Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin Call Out the Law School Pigs for Their Collective Greed in Issuing Worthless-Ass Law Degrees to Morons


Bloomberg Reports: On October 30, 2015, BloombergBusiness published a Natalie Kitroeff piece that was entitled “Senators Take On Law Schools for Failing Students.” Check out this opening:

“Law schools just made some new enemies. This week, lawmakers from both parties sharply criticized U.S. law schools for leaving students with overwhelming debt and degrees that may not get them jobs. 

“We need to move away from a system that results in too many law school graduates twisting in the wind,” said Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in an e-mailed statement. Putting law graduates in a position from which they might default on federal loans “isn’t good for the graduates, and it isn’t good for the taxpayers,” he added. 

Grassley said he was “troubled” by problems illustrated in a new report by Law School Transparency, an advocacy group. The report highlighted the large numbers of under-prepared students being accepted into law schools. Test scores have declined for the lowest-achieving students since 2010 at the majority of law schools. Padding classes with underqualified students, the report said, is “leaving thousands deep in debt with few prospects for employment that will enable them to pay off their debt.” [Emphasis mine]

It’s funny how the author stated that the law school swine made some new enemies. The article then continued:

“Bar exam pass rates have fallen precipitously for the second year in a row. During the summer, scores on the standardized portion of the bar exam hit their lowest point since 1988. 

On Monday, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) blamed the government’s generous loan programs for encouraging troubled law schools to hike prices. In 2006, Congress made new federal loans available to graduate students, allowing them to take out as much debt as they want in order to finance their education. 

“Now that we’ve taken the cap off what you can borrow for graduate courses, they have decided they are going to just charge to the heavens in terms of tuition for worthless, worthless law school degrees” said Durbin, at a Congressional meeting on student debt this week, referring to for-profit law schools. 

By 2013, the sticker price at private law schools had shot up to nearly $42,000, from $25,600 in 2003. The typical law graduate held $118,600 in debt, according to Law School Transparency. 

“When I ask the presidents of universities ‘Why do you charge so much to go to law school?’ they say ‘Because we can; the students are applying and they’ll pay whatever we tell them,’” Durbin said.” [Emphasis mine]

As you can see, the pieces of trash only care about one thing – student loan money! They don’t care how many young people are financially raped, in the process. 


Other Coverage: On October 30, 2015, JDU accountholder “bobm” started a thread labeled “Senators Are Tired Of Law Students Flushing Loan Dollars Down The Toilet For ‘Worthless’ Degrees.” Here are some of the gems from commenters. On the same day as the original post, at 1:04 pm, “6figuremistake” wrote the following remarks:

“This is very [welcome] news. My only concern is that the focus is only going to be on for profit schools. Sure, these schools should be the first to go, but the "not for profit" shield has served equally scammy schools well in the past.

I'm afraid that this designation gives them too much cache with their friends in Congress and elsewhere. It's easy to go after some law school in an office park with no academic pedigree. It's much harder to do so when the school is attached to a well regarded center for higher education in your state. 

Of course, the "not for profit" escape hatch is deceptive. The deans, professors, and administrative sinecures are profiting nicely. It's just that after all the hefty salaries are paid, whatever residuals exist aren't being distributed to a class of shareholders.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, the cockroaches take full advantage of their “non-profit” status. Of course, this is merely a political designation/legal fiction created for the purpose of avoiding taxes. How the hell can in$titution$ of “higher learning” have billion dollar endowments and still be considered not for profit?!?! That’s the equivalent of a busted up old prostitute claiming to be a virgin.

Several commenters pointed out that these $enator$ will likely not do anything substantive to solve this problem. At most, they may hold a pointless-ass hearing – and perhaps issue a long-winded report 10 months later. However, it is nice to see a member of the U.S. $enate refer to “worthless” law degrees. Does that penetrate your tiny gray matter, Lemming?!?! On October 30, 2015 7:54 pm, “irishlaw” supplied this view:

“This won't go anywhere at the moment. The day this goes public every trash law school will frame the issue as, "But this is the only way little Jemol from Compton can get an education, the big bad racists standardized LSAT keeps little poor minorities from achieving their dreams of law school, and our society benefits only if these little poor minorities can get a J.D."

For $ome rea$on, the faux liberal academic scum don’t mention that admitting Tyrese or DeAndre, armed with 148 LSAT scores, into a fourth tier dung heap – and strapping them down with outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – will almost certainly lead to financial ruin for these students. Then again, that is someone else’s problem, right?!?! Yes, these “educators” are real beacons of integrity!

