Sunday, December 8, 2013

Rutgers University School of Law-Camden Knowingly Admitted Students Who Didn’t Take the LSAT; The Pigs Receive a Slap on the Wrist from the ABA

The announcement: The American Bar Association cockroaches issued a December 4, 2013 press release labeled “ABA accreditation committee sanctions Rutgers University School of Law-Camden.”  Read the portion below:

“The Accreditation Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar today reported that it has sanctioned Rutgers University School of Law-Camden for violating the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools.

The committee found that Rutgers-Camden violated Standard 503, which requires law schools to use a valid and reliable admissions test, and Interpretation 503-1, which requires law schools that use an admissions test other than the Law School Admission Test to establish the test’s validity and reliability in determining an applicant’s ability to complete the J.D. program.

Rutgers-Camden operated an admissions program, without obtaining a variance from the ABA, that allowed some applicants to use a standardized graduate admissions test score instead of an LSAT score to gain admission to the law school. The school subsequently qualified for a variance but elected to suspend the program.

The accreditation committee imposed a public censure on the law school, which must post the censure document prominently on its website home page for one year. The censure is also posted on the website of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

The committee also imposed a $25,000 monetary penalty based on the benefit the school received from operating the program.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, that immense $25,000 fine is sure going to deter other ABA-accredited filth pits from engaging in the same conduct, right?!?!  What the hell is the point of having “standards,” when the punishment for violations of said regulations amounts to a mere slap on the wrist?!  By the way, if the school admitted 70-80 students under this scheme, then the pigs received a few million dollars in federally-backed student loan money.  I know that "law professors" love to state that all lawyers suck at math, but you would need to be a waterhead in order to think that a $25K fine - for receiving millions - is adequate.

Other Coverage: On December 5, 2013, the Philadelphia Inquirer published reporter Jonathan Lai’s piece “Rutgers-Camden law school fined over avoiding LSATs.”  Check out the following excerpt:

"In a three-paragraph statement, the law school said it had violated procedural aspects of the bar association's standards.

"We were negligent in failing to seek a variance, regret and apologize for this procedural violation and accept the ABA censure as appropriate," the statement reads.

Between 2006 and 2012, the law school admitted dozens of students who took tests other than the LSAT. In 2009, the bar association sent a memo to all accredited law schools clarifying its policy requiring the LSAT, except with prior arrangement." [Emphasis mine]

Yeah, sure you bastards were negligent - and Salma Hayek just scratched her name into my back!  $omehow, this conduct is ALWAYS an “error” or an “accident.”  It’s also uncanny how these “mistakes” benefit the law school swine every single damn time.  By the way, does anyone with an IQ over 80 believe that the administrators at RuTTger$ Univer$iTTy Sewer of Law-Camden were not aware that they were admitting dozens of students who had not taken the LSAT, without first seeking a variance from the ABA?!?!

On December 4, 2013, the ABA Journal posted Mark Hansen’s piece, “Rutgers School of Law-Camden is fined $25K and censured for accrediting violations.”  Here is his concluding paragraph:

“The committee also fined the school $25,000 for the benefit it received from operating the program without the required variance.  That money will be used by the section to help enforce the standards.”

According to the commode, in-state residents attending full-time for the 2013-2014 academic year 2013-14 will be charged $22,746 in tuition. Non-resident, full-time law students at this notorious trash heap will be ass-raped to the tune of $34,478 in tuition - for 2013-2014.  Essentially, the pigs will be penalized the cost of a single year of one New Jersey resident’s tuition.  The ABA report noted that the school admitted between 70-80 students without an LSAT.  Yes, that will teach the bastards a lesson, right?!?!

Conclusion: The criminals at the American Bar Association CLEARLY DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about law students.  The schools are run for the benefit of the failed lawyers known as “professors.”  During orientation, the bitches and hags constantly tell their victims that this is a “noble profession.”  If you believe that academic nonsense, then you should not be allowed to make any decision that might impact another person.  In fact, if you buy the rats’ drivel, you should be declared mentally unfit to enter into a contract.  

