Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Pigs Come to Students’ Aid: On December 22, 2016, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “Law School Faculty Rebels Against For-Profit Infilaw, Stands By Students In Time Of Need.” Take a look at this opening:
“On Monday, the Department of Education announced that Charlotte School of Law, a for-profit Infilaw institution, would lose its eligibility to participate in the federal student loan program on December 31, 2016. Thanks to the school’s non-compliance with American Bar Association standards and its misrepresentations to students regarding their ability to pass the bar exam, Charlotte Law students are feeling as though they’ve been left out in the cold, despite the fact that administrators at the school claim to want to protect them.
The administration’s goal to protect students who have been wronged — not by Charlotte Law’s alleged malfeasance, of course, but by the Department of Education — flies in the face of what we’ve been told by students who attend the school. We’ve heard that members of the law school administration have blocked all student access to the seventh floor of the building where their offices are located, and haven’t been answering calls.
Charlotte Law faculty members, on the other hand, are standing by their students, and are ready to go to war for them. A source at the law school told us that faculty members are now “rebelling against [their] Infilaw overlords,” and sent out a strongly worded letter via email to all students and alumni of the school. Here’s a pertinent passage from that letter (which is available in full on the next page):
Students, we share in your feelings of sadness, anger, and disappointment. At this juncture, we are insisting that Infilaw recognize that decisions about admissions and curriculum must be made by the faculty. These decisions are the subject of our current situation and were made without the benefit of those best able to protect the students’ interests.
Despite the institutional failures listed in the letter from the DOE on December 19, 2016, we assure you that your faculty remains committed to delivering quality legal education. We are unified in our desire to the best by our students and alumni as we face the challenges ahead.
You know that your law school has been doing something incredibly wrong when the faculty refer to “institutional failures” in a letter that has been sent directly to students and alumni who have paid (or more likely, borrowed) money hand over fist to attend.” [Emphasis mine]
For $ome rea$on, these “legal educators” failed to mention that the faculty typically run law schools. Perhaps, the situation is different at this toilet, since Infilaw is owned and operated by Sterling Partners, a private-equity firm. In the end, this is mere window dressing. The bitches and hags simply want your borrowed money, dumbass.
Other Coverage: On December 27, 2016, the Editorial Board of the Charlotte Observer published a brutal op-ed piece that was entitled “Charlotte School of Law students deserved better.” Enjoy the following portion:
“Charlotte School of Law leaders have made some big mistakes, it seems. Unfortunately, the people paying for those mistakes are hundreds of innocent law school students.
According to recent reporting from the Observer’s Michael Gordon, students received little, if any, warning that the school has been under heavy accreditation scrutiny from the American Bar Association since March 2014, or that it has repeatedly been found lacking in its bar exam passage rate, academic rigor and its admissions standards. The ABA called it a “substantial and persistent” problem.
The 700 or so students at the private, for-profit law school in uptown Charlotte didn’t learn about all that until the ABA formally placed the school on probation in November, news that arrived just as final exams were about to begin.
That was followed by news that these same problems had prompted the U.S. Department of Education to block millions of dollars in student loans and other federal financial aid that would normally flow to the school.
The school had deceived students by masking the extent of its problems, the DOE said…
It is unclear if classes will resume on Jan. 14 as scheduled.
But what seems abundantly clear is that students remained in the dark about this for months, even as they continued to write hefty tuition checks and take out student loans to cover $60,000 in annual tuition and fees.
It seems particularly unconscionable that the school’s leadership would let students enroll for this fall’s classes without telling them about what was going on – especially since an ABA noncompliance report issued in July required the school to do exactly that. Students surely suspect that the school’s leadership cared more about the income stream than their welfare.” [Emphasis mine]
It’s nice to see mainstream news outlets barbecue the law school swine, for their blatant greed and deceit. In a just world, the “professors” and administrators would be pelted with vegetables – by the students and recent graduates.
Conclusion: Avoid Charlotte Sewer of Law, at all costs. While I don’t see the Department of Education withholding student loans to this trash pit for long, this action will sink the commode’s repuTTTTaTTTTion even further. Frankly, if this is the best law school that you can get into, then you are already on a losing path. Hell, full-time tuition at this dung heap – for the 2016-2017 academic year – amounts to $42,320! Yet, the best outcome you can hope to attain is toiletlaw. Why would anyone with an IQ above room temperature even consider incurring an additional $155K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for these garbage job prospects?!?! Do you hate yourself that much, Lemming?
Posted by Nando at 12:21 AM
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Charlotte School of Law Gets Bitch-Slapped by the Department of Education: No More Federal Loans and Grant Due to Its Deceptive Practices
Happy Holidays: On December 19, 2016, the Washington Post published an article from Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, under the beautiful headline “Education Department denies federal student aid to for-profit N.C. law school.” Enjoy the following glorious excerpt:
“The Education Department on Monday said Charlotte School of Law can no longer receive federal loans and grants for misleading students about their chances of passing the bar and its shaky accreditation with the American Bar Association.
