Saturday, March 28, 2015
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.
Posted by Nando at 6:59 AM
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
News Flash: Legal Academics Will Gladly Admit Less Qualified Students, Because Larger Enrollment Equals More Student Loan Dollars
ABA Commodes Sinking Even Lower: On March 20, 2015, Tamara Tabo posted a Mimesis Law article entitled “Inefficient Markets Are Inefficient: What Behavioral Econ Says About Why Some Law Schools Fail.” Read the following excerpt:
“Sow’s Ears and Silk Purses and All of That
A law school’s admissions policy is crucial to its bar passage rate. Even the best teachers must work with the students who appear in their classrooms. So, let’s focus on the relationship between admissions and bar exam outcomes.
As law school applications drop nationwide, a lot of schools have been maintaining their class sizes by accepting applicants with lower GPAs, LSAT scores, and other admissions metrics. But what if a school is already taking chances on applicants whose numbers are rock-bottom? Law schools with already-low standards are caught on the horns of a dilemma:
(1) Maintain standards, though that means enrolling fewer students. Fewer enrolled students mean fewer tuition dollars funding the school’s operating costs. Deep cuts mean hiring freezes, pay reductions, and even eventual lay-offs.
(2) Lower admissions standards. Put warm bodies in seats — and money in coffers — by any means necessary. But what happens in three years when those students sit for the bar exam? If a school’s bar passage rate has been in the sewer for years, to what depths will it sink when a crop of ostensibly less-qualified students face the exam? Abysmal bar numbers threaten a school’s ABA accreditation. So, an admissions policy prioritizing enrollment over student success sidesteps next year’s financial crisis but it might doom the entire institution several years in the future.
Unfortunately, a lot of schools with low bar passage rates have been taking what’s behind Door #2. Why?
Perverse Incentives Are Perverse.
Perverse incentives create adverse consequences by unintentionally rewarding bad behavior. At most law schools, admissions policies are set by faculty vote or by the dean, with faculty approval. The people deciding are the same people whose paychecks could take a hit if next year’s incoming class is down 40%.
Faculty participation is supposed to make sure that the people closest to the consequences of the policy are the ones who set the standards. Unfortunately, the system unintentionally rewards faculty for putting their own financial interests before the good of the school.” [Emphasis mine]
Admi$$ion$ commiTTTies at ABA-accredited toilets are comprised of law faculty members and usually an ass-wipe assistant dean. These are the same people who tell you how intelligent you are and what a great decision you have made – throughout the application process and during orientation.
Of course, when YOU have not secured decent employment in three years – due primarily to the GLUT of lawyers in this country – these same cockroaches often turn around and blame you for being an entitled brat or a lazy bastard who didn’t apply himself. Actually, if you are outside the top 10% of your class after first semester or first year, then you are typically dismissed by these academic thieves as a loser.
Other Coverage: On March 22, 2015, Paul Caron reported on this development in an entry labeled “Behavioral Economics and Law School Failure: Tie Faculty Salaries to Student Bar Exam Performance.” He provides this portion from the Tabo piece:
“Low enrollment today frightens many law schools more than low bar passage rates three years from now. The reward of funding the current budget is a small reward compared to better bar passage and keeping the law school out of trouble with the ABA. But schools get that smaller reward right away. The reward of maintaining standards and ensuring the school’s future is greater overall, but schools won’t get that reward for several years, when the class of students admitted under the policy reaches the bar exam.
It’s not that professors don’t care about students passing the bar. It’s just that they care about cuts to next year’s budget more.” [Emphasis mine]
Frankly, the author is far too kind to the failed lawyers known as “legal educators.” It is ALL about the money – and that was always the case. The pigs simply squealed terms such as “public service” and “giving back” in order to pull the wool over your eyes. By the way, now that fewer people are applying to law school, many of these rodents will have the opportunity to prove whether they can indeed land huge salaries that they supposedly turned down for the sake of their precious students.
