Saturday, November 28, 2015

Third Tier Toilet Gonzaga University School of Law Offers Buyouts to 17 Tenured Pigs

The Excellent News: On November 23, 2015, ATL published a Staci Zaretsky entry that was labeled “Amid Stark Enrollment Decline, Law School Offers Buyouts To All Tenured Faculty.” Take a look at her opening:

“For years now, when faced with cash crunches, deans at some law schools have allowed their admissions standards to fall to the wayside rather than deal a blow to their budgets. Considering the precipitous drop in bar exam passage over the past two years, it’s evident that this wasn’t a very good strategy. On the other side of the coin, we have law schools that have been forced to make significant cuts to their own tenured faculty in order to keep their incoming students’ credentials from becoming laughable. 

It’s been quite some time since we’ve written about law school buyouts, but it seems that one law school waited until now to decide that it was stuck in a completely untenable situation. Which law school may soon have fewer tenured professors? 

It’s Gonzaga University School of Law, and between 2011 and 2014, its applicant pool has dropped by 36 percent, while its total enrollment has declined by 28 percent over the same time period. First-year law student enrollment at Gonzaga Law was at 125 students in 2014, compared to 183 in 2010, which represents a drop of 32 percent overall. 

As you can see, throughout the law school enrollment crisis, entering students’ admissions profiles have remained roughly the same at Gonzaga Law. Unfortunately, refusing to take on students who were riskier bets came at a cost. What’s the solution?

Dean Jane Korn has offered buyouts to all of the law school’s tenured faculty in the hope of avoiding having to lower Gonzaga Law’s standards for admission. Seventeen tenured faculty members received Korn’s offer, and four have accepted thus far.” [Emphasis mine]

As noted in chart above, the commode’s 25th percentile LSAT score was 154 in Fall 2010 and that figure decreased to 151 in Fall 2014. Their admi$$ion$ “standards” did drop, but not as precipitously as at other ABA-accredited diploma mills. Now, the dung pit is seeking to buy out their overpaid, severely underworked “professors.”

Other Coverage: On November 21, 2015, the Inlander blog featured a Mitch Ryals post that was entitled “Why Gonzaga University School of Law offered buy-outs to its tenured professors.” Check out the portion below:

“Gonzaga University School of Law is no exception to a dip in enrollment nationwide.

From 2011 to 2014, GU's School of Law has seen its application pool deplete by 36 percent. Enrollment has dropped by 28 percent in that same time. 

As a result, the administration has offered buy-outs to all of its tenured professors. So far, four of the 17 faculty members have taken the offer. Law school dean Jane Korn does not anticipate the need to cut any more positions.

"Nationally, since 2011, applications to law schools have dropped around 40 percent," Korn says. "Every dean had to make a decision to lower standards or take a budget hit, and we decided to take the budget hit." [Emphasis mine]

It always make me laugh whenever cockroach deans talk as if they are doing the right thing, out of the goodness of their heart or character. The fact remains that the toilet was admitting and enrolling morons before 2011. They have also lowered their $tandard$ further, in order to get more asses in seats – despite a big-ass drop in applicants. Yes, these “educators” are such beacons of integrity, right?!?!

Make sure that you are not drinking anything, while reading the following tripe, in the article’s concluding parapraph:

"We're doing this because when you look at the situation ahead, you want to make sure Gonzaga has a bright and successful future," [Pig] Korn says. "We did this to avoid problems in the future."

Your trash pit is enrolling waterheads who scored 151 on the LSAT, ass monkey! How in the hell is that going to ensure a bright future for your TTT in$TTTiTTTuTTTion?!

Ranking: According to US “News” & World Report, Gonzaga Univer$iTTTy Sewer of Law is rated as the 110th greatest, most phenomenal, and amazing law school in the entire land. What a tremendous accomplishment!