Conclusion: Do not expect the cockroaches in Congre$$ to do anything to solve this problem. This is mere posturing, i.e. it is designed to give taxpayers and students the idea that these rodents will do something that will benefit them and not the schools. These 535 “representatives” are too busy performing fellatio on their corporate owners to give a damn about young people with no connections or wealth. At least, now those idiots still considering law school will see an article from a reputable news source, in which a standing U.S. $enator alluded to garbage law degrees. That might cause these dolts to pause, before pissing away their future on a JD from Touro or TJ$L.


  1. That's just it. Don't expect Congress to do anything more than enable the law school cartel to fleece new classes of law students until the whole student debt crisis finally melts down.

    And while it's nice to see that people are starting to pay attention to the great law school swindle, there's just too much money and influence keeping the scam going. After all, who's going to make sure that poor minorities, handicapped military veterans and the mentally retarded have adequate representation at the bar? Law schools, that's who.

    1. ^Who's going to make sure that poor minorities, handicapped military veterans and the mentally retarded can ENROLL in law school?

  2. Congresspeople can't go after the lawl skools because many of them came from the T14. The only way to hit the LSs is through RICO, because the entire thing is a racket.

    1. We need to work on getting the T14 deans and professors outraged at the worthless schools that are embarrassing everyone else. For some reason they refuse to speak out against the degree mills.

    2. They won't speak out because they are all in the same boat, that and it's "unprofessional" for the Ivy League schools to slam Vern's Law Degrees and Waffles for-profit LS. Even though the T14 schools know the second and third tier places are graduating doomed individuals....."better them than me" is the unspoken motto.

    3. ... and the reason would be that those are the schools that are employing their graduates as law profe$$ors.

  3. I know lawyers are in trouble when a client complained about my three bill retainer for one court appearance to resolve the matter through a plea. There are a few lawyers doing well. However, the vast majority are struggling along because the law brand has been vastly diluted, even for T14, I am competing with a million guys for the same five bill DUI client.

  4. The law schools will admit anyone with a pulse. Fucking disgraceful.

  5. Call the Senator's offices and tell them in a factual, lawyer like manner how it really is out there. Tell them that the so called UNDERSERVED really want freebie legal services. They are pro se defiant types. Solos/neighborhood attorneys have been representing the UNDERSERVED for years and years. We will not serve people who REFUSE to pay anything. I am sometimes willing to go to court for one hundred fifty dollars. so are other solos. A super glut of lawyers does not help anybody and tell them that the Law Deans have not seen the inside of a courtroom.

  6. http://lawstreetmedia.com/schools/the-need-for-law-school-reform-senators-join-the-conversation/

    On November 1, 2015, Law Street posted an Annaliese Mahoney article entitled “The Need for Law School Reform: Senators Join the Conversation.” Look at the segment below:

    “A new report authored by Law School Transparency, a Georgia-based non-profit, is shedding light on the current failures of law schools, and U.S. senators are taking notice. In a unique show of bipartisanship, senators from both parties criticized American law schools last week for leaving law school graduates with significant debt but few job prospects.

    The report attempted to determine if law schools are admitting students who are not prepared for bar passage or legal jobs. Law School Transparency explained the motivation for its study, stating:

    We started with a basic observation. As long as the bar exam guards entrance to the legal profession, law schools should be held accountable for enrolling students who face significant risk of not passing that exam. Failing to earn a license does not eliminate all of the value law schools provide, but that failure significantly decreases the value of a law degree for a typical graduate. Fewer students would undertake three years of law school and significant debt without the prospect of practicing law.

    The study came to the conclusion that there were 74 schools that in 2014 admitted at least 25 percent “at-risk” students, and 37 of those schools admitted at least 50 percent at-risk students. Given that there are only 206 ABA accredited law schools, 74 is a pretty hefty number. As defined by Law School Transparency, at-risk students are those who risk failing the bar upon graduation. Law School Transparency also came to the conclusion that for-profit law schools admit huge numbers of at-risk students, particularly the law schools operated by InfiLaw, a company that has consistently been accused of being predatory.

    In reaction to this report, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote about the need to change the law school system. He stated: “We need to move away from a system that results in too many law school graduates twisting in the wind.” Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) spoke against for-profit law schools specifically, saying: “Now that we’ve taken the cap off what you can borrow for graduate courses, they have decided they are going to just charge to the heavens in terms of tuition for worthless, worthless law school degree.”

    Again, don’t expect these cockroaches to rein in spending on the law school industrial complex. Several years ago, Tom Coburn and Barbara Boxer addressed the scam. Remember that no congre$$ional hearings were held. Here is the press release from Boxer’s office, back on October 6, 2011.