Conclusion: You can bet your ass that MANY of these commodes will continue to lower their “standards.” After all, they need more warm bodies in seats so they can get their hooves on all that federal student loan money. They get paid up front, in full – while YOU, the student, are left holding the massive bag of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. Hell, before long, these cesspools will start accepting those with an IQ in the Uncle Grandpa range. At this point, making consecutive three-pointers is more impressive than earning a damn law degree.
Posted by Nando at 4:22 AM
Friday, March 20, 2015
Fourth Tier Desperation: On March 16, 2015, Bristol, VA NBC affiliate WCYB featured a news story – from reporter Samantha Kozsey – headlined “The Appalachian School of Law Looks Ahead.” Take a look at this opening:
“Fewer and fewer people are attending law school. That nationwide shift means schools are competing for students as they try to balance their budgets. In 2004, there were 100,600 people nationwide who applied to law school. In 2013, there were just 59,400.
This is especially evident at small ‘fourth tier’ schools. In fact, many have had to align themselves with larger institutions just to survive.
We were contacted about the status of the Appalachian School of Law by people concerned about its future. News 5 WCYB’s Samantha Kozsey visited the school and spoke to one of its board of trustees, as well as alumni, faculty and former faculty as well as legal consultants about the future of law schools specifically ASL. Just about everyone we spoke to said, this is a tough time especially for the few remaining ‘free-standing’ private law schools.
The Appalachian School of Law sits in an unlikely spot, in downtown Grundy, Va. The school opened its doors in 1994, with the first graduating class in 1997.
This is what we found: At the height of enrollment, there were approximately 150 students in a graduating class at ASL.
Most law schools were popping at the seams with lawyers up until about 2011, but the recession hit and the market couldn’t support the over-abundance of lawyers nationwide. Many lawyers struggled to get jobs from that point on.
Since then, law schools nationwide have seen fewer people choosing that profession. Just look at the numbers at ASL:
When the school opened there were 71 students. Compare that to the incoming class for 2014 which was approximately 45, that’s a 37% drop. Some estimate that number will drop even more for this coming Fall.
Even the faculty numbers have dropped from 14 full-time professors in the Spring of 2014 to eight in the fall to seven this semester, that’s down 50%.” [Emphasis mine]
This festering garbage heap has seen better days. When there are fewer young people to rob, there will be less academic thieves feeding at the trough. Seeing that “law professors” love to proclaim that all lawyers suck at math, I will point out to them that it’s a bad sign when you have a much smaller first year class than when your commode opened it doors.
Later on, the author continued:
“Amber Floyd Lee, ASL Alumni Board of Directors, said, "The school is tuition driven. It depends on tuition of students and if students aren't there, it doesn't have the financial resources to keep it going and a bigger issue right now is they don't have the professors to keep going."
Amber Lee says the Alumni Association is looking at all options including legal action against the board the trustees.
The big concern? Is there enough money coming in to keep the school going?" [Emphasis mine]
Yes, this law school/diploma mill is CLEARLY in great financial shape, right?!?! Notice how the officials are not interested in their students' job prospects or massive debt load.
Prior Coverage: Back on February 8, 2015, the Daily Progress republished a Roanoke Times piece from Luanne Rife. That article was entitled “Virginia’s law schools address declining enrollment. Check out this portion, near the end of the report:
“At Appalachian School of Law “our school is only 17 years old. The alumni isn’t of the age yet for endowments. We do have private donors who are very good to us,” said Donna Weaver, director of institutional development. For the most part the school is tuition driven.
“Because of the downturn of applications, the board of trustees lowered the number of faculty. We cut to the bare bone,” she said.
The school is considering an alliance with Emory & Henry. “It would connect us to a college in Virginia that could be a good feeder school,” she said.
Appalachian also hired a market research firm to help develop a strategic plan. With it, the school could possibly access funding through a federal tax credit program. The plan is also to identify geographic areas from which to recruit students.
For example, Weaver said the school has a strong natural resource program that would appeal to students wanting to pursue environmental and land-use law.
