Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Profiles in TTTT Leadership: Maryann Jones, Charleston School of Law’s “President” Pushed for Sale to Infilaw, and Then Resigned After Eight Days as Head of the ABA-Accredited Cesspool


http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141119/PC16/141119290/1177/aba-committee-recommends-charleston-school-of-law-sale-to-infilaw-move-forward

Surprise! The ABA Cockroaches Recommend Sale to Infilaw: On November 19, 2014, the Post and Courier published a Diane Knich piece that was entitled “ABA committee recommends Charleston School of Law sale to InfiLaw move forward.” From the opening:

“A key American Bar Association committee has recommended that Charleston School of Law be allowed to sell the school to the for-profit InfiLaw System. 

But students, alumni and faculty members who are opposed to the sale remain unbowed. 

The association's full Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar will give final consideration to the school's request on Dec. 5. If the sale ultimately is approved, InfiLaw would have only one more hurdle to jump in its quest to purchase and operate the Charleston school. 

The company still needs to obtain a license to operate in South Carolina from the state's Commission on Higher Education. InfiLaw applied to the commission, but withdrew its application in June, less than 24 hours before the commission's scheduled vote. Company representatives have said they intend to reapply, but they have not said when they might do that. 

Maryann Jones, who took the reins as president of the law school last week after a unanimous vote of the school's three-member board, said in a prepared statement that she was pleased with the committee's decision and was looking forward to a final Bar Association decision next month.” [Emphasis mine]

With such enthusiasm for the deal, one expects this lady to be with the in$TTTiTTTuTTTion for many years. She seemingly wants to be part of the long-term project to turn this rancid toilet into a winner.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141121/PC16/141129887/1177/new-charleston-school-of-law-president-steps-down

The Jackal Resigns After Only Eight Days as “President”: Two days later, on November 21, 2014, Diane Knich’s story “New Charleston School of Law president steps down” appeared in the Post and Courier. Check out this portion:

“In an email sent late Thursday to Kosko, Carr and Abrams, Jones said she decided not to take the reins of the private, downtown law school, and would not sign a contract. "The level of vitriol, with all sides making me a lightning rod for an unfortunate situation that was not of my making, makes this truly a situation that I am unwilling at this stage of my life to undertake." Jones stated in the email. 

Westbrook earlier Thursday had sent Jones a letter expressing his disappointment in her speaking to faculty and students in support of a sale to InfiLaw. 

To get his vote, Jones had agreed to be objective, and to learn more about alternatives for the school, Westbrook stated.

He also stated that he was disappointed that Jones hadn't yet met with him and his attorney Dawes Cooke to discuss the school's future. 

Westbrook's letter also revealed that Jones was being offered only a three-month contract.” [Emphasis mine]

If the pigs only offered this wench a three month contract, then that means they must have had great confidence in her, right?!?! Hell, telemarketers have better job security! The reject working the drive through window, itching for a customer to order a McBitchin’ sandwich, has longer term prospects at his post than Jones. 

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2014/11/22/president-of-law-school-resigns-days-after-starting-job/

Other Coverage: The CBS News affiliate for Charlotte featured an AP story on this saga – on November 22, 2014. The piece was labeled “President Of Law School Resigns Days After Starting Job.” Look at this segment: 

“The president of the troubled Charleston School of Law has resigned after just days on the job. 

Media outlets report that Maryann Jones quit in an email before signing a contract. She was hired Nov. 13.” [Emphasis mine]

What an impressive run as “president” of this remarkable institution of “higher learning,” huh?!?! I wonder if this ass-clown will even list this on her resume. Perhaps, she can spin this to say that while she was head of the law school for “a brief period of time,” she was central to the sale of the commode to a for-profit consortium.

Conclusion: If you are even considering attending this pile of vile excrement, then you truly are a desperate fool. In that case, you are the type of moron who would fall for a 300 pound buttercow, simply because she will have sex with you. Grow a spine, a brainstem and a pair of balls, dumbass. You DO NOT NEED to settle for a hideous pig. Even if you are a cretin, you can still do better. Frankly, if this is the best school you can get into, then you definitely need to pursue a different career path.

19 comments:

  1. Maybe she had a last-minute pang of conscience, and she couldn't, in good faith, be dean of an institution that would ruin so many lives and offer so few options to its graduates for actually practicing law.

    HAHAHAHA, no (snicker), it was a political minefield/scapegoating endeavour and she was wise to read the writing on the wall and stear clear. Federal Student Loan conduits be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Big trouble in little Charleston. Look at the predators fight over a "business" that probably takes in GROSS about 26 million dollars per year!!!

    Doesn't Chicago private equity have bigger fish to fry?

    Cannot Sterling Partners find some better target than a non-productive, service-sector business in a distressed industry, in a distressed economy???