    That was followed up eight days later, with a joint press release from those two $enator$. They called for greater transparency from the law school pigs, with regards to employment “placement” statistics, student loan debt, bar passage rates, and other items.


  7. "Hot Dogs Saved My Life". I know that I mentioned this book before on this blog, and I do realize that it may not sound "intellectual", or "prestigious", but, most owners of hot dog stands are economic betters to many, if not most, lawyers.

    1. Yes, you've mentioned it twenty times now. That is plenty.

  8. So a full 10 years after blowing up the problem and creating the bubble in the first place, after roughly 30 years of a problem being there, the government gets around to saying something is wrong.

    The time to say something was sometime in those 40 years, instead of insisting the graduates were losers or liars and insisting there was a "million dollar" premium or some other garbage. Everyone is encouraged to get education, shamed into it really, then shamed and silenced afterwards.

    It's only because of LST, Nando, and the fact that someone forgot to pay off these Senators that they are finally making some noises.

    Did anybody get Pelosi's opinion? Or Scotty Bullocks? Because those guys "exposed" this stuff a long time ago, but the senators certainly seemed to not care then.

    Perhaps these senators or the government can weigh in on why the courts are just throwing these cases out? How about one proactive thing, or at least a quick reaction, not a decade after?

    Of course that won't happen. This is the United States of Scamerica. If you're not stealing from someone else and getting away with it, you are the fucking mark.

    1. I graduated from a shitty NY law school and now I deliver fucking pizzas to people. Yeah that was a great idea, man.

    2. Name the school, graduation year or era, and whether you took and passed a bar exam.

    3. Pace. Asshole.

  9. http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202742289268/Is-Washington-Finally-Tired-of-Welfare-for-Law-Schools

    Check out this beautiful piece from Matt Leichter, which was featured in the American Lawyer on November 12, 2015. It was entitled “Is Washington Finally Tired of Welfare for Law Schools?”

    “Just as the academic year geared up this fall, both The Washington Post and The New York Times ran editorials sharply attacking the generous federal lending programs that law students depend on. The pieces came just months after an ABA task force charged with finding solutions to excessive law school debt issued its final report and recommendations. The report was a huge disappointment: Instead of calling for lending reforms, the task force trivialized the problem, pointing to income-based repayment plans and claiming that underemployed, indebted law school debtors would find highly paid work at an unspecified future date.

    The Post and the Times weren't impressed either.

    The Post's Charles Lane appropriately characterized the Grad PLUS Loan Program, which provides essentially unrestricted lending to graduate and professional students, as a "de facto bailout" for law schools. The schools capture the increased lending to law students and then perversely pass it back to them as higher tuition charges. Consequently, efforts to make legal education cheaper backfire, turning the federal loan program on its head. Eventually the government will write down the loans for what it intended to be a deficit reduction program.

    The Times' editorial board struck with even more venom, calling the six for-profit law schools "scams" and accusing nonprofit and public schools of similar behavior. The culprits: warped incentives and unchecked Grad PLUS loans. The Times' solutions were to either extend to all law schools the gainful employment rule—which limits student loans based on graduate employment rates—or to cap the funding to graduate students. At the same time, the paper argued for diverting the money flowing to law schools to legal aid for the poor.

    The drumbeat of editorials criticizing law schools and the ABA is not new, but the response from lawmakers, especially to the Times article, may signal a future shift in how the government lends to law students. Notably, senators from both parties are raising concerns. In a statement, Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) related conversations that he had with university presidents, who told him that they charge so much for law school because they can. They allegedly told him, "The students are applying, and they'll pay whatever we tell them." In a separate statement, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) remarked that federal lending puts law graduates in a position in which they might default on their loans, causing losses for taxpayers.”

    Charles Lane is correct in his assessment. Then again, the law school pigs have relied on federally-backed student loans for decades. They have been able to use subsequent huge enrollments as an excuse to increase tuition. Of course, the cockroaches just had to make sure it SKYROCKETED over the past 10-20 years. After all, “They are meeting supply and demand.” And since so many idiots want a product, that means it is super valuable – and a premium must be charged!

  10. As others have pointed out above, I'm surprised that only NOW someone in Congress is making noise about it.

    If there was any real justice in this country, the federal loan lending program would be shut down immediately, the law schools themselves would also be shut down (and all of the scammers themselves arrested, tried, and convicted for outright fraud), and Nando and all the other scambloggers would be praised and given prestigious awards for their efforts to fight for true justice.


Web Analytics