Average Law School Indebtedness: USN&WR lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the Gonzaga Univer$iTTTy JD Class of 2014 who incurred debt for law school - as $121,281. In fact, 89% of this school’s 2014 cohort took on such foul debt. Keep in mind that this figure does not even include undergraduate debt – and it also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, Gonzaga Univer$iTTTy Sewer of Law is trying to stay relevant in the law school game. I suppose you can give the cockroaches credit for not admitting mental midgets with 145 LSAT scores and 2.76 undegraduate GPAs. Then again, that is akin to praising a 12 year old for not smearing feces over himself. Dean Jane Korn is merely seeking to put a positive spin on this development. Even if more academic thieves accept the offer, do not expect tuition to drop.

Monday, November 23, 2015

First Tier Fecal Matter: University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law

Tuition: Utah residents were hit with $24,918 in full-time tuition costs for the 2014-2015 school year. Out-of-state, full-time law students were slapped senseless with a tuition bill of $47,290 – for 2014-2015. First-year students also paid a $500 orientation fee. Yes, public schools are so affordable, right?!?! To put those charges into perspective, tuition at Yale Law School – for 2015-2016 – will reach $55,800. If you are not from Utah, why in the hell would you even consider attending such an expensive toilet?

Total Cost of Attendance: Since the state board of regents has not yet established the tuition rates, this is an estimate of 2015-2016 costs. However, you can see that the pigs plans to raise in-state tuition to $25,700 and out-of-state rates to $48,725. The dung heap lists other costs amounting to $20,262 for those living off campus. Books and supplies account for $4,250 and loan fees take up another $630, of this amount. With everything included, the swine list the total cost of attendance as $45,962 for Utah residents and $68,987 for out of state law students.

Remember, ABA-accredited diploma mills base living expenses off of the academic calendar. Since actual law students will require costs over the full year, and not nine months, we will prorate the following items: room and board, travel, and miscellaneous expenses. Doing so, we come up with the following, more accurate total COA – for 2015-2016: $51,089 for in-state law students and $74,117 for non-residents attending something called the S.J Quinney College of Law. Yes, what a bargain for students, huh?!?!

Ranking: Who wouldn’t want to pay such outlandish costs to attend such an elite academic program?!?! According to US “News” & World Report, the Univer$ity of Utah $.J. Quinney Commode of Law is co-rated as the 42nd greatest, most remarkable and amazing law school in the entire damn country! It only shares this distinct honor with three other diploma mills: Arizona, George Mason, and Washington and Lee.

Published Employment “Placement” Statistics: Let’s take a look at the public toilet’s NALP Class of 2014 Summary Report. Since the ABA cockroaches extended the reporting deadlines, these figures pertain to employment within 10 months of graduation. Apparently, there were 123 members of this cohort. Of that amount, 11 were unemployed as of March 15, 2015. That results in a “placement” rate of 91 percent. For $ome rea$on, the bitches and hags – on page two of this PDF – counted the idiot pursuing another degree full-time as “employed.”

Scroll down to the fourth page, to see the Size of Firm for these men and women. Only 49 members of this class – or 39.8% of the group – reported being employed in private law offices. Could you imagine – for one goddamn microsecond - if 39.8 percent of a medical school’s class landed jobs as actual doctors?!?! Those students and grads would raise hell.

Anyway, here is the breakdown for Quinney grads: 10 desperate-ass solo practitioners, 17 dolts working in firms of 1-10 lawyers, nine others employed in offices of 11-25 attorneys, five JDs in firms of 26-50 lawyers, two grads hired by an office with 51-100 attorneys, four in firms with 101-250 lawyers, and two damn graduates employed in offices with 251-500 attorneys. One wonders whether the cesspool counted the solos twice, since there is a category of 1-10 lawyers.

Average Law Student Indebtedness: US “News” lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the S.J. Quinney Commode of Law Class of 2014 who incurred debt for law school - as $78,725. Hell, 94% of this school’s 2014 cohort took on such toxic debt. Keep in mind that this figure does not even include undergraduate debt – and it also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.

