Monday, August 3, 2015

TTTT Smells of Desperation: Arizona Summit Law School’s Unlock Potential Program

Flush Twice and Open a Window: On July 28, 2015, ATL featured a Staci Zaretsky entry labeled “Law School Dean Allegedly Begged Graduates Not To Take The Bar Exam – On The Day Before The Test.” Take a look at the following portion:

“Back in June, we spoke at length about what happens when bar exam time rolls around at law schools where passage rates for first-time takers have been notoriously low. At the time, we wondered: “[W]hat if there were a way to ensure that students who were struggling academically would stay far, far away from the bar exam, thus enhancing your law school’s chances of posting less embarrassing passage statistics?”

Pleadings in Lorona v. Arizona Summit Law School suggest that while there is a way to keep law school graduates away from the bar exam, not everyone is happy about it. In that suit, plaintiff Paula Lorona, an alumnus and former assistant director of financial aid at Arizona Summit Law, alleges that out of fear of losing accreditation, deans at all three of InfiLaw’s schools — Arizona Summit, Charlotte, and Florida Coastal — began offering $5,000 payoffs to students who were unlikely to pass the bar exam. 

Dean Shirley Mays of Arizona Summit Law later defended those payoffs as stipends that were part of the school’s Unlock Potential (U.P.) program, which “extends the bar preparation from the usual 10-week program to more of a four-month program.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, Pig Shirley Mays has great confidence in her commode’s ability to train future lawyers. The article correctly refers to the $5,000 offers as payoffs. By the way, that amount is a tiny fraction of the average student debt load one accumulates at this ABA-accredited stink pits. Later on, the author then noted the following:

“Hardly improved pass rates aside, it looks like Dean Mays wanted to “enhance” other graduates’ “bar pass opportunity,” because yesterday, the day before the July 2015 administration of the bar exam, she was busy calling Arizona Summit Law alumni at the eleventh hour and trying to convince them to defer their taking of the test. 

If a law school has that little faith in its graduates’ abilities, doesn’t that speak more to the quality of the education received (or lack thereof) than the graduates’ test-taking abilities? 

There’s nothing like a last-second call from the dean of your law school telling you that you’re about to fail the bar exam to boost your confidence.” [Emphasis mine]

TTTT Tactics in Action: Back on June 11, 2015, the National Law Journal published a Karen Sloan piece which was entitled “Arizona Summit Defends Encouraging Grads to Delay Bar Exam.” Take a look at this opening:

“The dean of Arizona Summit Law School this week defended paying stipends to graduates who delay sitting for the bar examination to extend their test preparation. 

The stipends are part of the Unlock Potential (U.P.) program, which dean Shirley Mays called a "creative and innovative" way to help students who simply wouldn’t be ready to sit for the exam otherwise.

The program came under fire in a lawsuit that claims it's really designed to prop up sagging bar rates that threaten Arizona Summit’s American Bar Association accreditation.

Mays insisted the program is justified. The school, located in Phoenix, admits a large number of part-time and nontraditional students, including first-generation college graduates, working parents and people caring for elderly parents as the school’s student body skews older, she said. Many of those students need to balance study time against family demands or other circumstances, she said.

Part-time students comprised more than 20 percent of Arizona Summit’s most recent incoming class, and minorities more than 47 percent, according to the ABA.” [Emphasis mine]

It’s always nice to see thieves and cockroaches justify their filthy actions and boorish behavior. Based on your admi$$ion practices of accepting waterheads and morons, it is clear that you pigs enroll PLENTY of students who will not be ready to sit for the bar exam – even with three years of law school under their belts! The article then continued:

“The program “extends the bar preparation from the usual 10-week program to more of a four-month program,” she said. “It has classes where the students take mock exams and practice questions. They also work on barriers to their success—we identify things that might prevent them from being successful on the test. We help them brainstorm ways to help them address those concerns.” 

Paula Lorona, a 2015 graduate and former Arizona Summit financial administrator, alleged in a federal wrongful-termination lawsuit that administrators pressured her to put off taking the February 2015 bar exam because they feared she would fail. She opted for a BarBri course instead of the school’s customized bar prep course and passed the February exam. 