In the final analysis, the Rutgers University Sewer of Law-Camden already had a reputation lower than rat piss.  As a result of this worthless penalty, the rodents will likely lower their admi$$ion$ criteria even further - in order to maintain enrollment.  The ABA merely decided to hand down this “punishment,” because the cockroaches felt that they had to do something - so that they could “show” the public that they do enforce their “standards.”  Apparently, RuTTger$ would have been fine had the dolts simply applied for a variance in advance.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the supposed 91st greatest law school in the country admit students who have at least a 2.5 undergrad GPA and a 148 LSAT.  I can see it now: "Okay, so this guy provided a picture of his girlfriend's feet on his Personal Statement.  However, he did graduate from University of Phoenix and he has a 2.8 UGPA."


  1. Replies
    1. Tjsl junk bond status....

  2. Why does this surprise anyone? Just enough to say "bad" not enough pain to punish has been the way of Law Skool regulations for a very long time.

  3. I'm going to object to the use of cockroaches.

    Did you know for example that mother cockroaches will protect their eggs by placing them in a thick protective case? Law profs feed on their students.

  4. The ABA recently clarified its requirement that schools seeking to accommodate qualified applicants in a persistent vegetative state must seek advance permission -- a "vegetable variance."

    Without receiving this vegetable variance, we have admitted brain dead students to our law school for the past several years. In so doing, we violated procedural aspects of ABA policy. Our procedural negligence was due, in part, to the difficulty in distinguishing brain-dead applicants from non-brain-dead applicants, a difficulty made particularly acute by the fact that anybody who would apply to our school at this time has to be exceedingly stupid.

    We regret and apologize for our negligence in failing to seek a vegetable variance and accept as appropriate our $25,000 contribution-- we mean, penalty-- to Dean John O"Brien's ABA Section of Legal Education Holiday Party. Please keep imposing penalties for less money than we earned through our violations, it is the ultimate deterrence.

    Love, Rutgers Law

  5. I'm sure the only reason they got caught is because LSAC complained that they weren't getting their share of the scam.

  6. Ironically, I don't think that there is anything wrong with using a GMAT, because 1) the LSAT wastes time with a logic game section, and2) the LSAT reading comprehension section deliberately does not use legal materials. (Wouldn't want the lemmings reading actual caselaw before applying to law school!)

    Unless of course the GMAT varience was used because specifically because this target audience bombed the LSAT, but I think it's more likely Rutgers simply wanted to get its hands on a larger student pool.

  7. Everything predicted by the scambloggers has come to pass. Schools are actively targeting minority candidates. Accepting low GPA / LSAT scores - and getting lower every year. And playing the scholarship game to the hilt. Anything to get butts in seats because the federal student loans are the life blood of the organization. Rutgers is doing business like any other corporation. Except its disguised as a non-profit. Commit the offense because the penalty is minimal vs. the amount gained, or reward.

  8. It's something of a mystery why the ABA requires a test at all considering that some ABA-accredited law schools accept applicants who score about as high as people who just randomly fill in the bubbles.

  9. In the past, it has been said that the law school grads are the "Canaries in the Coal Mine" for an overall student loan indebtedness problem.

    So let us look at this and ask why there are not hundreds if not thousands more individuals complaining about their debt loads and as alleged "Canaries?"

    One has to conclude that either most of the law grads are able to handle their debt, or are having their debts paid off by law firms or other layered corporate accounts.

    If they could pay the tuition up front then they wouldn't have to borrow.

    A third possibility is that they are all too ashamed or afraid to say anything about it and that there are countless law school grads drowning in six figure debt and silent.

    But none of the above adds up since US News And World Report is obviously reporting numerical facts and so how do the indebted people silently survive?

  10. This is miniscule compared to the other things that law schools have done, and the ABA let them get away with. The merit scholarship bait and switch that many law schools ran has caused difficulties to hundreds of law students and they will be paying for it for the rest of their careers. Did the ABA sanction one law school over this deceptive practice, run by self-described liberal democrats? No!

    What about the deceptive reporting of job placement outcomes? Did the ABA sanction a single law school, run by self-described liberal democrats, for this? Of course not.

    The list goes on. The ABA has allowed legal education to fall the same level as selling used cars or time-shares. At least used car salesman don't claim to be self-described liberal democrats who support abortion rights.

  11. 11:18, you are not mentioning IBR now Paye, which allows law graduates to "soft default'[ by paying a portion of their income to satisfy their obligations, at least until the end of the program when they have to pay income tax on the principle and interest of their original loan which remains unpaid.