Seinfeld Would Be Proud: As a student at this excrement pile, you can join the following organizaTTTion:

Jackie Chiles Law Society

The Jackie Chiles Law Society is dedicated to the examination of how popular culture interacts with the law. The Society meets regularly to discuss how broadcast & print media and the internet affect the American legal system. Recent guest presenters include Patrick Markey, the film producer of A River Runs Through It and The Quick and the Dead, and Sam Lloyd, the actor who plays the attorney “Ted” on the television show Scrubs. The Society also maintains a collection of popular books and movies related to lawyers and the law in the SJQ law library for student use.” [Emphasis in original]

Nothing else quite says “prestige” the way this does, people.

Conclusion: Incurring an additional $85K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a tepid law degree, is not a wise investment. Most college grads have already accrued $25K+ for their BA or BS. Try landing a Biglaw job, with a JD from the University of Utah. By now, you are aware of the bimodal distribution of salaries in the U.S. lawyer field. If you are not, then you are too damn dumb to be a successful attorney. Simply put, if you are not earning $160K as a lawyer, then you are looking at earning $35K-$55K per year coming out of law school. Good luck securing a mythical legal position, with an annual salary of $75K in Utah or anywhere else. 

Notice that 10 desperate fools started their own law offices – as solo practitioners. The local job market for lawyers is GLUTTED. This is also true to a lesser extent for doctors and dentists as well. Mormons stress the importance of “higher education” – and attractive LDS women expect to marry a professional who makes good money and can financially support a home with several children. Trying to enter such a market – with no experience, capital, or actual skills – is the equivalent of a novice entering a chess tournament filled with grandmasters. The results will be ugly. At least, such a fool is only out his entry fee and some other incidentals.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Strong Correlation: Southern Illinois University Sewer of Law Sees a Drop in Bar Passage Rate, After the Pigs Admitted More Imbeciles

Take Note, “Legal Educators”: On November 17, 2015, ATL published a Kyle McEntee piece that was labeled “One Law School’s Change in Fortune.” He uses a professional tone, while he rips the commode to shreds:

“The New York Times chose to highlight Southern Illinois University when it reported on our investigation late last month. I objected to the focus on SIU because it had relatively affordable tuition, above-average job rates, and a very high bar passage rate in 2013. With many more egregious examples to choose from, I didn’t think SIU merited special attention. Still, July 2015 bar exam outcomes drive home why SIU found its way into our report in the first place, and why high bar pass rates from even a couple of years ago can be very deceiving to prospective students. It also demonstrates that even respectable state schools are not immune to the pressures that have driven so many law schools to admit far too many at-risk students. 

Between 2010 and 2014, as with many law schools, the school’s admissions profile changed drastically. The school earned an “extreme risk” label for its 2014 entering class based on a bottom quartile LSAT score of 144 (22.9 percentile). The chart below plots SIU’s LSAT numbers for each of the last five entering classes for which we have data. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile LSAT scores are plotted on top of the national LSAT distribution curve. From this you can see that the school’s 75th percentile in 2014 was its 25th percentile in 2010. 

In other words, SIU’s weakest students five years ago would now be at or near the top of SIU’s talent pool.” [Emphasis mine]

What could possibly go wrong with this $TTTraTTTegy?!?!

“SIU had strong job outcomes at a relatively affordable price for in-state students starting in 2010 and 2011. Overall, those entering classes only lost 2-3% of students to involuntary academic attrition. In July 2013 and July 2014, the remaining students achieved a first-time July passage rate of 91.3% and 86.7% in Illinois, respectively. 

However, the story starts to change with the class enrolled in 2012. First, the school’s risk profile at each quartile increased by one level. The 25th percentile went from modest to high; 50th percentile from low to modest; and the 75th percentile from minimal to low. Second, involuntary academic attrition increased to 6.3%. 

Despite increased attrition, the school’s July 2015 bar passage rate was 67% in Illinois. This is likely just the beginning of the downward trend for SIU.

