 1:46 pm and 1:51 pm above.

    Time Visitor Session
    Feb 11 2011 1:46pm 5 actions 11m 36s

    By the way, shouldn’t you be happy that I am bitch-slapping Vanillanova, and not the dump heap known as Drexel University Earle Mack School of Law? After all, the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania legal job markets are GLUTTED.

    “I know a number of people from my T25 law school who have parents in multiple-partner Big Law firms who couldn't even get hired despite the obvious nepotism.”

    GUESS WHAT, FRAUD? Drexel University’s law school is not in the top 25. In fact, it has not yet received a ranking from US News. Perhaps, in the next year or so, your school will be proud to be a member of the third or fourth tier.

    “I always love it when I receive an opposing brief that focuses on small, irrelevant grammatical errors. That usual means they can't address the substance of my argument and I will win. I've never heard of a judge - and I clerked at the federal district court level - rule in opposition to a party based on a small typo.”

    In your follow-up comment at 1:51, you stated that you are at a T25 law school. (We have already established that you are at a bottom-feeder law school, not a top 25 institution.) But now you are a badass legal practitioner, right?!?! Which is why you are posting comments from Drexel University on a Friday afternoon, huh?

    “He has a real job - unlike most of the posters here - and can't spend valuable time making sure every little punctuation is accurate. Simply put, unlike many of you, he has more important things to do.”

    He may have a real job – or he could simply be claiming to have one. He posted anonymously on a blog. You do realize that people can claim almost anything on an anonymous forum, correct?!?! But that is of no importance here, because even if he has a great job, we all KNOW that you don’t, Drexel law student!!

    How is that for focusing on substance, and slapping you around like a cheap whore?! Have a nice weekend. Get plenty of rest, so you can recover from that TTR beatdown.

  27. nando i don't ever want to piss you off!

  28. All law school administrators who are accused of propagating lies about the garunteed fame and fortune of law school grads are worthy of a trial by the court of public opinion. Those who have been defrauded of millions sit as the jurors and Nando will be the arbitar. Once they are summarily convicted, get them up against the wall to be summarily executed.


  30. LMFAO at Nando -

    Holy Sh*t, I have not laughed that hard all day. Thanks, I really needed it. It's been a long stressful day that might spill over into the weekend. Such is life.

    I am the person who made the "grammar police" comment. You attempted to "out me" by tracking my "host name" and claim I posted from Drexel. You need to double check whatever internet-tracking tool you are using because you are way off. By a mile. We're talking not even the same time zone.

    I am in Chicago, IL and graduated from the University of Illinois College of Law the same year you graduated from Drake. I have not been to Philadelphia, or anywhere near there, in about 10 years. I have never stepped foot on Drexel's campus. I can say that, unlike you, I am happily employed as a attorney.

    Also, I only made one comment - the "grammar police" comment. I have no idea, who made the comment below mine. I can assure you we are not the same person.

    So, Nando, despite what you claim to be slapping me around like a "cheap whore," you failed miserably. I mean, you weren't even close at "establishing" that I went to Drexel. No wonder you couldn't get a job in the legal profession. You are grossly incompetent at even the most seemingly routine tasks.

    Finally, Nando, you and me (thankfully) have only one thing in common. For example, I can respect people who disagree with me without resorting to immature personal attacks and trying to out someone (and then failing miserably). You apparently cannot. The one thing we have in common is that we both tried to become attorneys. One of us failed at that endeavor, and the other did not. It necessarily follows that one of us is a failure and the other is not. Would you care to take a guess at which one is which?

  31. Ooh ooh, let me let me. The guy that can't spell and has made a bunch of comments and on a blog is the successful lawyer. Right? Right? This is fun.

    Read the next parsed appelate case for class on Monday. You never know. The professor could call on you and you wouldn't want to look dumb like you did on here. You may have aspirations of transferring out of Drexel.

  32. Poster from 1:51 here.

    How on earth did you get Drexel from your IP look up? I'm posting from Southern California and the T25 I was talking about is USC.

    Also, if you read my comment correctly, I'm on your side. Come on now Nando, for a person with such strong empirical research skills, this type of reading comprehension lapse is not something I expected for you.

  33. memo to self: don't piss nando off.

  34. @ 3:48 PM, you wrote---"The one thing we have in common is that we both tried to become attorneys. One of us failed at that endeavor, and the other did not. It necessarily follows that one of us is a failure and the other is not. Would you care to take a guess at which one is which?"

    You say that as one that has not followed Nando's blog. If you did, you would know that Nando went into another field out of choice, and not out of "failure" as you say.

    So the only one admitting to failure is you.

    I would suggest you give it up by now. Put your tail between your legs and go home.

  35. @ 5:21

    Right. Nando decided to start a blog about how horrible a legal education is because he had so many legal opportunities available to him at graduation, but decided he wanted to pursue something else. Makes sense.

    You're right, though. I should not be so hard on him. The comic relief he is providing me while I am stuck in the office on a Friday night has been invaluable.

    (In all seriousness, I respect what Nando says and agree with most of it. What I object to is his immature and overly hostile attitude to those who disagree with him and his (futile) attempts to "out" people. I mean really, who gives a fuck where someone posts from. There is a reason he is known as "Amanda" over on JD Underground.)

  36. "Nando and all you other grammar police out there. Obviously, the poster who used the word "conceded" as opposed to "conceited" made a typo. It happens. Particularly on blog comments where people don't proofread."

    This is exactly what I was talking about. For someone who's an "attorney" who went to the "University of Illinois", you're in need of a basic vocabulary lesson.

    A TYPO is where fast or imprecise typing causes a few letters to be switched (e.g., "teh") or a letter to be added or omitted (e.g., "clss" or "classs").

    Confusing "conceited" and "conceded" is not a typo; no letters are juxtaposed and no letters are omitted or added. The words are not even homophones (e.g., "your" and "you're). It's basic word misuse by our friend at Drexel/USC/wherever. If I were reading cover letters and saw someone had a genuine typo, I would think they rushed it too quickly. If someone confused unrelated words, I would think they're an idiot.

    And this has nothing to do with GRAMMAR. Misusing a word while defending someone for misusing a word? Classic.

    I have little faith that you're a working attorney and even less that you've ever seen an opponent's brief that focuses on "small, irrelevant" language errors. And of course no judge would rule on minor errors (would anyone ever suggest otherwise?), but you can't sit there and pretend that confusing and misusing words will endear the judge to you, or make you and the profession look good.

  37. @ 5:21

    Working in the legal sector is only a sound financial decision if you land in Big Law or have a high ranking government job (think Department of Justice, not the Public Defender's Office.)