    By giving law graduates such an "out" it prevents public "hard defaults" and allows the beast to continue to feed uninterrupted on Federal graduate loans.

    Notice that the federal government does not talk about how many law graduates are in these programs, they do not want the tax payer to know how much money they are losing.

    1. I deliberately did not mention IBR/PAYE.

      Even so I doubt that hundreds or thousands of debtors would be silenced by all that.

      I can only conclude that the legal Industry has a way of accommodating the debt of newly hired employees in the books somehow through a labaryinth of subsidiary and subsidiary corporate payoffs and written off losses etc. and all is as merry as a wedding bell in the end.

      The rest of the chaff on IBR/PAYE will end up on the scamblogs and are Shit Out of luck.

  12. On December 4, 2013, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a piece from Nick DeSantis, with the title “American Bar Association Censures Rutgers U. at Camden Law School.” Here is the full text of that article.

    “The American Bar Association announced on Wednesday that its accreditation committee had censured Rutgers University at Camden’s School of Law for violating a standard pertaining to the use of admissions tests.

    In a news release, the association said the committee had found that the law school, without first obtaining a variance from the association, had operated an admissions program that permitted some applicants to use a standardized graduate-admissions test to gain admission without taking the Law School Admission Test. The association said the law school subsequently qualified for such a variance but suspended the admissions program in question.

    The committee fined the law school $25,000 and required the school to post the censure on its website for a year.

    Rutgers-Camden law dean Rayman Solomon acknowledged the law school was negligent in failing disclose the program to the ABA after 2009, when ABA administrators sent a memo to all law schools clarifying that they had to provide evidence of the validity of any other test beyond the LSAT or seek a formal variance allowing them to use a different admission test. But he said the school was not hiding the program and discussed it with ABA administrators twice before that memo was issued.

    “We believed we were in compliance prior to 2009,” Solomon said. “We obviously believed were in compliance after 2009, but we were negligent there.”

    It’s funny that commenters on various sites are mixed on whether it’s okay for the ABA to require the LSAT. Then again, most of those advocating that the sewers of law should be permitted to use other entrance exams are “law professors.” As a class, they have lower ethical standards than alley cats and organized crime bosses.

    Anyway, the fact that ABA-accredited law schools/diploma mills are allowed to waive this requirement - as long as they seek ABA approval first - is telling. Furthermore, several of the member schools are apparently taking advantage of this garbage program. This shows that the bastards are getting desperate. Hell, it’s not as if the LSAT even tests any legal knowledge.

  13. Scroll down to the comments section of the DeSantis piece. A reader using the handle “Unemployed_Northeastern” provided this epic response to an idiot’s query “What would make a prestigious place like Rutgers even want to use a standardized graduate-admissions test for any law school candidates rather than a Law School Admission Test for entrance into its law school????”:

    “Because they were losing hordes of applicants, like most law schools. Law schools truly live and breath by their US News rank - the correlation between employment rate/salary with US News rank is stunning - and the rank is largely determined by LSAT and undergrad GPA scores. Rutgers feared they would get hammered in the rankings if their average LSAT score dropped, as has happened to many law schools in the past, and so they took it upon themselves to send a letter to prospective students saying that GMAT scores would suffice. They did this without the guidance or approval of the ABA, which only recognizes the LSAT, and they did it to game/juke their stats. There was an enormous outcry over this tactic when it surfaced in the "blawgosphere" a few years ago, and Rutgers' unequivocal response was "Go duck yourself."

    IIRC, the recruiting letter which announced the GMAT policy also proclaimed that "many" graduates found jobs earning "in excess of" $130,000. Several independent analyses of the school's ABA disclosures that year concluded that "many" meant, at best, 6 people. Out of 237. Sadly, this bit of optimistic advertising went unpunished. See, inter alia, law professor Paul Campos's analysis at http://insidethelawschoolscam.... (link includes the recruiting letter in question)”

    What’s next for these dung pits? Admitting applicants who can finish a children’s coloring book, without coloring outside the lines?!?!