For the entering class in 2013 (July 2016 bar exam), SIU’s LSAT scores continued to drop across the board, moving from the top of the band to the bottom of the band at each of the three quartiles. Oddly, the school failed out a quarter as many 1Ls from this class as compared to the previous class. 

In 2014 each quartile increased at least one additional risk level. The bottom quartile went from high risk to extreme risk. Whether the school failed students out at a higher or lower rate is not yet known.” [Emphasis mine]

Seriously, who the hell could have seen that admitting dunces would subsequently lead to lower bar passage rates?!?! Simply put, garbage in equals garbage out. If you admit waterheads with weak-ass academic credentials and poor LSAT scores, these dolts are not suddenly going to become brilliant minds – especially when they are enrolled in a THIRD TIER COMMODE. Yes, according to US “News” & World Report, $ouTTThern Illinoi$ Univer$iTTTy Sewer of Law is rated as the co-149th greatest, most mesmerizing and fantastic law school in the entire damn country! What an impressive achievement, huh?!?!

Prior Coverage of the Toilet: The New York Times featured an Elizabeth Olson article entitled “Study Cites Lower Standards in Law School Admissions” – on October 26, 2015. Check out the following portion:

“The steady erosion in admissions scores between 2010 and 2014, Mr. McEntee, said in his study, is “directly linked to the falling bar exam passage rates in many states.” 

One school the study deems as having too many students at high risk is Southern Illinois University School of Law, in Carbondale, Ill. The school, which largely draws its students from Kentucky and Missouri, as well as Illinois, slimmed down its class size to 121 students, from 144 students in 2010. In the last five years, its median law school admissions test score also dropped — to 149 from 153, according to figures it provided to accreditors.

“Our experience has been that someone with a 147 score could pass the bar and someone else with 160 could fail, so we don’t think that there is necessarily a relationship between the test and people’s ability to pass the bar,” said Christopher Behan, the school’s associate dean. 

Since 2010, Southern Illinois’s bar passage rate also fell 5 percentage points, to 85.54 percent, according to the school’s figures. To help students pass the bar, the school offers a free summer bar preparation course as well as a separate course in the spring. It also added another bar preparation course during the current fall semester.” [Emphasis mine]

Pig Behan will do and say anything, in order to keep the gravy train rolling along. He is no different from associate deans at other diploma mills. None of them have any integrity. If the cesspool starts admitting dummies with 143 LSAT scores, he will state that these men and women are going to be extra motivated to crush the bar exam.

Conclusion: In a just world, student loans would not be extended to idiots majoring in Film Studies or Political “Science” – or to morons who cannot exceed 150 on the damn LSAT. Then again, the entire “higher education” indu$try is dependent on this financing scheme. Don’t expect the parasites to increase their admissions standards, either. The swine will not leave student loan dollars on the table.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Am Law Daily Asks Whether Washington is Tired of Feeding the Law School Pigs

More Bacon Served: On November 12, 2015, the American Lawyer published a Matt Leichter article that was entitled “Is Washington Finally Tired of Welfare for Law Schools?” He comes out swinging!

“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.” [Emphasis mine]

The law school cockroaches DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about their students or recent graduates. They care even less about the taxpayers. After all, they need those dupes to finance their overpaid, underworked carcasses. Scroll down two paragraphs to find this gem:

“In fact, most law graduates do not earn enough to cover their interest payments. With the advent of generous repayment terms, the default rate no longer matters, especially for law students. All law schools need to do is ensure that their graduates sign on to such plans, and effective defaults disappear. 