    Therefore, Nando and many other JDs have decided to professions which are more lucrative than solo shops, personal injury mills, or other crap law firms.

    Don't take it from me, take it from NALP:

    "These dynamics have resulted in a "bimodal" income distribution, in which there is a heavy concentration of salaries in two distinct ranges, based on salary figures provided by NALP. At the high end are the large corporate firm starting salaries that so interest the media. In 2006, salaries in the largest firms in major markets jumped from $125,000 to $135,000 to $145,000. Thus out of 22,684 starting salaries reported for 2006, 4,809, or 21.2 percent, were in the $125,000 to $145,000 range. (In 2007, this mode moved further to the right due to associate "salary wars.") Yet prospective lawyers need to remember that most new lawyers do not earn $160,000 a year at a large firm. Many earn $40,000 to $55,000 per year in small to midsize firms and solo practice."

    The recession coupled with the glut of attorneys means that a 40k-55k is no longer the low end of the spectrum. Surf over to ShitLaw Jobs to find dozens of unpaid internships and other projects that pay for 10$/hr. I was making more than that lifeguarding in high school!


  38. oh crap, I meant @6:19

    Sorry 5:12, I agree with you.


  39. Wow, J-Dog, you really are an eager law student aren't you? (Well, you say so on your blog, so that is rhetorical. BTW, I love how you seek to restore dignity to a profession that you are not even part of yet, but I digress.)

    You are probably right about the commenter not making a typo, but misusing a word. I don't have the time to double check, nor do I care to. I really should get back to work, but dealing with you crazy people is oddly appealing to me today. Chalk it up to a long week.

    The point I was trying to make in my original post - NOT POSTED FROM DREXEL HAHAHAHA - was that, given the context of the sentence, it was clear what the author meant. It appeared to be an innocent mistake, one that most people make when they type something in a rushed manner. For example, when I am in a rush or being careless while doing something trivial like commenting on a blog, I often misuse "their" and "there." It's not because I don't know the difference, it's because I am going to fast and don't have time to double check what I have just written. I have more important things to do, and being on a billable-hour schedule does that to you.However, this minor mistake does not change or alter the substance of the point I was trying to make.

    Simply put, I just don't have the time to put the same effort into a blog comment as I would put into writing a legal brief. You, as a law student, apparently do. And that's great.

    The same thing with the commenter. I trust that he understands the difference between "concede" and "conceit" and just made an innocent mistake. I would afford you the same luxury and address the substance of the point you were trying to make without mentioning the mistake because it's not relevant. I find it comical that you law students went crazy over it, like revealing a simple misuse of a word renders you a genius. I guess I was a douche too in law school, but thankfully I moved past that phase.

    As for whether I am an attorney or not - believe me, don't believe. I really don't care. I know what I do, I enjoy what I do, and am grateful for my career and to be in a profession I really like.

    Also, I find it - to use your word - "classic" that you preach dignity in the law but yet call people a liar with no good reason ("I have little faith you're an attorney"). I mean, if I wanted to, I could doubt that you are a law student or that Nando is in the IT field, but I don't. I have enough respect for other people (even those I disagree with) to take them at their word.

    Back to work now, or I'll never go home tonight.

  40. @7:25

    You seem confident that you have some of the answers, so please can you help me?

    Between you and me, my student loans got away from me, and out of control.

    I need a job that pays 200K a year at least in order to handle them. My credit is ruined because of the debt, and so I will never get that kind of a job.

    Can you tell me what to do about it, because I sometimes feel half nuts about it.

    In your opinion, am I Bankrupt?

    In other words, when is a bankrupt person that is not really bankrupt not, not really bankrupt when he is really not bankrupt, according to United States Law and the profession you say you enjoy so much?

    Because at age 70 (if I live that long) I will have been in 6 figure student loan debt for over 30 years.

  41. JDpainterguy -

    I feel bad for your situation. I really do. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I agree with pretty much everything Nando says. What I object to - and what I sincerely hope he changes - is his immature attitude and attempts to "out" people. His message would be that much more effective (I mean, when you start losing the JD Underground crowd, something is wrong). I think the rising costs of just not a legal education, but higher education in general, is ruining our economy. Why baby boomers think it's a good idea to saddle younger generations with debt is beyond me.

    As for your question, I am not a bankruptcy attorney so I am not qualified to answer your question. My advice is, if you're serious about seeking bankruptcy protection, seek out an attorney who specializes in that area to get his opinion.

    And Nando, I want to apologize for my initial posts and its overly harsh response. Admittedly, I overreacted to the way you tried to out me. I still think your attempts to "out" people are childish, immature, and irrelevant (not to mention flat out wrong). Like I said, who gives a flying fuck where people posts from. In addition, you seek anonymity on this blog, probably for a good reason, so shouldn't you respect someone else's desire to remain anonymous as well? With that said, I don't consider you a failure. I respect what you are trying to do, if not some of your methods.

    Anyone working on a Saturday? JD Underground is kind of dead today...

  42. Please e-mail these 2 scumbags at the link at bottom to tell them what frauds they are. The law school that fraud is the dean of will be sure to put into indentured servitude evryone that attends.

    The White Bar
    How Minorities and the Poor are Kept Out of U.S. Law Schools

    If law school enrollment today is made up largely of the white and the wealthy, it is because the American Bar Association, the chief accreditor of the nation's law schools, has designed the rules that produce this outcome. It's not that minorities and students from low-income households don't want to attend law school; it's that they are being priced out by soaring tuition costs, up 267 percent since 1990, and shut out by the culturally biased Law School Admissions Test(LSAT).

    Only 3.9% of the nation's one million lawyers are Black, only 3.3% are Hispanic, and whites of modest means likely are underrepresented as well. How many families can afford to pay $100,000 to $150,000 to put a child through three years of law school? At present, law school enrollment is just 6.6% for African-Americans and 5.7% for Hispanics.

    The ABA is aware of this. Five years ago, then-president William Paul decried the alarming lack of "minority representation in the legal profession." And the ABA's own Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Legal Profession has since reaffirmed his view. New York Law School professor Elizabeth Chambliss, author of the Commission's report, described law as "one of the least racially integrated professions in the United States ..." She called the LSAT "one of the main barriers to increasing diversity among law students." Yet ABA insists that the 200 law schools it accredits administer the LSAT, and for ABA schools it often is the main determinant of admission and is always one of the two main determinants.