“Lorona’s school-assigned bar coach told Lorona that the school is concerned that it may lose accreditation and access to Title IV federal funding due to drastically low performance numbers,” her complaint reads.” [Emphasis mine]

What honorable conduct, right?!?! Yes, this school must be accepting top applicants!  Who wouldn't want to enroll in this dung heap?!

Conclusion: Comedian Bill Hicks used the following brilliant joke: “I love the pope. I love seeing him in his pope-mobile, his three feet of bullet proof plexi-glass. That’s faith in action, folks!” The same principle applies to the law school pigs at Arizona $ummiTTTT Law Sewer. Again, this shows that “law professors” and administrators DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about students or recent graduates. They are simply involved in “legal education” in order to make high salaries for pathetic amounts of “work” – at the expense of debt-strapped grads and the federal taxpayer.


  1. I wonder if the truth is more unbelievable than fiction. Any law school that pays students not to take a bar exam should not be ABA accredited. What purpose does this school serve other than its own interests?

  2. Why would Infilaw be afraid of losing accreditation?

    The ABA does not enforce its rule at all.

    The rule is a joke - if a school is in flagrant violation, never-ending remedial probationary periods are given to "fix" the problem.

    Also, it is only stand alone law schools whose ABA accreditation gets them Title IV funds. Every other law school gets Title IV funds only if its accredited by WASC, Middle States, etc - the regional trade groups.

    Nothing changes.

    Enforcement will be held at bay until the thieves have finished emptying out the vaults.

  3. "If a law school has that little faith in its graduates’ abilities, doesn’t that speak more to the quality of the education received (or lack thereof) than the graduates’ test-taking abilities?"

    I don't agree. It really speaks to the unacceptably low quality of the students that these toilets bring in. You can't make a silk purse of a sow's ear. And many law schools—including those listed above—people their classes with sows' ears.

  4. "The school, located in Phoenix, admits a large number of part-time and nontraditional students, including first-generation college graduates, working parents and people caring for elderly parents as the school’s student body skews older … Part-time students comprised more than 20 percent of Arizona Summit’s most recent incoming class, and minorities more than 47 percent, according to the ABA."

    This is nothing but a shameful admission that Arizona Scummit—like Harlotte and Horrida Coastal—deceives and exploits large numbers of people who have very little chance even of succeeding in law school, to say nothing of building a good career in law.

  5. Good ole' Summit.

    Out of the 254 graduates of the school last year ~15 were able to snag jobs that weren't small traffic ticket defense mills. Only 20% had full time jobs at all... Check out their facebook a reviewer proudly gave them a 5 star review because they heard from Summit before any other school and were admitted right away! Nice work guys...

    1. Of course they notified that person quickly: 1) their admissions function is little more complex than rubber-stamping; 2) they're so desperate for student-loan conduits that they rush to get their offers out.

  6. Did y'all catch the story of the ABA proposing to disallow law schools from including as full time long term bar required jobs those "jobs" which are funded by the schools? Also those that pay less than 40k per year? (Most of them pay like 20-29k per year. I can't believe anyone would view such a job as an acceptable outcome after spending 150k or more for a JD.) Emory seems to have a really disproportionate % of their grads in these "jobs."

    Maybe there is hope after all??

    1. Fortunately LST has made a point to not include these positions in their employment statistics.

      Now the 29K rule would be a great idea! I might hate the ABA this much less if they actually went through on this idea or one similar.

      Btw, it's the scamblog movement of Nando and the like (as well as Campos and LST) who get to take pride in these sort of things. Without the public being aware of the shadiness of most law schools these sort of reforms would never have happened.

    2. For years I've been saying that "JD advantage", "business and industry", and similar categories should come with a floor for income—maybe $60k. That would curb the abusive practices that render those categories meaningless.

      Scamsters aren't above lying about income, but still these categories should be given meaning (or else should be abolished).

    3. There is no such thing as "JD advantaged" in my experience until after you have a position based on your JD degree and then seek to move within the institution where you are currently employed.

      Who would hire a Electrical Engineer to practice law, or a Registered Nurse to do surveying, or an MBA to design bridges?

      So, a JD to do what??? Practice law. Period.

      Well, there is a smidgen of truth to the idea, that is, a thoughtful JD student/graduate does not think like most other folks after earning their JD degree.