    This behavior is 'hood, as they say. They're fighting to the death over a rotten corpse of business. It just tells you that they're bottom feeders, who don't really deserve any financial success, because they really are not smart, savvy, cautious, etc. etc.

    Big losses are coming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure about that? A little bit of googling shows enrollment is up compared to 3-4 years ago at some of the infilaw schools. How much do these schools cost to operate in administration/faculty salaries and rent? If you own 3 or 4 of these schools and are clearing something like 13 million a school, that is quite a bit of money.

      If I had time I'd re-read the Campos article.

      Delete
    2. This also assumes the ABA doesn't come down on them some time relatively soon. ABA accreditation is the only thing that separates these cesspools from the even lower categories of joke schools.

      That's not to say that the ABA is anything less than spineless — that's just to say that the "within 15% of state bar failure to remain accredited" standard will be more relevant as their classes become more and more retarded.

      Even assuming that the ABA doesn't revoke accreditation, the Infilaw toilets are still fighting an uphill battle; fewer people are partaking in the open admission schools.

      Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I don't see the Infilaw scam maintaining its standing with the ABA much more than a couple more years.

      Delete
  3. You could not invent that: president gives up within days. What a joke this entire deal is? It reflects poorly on her, the school, the investors, the private business and ... the students. There is no vision and no control from any of the above.
    How many times can we tell the lost souls applying there that Charleston LS is a big loss!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hear that the ABA is willing to Infilaw do its thing, but the one concession it requires is that Infilaw must hang a clearly visible sign above the main entry of every Infilaw school that says "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

    ReplyDelete
  5. So wait. Let me get this straight. They let her be fuckin' president without having her sign a contract? get the fuck outta here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. At first I felt some sympathy for this poor woman. Maybe she didn't know what she was getting into, I thought.

    Then I read further and found that she was already advocating a sale to InfiLaw, even though she had been hired to keep the school independent. So she's either ignorant or indifferent. She doesn't know or doesn't care about the huge financial burdens that InfiLaw places on its schools and their students.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No sympathy for this pig. She sold out to Infilaw and in the process pissed off one of the Charleston Shitter of Law owners. Screw this dog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ahhhhhh!!

    The Old and the Ugly!

    My eyes! They BUUURRRN!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's another disgusting thing about this operation: The pigs that are making out like bandits are too old to enjoy the loot--unless you equate enjoyment with dinner theater in the company of a post-menopausal wife and an ED husband. These pigs can't even climb a mountain. It's all status: "My retirement home is in the hamptons, not the south shore...!"

      Delete
    2. South shore..

      Peasants.

      Delete
  9. Is that Johnny Carson? .

    ReplyDelete
  10. A three month contract < dogshit

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.fitsnews.com/2014/11/21/csol-president-steps-down-due-to-bullying-by-director/

    Check out this hilarious piece from Fitsnews, published on November 21, 2014. The post was labeled “CSOL President Steps Down Due to Bullying by Director.” Here is the opening sequence:

    “Eight days after she took the job, new Charleston School of Law (CSOL) president Maryann Jones has resigned – citing the bullying tactics of the school’s minority director Ed Westbrook.

    In an email obtained by FITSNews sent late Thursday to school leaders, Jones claimed she could no longer deal with the “level of vitriol” being directed at her by Westbrook, who has been working for months to sabotage the proposed sale of the school.

    “It is with true regret that I inform you that I will not sign a contract to assume the presidency of CSOL,” Jones wrote in the email. “I truly only wanted to help.”

    Jones’ decision came in the wake of her receipt of a threatening letter from Westbrook – one in which he announced his intentions to publicly oppose her presidency unless she came out against the school’s proposed sale to InfiLaw.

    Ironically, Westbrook voted last week to hire Jones.

    “You are here on a short leash,” Westbrook snaps at Jones in the letter – likening her to a female dog.

    Later in the letter Westbrook tells Jones “since you have seen fit to meet with faculty and students and give them your views without talking to me, I feel it incumbent upon me to let faculty and students know my position on your initial actions.”

    One female CSOL student told FITS Westbrook’s comments had crossed the line.

    “He basically called her a bitch,” the student said.”

    Maryann Jones has many traits of a dog, except for loyalty. She was hired to rubber stamp any decisions that the owners made, and to keep her mouth shut. Apparently, she could not accomplish that Herculean task – and now she is an ass-wipe who was “president” of an ABA-accredited diploma mill, for a mere eight days. Hell, people have bouts of indigestion that last longer than the mutt’s “tenure” at this school!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is why the claim of a left-academia is false. These clowns, in their professional, establishment reinforcing guild, are not upset about a school being sold to a chain operator, but a rude letter by a faculty member. What world do they live in?