    What the ABA continues to be about is lining the pockets of law professors, some of whom earn as much as $300,000 or more a year, often for teaching very few hours. Renowned Federal Judge Richard Posner thinks the ABA conducts itself like a "medieval guild" in behalf of its members. George Leef, vice president for research at The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, Raleigh, N.C., believes the ABA's aim is to keep legal fees high by restricting the overall number of attorneys. Leef, a Juris Doctor from Duke University School of Law, says that because of the "connivance" between state bodies and the American Bar Association, "law school costs much more than it needs to. If we allowed a free market in legal education, the cost of preparing for a legal career would fall dramatically." Leef adds, "The ABA's accrediting body, the Council of the Section of Legal Education, has established standards that are designed to keep law school very costly and very restrictive."

    As President Saul Levmore and Vice President David Van Zandt of the American Law Deans Association (ALDA) stated: "The ABA continues to impose requirements on the law schools it accredits that are not only extraneous to the process of assuring the quality of legal education, but also that improperly intrude on institutional autonomy in seeking to dictate terms and conditions of employment." Levmore is dean of the University of Chicago Law School. Van Zandt is dean of Northwestern University Law School.

    Lawrence Velvel is dean and cofounder of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover; Michael Coyne is associate dean; Sherwood Ross is a media consultant to academic institutions. Reach Dean Velvel at; Sherwood Ross at

  43. ALDA's "improperly intrude" depiction is an understatement. In 1995, the Justice Department formally charged the ABA with fixing law professors' salaries, among other Sherman Anti-Trust Act violations. Justice asserted the ABA acted to further "the self-interest of professors instead of improving education." In 1996 the ABA entered into a consent judgment agreeing to reform its practices and to stop dictating a number of dubious, costly and illegal regulations to schools. Yet, in 2006, the Justice Department charged the ABA with violating provisions of the decree and called for it to take remedial action as well as to pay Justice $185,000 for its enforcement troubles.

    The ABA shackles law school deans by imposing accreditation rules on them that focus on "inputs" --- the ABA's idea of the kind of plant, policy, and personnel a law school should have. These rules do not focus on what students learn or if they are learning what they need to know to practice law, i.e., the "outcomes." The ABA input rules demand hiring of very large and expensive full-time faculty with light teaching loads; they place de facto limits on hiring of less expensive adjunct professors from the ranks of expert lawyers and judges who could contribute their expertise; they demand the building of $70- and $80 million palaces; they require stocking of large, multi-million dollar hard copy libraries even though nearly all needed legal materials may be found on line or obtained on CD-ROMs; and they require applicants to post high LSAT scores.

    If many of the ABA's costly rules are in writing, the ABA has other, unwritten policies that make the published rules even more daunting. The existence of these subterranean codes was brought to light in 2006 at a Federal Department of Education hearing in Washington on renewing for five years the ABA's federally-approved accreditation status. A classic example of the ABA's secret rules is that, although ABA guidelines do not specify that the LSAT is obligatory, in practice the ABA secretly requires law schools to use the test and has never accredited a law school that did not use it. By discouraging law schools from accepting applicants who score below a particular score, the ABA screens out large numbers of low-income whites, Hispanics, and African-Americans -- graduates of poorer quality high schools and colleges than those attended by the children of the rich.

    Writing in the Journal of Legal Education, Emory law professor George B. Shepherd notes if the ABA lowered its LSAT score accreditation cutoff just slightly, it "would allow the creation of more than 40 new 600-student majority-black law schools. Eliminating the LSAT cutoff altogether would permit more than 80, an average of one or two per state." "The ABA 's accreditation standards and the way the ABA applies them have had the same impact on blacks as (former Governor) George Wallace standing with policemen at the school house door in Alabama , blocking blacks from entering," he wrote.

    Lawrence Velvel is dean and cofounder of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover; Michael Coyne is associate dean; Sherwood Ross is a media consultant to academic institutions. Reach Dean Velvel at; Sherwood Ross at

  44. No other professional accrediting body uses input rules as does ABA: not in medicine, not in dentistry, nowhere. But in the world of legal education, a law school that finds better, less expensive ways to teach effectively is not allowed to exist in almost any state. The private initiative of such schools is deliberately choked off by the controlling ABA accreditors, each a hand-picked employee of or friend to the ABA schools toeing the ABA line. Even many state-supported law schools must charge $15,000 to $30,000 or more in tuition to survive. The ABA's input-based policies begun in the 1970s are driving law school tuition and fees far ahead of inflation. During the 1990s, tuition, room and board at undergraduate institutions increased by 58%, but comparable law school costs jumped 88%. Today, more law schools are punching through the $40,000 tuition barrier and the $50,000-a-year law school appears only a few years away.

    Among the big winners of the ABA accreditation game have been ABA officials themselves. The ABA in the past has encouraged fledgling law schools seeking its imprimatur to hire ABA officials, or current accrediting committee members, as deans at handsome salaries. In 1994, at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, Ft. Worth, only 53% of graduates passed the Texas bar on their first attempt compared with 74% for the state overall. The ABA said the school suffered from a number of gross deficiencies. Happily for TW, these supposedly vanished less than a month after the school hired as dean Frank Walwer from the ABA's Accreditation Committee. A mere 27 days after he was hired the law school got ABA accreditation! What's more, although the ABA's written policy forbids a school to delay students' graduation until after it is accredited, the ABA ignored this requirement for Dean Walwer to allow TW's graduates to take the Texas bar.

    Writing in the Chicago Tribune of February 15, 2004, Ameet Sachdev, reported, "The coziness between the ABA and law schools, though, troubles some educators and others involved in accreditation. They question whether such hiring is at odds with the ABA's ethics policy and contend such arrangements raise the appearance of a conflict of interest." He quoted Gary Palm, a Chicago lawyer who had served on the ABA's governing body overseeing accreditation as saying, "I think it's wrong that people in leadership in the accreditation process end up back at law schools doing business before the accreditation council . . . ."
    The ABA has prevailed upon Supreme Courts and Legislatures in 45 states to keep students from non-ABA law schools even from taking State bar exams. This restraint of trade funnels students into schools belonging to the ABA guild. Graduates of non-ABA law schools are denied even the opportunity to sit for a bar exam at all in most states or are not permitted take a state's bar exam until three, five or ten years of practice elsewhere (in the minority of states that do let them take bar exams ultimately). One wonders how the United States ever produced lawyers such as Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow in the years prior to 1921, before the ABA undertook its campaign to "upgrade" the profession.