She said the school appeals to students wanting a nontraditional setting and a close faculty relationship and who want to be lawyers.” [Emphasis mine]
At least, Weaver admits that after 17 years in existence, the alumni does not have the deep pockets or pull to provide endowment money for the law school. It’s odd that so many idiots continue sign up to attend brand new ABA-accredited toilets. Hell, those schools don’t even have the network necessary to absorb or hire recent grads.
By the way, it’s pathetic how this supposed “institution of higher education” is trying to access funding through a federal tax credit program. Then again, academic parasites and leeches don’t have any principles – or any shame. They would swim through a river of excrement, in order to grab a few bucks.
Conclusion: According to the WCYB story, the pigs are in discussions regarding affiliating with something called the Emory & Henry College. Seeing that this is a tiny-ass, liberal arts dump, how much money will they be able to spend in order to keep Fourth Tier Trash Pit Appalachian Sewer of Law afloat?!
Posted by Nando at 5:41 AM
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Excellent Breakdown: On March 9, 2015, the Washington Post published a piece from Dorothy A. Brown, under the headline “Law schools are in a death spiral. Maybe now they’ll finally change.” Check out the following portion:
“No law school has figured out how to handle the new normal of legal education: the lowest number of applicants in four decades; fewer legal jobs for graduates, and, according to Moody’s, “no relief in sight.”
While some argue that going to law school is still a safe bet, little evidence exists to support this position. The most elite law schools — the top 1 percent — will thrive. The other 99 percent: not so much.
Law schools are currently in a bidding war for the students with the highest LSATs and GPAs because U.S. News heavily emphasizes those factors in its rankings. Students with higher LSATs tend to have a higher socioeconomic status; poorer law students lose out on scholarships and end up paying full tuition, financed through student loans, subsidizing their richer classmates. And law schools are still struggling to break even. Most JD programs are hoping their central administrators will remember a not-too-distant past when law schools subsidized the greater university.
At the same time, the legal profession has had a seismic shift in the way it does business. Employers have downsized and outsourced work, and used technology to cut salary costs — computer programs can search through volumes of documents, eliminating the need to pay a lawyer to do it. Partner profits at elite law firms are at record highs; firms are getting by with less, and they’ve figured out how to make a lot more money doing so. Newly minted graduates face dwindling job prospects.” [Emphasis mine]
You can't fool prospective students about the job outlook forever. What’s sickening is how these academic thieves are lamenting the loss of students and applicants, i.e. federal $tudent loan dollar$. They don’t even pretend to give a damn about their graduates drowning in debt, while not being able to secure decent employment. What beacons of integrity, huh?!?!
Now, read Brown’s conclusion:
“Questioning the value of legal scholarship is heresy inside the legal academy – which is why I am grateful that I have tenure. Law schools are run by the faculty for the faculty. A former colleague once put it like this: “If we could run this law school without students, this place would be perfect.” He happened to be the dean. Such a system is unlikely to be changed from within.
But while faculty cannot be terminated, their summer research stipends can be. Other disciplines require faculty to obtain external funding to support their work. Law schools should take a similar approach. For all who argue that legal scholarship has merit, let the market decide. This won’t solve all of a law school’s financial woes, but it could be a place to start right now. My 20 years as a legal academic causes me to predict that no serious change will occur until a cataclysmic event occurs. My prediction: In three years, a top law school will close. Then watch how quickly things change.” [Emphasis mine]
Other Coverage: On March 10, 2015, Minding the Campus posted an essay from Political “Science” professor Peter Augustine Lawler, which was labeled “The Withering Away of Law Schools.” Look at his conclusion:
Good news: The law school admission process ain’t scary any more. The loans that constrain choice after graduation no longer need be all that huge. The bad news: For most grads there won’t be any lucrative and secure options.
Bottom lines: Lots of low-ranked law schools are going to close and even the good ones will have to become much more sensitive to the real needs of consumers. The working conditions for law professors everywhere gets worse. The market will, in this case, quickly and effectively sort things out, because the “home institutions” of most law schools won’t do all that much to subsidize them for very long. Those institutions have tolerated the self-indulgent quirkiness of law schools mainly because they’ve been cash cows. No longer.