    This same user posted this reply to another commenter, “justanotherucprof,” also on December 4th:

    “Believe me, the ABA is about the laziest accreditor in the land. Just two years ago, Senators Boxer (D) and Grassley (R) were so upset about its lack of oversight on how law schools reported their employment outcomes and salaries - which were grossly, purposefully overstated - that they threatened a formal investigation.* The current head of the ABA Section on Legal Education, which imposed this fine, is the former dean of one of the handful of for-profit law schools. Micromanagement is the very last thing the ABA does. 45,000 people graduate every year from law schools to compete for about 20,000 jobs, most of which do not begin to justify the cost of law school these days. The ABA's response is to do absolutely nothing, beyond accredit every law school that comes down the line.

    *The then-chair of the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, which oversees these statistics, was one John O'Brien, dean of the New England School of Law. His law school is famous for four things: having a nearly 90% acceptance rate, having barely 1 in 3 graduates land any manner of job as an attorney, having one of the steepest tuition increases in the country over the last decade, from ~$20,000/year to about $45,000/year, and for paying the good dean $865,000/year. The foxes guard this particular henhouse.”

    It’s ALL about the money. In the case of law schools, this means saddling down legions of students and graduates - each damn year - with an additional $120K-$170K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. Keep in mind that the commodes collectively pump out ANNUALLY roughly twice as many JDs for the available number of attorney openings. What an “honorable profession,” huh?!?!

  14. That's an excellent point Nando. The benefit of using the GMAT vs. LSAT and not having to therefore incorporate any LSAT score or the GMAT score in statistics to US News is clever. Yeah, Rutgers planned this out pretty well.

    And it is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

    Say that 6 times, minimum, every day. It's all about the money with the law schools. Outcomes be damned. Lies be damned. Statistics be damned. And, finally, truth, honor, and integrity be damned.

  15. 2:06 pm

    I don't know where you are getting your conspiracy theory, that the legal industry will act collectively to ensure that law graduates will be 'accomodated" as to their outstanding legal debt, and all will be "merry",

    A major reason that there are comparatively few people screaming like Painter, is that attorneys know they are being informally evaluated by their peers, and any sign of economic or other weakness will be looked down upon, and potentially used for leverage. For example, never let an opposing attorney know you are going through a cash crunch because he will use that to attempt to gain advantage for his client.

    Being a practicing attorney generally means keeping your own counsel and never admitting weakness. Few will want to risk harming their own interests.

    1. Sure. You are probably correct and I am completely wrong and sure a six figure debtor and law grad that is working a minimum wage job will not want to be evaluated by a peer that is A OK an d has no debt. Sure I can understand that and thank you for straightening all of that out you are soooo smart.

      Still, there are the classic white collar crime scenarios and the board member of this company can also be the board member or an officer of that public or private entity which is 3X removed from a parent company.

      Like I say, the corporate entities can be public or private or business or academic etc. and it is pure corporations law with the notion of unclean hands blah blah.

      Nando has highlighted a couple of such conflicted interests about a dean or other people in the past, and all of us know that in the end white collar crime is worthy of a slap on the knuckles or fleshy part of the ball of the thumb at best.

      The vivisections are reserved for the students who get scrutinized in a very clinical and detached way by the likes of Campos or Tamanaha and the large audience of sadistic clinicians they managed to draw in who must take some pleasure in watching the suffering or else they would have done something to try and alleviate the suffering by now.

      I make no implications about history, but still, being disemboweled financially whilst still alive is not all that comfortable and some have described the experience as slightly or remotely painful.

      But I wouldn't know. Just making observations.

      And to call Campos and Tamanaha and what is her name.....Debs Coffe Clatch call them horrible hypocrites by now is an understatement and probably a great compliment to them as compared to what they really are: Cowards that never finished what they started or were willing to risk their careers and stand up to their words.

      In the meantime they have and continue to benefit from the student lending gravy train and have gone to ground as soon as they heard the baying of the hounds.

      And so that is why they have brought nothing to awareness and have by their retreat only proved their regret for having ever spoken out at all and remorse for their temporary thoughts and sentiments.

      If I am wrong, then show me how.

      In the meantime have a crappy indebted new year. May 2014 bring more interest charges and suck just like 2013, and 2012, and the year before that and before that and before that.

      And may you wish like I did that you could go back in time and stop yourself from ever having gone to a lower tier law school at all.

  16. These self-described liberal democrats who support abortion rights are hypocrites. Despite the fact they say they want to help people they have no problem cheating their students. Tamanaha was right. We will remember.