    Lawrence Velvel is dean and cofounder of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover; Michael Coyne is associate dean; Sherwood Ross is a media consultant to academic institutions. Reach Dean Velvel at; Sherwood Ross at

  45. There are several impartial educational accrediting bodies that can also bestow accreditation on law schools. One of these, the New England Association of Schools & Colleges, accredits Massachusetts School of Law at Andover (MSL). With no vested interest in enriching law school professors, such bodies have, in fact, established rational standards applicable to law schools, focusing on the quality of the education. More of these general bodies would flourish except that they have been discouraged because the Federal Department of Education has made ABA its sole federally-recognized, accreditor. This controversial arrangement, though, may change since, at its December, 2006, review, DOE rejected the ABA's request for a five-year renewal of recognition, granting the ABA just 18 months to get its act together owing to DOE's dissatisfaction with the ABA's performance.

    The ABA likes to say only schools it accredits can provide a quality education, yet student teams from MSL swept all four top spots in the Black Law Students Association Northeast Regional trial competition last February, finishing ahead of prominent schools such as Harvard University Law School, St. John's University Law School and Syracuse University School of Law, and MSL then placed third nationally in the finals at Detroit. MSL, which was in the eastern region of the American Constitutional Society's appellate competition in Washington, had the highest scoring brief of 31 teams in the east region, and its brief was scored higher than the best western region brief, submitted by a team from the prominent University of Michigan Law School. Staffed only by a small core of full-time professors and relying largely on adjunct instructor-lawyers that teach in their specialties as well as sitting judges, MSL can educate a student for a tuition of $14,490, a sum less than half of what ABA-accredited New England law schools charge.

    The key to providing a quality legal education that is affordable to ordinary citizens is to once again allow the sunlight of free market competition to shine through law school windows. Schools must be allowed to take steps to reduce their costs and focus on student performance outcomes. Deans must be allowed the autonomy to run their own schools without ABA meddling. The Department of Education must drop the ABA as the federally approved national accreditor of law schools and make room for objective educational bodies. State Supreme Courts must open bar examinations to all applicants. And if the courts do not allow competition, State representatives need to legislate to make the courts respect free market principles. Again, to quote Shepherd, "A law school that is good enough to receive accreditation in one state should be good enough in all states."

    The ABA claims that unless law schools follow its pricey rules, students won't get a good education. That's bunk. Price and quality are not synonymous, as shown by medical care. The ABA has misused the absolute power granted it by our government and has beguiled state supreme courts to accept its dictates in determining who can sit for the bar. It deliberately causes to remain largely unserved by the nation's law schools people from working-class backgrounds, immigrants, and minorities. America urgently needs new law schools that will serve the American working-class and minorities so that their voice may be heard. Nothing less than the substance of our democracy is at stake.

    Lawrence Velvel is dean and cofounder of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover; Michael Coyne is associate dean; Sherwood Ross is a media consultant to academic institutions. Reach Dean Velvel at; Sherwood Ross at

  46. @10:46

    No big deal. And of course you raise some good points.

    I'm not sore, and really, Nando's a good egg! Give him a chance, and,if you are younger than me as I suspect, you, like Nando will have a lot of good years ahead to try and create a better Profession and world.

    Me, I'm done with the Law. I cannot ever get back all those years of anxiety and debt.They are gone forever.

    I decided to do away with all the anonymity stuff because after the debt reaches a certain level, who gives a flyin' about the character and fitness committee, or the profession, or anything, or what anyone thinks about you from womb to tomb in the end?

    With the money I owe, it all starts to look like madness.

    I have made lots of mistakes in my life, and also have had my better moments-like all of us.

    Jd underground is bringing in some traffic now on my blog. And I'm sure they'll be back here at Nando's.

    And re: bankruptcy attorneys--They all drove me away. In a figurative sense, they grabbed me by the collar or the scruff of the neck, and threw me out of their offices.

    It's been a few years, so maybe as you say, I might get better results--who knows.

    All I knowis that America is consumed with the Lottery. I walk my dog all around town and almost every day I pick up discarded scratch off lottery tickets. All losers, but I still double check them anyway.

    So my question is: At what point did America and all of it's respective states, become a Casino?

    I'm dead serious, because Americans are obsessed with the lottery--especially older people who really have that gambling habit "bad".

    In my opinion, a very troubling question, because the lottery somehow represents a cheap substitute for the American Dream. And perhaps a destructive one?

  47. At 1:46 pm, 6:19 pm, 7:25pm, 10:46 am,

    You sure seem to have plenty of time on your hands, for a successful lawyer. Pointing out someone’s IP address does not “out” them. For instance, an IP address does not state “John Redmond, 1123 W. Howard St., Sioux Falls, SD 57101.” It generally doesn’t matter where someone is posting from. However, it is relevant when one claims to be a successful attorney and is posting from a college or law school. Do you have any idea how many people have come on here claiming to be Biglaw attorneys - when they are, in fact, students? Look at this idiot, who later admitted that he is an undergraduate student at Western Michigan University, in the pre-law program.

    While you may see my tone as harsh, and my tactics low, I suggest you apply this same critique to others. Take a glance at the morons on JDU. Look at my original TTR entries. Back then, the tone was a little softer. But those who are married to the idea of going to law school felt the need to post comments telling me to die in a car fire, to commit suicide, etc. When someone acts like a bitch, I don’t turn the other cheek. I turn their cheek, with the back of my hand.

    Let’s be real, for a moment. JDU has its share of apologists. Some are older attorneys who went to second tier sewers, third tier commodes and fourth tier trash pits. Some of these people take it as a personal affront, when one merely mentions that recent JDs have it much tougher - in terms of cracking into the field. The fact is the industry has been oversaturated for years. The huge increase in student loan debt makes it that much harder for a recent lawyer or JD to pay his bills - or to go solo.

    Others on JDU are barely scraping by - via doc review gigs and/or some toiletlaw work. Some of these people are delusional enough to think that they are success stories. When someone points out that law school does not pay off for MANY, some of these apologists become defensive and attack the messenger - not the message. Typical comments are “You’re a worthless loser.” I suppose someone with $87K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt and working in the reliable, lucrative doc review market is a “winner,” right?!

    While I typically do not like rhetoric, here is a nice quote from somebody named Winston Churchill:

    “You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

    And now for a truism:

    “You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends.” - novelist Joseph Conrad

    The fact is most of my enemies on JD Underground are human waste products. So, if they want to engage in ad hominem attacks, I don’t mind giving them an occasional backhand. By the way, how many of them have SHOWN that law school is a wise investment, for most people?

    I am sorry that you worked well into Friday night, as well as Saturday. I was out of the office by 5 last night, went to a nice dinner with my wife - and then had sex with her.