      Delete
  12. http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+7

    Ranking: As you can see, US “News” & World Report rates Charle$TTTTon Sewer of Law as a FOURTH TIER TRASH CAN! Yes, what a remarkable achievement, huh?!?! And you know that the law school pigs don’t lose a wink a sleep over this fact.

    http://www.charlestonlaw.edu/Prospective-Students/Financial-Aid.aspx

    Tuition: Based on this document, full-time tuition – for 2014-2015 – will be $39,096. Part-time law students at C$L will “only” be billed $31,412, for the 2014-2015 school year. Plus, don’t forget to add the $120 SBA fee. Without the federally-backed student loan $y$tem in place, these cockroaches would not be able to charge such outrageous prices.

    http://charleston.lawschoolnumbers.com/

    TTTT Employment Placement Rate: Check out the Law School Numbers profile for this rancid commode. Does anyone want to defend Maryann Jones and her “principled stand”?

    “CHARLESTON LAW SCHOOL EMPLOYMENT

    Deciding to attend law school requires a large financial investment with the goal of securing employment upon graduation. The Charleston School of Law class of 2013 had an employment rate of 74% with 4% pursuing an additional degree.”

    http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/grad-debt-rankings

    Average Law Student Indebtedness: While this school is ranked as a fourth tier cesspool, at least it is rated 15th “best” when it comes to saddling its students and graduates down with large sums of soul-crushing, NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – among those in$titution$ reporting to this defunct magazine. Do you still want to sign on the dotted line, mental midget?!?!

    US “News” lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the Charle$TTTTon JD Class of 2013 who incurred debt for law school - as $146,765. Hell, 89% of this garbage pit’s 2013 cohort took on such toxic debt. This figure does not include undergraduate debt – and also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.

    In sum, Charle$TTTTon $chool of Law: (a) has a horrible reputation; (b) tuition is too damn high – and way out of proportion regarding job prospects; and (c) students leave with ridiculous sums of additional NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. Only a moron would even consider applying to, or attending, this pile of excrement.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Charleston is a shithole and it doesn' t matter if it stays independent or joins up with Infilaw. It will be a shithole either way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I realize that most of the contributors to this blog are current and former law students, but I hope you will allow an old guy/professor to make a few comments as well. The problem of how many law schools, and how many law students, we really need is complex, and deserves nuanced analysis. Please indulge me for a moment.

    I've been a full-time law professor for 12 years, and for the last 4 years I've taught undergrads. I also have been a Fulbright Senior Specialist in Law teaching in India, and I've taught in China for the last 3 summers. Every year, I am an invited speaker/debater at law schools around the nation, and during the past few years I've spoken at roughly half of all U.S. law schools, including Yale, Stanford, Columbia, U. of Chicago, Berkeley, Georgetown, Northwestern, Duke, and many more. I've visited with many law students and professors during my travels, so I think I have some credibility in addressing the topic under consideration here.

    There is a fundamental issue underlying most of what has been posted here—an issue that is almost always left unstated, to lurk in the background. It is the principle of what factors contribute to any person’s aptitude for the practice of law, and thus may be used as gatekeepers at the doors of our law schools. Is it sufficient to rely on some combination of UGPA and LSAT numbers as surrogates for actual opportunity to perform lawyerly work? Or can/should these two numbers by supplemented by other metrics of an applicant’s potential as a prospective attorney?

    The three law schools for which I have served as a full-time professor have all used a rather flexible mix of factors in determining which candidates to accept. In addition to the twin gatekeepers of UGPA and LSAT, they incorporated some blend of traits gleaned from application essays, letters of recommendation, diversity of race/ethnicity/gender, and self-reported life experiences. I was a member of the admissions committee at Roger Williams University School of Law for several years, and I saw the value of these additional factors in shaping our life-changing decisions for many applicants.

    InfiLaw schools such as Florida Coastal and Charlotte School of Law have been innovators in complementing such valuable but less stereotypical considerations. Their use of the AAMPLE metric has enabled them to identify aspects of some applicants’ abilities and possibilities that, when supported with a sophisticated program of academic support initiatives, often enables non-traditional applicants to achieve success in law school, on the bar exam, and in the real-world practice of law. I would not suggest that AAMPLE is the sine qua non of lawyer potential prediction, but neither would I make that claim for the standard overreliance on UGPA+LSAT.

    For those who are not completely familiar with AAMPLE, it is a program that was developed by a law professor/dean with years of experience in the rigors and requirements of the law school experience. AAMPLE is a data- and evidence-based system for identifying people with non-traditional abilities suited to the practice of law, and it’s supported with an exam that determines whether a candidate has successfully completed the program. I’ve found it to be a useful supplement to the usual overemphasis on the rigid metrics of UGPA+LSAT.

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics