Saturday, March 28, 2015

Angry, Desperate "Law Professors” Seek to Set Fire to the Bar Exam

The Swine are Sqealing: On March 19, the New York Times published a piece from Elizabeth Olson, which was entitled “Bar Exam, the Standard to Become a Lawyer, Comes Under Fire.” Check out this opening:

“For decades, law school graduates have endured a stressful rite of passage, spending the first 10 weeks after classes end taking cram courses in the arcane details of the law before sitting down for the grueling, days-long bar exam. Those who do not pass cannot practice law, at least in nearly all the states and the District of Columbia that consider the exam the professional standard. 

But that standard, so long unquestioned, is facing a new round of scrutiny — not just from the test takers but from law school deans and some state legal establishments. Some states, including Arizona, Iowa and New Hampshire, are exploring or have adopted other options, questioning the wisdom of relying on a single written test as the gateway to legal practice. 

The debate over the exam is not new, but it broke out in the open after the results of last summer’s exam were released in the fall, showing that the 51,005 test takers had the poorest results in nearly a decade.

Many law school deans, bristling from criticism that they are replenishing their ranks with less academically qualified students as the number of law school applicants has fallen sharply, began to openly question the mechanics of the bar exam.” [Emphasis mine]

Isn’t it odd that the cockroaches never chirped – not once – that the bar exam is an expensive waste and that doesn’t measure legal skills, until the big-ass drop in bar passage rates this past year? What a coincidence, huh?!?!

The author then quotes several pigs. Yes, Nicholas Allard of Crooklyn Law School provides another idiotic comparison. Look at this garbage:

“Stephen C. Ferruolo, dean of the University of San Diego School of Law, said that it was the test, not the students. He asked the bar testing agency in December for details about the test to assure that it was fair and reliable. 

Otherwise, he maintained, the exam “is an unpredictable and unacceptable impediment for accessibility to the legal profession.” [Emphasis mine]

Read: Let us bring in as many students as we can, regardless of their test scores and academic credentials, charge them OUTRAGEOUS sums in tuition, and leave us the hell alone. In fact, can we simply waive everyone in, by virtue of having earned a JD?

“The bar exam “does nothing to measure lawyering skills,” said Kristin Booth Glen, a law professor and former dean of the City University of New York School of Law, which trains public interest lawyers, “and only shores up the guild mentality that there should be a barrier to prevent the legal market from being flooded during times when fewer jobs are available.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, and writing essay answers to ridiculous, idiotic fact patterns and editing articles in student-run legal journals does provide a good basis for determining whether one will be an effective lawyer, right?!?! Does anyone believe that “educators” with such reasoning “skills” and minimal “workload” should be paid $200K per year – for providing this "service"?

Other Coverage: On March 19, 2015 6:00 pm, JDU denizen “doublefriedchicken” started a thread labeled “Let’s attack the Bar Exam!” He furnished the link to the story above. Now scroll down to the following comment from “chicagojoe” – regarding Cockroach Kristin Booth Glen - posted on March 19, 2015 at 6:16 pm:

“...and apparently she doesn't care about the market being so flooded her students can't find jobs? I recall my law school exams fondly. Oh, how they measured my lawyering skills!”

Now look at this gem from accountholder “brokelawyer” – from March 27, 2015 10:55 am:

“If a school is having a problem with the majority of its students not passing the exam then it MUST be the exam's fault. Because asking whether half these people have any business even sitting for the exam is unthinkable, right? Right?” [Emphasis mine]

These comments are hilarous and insightful. Do you still want to take the plunge, Lemming?!?! This is an important life decision that will impact YOU – and your family – for the rest of your damn life.

Average Law Student Indebtedness at the Three Toilets Above: U.S. “News” & World Report has published its new figures for the JD Class of 2014. Here are the averages for the schools that employ Nicholas Allard, Stephen Ferruolo, and Kristin Booth Glen. Here are the numbers: Brooklyn Law Sewer, $114,953; Univer$iTTy of $an Diego, $128,477; and CUNY, $82,414. It’s no wonder why these three foul rodents want you to believe that they are fighting for you, with regard to making the bar exam easier. 

Conclusion: In the final analysis, as fewer people apply to – and enroll in – ABA-accredited law schools/diploma mill, the administrators and “professors” will become even more desperate for asses in seats. Look for these pieces of trash to push for more state bar associations to license those who graduate from law school. After all, why should any law grad be asked to shell out a few thousand dollars more – when they have already been crushed by $136,722. 18 in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for their “legal education”?! If you believe that these bitches and hags are on your side, then you are mentally deficient.


  1. Amen. Criminals.

  2. Re: Average Law Student Indebtedness

    Holy shit, look the top 8:

    1. TJSL - 172K
    2. NYLS - $166K
    3. Northwestern - $163K
    4. Florida Coastal - $162K (Go private equity!)
    5. American University - $159K
    6. Vermont - $156K
    7. Touro - $154K
    8. USF - $154

    Obviously Northwestern is a good school, but the rest of these are TTT at best (American is the only one in the top 100 and some of these are unranked).

    It's like some reverse law of supply and demand, where the shittier your product is, the further people are willing to go to get it. Roughly 80-90% of the student body, took on those are the average debt loads.

    1. At this point, it's obvious.. More like student booty. And, I think, most people are waking up to the ride. Just off the top of one's head, does paying back a starting debt balance in the mid 6-figures seem even possible? And doing it while trying to maintain a living?

      Of course not..

      But, of course, the scammers in the schools point to IBR/PAYE as a "solution" when it is really just digging in deeper and doubling down on the future that these programs will deliver as promised or even still be in existence.

      It's just con artists trying to con any way they can.Education, "non-profit".. Fuck you. We know by now what it's all about. The money. The students are like the product in an MLM. No one really cares about the product. It's all about the sales.

    2. It's like some reverse law of supply and demand, where the shittier your product is, the further people are willing to go to get it.

      Eventually, the schools' standards sink low enough that the people they're recruiting probably don't even have the mental power to understand concepts like "flooded market" or "non-dischargeable debt". When you're scamming retards who've been given limitless credit by the Federal gov't, the sky is the limit.

    3. Touro Law School (it's named Fucksberg for fuck's sake) is a piece of fucking shit. And that shithole has been taking advantage of retards for years.

    4. Re: 10:46

      Swap reverse for "perverse"

      You are right. The Bigger the Lie, the more they believe.

      Thank Goebbles for this principal.

      I note that the ABA does not seem to directly address many of the issues raised, such as too many law schools, too many graduates for jobs, accrediting schools whose capacity will flood the markets…….

      I remember distinctly from law school the phrase of "ruinous competition" as THE argument to justify BARRIERS TO COMPETITION.

      Well, the ABA, as the gatekeeper of schools being accredited, and thereby increasing the flow of additional attorneys, to my knowledge, remains SILENT.

      If the ABA has a defense, post it HERE.

    5. Re: 12:15

      Hey, Touro produces painters.

    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. As a 25 year veteran attorney, I can unequivocally state that if there is anything useless in the rite of passage in becoming a lawyer it's the third year of law school. Any discussion of getting rid of the bar exam should be preceded by the elimination of the third year of law school. Of course, that will never happen as this affects the bottom line of the law school dean$ and professor$.

    I predict bar exam passage rates will continue to take precipitous drops as these criminal law schools accept borderline and marginal candidates who would have never been accepted into law school 20 years ago.

    1. @ 9:13 AM again.

      Yes, I agree. By 3L, I felt that there was no reason for me to be there. It was just coasting. BarBri taught me everything I needed in 2 plus months. I had truly forgotten the majority of the material.

      In short, law school was not needed. BarBri could've saved me 3 years and all the tuition. Of course, the answer is that the 3rd year is needed - at least by the schools to get more money. That's the real answer as to why it is and will continue to be there and law school will continue, as ever, to be a 3-year graduate program.

  4. As if law school teaches anyone any sort of "lawyering skills." If there's a case to be made for a third year in law school, it would be for some sort of residency and internship program as opposed to taking required BS "perspective" courses like "international human rights law" or "law in the American colonies."

    Those chiselers are only about the money and taking care of their own. Fuck 'em. They're going to get what's coming to them.

    Meanwhile, keep shining light on these cockroaches and enjoy watching them scurry. Every kid that we can keep from getting hustled by the law scam is a life saved.

  5. So, the bar exam (which costs about $750 in my state) is an "unpredictable and unacceptable" barrier to entry to the legal profession, but the TUITION for a J.D. that one needs to be licensed in nearly every jurisdiction is not an unpredictable and unacceptable barrier to entry.

    It looks to me like people in my generation got hit with a license fee that is hundreds of thousands of dollars while the Boomer generation that imposed it on us were allowed to enter the profession for merely thousands of dollars...HMM, does that seem like anti-competitive behavior? Why should law schools be allowed to set the price of a professional license requirement?

    So, yeah, I think any profession that charges a license fee that has nothing to do with merit (i.e. the cost of a JD you need to even sit for the bar) is the unacceptable, unpredictable barrier to entry.

  6. I need to pass an EPA refrigerant certification exam to service air conditioners, but can practice with nothing but a JD from Mouthbreather School of Law? Yay, legal academy!

  7. Sigh . . . Where to begin??? 1) to glen's point about lawyering skills - when did that ever come up? The people who "teach" law school have no lawyering skills - they've never done it!!! 2) I actually agreed with the idea that the bar exam was superfluous when I finished in late 90's. But as the pigs move to open admissions and more generous curves to keep the money coming, something has to serve as a demonstration of the most basic knowledge to get a license 3) on a pessimistic not, the pigs will just capture bar administration the way they took over aba education section. By the time they are done the bar will be taken with construction paper and finger paint. No way they will let this money maker get away

  8. Well, my suggestion is to set up an apprenticeship system. Instead of paying the law schools for a degree, you pay the same money to a firm to train you over a three-year period. I'm sure the law schools would support that, right?

  9. Side note, Willamette Law makes a funny:

    Willamette University College of Law continues its rise in rankings by US News and World Report. Over the past two years, the Salem, Oregon law school, known for having the highest job placement rate in Oregon and fifth highest on the West Coast, has jumped 30 places in the national rankings. The College of Law is now ranked 118.

    “Our ability to help students master the law, gain practical experience and achieve their goals upon graduation sets us apart,” says law Dean Curtis Bridgeman."

    1. A student who is happy at a jump to 118 in the rankings is like a prison bitch who is happy that his next rapist will have a slightly less girthy dick.

    2. Position 148 is not much different from position 48. Yet many idiots insist that the latter is in the "first tier".

      Old Guy

    3. ". . . known for having the highest job placement rate in Oregon. . ."

      Actually, that is a good jibe at the two other Oregon law schools, flagship Univ. of Oregon (USN rank: 82) and Lewis & Clark (USN rank: 92). Both of these places rank much higher than Williamette in the preposterous rankings, but both have even worse employment outcomes than Williamette's, which is saying something.

  10. There is no question that the bar exam only measures the ability to pass the bar exam. That said, I went to a state U which has been steadily falling in the rankings, now firmly ensconced in the TT world. That said, the bar did require some work, and way back when, in my second tier class anyway, everybody who should have passed did pass, and those who should have flunked did.
    If the scam deans succeed in eliminating the bar exam, the game's over. No point in scam blogs or even complaining-even the worst of schools will be filled with people who have absolutely no job prospects but access to ready loan money. With no barrier at all to entry, even the worst schools will be flooded with applicants. Everybody will graduate and march into the working world, utterly clueless. It will be a disaster.

  11. After reading this site throughout the years, I have concluded that it is hopeless. You would think that something as serious as the law would never become such a circus. At this point, why not admit everyone to law school, allow everyone to graduate and get rid of the irritating bar seems inevitable anyway.

    1. Oh they're intent on trying that. They won't be satisfied until they run law into the ground.

      But it's not like it's any different for other fields. Obamacare is designed to run healthcare into the ground. The Fed seems intent on running the USD into the ground. FINRA and the SEC are utterly worthless and have allowed HFT machines to rig the market, despite complaints by traders for years. That's probably going to collapse too.

      The way I see it, law schools don't care because everyone is probably betting that everything is going to just crash at once, and then it won't even matter.

    2. Pharmacy education crashed in 2009. Number of pharmacy schools in 1998: 73, number in 2015 139... Nursing is almost crashed, PA and NP are bubbles waiting to pop.

  12. Just a matter of time until we see Academic Conscription. Funny, Boomers who went to college to smoke pot and dodge the draft would then be drafting kids into college....

  13. “and only shores up the guild mentality that there should be a barrier to prevent the legal market from being flooded during times when fewer jobs are available."

    What exactly is scam-professor Glen saying? That there is nothing wrong with flooding the legal market when few jobs are available? That there should be no barriers to entry—not even basic literacy?

    I fully support controlling admission to the legal profession. Standards should be raised, not lowered. And it is simply stupid, not to mention predatory, to allow tens of thousands of people per year to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars (mostly borrowed) on law school when they won't be able to work in the field.

    Old Guy

    1. This guy is worried about an allegedly arbitrary ACADEMIC barrier to entry - a test - but, he sees no ECONOMIC barrier to entry posed by law schools?

    2. Barrier to market is the B.S. wedge they have to preclude any organization from opening up more schools. In backwards America, opening unlimited schools is and the profession preventing it is Anti-Trust Law, while too big to fail banks, pharmacy chains, etc. is business as usual...

    3. To me, the problem is not too many law schools, it's the credit that supports the price they charge.

      If you get ripped off for $5,000 on a bad investment, it does not ruin your life. If you get ripped off on a bad investment that costs $150,000, it ruins your life.

      I wouldn't care if there were 200,000 law schools so long as there was no unlimited funny money, and regulatory capture supporting what they do. If they had to compete on price, the risk of loss to the student would be much, much less and tolerable.

      But they decided to f around and regulate the market and support it. It blew up, because it could.

  14. Oh finally that exam is being exposed for what it is--a big waste of money, time, and energy. I get those who have passed wanting others to pass too, but hopefully this dreadful practice is terminated in my lifetime. Law students should graduate as lawyers.


    On March 27, 2015, “massivemissive” started a JDU thread labeled “Brooklyn Law School Dean Calls for Audit of MBE.” Make sure to review the following exchange:

    therewillbeblood (Mar 28, 2015 - 9:14 am)

    I liked this comment to the story:

    "And not to belabor what should be obvious to most on this thread, but the BLS folk who took the bar last summer would have matriculated in 2011. That entering BLS class had a 160/163/165 LSAT 25th/median/75th percentile split. This past fall? Waaay down to a 153/156/159."

    That is just an insane drop. That basically changes the school; you can't tell me that the faculty hasn't had to change how they teach and grade.
    adamb (Mar 28, 2015 - 11:23 am)

    Yeah -- it is only going to get worse and Scam Dean Nick Allard knows it.

    By the way, he recently hired a doc review recruiter into his career services office.

    Tells you that they know, outright, that their career services are a sham.
    trickydick (Mar 28, 2015 - 2:24 pm)

    They've got a doc review recruiter? The jig is clearly up.

    Check out the entire discussion regarding Cockroach Nicholas Allard and his supposed “mission.” Of course, anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see through his nonsense. The only thing this bastard cares about is continuing the law school scam for as long as possible.

    Clearly, the deans at these ABA diploma mills will aim to make the bar exam easier than a cheap prostitute. Hell, they might even seek to simply have JDs waive into practice – with perhaps a character and fitness review. Yes, these "educators" are honorable men and women, right?!?!

  16. Speaking of angry and desperate "law professors," Brian Leiter appears to be suffering a mental and emotional breakdown. He has effectively conceded on his own blog the vile and disgusting truth about himself.

    Consider the following statement: "I used to engage this [law school reform] crowd, for which my reward was mountains of vile and often defamatory abuse..." So how can any statement about Leiter be "vile" but not defamatory? Since Leiter habitually uses a very expansive definition of defamation, the only vile statements about him that are not defamatory would be true statements.

    Although I'm actually shocked that Leiter would confess to the academic world in this manner, his latest unprovoked attacks on our common humanity appear to have eroded his moral confidence. For example, his petulant and irrational defense of terrorist sympathizers and accused rapists has been widely condemned by thoughtful people. His online harassment of married women has made him appear the juvenile fool he has always been.