  48. To anonymous at 11:49 am,

    I fully recognize that law has been a highly stratified field for decades. The ABA has never given a damn about those outside the elite. In the 19th and 20th centuries, state bar associations did what they could to hold down Eastern European, black and Jewish attorneys. Affordable night law schools were ridiculed, and their students were seen as trash. (See "Unequal Justice" by Jerold S. Auerbach.)

    Apparently, not much has changed with regard to how the ABA views affordable law programs. While I beat the piss out of TTTs and TTTTs, as well as second tier dumpsters, I do so because of their underhanded, dishonest tactics and incredible price tag. There is NO REASON why schools such as NYLS or Pace should be charging more than $39K per year. These are sewage pits, and legal employers are not impressed with their graduates.

    The ABA loves the stratification of the industry. “Law professors” and the ABA have historically worked in collusion to keep certain “elements” at bay. The pigs then decided that if they could not keep these "undesirables" out of the “profession” entirely, they would make sure that those people would be relegated to a much lower status. For instance, we see "diversity" programs, that end up lining the pockets of law schools. How is a racial minority - with precious few contacts - going to be served by earning a TTTT law degree, with $112K in student loans?!?! The schools are using this ploy to show that they are "removing a barrier" to entry. In the end, the thieves are simply looking to extend the game a little further.

    The other day, a fellow scam-blogger expressed astonishment that Biglaw attorneys and T14 students/grads at ATL could be so blatantly racist. MANY such people are bitterly racist and xenophobic. After all, they don’t want women and minorities entering their little club.

    We all know that Bob Morse, at US News & World Report, is a damn tool. His rankings seek to further “legitimize” the power structure/status quo. The methodology employed simply ensures that lower-ranked law schools will continue to engage in the educational arms race. (These measures are almost all geared towards inputs, i.e. higher LSAT scores, UGPAs, prominent faculty, etc. Apparently, practical skills and job prospects do not count for much.)

    The fact remains that today’s elite law schools do not differ much from the list in the 1920s. See David C. Yamada, Same Old, Same Old: Law School Rankings and the Affirmation of Hierarchy, 31 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 249, 251-256 (1997). The top schools will stay in their perch. Schools in the top 20-50 will jockey for position. Those outside the top 50 foolishly add more volumes to their law library collection, construct new buildings, lower their faculty/student ratios, and increase expenditures per student.

    This merely drives up the cost of “legal education” - WITHOUT enhancing the quality of the product. In the end, legal employers do not care whether your school is ranked 68th, 81st, or 93rd. It is still a dump heap. (That your dean’s nipples got hard, because the school went up 3 spots does not mean anything.)

  49. 7:25:

    "I love how you seek to restore dignity to a profession that you are not even part of yet, but I digress."

    I've worked in the legal sector for about 5 years. I was also told on the first day of law school that I was now part of the legal profession. I make it clear on my blog that it is aimed more towards law school. Finally, I don't think you have to be a lawyer, a law student, a paralegal, or even a janitor at a law firm to comment on the state of the law, as it's a sector that's integral to our democratic well-being (corny, but true). In fact, one of the points I've made on my blog before is that the self-regulation power should be taken away from attorneys for that exact reason.

    We'll have to agree to disagree about English issues. I think it reflects poorly on one, even in text messages and on blog comments. It's really not something that takes that much time or energy. Even if you are an attorney, if you have the time to come here, read the comments, etc., you probably have the 10 seconds it takes to type clearly and proofread.

    And for the record, I do not "call people a liar with no good reason." In your case, Nando had empirical evidence that you are posting from Drexel. His tracking system has been reliable in the past. And yes, it's relevant, because numerous people have lied on these blog comments to improve their credibility. On the contrary, we have your assertion that you're an attorney. You have not given us your name or any other verifiable information. Under the circumstances, I have valid cause to be skeptical.

    And I did not call you a "liar;" I said I had little faith, i.e. skepticism. There's a difference. I don't believe people are automatically liars, but I also don't believe unsupported claims when the individual has motivation to lie and provides no empirical support for what they're saying. I doubt you believe things under such circumstances, either.

    You may be an attorney. I just have little reason to believe it under the circumstances, especially as you continually point to your attorney status as a substitute for substantive thought or proof (e.g. "Nando, I'm working in law and you're not." "You're just a law student? You shouldn't be talking about these things..." "I clerked for a federal judge.").

  50. J-dog:

    Like I said, don't believe I am an attorney. I really don't care. The only reason I am bothering to respond is to point out your glaring hypocrisy.

    Unless your birth certificate says J-dog, you want to remain anonymous on your blog and while commenting on others. You probably have a good reason for this. Because of your anonymity, you expect us to take you at your word that you are a law student and previously worked in the legal profession (in a position you don't specify). It appears most people, including me, take you at your word. As a result of your desire to remain anonymous, don't you think you should extend this same courtesy towards others that likewise want to remain anonymous and not demand that they provide information to verify what they do?

    And since I bothered to respond, let me give you a little lesson in dignity in the legal profession. Since you're a law student, I'll make it a hypo.

    Let's say I appear in court on a motion hearing and opposing counsel says "judge, we conceit .... but you should grant this motion because .... " No one would care about the inadvertent misuse of that word because, given the context, it was clear what opposing counsel meant. The only thing I might say, if anything, would be "judge, just to clarify the record in case a transcript is needed in the event of an appeal, I believe opposing counsel meant 'concede.'" The only reason I would say this is because a tool like you might try to make a big deal out of it later.

    Conversely, given your unquenchable thirst to look good, and given your comments here, you would probably say "judge, before discussing the merits of the motion, can you believe opposing counsel misused 'conceit' and 'concede.' This guy is an idiot."

    If you said that, two things would happen: 1. the judge, if not being pissed that you are wasting his time, would laugh you out of his courtroom; and 2. the other lawyers in the courtroom would hate you.

    You might not care about the latter point, but trust me, getting along with other attorneys is paramount. I work in Chicago, a major market, yet I have realized that I continuously come across the same attorneys - particularly as I start to specialize in certain areas. At some point, I am going to need a favor from these attorneys, such as moving a deposition date, agreeing to discovery extension, etc. Naturally, lawyers will be agreeable to those they like and not agreeable to those they don't.

    So, in case the moral of this story is not glaringly clear, trying to exploit someone's innocent and inadvertent misuse of a word reflects much more poorly on you than innocently misusing a word. But yeah, go ahead and keep lecturing about dignity in a profession you know apparently know nothing about.

    And Nando, sorry to hijack this thread. I have no real comment on the Villanova scandal that has not been already said. It will be interesting to see if any litigation comes of this.

  51. You can't seriously believe that your anonymity and my pseudonymity are the same thing (triggering the hypocrisy claim), can you? Here, you've repeatedly appealed to your status as an attorney as a basis for authority/knowledge on the subject matter. In contrast, virtually nothing I write, here or on my blog, depends on me having any special authority on the subject matter.

    In other words, if people don't believe I'm a law student, what I write still has substance. (What authority is there in being a law student? Are you going to think I didn't really sit through 1L Torts?) But many things you've presented in this thread lose force if you're not actually an attorney. And I was merely stating I have no evidence of that fact. Do you see the difference?

    The rest of your post has little to do with anything I've written. I would never advise an attorney to do that, nor would I do it myself, nor would anyone else I know with an ounce of common sense. Nothing that I have written should have suggested that I would advise an attorney to nit-pick someone's English at a hearing, trial, or whatever.

    Your lesson gets an F for being unnecessary, irrelevant, condescending, and a waste of my time. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    Because my earlier posts apparently weren't "glaringly clear," I'll reiterate: I was NOT talking about, or advocating, exploiting the minor mistakes of others.

    The "dignity" here would be in having the ability to use our common language correctly in a general sense, not as a tool of dickheaded lawyering. One of the reasons professions gain public regard and prestige is by having educated members. The image of erudition is essential to a learned profession. If a doctor regularly misuses words or speaks with improper grammar, that doctor will likely lose respect in the community. If enough doctors do it, the profession itself begins to suffer. That concern is heightened for lawyers, whose career is more word-dependent than a doctor's. If lawyers from prestigious schools run around in public spaces and post messages riddled with typos and/or word misuse, it lowers public regard for the profession. Do you disagree with this?

    I've already conceded that we can agree to disagree about the "innocent misuse" stated above. That was by no means an isolated incident, just one I chose to comment on. Why you chose to turn it into an exercise in misguided condescension and straw man argumentation is beyond me.

  52. J-dog:

    You have some serious reading comprehension issues. Or you live in a continued state of denial. Here are some quick points (it's half time of the Illinois/Purdue game, so I have time).

    1: Yes, my desire to remain anonymous and your desire to use a pseudonym are the same thing. Though different, the underlying intent is to protect identity. You can put whatever label you want on it, but in the end, you don't want people to know who you are, which means you want anonymity. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, ....

    2. I have not made any substantive post, other than you and a few other posters are tools for trying to exploit an innocent misuse of a word. You're the one that seems obsessed with whether I am an attorney.

    Also, whether I am attorney does nothing to further support my point that you are a tool for pointing out a simple mistake. That fact, that you are indeed a tool, is no less true whether I am an attorney or not. I only started making an issue out of my career status when Nando tried to "out" me and you said you don't believe me.

    Further, I find it odd that someone who wants to remain anonymous has no problem demanding that another person not remain anonymous to prove they are an attorney. Do you not see the double standard?

    3: You claim, apparently with a straight face, that "I was NOT talking about, or advocating, exploiting the minor mistakes of others." Please refer to your comment on February 11 at 6:13, in which you said, among other things:

    "How do you navigate seven years of post-high school education well enough to land a "very large law firm" job while still mixing up basic vocabulary?"

    Please explain to me how that comment is not trying to exploit a minor misuse of a word?

    4: Finally, your rant about equating using proper language and dignity is only a further indication that you have little experience with the legal profession. Yes, language skills are important. But, people make innocent mistakes. It happens, and has nothing to do with "dignity", and it's not big deal. The comment you tried to exploit had one minor error in paragraph-long post. I highly doubt anyone, other than you, read that and thought "gee, the legal profession is losing dignity because of that minor mistake."

    Finally, to say it again, your demonstrated willingness to exploit the minor mistakes of others does far more to harm the dignity of this profession than actually misusing a word by accident.

    With that said, go Illini.


    Median LSAT score of 162 and median UGPA of 3.44. These seem like decent figures, right? And the school is still a second tier dripping toilet. If you score a 162 or 165, don’t pat yourself on the back - and count your future Biglaw salary - just yet. You could end up at an overpriced commode such as the 67th ranked Villanova University Sewer of Law.

    “For the first time in the school's history, Villanova Law School is in the process of building a new, technologically-superior building. The new building will be completed for the start of the 2009-2010 school year, and will be located roughly 300 yards from the location of the present school.”

    Who gives a damn about a new building? Will this result in students being better prepared to practice law? Remember, many students will not be hired by law firms - and may need to hit the ground running, should they decide to hang their own shingle. (Plus, law firms are tired of completely training new lawyers.)

    At the bottom of the page, we can see that fully 0.7 percent of Vanillanova Law students received full-tuition scholarships, for 2005-2006. Another 4.5% received half tuition scholarships to attend this dump, for the same school year. In addition, 14.2% received smaller scholarships. What a stingy, “Christian” institution.

    This helps explain why 89 percent of the Villanova Law Class of 2009 took out - on average - $116,878 in additional, NON-DISCHARGEABLE student loans. The fact that the former dean made in excess of $330K - for one year - and then used some of those funds to frequent prostitutes is reprehensible. The fact that Sargent was dean at a corrupt and morally bankrupt Catholic, Augustinian institution is further proof that religiou$ in$titution$ are all about the money.

    Who knows? Maybe after the deed, Mark Sargent went to confession, crossed himself, and said five “Our Fathers” and five “Hail Marys.”

  54. We seem to have some basic misunderstandings on your end.

    1. I really don't give a rat's bony ass if you're really an attorney or not. I was only pointing out that it's germane to your continual appeals to authority, which, despite your whiny protestations, you keep doing (e.g., your constant refrain that I'm inexperienced in the profession, even though what I'm saying isn't dependent on having industry experience), which makes your professional status relevant.

    2. I've never demanded that you not remain anonymous; I merely pointed out that we have no evidence of your identity, and, apparently, we do have evidence to the contrary. I would add here that I've received countless emails from attorneys and not one has the vitriol or elitism, or the general tone, contained in your posts.

    3. I made a sardonic comment on a random internet blog decrying the state of the American education system. If you get out your dictionary, "exploit" is defined as "[t]o make use of selfishly or unethically" or, alternatively, "to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc.), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends."

    What I did wasn't unethical, and it's only selfish or "for my own ends" if you take the loosest definition possible. These are blog comments. What gain do I get out of it? The satisfaction of ridiculing pseudo-educated fools? Goodwill towards my own blog? If that's the definition, then people can "exploit" each other while teasing one another in a bar. I've never heard the word "exploit" used that way and I probably never will, aside from you. Actually, I think it's an affront to people who actually are being exploited to use it in so frivolous a context.