Secondly, defenders of the current system misunderstand the income dilemma facing student borrowers. What is important is not people's incomes at a given amount of debt; rather it is people's debts at a given income. In other words, someone who only earns $20,000 per year will struggle to pay down her debt, whether it is $50,000 or $150,000. Indeed, the Government Accountability Office discovered that 70 percent of 1.46 million borrowers on the original income-based repayment plan make $20,000 or less. Only 2 percent make $80,000 or more. According to available information on law-graduate employment outcomes, higher debts do not correspond to higher incomes.” [Emphasis mine]

There are PLENTY of mental midgets and waterheads in this country who individually owe in excess of $200K, for a garbage law degree. If you think that paying $40K each year to attend a TTTT is a smart investment, then you do not have the intelligence required to operate a washing machine.

Other Coverage: Back on August 26, 2015, Charles Lane wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, under the headline “How student loans help keep expensive schools in business.” Read the following portion:
“Nowhere has Grad PLUS had a greater impact than in the nation’s law schools. Law-student indebtedness grew from an average of $66,000 for public institutions in the 2005 academic year to $88,000 in 2012, according to a recent American Bar Association (ABA) task force report. The figures for private law schools were $102,000 in 2005 and $127,000 in 2012. More than half of law students use Grad PLUS. 

These resources are flowing to institutions whose business model is geared to a bygone era. For the past quarter-century or so, law schools added expensive buildings and faculty to enhance their rankings — believing, correctly, that students would pay ever-increasing tuition for top-rated schools because a JD was the ticket to a high-paying career. 

Then demand for lawyers collapsed, because of the “Great Recession” and structural changes in big-firm practice. Only about 60 percent of the Class of 2013’s law degrees landed immediate employment. The value of a law degree has plunged, and with it, law school enrollment. 

The logical response would be a full-scale restructuring of legal academia, including pay trims or layoffs for the lawyers who teach and administer law schools, and whose salaries, generally well above the median national income, account for about a third of law-school overhead, according to the ABA. 

Instead, the flow of easy taxpayer-backed loan money through Grad PLUS operated as a de facto bailout, enabling many law schools to maintain capacity and delay reforms, or settle for modest ones, while continuing to charge more or less the same high tuition. 

In other words, much of the subsidy represented by Grad PLUS loans is getting captured by those who operate the schools, not those who attend them.” [Emphasis mine]

Frankly, “higher education” has been run for the benefit of administrators and faculty, for decades. It is more pronounced in law school. However, greed and graft permeate all of academia.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school swine will not sit back and watch GRAD Plus or IBR be scaled back, even though that is the just course of action. The rodents care only about themselves. They don’t want students relying on private lenders, since this might cause even more lemmings to reconsider obtaining a “legal education.” The bitches and hags will do and say anything in order to keep the gravy train rolling along.

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.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

News Flash From Slate: Law School Pigs Are Now Admitting Morons and Imbeciles

Falling $tandard$: On October 29, 2015, Slate published a Jordan Weissmann piece that was entitled “Desperate Law Schools Are Admitting Too Many Poorly Qualified Students.” Look at the following segment:

“As their application numbers collapsed in recent years, a good number of law schools were forced to choose between their academic standards and their finances. With fewer qualified candidates to go around, some decided to shrink their enrollment numbers and forgo a bit of revenue rather than drastically relax their admission criteria. But many others took the path of least resistance, opening their doors to poorly qualified students willing to pay tuition. 

As a result, a depressing number of law schools are now filled with students who may simply not belong there. According to a new study released this week by the advocacy group Law School Transparency, there were 37 institutions last year where at least half of all new students scored below a 150 on the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT, up from just nine such schools in 2010. Why is that significant? The group argues that students who fail to break the 150 mark face a "serious risk" of eventually failing their state bar exam once they graduate, which would leave them unable to actually practice law. 

To put this in perspective, there are only 203 law schools accredited by the American Bar Association. That means nearly 1 in 5 are now admitting classes that are half made up of at-risk students. At 74 schools, meanwhile, at least a quarter of new students failed to clear a 150 on their LSAT. 

"We are not aware of a time when so many law schools had something like an open enrollment policy," the report states, noting that 4 out of 5 people who applied to law school last year were admitted by at least one. "To a real extent, we're in uncharted territory." 