  17. "Still, there are the classic white collar crime scenarios and the board member of this company can also be the board member or an officer of that public or private entity which is 3X removed from a parent company.

    Like I say, the corporate entities can be public or private or business or academic etc. and it is pure corporations law with the notion of unclean hands blah blah."

    I don't quite understand what you are attempting to say. Even assuming collusion among law schools, there is no evidence that students who graduate from law schools with high amounts of debt are generally taken care of by the "system" with of course the exception of the T-14 schools which channel many members of their classes into well paying big law jobs.

    The average law school grad, from the bottom 188 schools will never be able to aspire to a payday $160K right out of law school.

    I also disagree with you concerning Campos, Tamanaha, and Merritt, they generally did their best, while facing the disapproval of their law school peers. I'd rather have an imperfect ally then none at all.

  18. What I'm finding laughable at this point is the $1 million lifetime earnings bullshit, or the so-called "premium" that a JD gives you.

    Uh.. Newsflash people..

    You had to incur something like a quarter of a mil in debt to get that degree. Are JD holders better off comparatively?

    I somehow doubt it.. I doubt it very much.

  19. @515,

    Save your breath, dude. You do realize that you have been talking to the fucking Paintroach, right? Or as it is more popularly known, The Thing That Will Not Ever Do Any Work.

    Even if that bug had graduated with zero debt, it would still be an impoverished asshat. An asshat that has repeatedly promised to stop polluting the internet with its worthless roach-droppings and YouTube links.

  20. And speaking of how lawyers perceive each other, and perception in general, It seems there is no next step down either. The JD is highly problematic when seeking work as a paralegal and here are some interesting reads:

    Leaving the JD off the resume is problematic as well and I was just discussing that with a friend yesterday who is trying to find a job.

    In the bigger picture and as far as the larger job market goes, Nando has always had this on his blog page:

    "......Furthermore, you will find it very difficult to find work as a non-lawyer, as your J.D. will make you overqualified for most non-law positions."

    Here are some companies and places that I had applied for a job with and with the JD on my resume and never got hired:

    Ilona Financial Group
    Wachovia Corp
    Progressive Insurance
    Fireman's Fund Insurance
    Northwestern Mutual
    AON Corporation
    State Farm
    Liberty Mutual
    State Government Jobs
    County Government jobs
    Bank Teller Jobs
    Store Manager Jobs
    Burger King
    Corporate Compliance Jobs
    Lumber Company Sales
    Insurance Industry Placement agencies
    Executive Recruiters/Headhunters
    Paralegal Placement agencies
    And so many more.

    Leaving the JD off the resume will show a gap of 3 years and that is a problem since it implies a great omission that some will see as unethical.

    What they don't realize is how desperate the applicant is for a job.

    All of this is old news but worth repeating in case some kid out there is considering taking on debt for law school or in the alternative simply picking up a paralegal certificate.

    What I would tell kids in High School is to study the want ads carefully and look for what the job requires in terms of education and training and experience and follow that.

    I have never come across a want ad that states that a JD will automatically open the door for anything but a job as an associate lawyer.

    1. The JD is highly detrimental to a resume outside the direct field of law. You will be perceived as a failure within your industry and tossed aside without another thought. Financial service firms in particular despise lawyers. Yes, there are obviously some in house lifers but apart from that lawyers are seem as enemy number one. You need to creatively account for that 3 year gap somehow and forget you ever went to law school.

    2. "You need to creatively account for that 3 year gap somehow and forget you ever went to law school."

      From your mouth to God's ears.

    3. Here is where I applied after law school and couldn't get hired:

      Pizza Hut
      Taco Bell
      Clays Lawn and Garden Center
      Ace Hardware
      Ford Fair lanes Bowling center
      Baskin Robbins
      Winchells Donuts
      Verizon mall kiosk
      Hudson Belk
      California pizza kitchen
      Sam's funeral home

      My mistake was asking for full time work at age 25 with a law degree.

      Luckilly the funeral home got me hooked up with their grave digging contractor so I was able to start digging graves to help pay my loans back.

      Meanwhile I kept looking for law jobs and after about 2 years I had to open up my own office because the gaps in my resume made sending resumes a waste.

      That was 20 years ago so I sympathize with these kids now.
      I made some money but court system gives it all to my multi degree holding non working porn addicted wife in the divorce.