    In no way is a random blog comment decrying the state of education similar to using a specific error in open court to try and one-up the opponent. The fact that you even think this is astonishing.

    4. Legal experience is irrelevant because I was talking about public perceptions. As a member of the public, I'm qualified to talk about that, and industry practice is no savior (it hasn't been for other industries, why would it be for law?). And I also made it clear that I was talking about broader, systemic failures to use language correctly, not this one completely obscure, random incident.

    I've already conceded - twice - that we can civilly disagree about whether such mistakes (like your misuse of "exploit") are innocent or a sign of a malfunctioning professional education system. I've seen them chronically enough to believe the latter.

    If it makes me a tool to have standards regarding the use of language, then I'm gladly a tool, and I don't care how many people think that.

    I am finished co-hijacking Nando's thread. It's obvious that (a) we're both type A personalities who won't quit otherwise and (b) that you're incapable of arguing without resorting to massive amounts of logical fallacies (appeals to authority, multiple strawmen) and purposefully misreading what I'm writing (either that or you're incapable, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

    You, like your team, seem to have failed.

  55. J-dog:

    It appears that you and me finally agree on one thing - this will be my last post because I have to prepare for a court hearing tomorrow morning. So I will end with two brief points:

    1: You were trying to exploit the previous commenter's misuse of the word "concede." You were trying to take advantage of that obvious (based on the context of the statement) innocent mistake to make the other commenter look bad (from one of your posts - "If someone confused unrelated words, I would think they're an idiot.") As to what gain you get from attempting to exploit that mistake, I have no idea, which was my original point. You gain nothing from it.

    You also admit that what you did fits within the definition of "exploit," albeit loosely. After making such an admission, you accuse me of misusing the word. Very dignified.

    2." If it makes me a tool to have standards regarding the use of language, then I'm gladly a tool, and I don't care how many people think that."

    You're not a tool for having standards regarding the use of language. You're a tool because you find it necessary to point out other people's innocent mistakes when, as you appear to acknowledge, you have nothing to gain from it.

    With that said, good luck in your career. I mean this sincerely - I hope you're able to find employment. It's rough out there.

    Nando, my apologies about this out-of-control thread. I respect what you are trying to do. If litigation ever does come of this Villanova scandal, you need to have a separate blog covering it and then seek a book deal.

  56. @ 10:46!
    I can't stand superficial liberals who subscribes to simplistic "labels".

    First off, the study "conveniently" neglects to mention "Asians" in the reverse racist rant. Second, the bar exam is administered "blindly" and impartially. You are assigned a number. Guess what, African Americans and Hispanics have an equal opportunity but a disproportionately higher "failure" rate in passing the bar exam because of "affirmative action".

    I give you two options: 1) Certain minorities are strongly associated with an "inferior" culture, at least in terms of education priorities, and therefore they under perform;
    2) Certain minorities are simply "inherently" intellectually less capable, i.e., based on genetic inheritance.

    I would strongly suggest that it is the former!

    I myself am Asian attorney in California. I graduated from a third tier. I make 6 figures.
    I know a former African American co-worker who graduated from USC, he is now unemployed because he "never got it". The harsh business world only knows "Green", as in what is your value to my organization. It does not matter what race, ethnicity, you are.

    How many African Americans contributed toward engineering the I-phone? How many African Americans are trying to find a "cure for cancer?

    It's put up or shut up time. No more excuses.

  57. So to take a sharp turn from all of the harsh rhetoric that has been going on in these previous posts, I just say simply this. Talk to any honest attorney and even if you are in law school, state that you just dropped out and are a bartender, Barista, etc. I would bet my right hand that a significant majority of them would tell you that dropping out of law school will more likely than not, end up being a wise choice. Watch "Michael Clayton" people, if you do not mind being divorced, addicted to something, and emotionally distant, then go ahead and be an attorney

  58. This country is such a pile of rancid shit. The party is over. It's broken and can't be repaired. You keep voting for shit labeled Democrat or Republican. Good for you. One gets in cuts taxes for rich cocksuckers, the other comes in and has to reduce spending. Don;t you fucking get it yet? Its a game and you are getting played like a fool.

  59. Hi
    Let me congratulate for maintaining such a wonderful site.
    We also have a very good community on debt where people can seek help on any debt or credit related issues and we provide free counseling. We have a forum section where people can share their debt related problems through discussion and we have our community base of 224,204 members. In the process we have helped a lot of people by providing proper debt counseling program and settlement, and people are very much satisfied with our services and our site is also very famous for many years. And we can assure you that we will be able to continue the quality services we are providing with help of your site. Any one can come and join our community and get educated about debt and also share their views.
    Please give an opportunity to contribute a quality unique education article on debt related to recent economy.

    And if we work together then we will be able to help more number of debt burden people. I want to serve our people to get out of debt and lead a debt free life please helps me to do so.

    Hope you will also like our services and hence give us a chance to prove ourselves.
    An effort to educate people suffering from debt in this economy crisis period and to get out of it.
    Thanks and regards
    Sandy Thomson Orkut Gmail Calendar Documents Photos Web more ▼
    Reader Sites Groups YouTube
    Images Maps News Books Translate Scholar Blogs Realtime
    even more »

  60. Nando you really need to get a life, or atleast get laid or something. You are probably a virgin living in your mother's basement. The fact that you have the time to look up my ip address shows me what a pathetic loser you are. Don't hate on the success of others just because you are a failure. I don't have any more time to waste arguing with you. I graduated from American University in 2007, and work for a firm in D.C. making over 150 k a year. Get a life!

  61. And believe it or not, plenty of tier 3 graduates are successfull. Just because you have poor: people, networking, and lawyering skills, does not mean every other tier 3 graduate does. There are failures from every law school, just like there are failures from every profession. Just because you failed to become a lawyer, does not mean everyone else is as stupid and pathetic as you. So while you sit in your mother's basement writing your twelve paragraph response to me, I will be having sex with my hot girlfriend. I only felt the need to post here originally because my friend showed me the blog, and I think it is wrong for a LOSER like yourself to discourage potential law students. Stop trying to bring everyone else down with you.


    How are things in Alexandria, VA?

    Time Visitor Session Referrer
    5:22pm 6 actions 14m 26s
    5:08pm 2 actions 7m 6s
    1:43pm 23 actions 29m 51s

    Twenty three actions in one visit?! And YOU are telling someone to get a life?! Were you waiting for your girlfriend to finish blowing Pedro the muscled-up pool boy? And you still want to claim to be an attorney making $150K?!?! Yes, Biglaw attorneys have so much time on their hands that they can post the same, exact garbage comments on scam-blogs. You are sad and pathetic, bitch.