Under ABA rules, law schools have a responsibility to admit students who stand a chance of one day passing the bar, because the vast majority of states require them to do so in order to become licensed lawyers. The problem is that, while research suggests that students with lower LSAT scores are more likely to fail the bar, there's no real consensus in the legal academy about how low is too low on the entrance exam.” [Emphasis mine]

Imagine if U.S. medical schools admitted applicants with such weak-ass scores on the MCAT. You wouldn’t feel safe to go in for an annual physical, let alone for something more serious. Then again, that is a real profession that cares about its reputation and that of its collective practitioners.

According to this chart from Cambridge LSAT, a result of 150 on the entrance exam would have given one a percentile score of 44.2 – from 2011-2014. Yes, that is super impressive, huh?!?! Of course, the law school swine don’t lose a wink of sleep over their pathetic admi$$ion$ “standards.” These academic thieves are not the least bit concerned that MANY of their grads will be FINANCIALLY CRUSHED, due to their decision to obtain a “legal education.” After all, those JDs can do other things with their TTT degrees, right?!?!

Other Coverage: Above the Law featured an entry from Kyle McEntee, which was labeled “Bar Exam Failure Rates: The Worst Is Yet to Come” – on November 3, 2015. Check out this portion of his conclusion:

“Roughly speaking, if a school achieved a 75% bar passage rate with a 25th percentile LSAT score in the modest risk band, then we reasonably believe its bar passage rate will decline when its 25th percentile LSAT score drops to the high risk, very high risk, or extreme risk band. 

When contemplating schools with concerning admissions and retention policies, we’re not talking students who have achieved average scores. At least 25% of students at 48 schools in 2014 were in the bottom third of the LSAT distribution. These schools did not mitigate risk with higher undergraduate GPAs or drastically higher attrition. Moreover, we’re dealing with large populations, not individuals. Some people will succeed despite long odds, but the data do not support using tuition from thousands of students to support those success stories, nor to subsidize lower prices for those who are more likely to pass the bar. 

Above the Law has been among the media chorus reporting that 2015 passage rates fell from already-lower 2014 rates. These students started in 2012, before schools made the deepest cuts. The chart below compares schools’ 25th percentile LSAT scores in 2012 (2015 bar exam) and 2014 (2017 bar exam). Black lines indicate a fall from 2012; green lines indicate an increase from 2012. 

In other words, the worst is yet to come.” [Emphasis mine]

“Law professors” love to declare that all lawyers suck at math. However, anyone with an IQ above room temperature can follow this pattern. Look for the law school cockroaches to continue to blame mean state bar examiners for making the exam too difficult for their dumb graduates.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school pigs do not give a single, solitary damn about their students or recent grads. They do not care about their futures, their families, their spouses or their financial well being. They simply don’t give a damn about them! They are only concerned about one thing: exploiting these students’ idealism or desire to make good money in a professional career. The rodents need to get enough idiots to sign on the dotted line and enroll in their diploma mills. Try not to be too stupid, Lemming. You will not be served well by incurring an additional $140K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a chance to enter a GLUTTED, shrinking “profession.”

Sunday, November 1, 2015

The Foreseeable Happened: New York Bar Passage Rate Plunges to Historic Low, Thanks to Lower Law School Admissions Standards

Falling Rates!: On October 27, 2015, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog published a Jacob Gershman article that was entitled “New York Bar Exam Pass Rate Hits Historic Low.” Check out this lovely opening:

“New York just released the results of the July state bar exam, and they’re not pretty. 

The passage rate for graduates of ABA-accredited schools who took the test for the first time was 79%, the lowest figure since at least 2004. That’s four percentage points below the July 2014 rate, and it’s more than an 11 percentage-point drop-off from 2008 when 90.5% of candidates in that grouping passed the exam. 

The results out of New York, the state with the largest population of lawyers, follow an emerging national pattern and are certain to fuel debate in the legal and academic communities about whether law schools are setting admissions standards too low. 