    Leiter's recent confession on his "philosophy" blog is a cry for help, a plea for intervention. The kindest and most merciful measures in his case would be to deny him all contact with students, confiscate the German books that have driven him close to madness, and force him to undergo remedial moral instruction, preferably from a priest or rabbi. Only in this way can a hollow shell of a formerly decent person finally come back to life.

  17. March 28, 2015 at 4:42 PM has it exactly right. With open admissions to law school, society, now more than ever, needs the bar exam.

  18. It's incredible how easy obtaining student loans is. You complete some bogus entrance counseling, basically you click through a few screens and mountains of student loan cash are yours. Contrast that to a home mortgage application, where you must go through interviews, credit checks, DTI calculations, and provide financial statements for the bank to pore over. Also, when you apply for a mortgage there is a reg called Truth in Lending Act. Part of TILA requires the bank tell you how much you will pay over the life of the loan, interest included. Student loans are exempted from TILA; it's a fucking racket and they are all in on it.

    1. Amen. The fact the federal government exempted itself from the Truth in Lending Act, and all federal, consumer protection laws tells you a lot.

    2. We are really only sheep to be sheared by the greedy and connected. I see the middle class every day in my practice. It, as a concept, and they, individually are dying a slow and tortuous financial death by garrote.

      "You've met the middle class, haven't you? Of course, they don't have tuppence to rub together, but that's because they're middle class." (Sort of from Time Bandits.)

  19. They should do away with law schools before they think about getting rid of the Bar Exam. Yeah, there is such a guild mentality, when you have law schools that would admit a bag of hammers. Costco membership has more stringent admission standards, without the debt. Cooley, New England Law, Florida Coastal, etc., and all the unaccredited garbage pits.

    Law school is an expensive waste that has outlived its usefulness.

  20. The law schools want:

    * No LSAT requirements for entry
    * No bar exam for exit
    * No credit or employability checks for 22-year-olds taking out six figure loans

    These people sure must care deeply about the future of the legal profession and the country as a while

  21. The only person I knew who had trouble passing the bar from my school did not pass it until after three tries. It took several years, but she was eventually disbarred for incompetence, causing grave injury to her clients. If somebody does not have the intellect and capacity to study for and pass the bar, they should not be lawyers . . .period. It is absolutely startling that these people are trying to do away with the bar exam . . . and the evidence is clear they are doing so because they are not admitting people so intellectually questionable that, as Campos said long ago, many of them will never pass the bar. Practicing Law may not be rocket science, but geez, you do need to have a minimum level of intelligence to be competent. It is startling to me that these people are suggesting the bar be done away with.


    1. That's one way to look at it. Personally, I think he shamelessly walked the streets, begging to get paid for another slanted and distorted publication. Those "law professors" will do ANYTHING to avoid the normal course load of four hours per week.


    Back on January 13, 2014, Elie Mystal posted an epic ATL piece, which was entitled “What’s More Expensive: 3 Years of Law School or 6 Weeks of Bar Prep?” The article pertains to the then-proposal to waive all graduates of Iowa law schools into the state bar. Look at this portion:

    “Of course, in the new normal, the problem is that there are too many kids for too few available jobs. People are waiting until after the bar results come out because there are too many graduates for too few entry-level jobs. That problem isn’t going to change if Iowa students graduate without having to take the bar. And I can certainly imagine some law school defenders telling Iowa students to just “hang out a shingle,” as if they are remotely prepared to do that, with or without bar passage.

    The much better way of reducing costs for students is allowing them to sit for the bar exam after two years (or even one year of law school). Eliminating the bar but keeping the three years leading up to it is like cutting off a limb but leaving the gangrene.

    But like I said, this isn’t really about the students, and more about what the schools feel they need to keep applications high. Not having to take the bar is something you can probably sell prospective students on, especially if those kids are choosing between an Iowan law school and some similarly ranked institutions in neighboring states. If you want to work in Iowa, it would be easier to stay in Iowa. And if you stay in Iowa but later want to work somewhere else, well you can just take that state’s bar exam like a normal person.

    It’s the kind of thing that sounds more helpful than it is, but sounding helpful is exactly how you fleece the next generation of prospective law students.