      (I have discussed this with other JDs, and they agree, that a law school education changes how you analyze and think. I personally have no doubt about it. But the effect is like a "super liberal arts" education. I have NO DOUBT that a well-educated JD is a superb analytical thinker.)

      BUT, how many employers understand that? Most of them have educations of a less rigorous level and have no academic basis to judge the abilities of JD applicants.

      38 year solo

    4. Nowadays even transitioning from law into a law related field seems out of the question. Those were things that happened years ago. Pretty much everyone that could move has already moved.

      Employment in the US is quite difficult. You either need a perfect employment history with no gaps and a cookie-cutter progression career trajectory, or you need a powerful backer of some sort. The former is all but impossible to have, especially for the younger generations, really anyone from 2007 and on and possibly many before that.

      I see legal positions like compliance filled with non-lawyers, even though if you look at it, what else could it be other than law? Those are prime positions for lawyers, but nobody really wants to hire lawyers.

      With the proper prestige one can maybe practice law, at least for several years, before they are booted out and hope to leverage into something else. But many don't have the prestige and don't even start, and many others fail to move into something else either.

      I don't understand why people still go to law school. Law Lemmings seems to have slowed down or stopped as well. But the actual lemmings keep going. They're finally getting off twitter but won't stop going.

    5. I wonder what the psychological damage is with these outcomes. It's not really mentioned much, but even without the debt, law is brutal.

      You can't educate people, make them unemployable, and then for that not to have long term psychological consequences. They called it a Depression for a reason, people aren't robots and numbers. People feel, no matter what anybody wants to argue otherwise.

      The tremendous pain and suffering inflicted by these law school pigs for consigning the majority of their graduates to a lifetime of devastating underemployment and all the shame and desperation derived thereof is appalling.

      Transparency would help, but especially Boomers are extremely stubborn in their solipsism. I know I personally still struggle myself, I'm in a way better spot than most yet I certainly can't say I feel secure and confident going forward. When I had the student loans hanging over me it was even more brutal, but it's not like I get to enjoy the stability the Boomers had with a career. I am very much still extremely careful with money and always looking for the other shoe to drop.

      People like 38 Year Solo are so rare. He gets it, he sympathizes with us, he takes up the cause and mentions the realities, and that helps.

      I have Boomer neighbors, I don't speak much to them but when I do they generally are dismissive of me in terms of career, family etc. It's usually not outright attacks, but passive aggressive BS.

      This might be a bit of a tangent, but I really wish there was some sort of frontier or something to explore. Just a way to get out and do something greater, travel to another place. I guess it's possible, maybe I'm too risk averse, but it would definitely feel better that way. If only to get away from the entrenched structure here, all the materialism, and all the focus on having a stable career and having the 2.5 kids and 2 cars and whatever other BS displays of status are expected.

      I've read that people during the Great Depression carried those scars their entire lives. I think probably the same has happened to me.

    6. Few JDs are well educated.

      I don't buy the common claim that law school teaches a new manner of thinking ("like a lawyer"). Perhaps it improves the thinking of some people. I, however, didn't find the experience at all transformative.

    7. Au contraire.

      I am certain that my law school education changed how I analyze (and much less, reason) but it affected me. I have discussed this with a particularly bright attorney, good friend, who is even more adamant about the effect than me.

      I would think that one who gets a good education (that is, participates in their own education, thoughtfully, truly seeking to advance themselves academically) will have their brain changed that's what education is all about, but I think a legal education does affect one's method/mode of analysis. It may be a different effect for a mechanical engineer, but there is an effect.

      My undergraduate education only had me thinking in terms of facts, formulas, theories, etc.

      Law school, and 38 years of practice thereafter, headed me to considering theories, facts, reliability of reporters (witnesses and clients-human frailties), compulsion, time frames, cost, alternative, simultaneous prosecution/advancement of disparate courses of action, costs of so doing, client tolerance for stress, uncertainty, duration, risk of loss……

      Can you "see" how those factors work, shade a situation??? I CAN.

      The change to my thinking has been profound, but perhaps focused on legal type issues, but as the law deals with human actions, reactions, fears, desires, it is a far cry closer to an education dealing with human life than the education of a mechanical engineer who is limited by the subject matter of the field to physical properties of matter. A bridge does not have a tolerance for the risk of falling down. Calculate that the bridge will not fall, and the mechanical engineer is done.