      I should have been a PE coach or landscaper like all my happy friends who didn't go.

      Like my man Luther Campbell said: "I ain't bullshittin"

    4. I was completely out of work for a year. A FUCKING YEAR! Nobody would hire me. "He has a law degree, so he'll (Get bored; quit immediately; isn't serious about being here; sue me for something) so I won't hire him." Cashier, shelf stocker, nothing.
      Finally I got a seasonal job in a warehouse which became permanent.

    5. McDonald's is more selective than Harvard.

    6. Are you serious Dude? Give us some more details. What are you doing now, when did you graduate, background, etc.

  21. Oh, quit your whining, you cockroach. Did you actually follow up with any of those companies? Nope. You just email a resume and then sit there with your mouth open, waiting for a bird to fly in.

    Or maybe your laziness shines through. Some of those jobs (esp. the ones in the fast food industry) involve hard work, constant cleaning, etc. Clearly, all you are interested in is a bullshit job that will pay you to sit at a desk and goof off all day.

  22. I would like to see the bar exams in all states to be more challenging like they have done in Michigan. Commodes like Rutgers Camden and their graduates will do poorly. It will reduce the saturation of lawyers. The State Bars have to pick up the pace and change what the ABA will never do.

  23. I've got a law degree and I make $13 an hour. People with fucking HS diplomas make more than that.

    1. Thank you for your non-deductible, non-dischargeable donation.


  24. Paul Campos wrote a great July 2, 2012 post, which was entitled “Puppet show and Rutgers Camden.” Look at this opening:

    “It's time once again to feature a letter from Professor Camille Andrews, associate dean at Rutgers-Camden's law school. When we last encountered Professor Andrews a few weeks ago, she was encouraging people who had never shown enough interest in attending law school to actually go so far as to take the LSAT to apply for admission to Rutgers-Camden's incoming fall class .

    This weekend an unknown number of people received this letter, which one lucky recipient was kind enough to forward:

    Re: Special Admit-Outreach Scholarship Program for Select Students


    You have been selected as an individual Rutgers School of Law-Camden would like to admit in the fall of 2012 as an Academic Promise Scholar. We are waiving both the application fee and the $300 deposit fee. Should you be accepted, you will be awarded a $18,000 Academic Promise Scholarship renewable at $18,000 if you are in the top 40% of the class or partially renewable at $10,000 if you are not in the top 40% but maintain a 3.0 GPA ...

    [Bunch of stuff about how good Rutgers is]

    We hope to see you in the fall.

    Camille S. Andrews
    Associate Dean, School of Law-Camden

    What struck my correspondent as particularly notable about this generous offer (the offer is 50% off sticker price for out of state students and 80% off sticker for in-state students, although it comes with dangerous stipulations) is that he has never applied to Rutgers-Camden.”

    You can see that the pigs were desperate to get asses in seats back then. Several paragraphs later, Campos delivers this info:

    “As of three weeks ago, only 107 prospective first-years had put down deposits to start at Rutgers-Camden in the fall, down from 246 at the same time last year. Given that some of those people are deposited at multiple schools, while others make think twice about trying to catch a falling knife, the school could easily be looking at an incoming class of less than 100 (the 2011 graduating class had 242 members). Indeed anyone currently deposited at the school should take into account the real possibility that it could be closed by the university's central administration in the next year or two.”

    What a "prestigious" law school, huh?!?! Maybe these rodents will throw in free oil changes for a year, if you apply to this toilet.

    1. Should you be accepted, you will be awarded a $18,000 Academic Promise Scholarship renewable at $18,000 if you are in the top 40% of the class or partially renewable at $10,000 if you are not in the top 40% but maintain a 3.0 GPA ...


      Ah, the Scholarship scam..

      Wanna bet that first year curve will be brutal?

      Lying thieves.

      It'll also keep people from transferring out, which is really hard to do when you have a 1L GPA of 2.7.

  25. Academics are the most dishonest professionals out there. They are only liberals because it gives them cover to say they believe in "educational empowerment" but its really just to keep the spigot of federally-backed loans on. If the government got out of student loan business and let the markets decides, you'd see enrollment plummet because students wouldn't get financing and none have the money upfront for tuition. This goes for law schools and undergraduate alike. Thus, the federally-backed student loans keep enrollment artificially high with cheap money that goes right into "professors" pockets. The other alternative, cutting tuition down to affordable prices, is out of the question given the greed of the law school pigs.