“The ABA repeatedly found that the Charlotte School of Law does not prepare students for participation in the legal profession. Yet CSL continuously misrepresented itself to current and prospective students as hitting the mark,” Undersecretary of Education Ted Mitchell said in a statement. “CSL’s actions were misleading and dishonest. We can no longer allow them continued access to federal student aid.”
The bar association first raised concerns about Charlotte School of Law, a for-profit college founded in 2004, after an on-site evaluation last year. Examiners concluded that the school’s curriculum failed to prepare students to take the bar and that the administration admitted people incapable of completing the program. After months of hearings and requests for more information, the bar this summer said the law school was not living up to the standards necessary for accreditation.
Half of the 354 first-year students at the school dropped out of the program this year, compared with 45 percent last year, according to the Education Department. Of the 174 who left, more than 36 percent said it was due to academic attrition, meaning that they were not in good academic standing. The bar association said that of the 208 law schools it accredits, Charlotte School of Law has the highest number of first-year students leaving for academic reasons.
The law school appealed the bar’s decision, but the bar rejected the request and placed the school on probation in November, which ultimately led education officials to deny Charlotte access to federal student aid. The Education Department also takes issue with the school’s advertising that it is fully accredited, that it has a rigorous curriculum and that its students have an above-average rate of passing the bar, none of which is accurate.” [Emphasis mine]
Do you have any difficulty understanding that, Lemming?!?! Perhaps, you suck at reading comprehension – and could only muster an LSAT score of 144. Here are the key takeaways: (a) this trash pit KNOWINGLY misrepresented outcomes for its students; (b) it WILLINGLY admitted applicants who had no business being enrolled; and (c) it has the highest rate of attrition for academic reasons of all 208 ABA-accredited toilets. Got it now, Bitch?!
Press Release: On December 19, 2016, United States Department of Education furnished a statement entitled “Charlotte School of Law Denied Continued Access to Federal Student Aid Dollars.” From the opening:
“The U.S. Department of Education today announced that on Dec. 31, 2016, it will end access to federal student financial aid for Charlotte School of Law (CSL), a for-profit member institution in the InfiLaw System. This action furthers the Department’s commitment to vigorously protect students, safeguard taxpayer dollars, and increase institutional accountability among postsecondary institutions.
Following a review of the relevant information, the Department concluded that CSL’s non-compliance with the fundamental standards set by its accreditor, the American Bar Association (ABA), resulted in its violation of the Higher Education Act, the Department’s regulations, and CSL’s Program Participation Agreement with the Department. Additionally, the Department concluded that CSL made substantial misrepresentations to current and prospective students regarding the nature and extent of its accreditation and the likelihood that its graduates would pass the bar exam. Both findings merit denial of the school’s request for continued participation in the federal student aid programs.” [Emphasis mine]
Did that penetrate your small gray matter, prospective law student?! To those already enrolled in this dung heap, I am certain that you are already on the phone with private lenders so that you can finance the rest of your TTTT “legal education.”
Other Coverage: On December 19, 2016, Staci Zaretski posted an ATL entry that was labeled “Law School DENIED Access to Federal Student Loan Dollars.” I have provided her conclusion below:
“What are Charlotte Law students supposed to do now? Will they be forced to turn to private lenders to finance the rest of their legal educations at a school that recently posted its worst July bar exam passage rate — 45.24 percent — in nearly a decade?
Charlotte Law has until January 3, 2017, to submit evidence to dispute the Department of Education’s findings. Will Charlotte be the first InfiLaw institution to fold under the substantial weight of its own failures? Perhaps we’ll learn its fate in 2017.” [Emphasis mine]
Yes, that figure above is correct. Think about that for a moment – 45.24 percent of first-time bar exam takers from this festering pile of rancid waste managed to pass the July 2016 test! In a just world, this cesspit would have been shuttered imediately. Of course, the scam continues because students are mere collateral damage. After all, law school pigs have to own nice suits, live in big homes, drive expensive cars – while managing to “work” for 4-10 hours per week.
Conclusion: In the last analysis, if this is the best law school that you can get into, then you are a cretin. Good luck trying to get through the day, without shoving a knife into an electric socket. I’m sure that your payee or residential home manager can get your ass dressed, after they bathe and shave you. Also, I don’t expect this action to last long. The school will likely cite to “a disparate impact on minority students.” However, InfiLaw may just try to dissolve that school – and place those students into the other trash pits in its consortium. Lastly, just think how high the bar pass failure rate would be if the commode didn’t kick out so many before graduation.