    By the way, I have a mortgage, a wife, and a job. Unlike you, I don't need to construct a different reality.

    Lastly, I am not the one pumping out 44,000 JDs every year for 28,901 legal jobs, dumbass. Furthermore, I am not the one charging $36,690 for one year of tuition at a sewer such as Villanova. I am simply informing lemmings, so that they do not end up taking out MASSIVE loans for a worthless product. What is your stake in trying to shout down someone who dares to point out the truth of the situation, shill?!?! Do you have your little heart and mind set on going to law school, idiot?! Does the truth hurt your feelings, Bitch?

  63. Dude, you are hilarious. I'm glad I got such a rise out of you. Keep on making excuses for failing at life. I feel sorry for you, because you are a very bitter, and pathetic individual. I'm the one laughing at you right now, because I actually made something of myself with my law degree. Only an extremely bitter person dedicates a website to trashing every law school in existence. By insulting American University, as well as other respected schools such as Villanova and Miami, you have lost all credibility. According to you, only graduates of the top eight schools get jobs, which is utterly laughable. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing with you. You are a bold faced liar. I doubt you ever graduated from Drake, I doubt you are married, and I doubt you are even remotely successful. You are a joke and I feel sorry for you. But hey, if trashing all law schools out there, as well as everyone who attends them makes you feel better, then go for it. LOSER!

  64. By the way, if you did graduate from Drake, did you pass the bar? Doubtful. The fact of the matter is that you were never qualified to be a lawyer in the first place. With your 150 LSAT score and 2.5 UGPA, you were delusional to believe that you had what it took to be a good attorney, and this was probably evidenced by your many failing attempts to pass the bar exam. Not everyone is intelligent enough to be a lawyer, and you are a prime example of an idiot who was not qualified to attend law school in the first place, and somehow earned a degree at a no name school no one has ever heard of. Sadly enough, you failed the bar a few months later. Maybe you retook it again, and failed once more. But eventually you quit, became depressed, angry, and bitter, moved back home with your mother, and invented this pile of shit you call your blog. Face it man, you just are not intelligent enough to be a lawyer.

  65. Hello Alexandria Cockroach,

    My UGPA was 3.82 and I received a full-tuition scholarship to attend Third Tier Drake. I have never failed the bar exam either, cretin.

    Why do you insist that you are making $150K as a DC Biglaw attorney? Why persist in this obvious lie?! Do you think that this will impress people? By the way, moron. If you were a Biglaw associate, you would not have time to post a bunch of comments on this blog.

    Once again, I am in my own house - with a mortgage. You are the one pretending to be a lawyer. That is so sad. Unfortunately, you are too delusional to realize this for yourself.

    Anyway, it is time for you to state why law school is a good idea for most students. If you cannot do so, and you persist in writing nonsense on this blog, then I will start deleting your comments. Your lies and idiocies are not entitled to be published on anyone's blog.

    Also, did you see where the New York Times provided this quote:

    “Avoid this overpriced sewer pit as if your life depended on it,” writes the anonymous author of the blog Third Tier Reality — a reference to the second-to-bottom tier of the U.S. News rankings — in a typically scatological review. “Unless, of course, you think that you will be better off with $110k-$190k in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for a degree that qualifies you to wait tables at the Battery Park Bar and Lounge.”

    When is the last time the NYT quoted you?!?!

  66. We agree on a few things. First, I agree that schools like Drake, Florida Coastal, Thomas M. Cooley, and other no name tier 3s and 4s are not worth the money to attend. Unless you finish in the top ten percent of your class at those schools, it is difficult to find a job as a lawyer. That being said, plenty of the schools that you insult on this site, such as Miami, Villanova, and Pittsburgh, have great regional job placement. Sure, a Miami graduate probably will not start out working for a biglaw firm in New York, but he will have a great chance of making a great living at law firms in the South Florida area. The same can be said for Pittsburgh and Villanova. Most T14 grads gain employment in larger markets such as D.C. and New York, and don't even bother with smaller markets such as Pittsburgh. Therefore, Pittsburgh grads have many employment opportunities around the Pittsburgh area. Any school in the T100, as well as many T3 and T4 schools with good reputations such as Duquesne and Stetson, give their graduates great opportunities to secure great paying regional jobs. When I first read this blog I agreed with your "ratings" of many of the shit bag tier 3s and tier 4s. However, you definitely lost me when you started attacking schools with great reputations and great job placement.

  67. I have read this blog recently and find it entertaining. However, so much of an attorney’s career depends on where they decide to practice. Most T14 graduates cluster around a few cities. If you decide to practice in West Virginia than a degree from WVU is probably your best option unless you make it into a Harvard, Yale, etc… but who from those types of schools practice in WV? (Do not show me examples of really old partners who graduated 40 years ago.) Villanova has a strong reputation in the Delaware Valley/Philadelphia region. If you go to Villanova expecting a Wall Street firm to hire you then disappointment will be in your future. If you go to Villanova wanting to practice Delaware corporate law, which can be lucrative, then you have a reasonable shot at that opportunity. If you cannot be admitted into a T14 law school (or T25) than decide where you want to live and learn what practice areas are strong in that region. Keep in mind that a crappy salary in one region may be O.K. in another. (Although, I will admit that $35K to start is crappy everywhere) Of course nothing is guaranteed, no matter where you go, but not enough people know why they want to go to law school, let alone what to realistically expect afterward.

  68. I will admit that $35K to start is crappy everywhere) Of course nothing is guaranteed, no matter where you go, but not enough people know why they want to go to law school, let alone what to realistically expect afterward.
    Solid Waste Removal

  69. I am to a great extent impressed with the article I have just read interesting very good.I read the Blog Nice site I found and I bookmarked the site.
    Coffee Maker

  70. Third tier now. I found out about it in a form letter from Gotanda the other day.

    My career is probably in about the same place it would be had I gone to a different school, but my student loans would be smaller (or non-existent).

    F you, Villanova.

  71. i graduate from villanova law school years ago, actually my tuition was about 11k per year. The professors were overpaid then and still are. In fact it was well known that most of the professors were completely useless. The really bad ones sirico and company used to boast how they married their students... what a scam! Most recent graduates end up working in HR, being paralegals etc... I never learnt a thing there which in hindsight was a good thing! as I became one of the more successful practitioners out of my class. LET ME SAY THIS - if any student reads this, if you are in the lower 75% after the 1st - quit! save your money, it was only 1 year! going to nursing school! you will have an EASIER life, earn more money! and have more career flexibility! I am ABSOLUTELY serious!!!!


Web Analytics