The “liberal arts”–beginning with the political science major–take another hit, although it will still remain the case that the best route to political leadership will be the one followed by both Obama and Romney. It’s easy to advise undergraduate majors in political science to choose cheaper (often comped) technical programs leading to an MBA, MPA, MPH, and so forth. The better programs offering such degrees sometimes have solid placement records, and they are certainly better for many students. But there’s no denying they lack the breadth and access to the opportunities associated with political life.
At this point, it is probably no more risky to pursue even a Ph.D in political philosophy or “regular philosophy” or history or whatever. Typically talented and accomplished students have to borrow little to nothing–at least if they don’t have a family and are very frugal–to flourish in said programs. The career prospects in a world where liberal education is disappearing, tenure has no future, political correctness and techno-vocationalism are crowding out everything else, might not be all that much worse than that for most law students today. That is, pretty bleepin’ bad.” [Emphasis mine]
At what point will McDonald’s and Burger King become more selective, regarding their customers, than the law school pigs? The author at least understands that parent univer$itie$ and college$ will not continue to shell out cash to support their law schools/diploma mills. Also, I would not recommend the PhD route to anyone who is not from a wealthy family.
Conclusion: When these blogs first starting documenting the law school scam, who would have predicted that the numbers of applicants would sink so rapidly? Now, several years later, we have a tenured “law professor” writing in the Washington Post about how the commodes are desperate for students. That is definite progress. However, let’s not celebrate until after a few more ABA-accredited toilets are permanently flushed. Perhaps, one higher ranked school might close, if the central university administration - or board of tru$tee$ - decides that "prestige" is not worth the cost to them. Remember, "higher education" in the U.S. is ALL about the money!
Posted by Nando at 5:37 AM
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
ABA Commodes Lowering the Bar Further: On March 7, 2015, JD Journal published a Daniel June article entitled “Why are some Law Schools Accepting Students Without LSAT Scores.” Look at this opening:
“With the pull and strain of law schools nowadays, which are down the lowest in enrollment since we’ve seen in the 1970s, we expect them to bend, quaver, and maybe for some of the weaker ones, to fall out. After all, if the legal market is so lousy, if the law school debts are so high, if fewer students are signing up, something’s gotta give somewhere, right?
Perhaps we are seeing a little of this “giving” now that two schools have announced they will consider accepting law students who have not taken the LSAT.
The LSAT is the stopgap that weeds out the desperate English majors from those who have a mind for law. It was a test all took, and the passing rates a school is willing to accept go a ways in determining metrics such as its national ranking.
But Bloomberg Business claimed last week that “the State University of New York-Buffalo Law School and the University of Iowa College of Law said they would admit students from their respective undergraduate colleges,” based on GPA and standardized tests such as the SAT and the GRE.
Have they capitulated? Certainly they are taking advantage of a change in rules the American Bar Association lays down. They now state that 10 percent of their classes need not take the LSAT so long as they meet other criterion.” [Emphasis mine]
In comparison to medical and dental school, it is a breeze to gain admission to law school. Yet, the bitches and hags want to make it even easier to get into an ABA-accredited diploma mill. The pigs seek to do this, so that they can get their filthy hooves on more federal student loan dollars. They are CLEARLY not looking out for YOU, lemming.
Ridiculously High Acceptance Rates at U.S. Law Schools: Dybbuk posted an epic OTLSS entry labeled “Tracking the dramatic increase in law school acceptance rates, 2011-2014” – on March 5, 2015. He provides a vivid illustration as to why the pigs have lowered their admi$$ion$ “standards.” Check out this meaty excerpt:
“In my opinion, percentage of applicants accepted is the most important metric in tracking the decline in selectivity at ABA-accredited law schools, and the consequent devaluation of a JD degree. When a law school refuses to accept an applicant with substandard credentials, it is choosing its own reputation over the lucrative opportunity to monetize a dupe. But law schools are turning away far fewer applicants than they used to.
The decline in LSAT scores for incoming law students is important too, and we have discussed that. (See here and here) But law schools can "game" their LSAT numbers somewhat by enrolling likely applicants in LSAT prep courses, or by admitting a certain percentage of the class without an LSAT, which the ABA now allows.
The decline in GPAs for incoming law students is less important, though it may be worth a post at some point. Law schools do not have to game this stat, college students do that for themselves by taking easy courses or easy majors. (College flashback: An "American Studies" class where we piled into a vast lecture hall, standing room only, to watch reruns of "Green Acres" and then pretend to be intellectual by discussing the semiotics of it all. A reasonably coherent essay got you an "A." An unreasonably incoherent one got you a "B.")
In the tables below, I look at how many schools had particular acceptance rates for the incoming class of 2011 as compared with the incoming class of 2014. I then look at the the number of schools that have increased their acceptance rates and by how much during that three year period. I then list the law schools with the highest acceptance rates, the quasi-open enrollment ones that accept 70% or more. Finally, I list the schools that have experienced the greatest percentage point increase in their acceptance rate between 2011 and 2014-- i.e. those schools that are most rapidly abandoning selectivity in the interest of keeping their gravy trains chugging a little longer. [Emphasis mine]
The author then lists the acceptance rates at various dung heaps. Take a look at the following stoll sample, for the 2014 first year class:
TTTThoma$ M. Cooley Law Sewer, 85%;
Thomas Jefferson SOL, 84%;
Western New England “University,” 82%;
Capital Univer$ity, 81%
Yes, those are super impressive numbers, huh?!?! Hell, cracked-out, busted up prostitutes are more selective than these supposed “institutions of higher learning.”
Conclusion: ABA-approved toilets are becoming less selective, because fewer people are applying to law school. The greedy academic swine do not want to give up on those federal dollars, so they have WILLINGLY decided to admit a higher percentage of boys and girls – even though LSAT figures continue to decline. In the final analysis, these “educators” do not care about maintaining $tandard$. It is ALL about the money, and they don’t want to leave any on the table. If they could enroll dead people into their programs, then the law school cockroaches would do so – with a smile on their vile faces.
Posted by Nando at 4:38 AM
Thursday, March 5, 2015
We finally visit the campus where Paul Campos teaches. The man has done a great service in hammering away at the law school industrial complex, from the inside. Feel free to break out your Birkenstocks and tie dye T-shirts, and trek over to Boulder, Colorado.
Tuition: In-state residents attending this public toilet on a full-time basis are being hit with a big-ass tuition bill of $31,824 – for the 2014-2015 school year. Non-resident, full-time law students at the Univer$ity of Colorado face a gigantic bill of $38,610, for 2014-2015. To be fair, these figures include fees as well. Isn’t it wonderful to see that these state schools offer such affordable prices?!?!
Total Cost of Attendance: Based on this same document, living expenses will add $19,286 to the big-ass tab for in-state students. Everything remains the same for nonresidents, except for an additional $724 in transporation. Apparently, the gigantic Jeeps, 4 Runners and Range Rovers driven by Colorado residents get better gas mileage than the cars driven by those outside the state. This brings the total, estimated COA to $51,110 for Colorado residents and $58,620 for out-of-state victims enrolled full-time. What a bargain, huh?!?!
Remember, ABA-accredited diploma mills make this assessment on an academic calendar. Seeing that actual law students will require costs over 12 months – and not just nine months out of the year – we will prorate the following items: rent, utilities and food; personal expenses; and transportation. Doing so, we reach the following, more accurate, total COA figures: $56,153 for in-state resident, and $63,904 for non-resident, full-time law students. Who wouldn’t want to pay this amount, in exchange for a prestigious “legal education”?!
Ranking: At such prohibitive costs, one would expect this “institution of higher learning” to have one hell of a reputation in the academic and legal communities. According to Bob Morse and US “News” & World Report, the Univer$ity of Colorado Law Sewer is rated as the co-43rd greatest, most illustrious and marvelous law school in the entire damn country. It shares this distinct “honor” with Wa$hington and Lee $chool of Law. This is the equivalent of being the 6th best member of your junior high school chess team.
Published Employment Placement Statistics: Let’s take a look at the outhouse’s Employment Summary Report for 2013 Graduates. You will note that there were 176 members of this graduating class. Of this amount, a total of 159 JDs were employed in some capacity. Two grads did not provide their employment status to the school. This leads to a “placement” rate of 91.4%, i.e. 159/174.
Before you heap praise on this commode, keep in mind that only 140 of these positions were full-time and long term. Here is the best part: a total of 18 graduates were hired in law school or university-funded positions. Of this amount, only seven of these jobs were full-time and long term. Yes, the trash pit is looking out for the students, and not its ranking, right?!?! This tactic alone artificially boosted the “placement” rate by more than 10 percentage points – as it would have been 81% flat, i.e. 141/174.
Furthermore, scroll down to the section labeled Employment Type. You will notice that only 51 members of this large cohort reported working in private law firms. This is from the 43rd “best” law school in the nation! That should tell you something about the supposed quality of this dung heap. People typically attend law school with the intent to practice law, not to write screenplays or sell insurance policies.
Anyway, here is the breakdown of those in private practice: one desperate solo; 17 in firms of 2-10 lawyers; four more in law offices of 11-25 attorneys; seven hired by firms of 26-50 lawyers. One grad landed a job in an office with 51-100 attorneys, while five others found employment in firms with 101-250 lawyers. One person reported working in a law firm of unknown size - presumably in his mother’s basement. Only three JDs were hired by firms of 251-500 attorneys and 12 landed in offices of more than 500 lawyers. Do you still want to take the gamble, Lemming?!
Average Law Student Indebtedness: US “News” lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the Univer$ity of Colorado JD Class of 2013 who incurred debt for law school - as $115,866. Somehow, only 77 percent of this trash heap’s 2013 cohort took on such toxic debt. Don’t forget that this amount does not even include undergraduate debt – and also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.
Conclusion: Avoid this trap school/public cesspool, unless you are seriously connected or wealthy. This is a school for spoiled, rich kids masquerading as hippie scum. It is expensive to live in the city of Boulder. As this Forbes piece points out, the cost of living there is 18.4% higher than the national average. How does that sound to you, Dumbass?!?! Still want to sign on the dotted line?
Look at the law student indebtedness figure noted above, for those graduating from this toilet in 2013. Did you notice that nearly one quarter of the class earned their law degrees, without taking on any student debt? Colorado is home to some exclusive enclaves such as Snowmass Village, Vail, and Aspen. Do you think that perhaps they have connections to the hiring managers and other employers? While YOU are depriving yourself of sleep for the next three years, these kids can skate by – knowing that their fathers can make a couple of phone calls and secure excellent jobs for them. Good luck “competing” against those odds, chump.
Posted by Nando at 4:28 AM
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Two ABA-Accredited Law Schools Have Now Decided to Drop the LSAT for Ten Percent of Their Incoming Classes
The Culprits: SUNY Buffalo and the University of Iowa: On February 24, 2015, BloombergBusiness published reporter Natalie Kitroeff’s article, which was entitled “The First Two Law Schools to Drop the LSAT Could Be Just the Beginning.” Check out this opening:
“Two law schools said this month that they would begin accepting applicants who have not taken the Law School Admissions Test, a move that may help curb weak interest and plunging enrollments in law schools across the country. The State University of New York-Buffalo Law School and the University of Iowa College of Law said they would admit students from their respective undergraduate colleges based on their grade point average and scores on standardized tests other than the LSAT.
“Taking the LSAT is a pain, and it is expensive,” says James Gardner, dean of SUNY Buffalo’s law school. The test comes with a $170 fee, often in addition to months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars. “This is just a way to identify strong-performing students based on perfectly rational criteria that don’t involve the LSAT,” Gardner says.