Posted by Nando at 5:56 AM
Sunday, December 18, 2016
The News: On December 16, 2016, Kathryn Rubino posted an ATL entry labeled “For Law Schools, No Change Is Good News.” Here is the full text of her report below:
“Some incredibly mediocre news from the world of legal education: the number of students enrolled in law school has barely increased. There are 36 more students in this year’s 1L class, and that counts as good news since it’s the first time these numbers have gone up since 2010 — when the impact of the Great Recession began to take its toll on law schools.
But to be clear, the small numerical increase registers as a statistical non-event, meaning the numbers are flat from last year. It should also be noted that even if this year’s bump in enrollment was a cause for celebration, law schools are still down 29 percent from their pre-recession highs.
The bad news, at least if you’re a law school admin hoping for a return to the glory days, is that these new numbers may be here for a while, as the National Law Journal reports:
Not so fast, said Derek Muller, a law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law who tracks enrollment trends on his blog Excess of Democracy. The new data suggests that this is the new reality for legal education.
“Flat” is good in the sense of stability, Muller said, but he added, “I think it’s bad for a lot of law schools that were hoping for growth, both in terms of quantity and quality. For schools that had been bracing for a short-term decline, with this bottoming out, I think they’re going to have to expect that this is the new normal.”
Muller predicted that the number of applicants this admissions cycle will remain stable, based on the fact that there has been no significant change in the number of people taking early administrations of the Law School Admission Test.
[Well], at least law schools aren’t losing students. These days, that counts as a reason for cheer.” [Emphasis mine]
Enjoy the “new normal,” bitches! At least, you vile swine are not saddled with outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – while hoping to crack into this GLUTTED field. Now, you rodents can go out and make a boatload of money in private practice. Of course, we know that you jackals would rather financially ruin young people - and swindle the taxpayers - than work hard for a living. Also, good luck finding a law firm that will pay you to take sabbaticals, so that you can write pointless law review articles.
Other Coverage: On December 16, 2016, Matt Leichter published an excellent analysis of the situation in his Law School Tuition Bubble blog. The article was entitled “2016: Full-Time Matriculants Trickle Up.” Pay attention to the following portion:
“In calendar year 2016, there were 32,864 full-time matriculants to 204 ABA-accredited law schools, up 257 matriculants from 2015 (+0.8 percent). That year saw an 838-matriculant decline, so the crunch has reversed for the law schools. (These figures exclude the three law school in Puerto Rico, as I usually do.)
Full-time applicant acceptance rates are largely flat, except at the 90th percentile.” [Emphasis mine]
That does not appear to be good news for the certified ABA toilets. For instance, how many top college grads are applying to CreighTTTon or $yracu$e? Take a look at the charts that Leichter compiled as well. Now scroll down for this excerpt:
“102 law schools saw a growth in applications, which is much higher than last year. First place goes to (and you’ll love this) … Indiana Tech (235.4 percent), which will close at the end of the academic year. It received 332 applications, extended only 128 offers, and admitted but 39 full-time students. Indiana Tech’s 75th percentile full-time applicant received a 152 on the LSAT. It preferred to close than accept 204 applicants (~60 percent). Numbers two and three for application growth were Florida (98.9 percent) and Concordia (71.0 percent).
Before anyone gets excited about rising law-school applications, though, I note that 123.5 percent of the rise can be attributed to U.S. News‘ top 14 law schools. That means that all of the growth this year can be attributed to these 14 law schools along with an offset to declines at other schools. Thus, things probably don’t look any better for most schools since last year. In the last two years, I’ve commented on the possibility that applicants believe that now is the best time to go to an elite law school, and while that sentiment dissipated last year, it’s back now for sure.” [Emphasis mine]
Recent college graduates with stellar LSAT scores are evidently taking advantage of the big-ass drop in applications since 2010. How does that help second tier sewers and third tier commodes?! The waterheads enrolling in those cesspits are still screwed. The job prospects remain bleak for TTT law students and graduates, but the "professors" and deans will be happy to take your loan money, i.e. taxpayer funds, anyway.
Conclusion: The bottom-feeding toilets continue to admit morons and cretins who have little to no connections, and essentially no shot in hell at becoming successful lawyers. It will be interesting to see if these ABA-accredited dung heaps are still giving out tuition reductions, i.e. scholarships, to entice these dunces to take the TTTT plunge. Try not to be too damn dumb and accept such an offer, Lemming. You are much better off staying at your current job, learning new skills, making real connections in your field or industry, and seeking pay increases or promotions. That will not cost you three years of your life and you will also avoid crushing debt.
Posted by Nando at 5:18 AM
Monday, December 12, 2016
News Coverage: On December 7, 2016, the Boston Globe published a piece from Laura Krantz, under the headline “UMass Law School gains full accreditation.” Look at this opening:
“The University of Massachusetts School of Law in Dartmouth announced Tuesday that it has received full accreditation by the American Bar Association, a milestone for the six-year-old school that has struggled with growing pains.