    Remember, Iowa Law already did something that will actually help students reduce their debt and give them more flexible employment options. It cut tuition. You tell me what makes more sense: eliminating the licensing exam, or reducing the cost of the education you are forced to sit through before you are allowed to take the licensing exam.”

    Mystal cuts through the filth and lays it flat. Administrators and “law professors” DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about the students! They merely want to extend the scam for as long as they can, so they can continue to receive $180K+ annually – for “working” 4-6 hours per week.

    In the end, eliminating the bar exam requirement is a selling point to potential students, especially those with marginal numbers. Could you imagine accredited U.S. medical schools or dental schools dropping their standards further, in order to get more warm bodies in seats – without regard to the overall employment outlook for recent grads?!?!

  24. And did everyone see today's New York Times editorial where a law professor tried to suggest that law school attendance was "bottoming out" and that those attending law school today could expect better job prospects since top legal firms were hiring more? However, there is no discussion that even snagging that coveted 160,000 a year job is not so great since most of those newly minted associates will not be practicing in another 5-10 years having been replaced by a new crop of associates.

    1. Steven Davidoff Solomon, recent propagandist featured in the New York Times, is not unexpectedly, a tool and a shill for the law school industry. One knows he is a biased apologist for the sorry industry when he quotes sociopath Brian Leiter in his opening few paragraphs. His argument seems to be that there is plenty of demand for graduates of the elite law schools. Duh, no one in the anti-scam movement has ever argued that the privileged denizens of HYS have problems getting big law jobs. (They may however, have great difficulty keeping them as new elite grads are flushed through the system). The issue is the poor lemmings that somehow didn’t score the magic 170 on the LSAT. The dolts who attended the non elite tier one trap schools like GW and Vanderbilt and didn’t graduate in the top 1/3 of the class, or graduate in the top 15% of the class lower down the tier 2 food chain. As for tier 3 and garbage 4th tier schools --they never had a chance even before the 2008 crash.

      Nando, this Profe$$or Solomon demands a special profile in excrement.


    Elie Mystal took a direct approach to the current nonsense, in his March 20, 2015 entry, “Law Deans Blame The Bar Exam, Instead Of Themselves.” Check out this opening:

    “The Multistate Bar Exam is the second most famous licensing exam in the world. Only the “road test” has better name recognition than the bar.

    Lots of professions have some kind of licensing process, and many of them require would-be professionals to take some sort of test. The bar might be famous, but it’s not unique.

    Yesterday, DealBook ran a story about thebar exam “coming under fire” from law school deans who believe that the bar erects an unnecessary barrier to entry to the legal profession. The attack represents a new height of hypocrisy from legal academia. THREE YEARS OF LAW SCHOOL creates an unnecessary barrier to entry. Taking on six-figures of debt creates an unnecessary barrier to entry. The bar exam is just the last hurdle at the end of a long and expensive race.

    As far as licensure goes, the bar is somewhere in the middle compared to other professional requirements. People who took the July 2014 bar posted terrible bar passage rates, yet in most states, that rate was still over 80%. Compare that to Series 7 passage rates, where a third of test takers regularly fail. On the other end of the spectrum, state medical boards usually have passage rates of about 90%.

    Of course, each industry places the barrier in a different place. A monkey could sit for the Series 7. FINRA doesn’t care. They use the test as the primary barrier. For doctors, first you have to get into medical school, then you have to stay in medical school, then you have to do your residency, then you have to have your visitation from the Holy Spirit who grants you the authority to play God, and then you take your boards. By the time the test rolls around, you are ready to be a doctor; the medical profession puts its barriers at the front end.

    The legal profession has a combination of both. A monkey can sit for the LSAT and get into law school, but most likely only a higher order primate can actually hang in there through 1L year. Then the bar exam is legitimately difficult, even though the vast majority of people who can sit for it can pass it.”

    In sum, the law school pigs want to: (a) admit those with lower LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs, than they did in the past; (b) accept students from their undergrad in$titution$ without having them take the LSAT, for 10% of their incoming classes; and (c) ostentensibly get rid of the HUGE BARRIER of the bar exam. They simply want to make students believe that they are looking out for their interests. Real professional schools place high gates at the front end, i.e. BEFORE the student incurs an additional $100K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt.


Web Analytics