      Lawyers spend their days chiseling marshmallow. That is much more difficult than mere math. (I took the first 3 engineering math courses at the U of (a land grant university) as an elective. 13 hours, 10 A, and 3 B. Faded on Laplace Transformations, etc.)

      Other than this point, Old Guy and I are of one mind.

      It may be a "common claim" but that does not mean it is a common result. One has to make a tremendous effort to grow during one's education. I don't think many do so. I know far too many "limited" attorneys. Some might call them stupid. They probably are not, but I seem to end up teaching them far more than I should have to do.

      My philosophy is: "Not that I did it, but that it was done."

      My older brother missed 3 questions on the SAT. I did not do nearly so well. He reads and writes in English, Malay, French, Russian, and Latin. I think he can read Greek, at least to some extent. He was a chemist. He could not do my job. He is MUCH smarter than I am.

      38 Year Solo

    8. I think I'd rather take the bar exam again than pass through Nando's "I am not a robot" questionnaire.

      "Select all the boats…" Arrrrrrgh!!!!

    9. And Old Guy may well be as smart as my brother, in which event, his agony may well be multiplied many times mine.

      38 Year Solo

  7. These con artists have no shame.

  8. Nothing says "You've spent $200K on a solid education" like the in$titution telling you not to take the test because they are afraid it will make them look bad.

    I'm sorry. If any of you sub-140 LSAT takers couldn't understand that last sentence, it was sarcasm. I mean the exact opposite. Infilaw has less of a chance of working than does taking out $200K to buy lottery tickets.

    Attending Infilaw will RUIN YOUR LIFE. Even if you are at the top of the class. Even if your debt is smaller than most. ATTENDING INFILAW WILL IRREPARABLY HARM YOUR EMPLOYABILITY AND CREDIT.

    Part of me has sympathy for you Infilaw idiots. Part of me doesn't. Either way, I, and 90% of employers will NEVER hire you because of the terrible judgment you have demonstrated.

  9. Let me point out that Arizona State has made a thriving business of accepting transfers from Arizona Summit. Basically, anyone who stands out in any way from the general ineptitude of the student body acquires a desperate urge to escape.

    1. With Arizona State moving into a brand new building down the street from Summit and their likely further rise in Ranking (thanks to a bigger library and other UNSWR bullshit) I'd say that Summit is on borrowed time.

      Previously their only asset was that they did decent in placing students into small government roles (think rural county attorneys and the DA office in Phoenix), but with ASU right down the street that asset will dry up. ASU will probably drain Summit even further in the coming years and expand their PT program. Cutting into Summit's other asset. And thank god, Arizona barely needs the two state schools it has.

    2. Law School Truth Center wrote about this.

      Here we have schools like American and Arizona Summit complaining about 'raiding parties' from slightly better law schools taking their students.

      Here is a quote from the article

      "But shiver me timbers, look at what the Arizona State Raiders can do:

      “The LSAT is a good predictor of first-year performance, but it’s nowhere near as good a predictor as first-year performance,” said Douglas Sylvester, the dean of Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.

      Give that man a parrot and call him Captain Sly! And why is he being interviewed?

      Arizona State accepted 66 transfer students last year, the second most in the country, behind Georgetown. Nearly a third of ASU’s second-year students are now transfer students. Forty-four of those transfers came from Arizona Summit Law School."

      I wonder what happens to a school that gets continuously 'raided'. Is the graduating class average LSAT score *lower* than the entering class average LSAT score? Do people feel like chumps who struck out if they can't transfer? Do the professors act cynical or like they don't give a fuck? as if their graduating students will surely fail and if they could possibly succeed they wouldn't be here.

  10. If it was beneficial for these part-time grads to take longer to prepare for the bar exam by delaying, THEY'D BE DOING JUST THAT WITHOUT NEEDING TO BE PAID OFF!!!

  11. Garbage in, garbage out. That the ABA even considers (let alone fucking approves) accrediting such shitholes says a lot about the profession.

  12. Glad to see you haven't given up your efforts. I still have young law schoolers coming to me for advice. It's quite sad that the law school scam is still strong and still snookering unsuspecting naive people while the law school Deans and full professors and bloated admins are laughing all the way to the bank.