    The Association of American Law Schools (pig lobby) and Higher Education lobbies the federal government and Department of Education to keep the gravy train running. Politicians who maintain the status quo are usually rewarded with lucrative positions in universities and law schools when they leave office. And it makes the liberals feel warm and fuzzy and gives them good PR that they are in academia instead of working for Wall Street. But instead of screwing investors, they're just screwing students. People complain about bailing out the banks, how about over $1 trillion in student loan debt nationally? Most of it federally-backed? I'm not some arch-type conservative, but the liberals and democrats are disgusting because they are the main protectors of this filthy scam.

    And you expect the ABA to regulate law schools? They are just another part of the same moving object. Academia is part of the revolving door. The only way to end it is to starve the beast, but since they won't end the student-loan gravy train, we have to educate people through the internet to choose not to enroll.

    Keep it up Nando.

  26. Only in academia could saddling down a bunch of poor kids (including minorities with no connections) with a shit ton of debt that can't be discharged be billed as 'providing opportunities to disadvantaged groups.'

    It's absolutely disgusting what these assholes get away with.

    1. Turning the poor and the ethnically diverse into sharecroppers, one degree at a time.

  27. And just to add, don't give me this BS argument how we need to pay professors top dollar otherwise we'll undergo a huge "brain drain" and our universities/law schools will turn into garbage. Brilliant minds will still go to law school and get scholarships and be able to make back the money in biglaw. There is an over-abundance of JDs and PhDs from top schools who fight like wild dogs for teaching jobs. Even if you halved starting salaries for professors you'd still have countless top flight biglaw outcasts and PhDs lined up applying for teaching posts. What else is a PhD in Poly Sci going to do besides teach or work in Washington?

    Another approach is to make the granting of federally-backed student loans dependent upon the field in which the student wants to study. For example, give priority in student loans to students going into fields where we have a NEED for trained workers (i.e., welders) and refuse loans to students going into fields where we have a SURPLUS of workers (i.e., law). That's actually a meaningful way that the government can direct the economy and stay in the student loan game. Of course, this presupposes that the pigs in Congress and at the Department of Education weren't bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces of lobbyists and had their own dreams of the academia ATM after their "public service" careers.

  28. There are roughly five thousand Title IV Higher Educational Institutions in the US and if each paid two hundred million then the one trillion dollars in student loan debt would be paid off :)

  29. And if you don't think that the Universities can afford to cough up two hundred million dollars, have a look at this:

    Harvard tops the list with a 30 billion dollar endowment.

  30. Even Touro had a close to two billion dollar endowment in 2012:

    And remember that Bernard Lander, the late President of Touro, made more than the presidents of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale a few years back:

  31. Nando, you should look into the dilemma of many lawyers being real estate agents or tax preparers to supplement their income besides working at McDonald's. Many states automatically allow licensed attorneys to be tax preparers or real estate agents without requiring further professional exams. In New York if you get admitted to the bar you can get your real estate license as long as a broker sponsors you and you fill out an application and pay the required fee which is around $100 and then you get your real estate license in the mail. I heard quite a lot of so called "attorneys" are making their living as Realtors or tax preparers. These are things they could have done obtaining only a high school diploma and taking a course that is finished in a few weeks rather than a 3 year law degree with a $200k student loan.

    1. Tax preparation is a 1-semester course at community college - but, you know, law degree.

  32. What is killing Rutgers Camden is the merger with Rowan. No one wants to enroll and then be a graduate of "Rowan Law School" (useless). Add to that more bad press in to a shrinking and increasingly-aware applicant pool and you get >100 enrollees.

    Plus, you get to go to school here:

    1. So they call it "Ru-Ro"?

      [rimshot offstage]

  33. Concord Online Law School does not require the LSAT to enroll so when you think of it Rutgers is no different than these online law school. Except you do not have to figure the cost of overpriced dorms with online education.

  34. At least if I go there, I can get my smack without the cops interfering. Capitalism Baby!! Free Market!! Yea!!

    That video was incredibly depressing.

    I'd imagine Detroit is in similar shape.


Web Analytics