He acknowledges, however, that the change might be a lifeline to law schools, which have lately been suffering from a persistent lack of bodies. “It does address that problem to the extent that they remove what is, for some students, an obstacle for applying to law school,” says Gardner. In 2014, first-year enrollment at U.S. law schools fell to about 38,000, its lowest point in four decades, down 28 percent since it peaked in 2010. First-year enrollments have declined by around 20 percent since 2011 at both SUNY Buffalo and the University of Iowa.
The two schools are the first to announce that they've taken advantage of a recent ruling by the American Bar Association, which accredits U.S. law schools. In August, the ABA changed its rules to allow law schools to fill up to 10 percent of their class with students who have not taken the LSAT, as long as they were at the top of their college class and scored highly on the the SAT and ACT, college aptitude tests, or on the GRE or GMAT graduate school exams.
Additional law schools will probably follow. Before the ABA loosened its standards, around 15 schools had successfully applied for special dispensation to admit some students without LSAT scores, and Barry Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education at the ABA, expects these and other programs to take advantage of new rules allowing them to do so without informing the ABA.” [Emphasis mine]
Listening to law school dean proclaim that the LSAT is an expensive pain is priceless, in terms of the comedy gold provided. Sitting in a chair for roughly four hours and shelling out a few hundred bucks is NOTHING compared to three years and incurring $130K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for a chance to enter a GLUTTED field.
Perhaps, “law professors” truly have the math aptitude of a toddler. On second thought, even 18 month kids can put the colored donuts/stacking rings in the right order. Overpaid, severely underworked academics complaining about the cost of the LSAT are the equivalent of hardened drug dealers stating that they want neighborhood children to wear bike helmets – in order to look out for their health and safety.
Other Coverage: Elie Mystal issued a scathing, epic ATL piece – on February 27, 2015. His article was labeled “Killing The LSAT Is A Bad Deal For Students.” He comes out swinging, i.e. telling the truth about this sham:
“Law schools are not dispensing with the LSAT to help you, they’re doing it to trick you. Instead of dropping $170 on a fee, plus whatever you spend on a prep course, to figure out if you might actually be good at law school, they want to strike down any barrier that might make you reconsider taking on $150,000 or more in debt. Oh, you’ll still have to take a massively important standardized test, it’s called the bar exam. But the school will have already gotten your money/debt obligations by the time you sit for it. The house wins the moment you step into the casino.
And those are just the surface problems. Those are just the obvious issues with law schools dropping the LSAT requirement. The news from the University of Iowa and SUNY Buffalo is actually even more nefariously designed to trick students when you start peeling back additional layers.”
Later on, Mystal nailed this situation down PERFECTLY. Behold:
“These law schools are trying to turn the purchase of legal education into an impulse buy. Don’t buy a prep course that costs a thousand bucks, instead spend $150,000 bucks on a lark. This is the law school version of the guy who tells you that he doesn’t use condoms because it “kills the mood.” The LSAT is a de-minimus prophylactic that, if used properly, can help protect students from harm. But Iowa and SUNY just want you to trust them.
IT’S A TRAP. Barry Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education at the American Bar Association, basically said so:
Currier says doing away with the test might draw people to a career in law who would otherwise go to business or medical school.
Think about that statement for a second. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT? That’s the problem with law schools right there. Instead of making law school reasonable, affordable, and valuable to people who want to be lawyers, deans are concerned with drawing — suckering — people into law who don’t know what they want to do with their lives. “I wanted to be a doctor, but I went to law school because I didn’t have to take a test.” That’s who they’re trying to sell law school to! That’s freaking evil.” [Emphasis mine]
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the cockroaches at the American Bar Association issued this decision, in order to buoy sagging applications and enrollment at member schools. Real professional schools seek to limit entry to the field BEFORE the pupils take on insane amounts of educational debt. However, we know conclusively, by now, that U.S. “law professors” and administrators DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about the students. It is all about the money, and the pigs want to extend this scam for as long as possible.
Posted by Nando at 5:49 AM