  13. By the way, anyone know whatever happened to Tom the Temp?


    "But things are changing. The Sacramento economy is ramping up and McGeorge is focused on a variety of career paths for its graduates. But some new programs — such as a class on legislation and regulation that introduces students to the legislative process — have yet to graduate students or affect employment numbers."

    legislative process?!

    1. You have to make something out of this school who is finally unranked from being a TTT.

  15. Another stellar outcome:

    "Tetzlaff is fifty-six years old and lives [XX] with his eighty-five-year-old mother; they both subsist on the income from her Social Security payments. Tetzlaff is divorced, has no children, and is currently unemployed. From the mid-1990s until 2005, Tetzlaff pursued a Masters in Business Administration from Marquette University, as well as a law degree from Florida Coastal School of Law ("Florida Coastal").

    1. Revolting. As in, the people should be revolting over systematic, legal discrimination against real, natural persons and in favor of fictional, corporate persons.


    On July 29, 2015, the Law School Truth Center posted a piece entitled “Arizona Summit Working Overtime.” Here is the full extent of that entry:

    “Lots of poorly informed malcontents accuse law faculty of not working hard. To them, I provide the counterexample of Arizona Summit Dean Shirley Mays. According to Above the Law's sources, Dean Mays was calling Arizona Summit graduates asking them to not take the bar exam on the Monday before the bar exam.

    Some bar-takers were apparently put off by being offered $10k and given an invitation to a superduper program. ATL apparently reached out to Mays for comment:

    Not sharing this information would have caused them to miss the opportunity for making an informed judgment.

    Can you people make up your mind? You want to bitch about having a lack of transparent information about irrelevant employment outcomes. Now you want to bitch about last-minute informative telemarketing schemes.

    Goodness gracious, make up your minds. Do you want law schools to prevent fraud and provide full consumer information or not?”

    Yes, these vile rodents are performing a true “public service,” right?!?! This site always provides a comical look at the law school pigs. Perhaps Mays should become a contractor with every ABA-accredited toilet, and her “job” could consist solely of calling all borderline grads – in order to talk them out of taking the bar exam and potentially hurting the respective commode’s bar passage rate.

    “Shirley Mays became Dean of Arizona Summit Law School in August, 2010, after serving a lengthy tenure as the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. Mays currently serves on the boards of The Greater Phoenix Urban League and Tanner Community Development Corporation and is ex-officio on the Board of Governors for the State Bar of Arizona. She is an active member of Links Inc., Jack & Jill of America and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Inc.”

    Who wouldn’t appreciate a call from this silver-capped cockroach, informing them that they should not take the bar exam – especially if she was handing you $5,000 as a payoff?!?! One wonders whether the rat delivers this in unmarked bills to those who accept the offer.


    Then again, take a look at the trash pit’s Gainful Employment and ABA Required Disclosures page:

    “Gainful Employment Disclosures

    Arizona Summit Law School offers an ABA-approved Juris Doctor (J.D.) program, which is normally completed in three years.

    Program Cost, Financial Aid and Completion Statistics

    As of the 2014-15 academic year, tuition and fees for the three-year J.D. program total $123,404. Books and supplies for the program total $5,184. For more detailed information about Arizona Summit Law School's program costs, please click here.

    The median cumulative program debt for Arizona Summit Law School graduates between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 is as follows:

    • Federal student loan debt: $187,792
    • Private student loan debt: $0.00
    • Institutional financial plan debt: $0.00”

    Yes, Arizona $ummiTTTT Law Sewer’s offer of $5,000 does not quite cover the cost of books for the three-year experience. Only “law professors” and administrators would view this as a fair payoff – for students, of course. If an ABA dung heap was in financial trouble, you can bet your ass that the same sick bitches would DEMAND a hefty buyout and pension. As the pigs in “Animal Farm” said: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This describes the academic thieves’ mentality perfectly.

  18. does she like-A step by step guide on how to fuck Colombian girls. I go into my process on how I was able to have different Colombian women every night. My pics are NSFW.

  19. This program would be more appropriately titled "Unlock Your Student Loan Dollars" or "How to make baby boomers rich while getting a worthless degree".


Web Analytics