New York’s overall passage rate, including foreign-educated graduates, was 61%, according to the New York State Board of Law Examiners, which released the data Tuesday. That figure is the lowest recorded in the state in at least 35 years, according to the board. 

The pool of ABA school candidates was also the smallest in at least a decade, dipping to 6,535. At the same time, the number of foreign-educated test-takers hit a record high of 3,154, according to the state body. 

More than 30 states have released their July bar exam results and about two-thirds of them reported declines in passage-rates for would-be lawyers, according to Excess of Democracy, a blog run by Pepperdine University Law School professor Derek T. Muller.” [Emphasis mine]

This is what happens when ABA-accredited commodes start admitting and enrolling waterheads and mental midgets, in order to keep the gravy train of federal student loans rolling along. Congratulations, law school pigs. Your mothers must be exceptionally proud.

Other Coverage: The New York Times Dealbook featured an Elizabeth Olson piece, under the headline “Study Cites Lower Standards in Law School Admissions” – on October 26, 2015. Enjoy the following segment:

"As law schools across the country try to keep their classrooms full, many are admitting students with lesser qualifications, including those with a lower admissions test score — considered an important predictor of whether a graduate will earn the credentials to practice law. 

About a third of the 204 accredited law schools had entering classes last year with at least 25 percent of the class consisting of “at risk” students, or those with law school admissions test scores of below 150, according to a new study by Law School Transparency, a nonprofit advocacy organization. 

Law school admissions scores closely mirror the final results of the state bar exams, which graduates must pass to qualify as licensed lawyers. Many in legal education consider a score of 150 as a telling dividing line between future success or failure. 

“Too many law schools are filling their entering classes with people who face serious risk of not passing the bar exam,” said Kyle McEntee, executive director of Law School Transparency, which he helped to found six years ago to promote more open law school practices. He said that last year 45 schools, up from eight in 2010, admitted seriously at-risk students. 

Most law schools maintain that test scores are only one indicator, albeit an important one, of the ability to pass the bar. They also say they need flexibility in selecting students to assure a diverse population of lawyers. 

Yet many schools are also facing pressure from plummeting enrollments — the lowest in decades. Law school enrollment reached a peak in 2010, as many students fled a troubled economy to the schools’ safe harbor. With a swelling crop of students, bar passage rates soared, but it all began to come apart quickly when jobs in law seemed to melt away overnight as the industry adjusted to a changed economy.” [Emphasis mine]

Of course, the law school swine will refer to these at-risk victims as “under-represented minorities” or low income applicants “deserving of a chance to enter the profession.” For $ome rea$on, these pieces of garbage do not give a second thought to financially ruining these unconnected men and women. These “educators” are such beacons of integrity, right?!?!

On October 27, 2015, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “New York Bar Exam Results Reveal Worst Pass Rates In More Than A Decade.” After further documenting the big-ass drop in the bar passage rate, while seeing fewer candidates, the author address the root cause:

“What is to be done about this problem? There’s a relatively simple solution that no one will pursue because money matters above all else in this world. Law schools need to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to admitting students to fill their otherwise empty seats. Admission standards must be raised to end this misery. 

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again because it really bears repeating: “Until law schools realize they’re doing a disservice to everyone — their students, their graduates, and their graduates’ future clients — things will only continue to get worse.” [Emphasis mine]

These academic pigs DO NOT GIVE ONE GODDAMN about their students or recent graduates! Based on that fact, you can only imagine what they think of the taxpayers and potential legal clients.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the bitches and hags do not lose one wink of sleep at night, knowing that legions of their recent graduates cannot find decent jobs – or that they are consigned to financial hell. After all, the cockroaches merely provide an “education.” Plus, living with mountains of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt is someone else’s problem. However, the sick whores feign concern that the bar exam is becoming too difficult – because they know that low passage rates make the schools look weak, which might further impact future enrollment.
Web Analytics