UMass officials said they believe its new status will propel the state’s first public law school, which has faced lackluster enrollment and ongoing financial issues, toward greater success and help in its mission to produce attorneys focused on social justice.
“For those of us concerned about protecting the rights of all residents of the Commonwealth, UMass Law will play a key role in that effort moving forward,” said UMass President Martin T. Meehan.
The school received provisional accreditation in 2012. After a visit in March and several rounds of meetings this fall, the bar association awarded full accreditation Dec. 2.” [Emphasis mine]
Yes, this measure will propel this toilet to new heights, right?!?! The fact remains that this public cesspool will always be a dung heap that admits waterheads and delusional asswipes who cannot get into a real law school. At least now, it can obtain “Ranked Not Published” status by the pussies at US “News” & World Report.
Other Analysis: On December 7, 2016, OTLSS featured a post from "Old Guy," which was entitled “U Mass Dartmouth accredited; students are worth $53 per hour.” Read the whole article, but enjoy the following excerpt in particular:
“Don't accuse the ABA of letting ink encrust its rubber stamp of approval. Just months after accrediting Indiana Tech (only to see this internationally esteemed center of law & hip-hop shut its doors forever), the ABA has done the same for the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. See this puff piece that U Mass Dartmouth—call it "You Ass" for short—published yesterday:
U Mass Dartmouth rose like a phoenix (the University of Phoenix?) from the ashes of an entity called the Southern New England School of Law, which dumped its ass(ets) onto the state in 2010. The state, in exchange, felt compelled to set up its ninth—yes, ninth—law school.
Now, the establishment of law schools at Indiana Tech and possibly soon in southernmost Texas has been justified in part by the great distance that the fine denizens of Fort Wayne and McAllen would have to travel in order to attend the nearest law school. Weak as it indubitably is for Indiana and Texas, that argument seems downright risible for Massachusetts, which can be traversed from Pittsfield to Provincetown in only four hours—even more quickly if a Masshole is behind the wheel. So that argument wasn't even proffered in support of U Mass Dartmouth. Instead, the upstart academy was justified as the state's only public law school. Eight private ones, evidently, just do not meet the needs of the Bay State. Why stop at Harvard when you can have U Mass Dartmouth?
Like every other toilet school, U Mass Dartmouth claims a special mission: "to diversify the legal profession and expand access to justice for citizens". Ho-hum. Where have I heard that song before?
The puff piece proclaims that "UMass Law had the most diverse entering class in New England in 2015 (35.5%) and the rate is 33% this year"…
U Mass bears all the hallmarks of a toilet, especially its dreadful median LSAT score (148). Like so many other toilets, U Mass preys upon people who shouldn't be in law school, all the while congratulating itself for its "diversity".
What's this about "access to justice"? Just four days before announcing its accreditation, U Mass published another puff piece, this time about its students' volunteer work:
"Since the UMass School of Law was established at UMass Dartmouth in 2010 to serve the public interest, its students have delivered more than 87,000 hours of service to the community. This service has been valued at more than $4.5 million."
Pardon me? How can the "service" of students at a then-unaccredited toilet be worth that much? Because the bulk of the work, falling in the legal field (though what the students actually did is not clear), is assessed "[a]t $53 per hour (the amount paid to District Court-appointed lawyers in Massachusetts)". [Emphasis mine]
Licensed attorneys who graduated from this ABA-accredited pile of excrement would kill for a job that paid them $53 an hour. Hell, they would cry tears of joy while strangling a bum to death – with their bare hands.
Conclusion: Obtaining full accreditation from the American Bar Association cockroaches is about as big of an “accomplishment” as getting laid by a raggedy-ass prostitute. If you pay them, then they will perform the task assigned. Lemmings, this will not greatly increase your odds of landing decent legal positions. The Univer$iTTTTTy of Ma$$achu$eTTTTT$ Sewer of Law will remain a bottom-feeding commode for the duration of its existence. Get that through your thick skull, Dumbass.
Posted by Nando at 4:39 AM
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Pigs Up Against the Wall: On December 3, 2016, the Chicago Tribune published a David Rutter piece that was entitled “Valparaiso University’s law school might face bleak choices.” It alludes to the trash pit recently being censured by the gutless, ball-less, spineless American Bar Association. Enjoy the following excerpt:
“According to its gloomy forecast for budding lawyers, the New York Times reported that, as of this April, fewer than 70 percent of Valparaiso law graduates from the previous spring were employed and fewer than half were in jobs that required a law license. Only three of 131 graduates worked in large firms, which tend to pay more generous salaries.
Law school student debt is an ever-deepening ravine, from about $95,000 among borrowers at the average school in 2010 to about $112,000 in 2014, according to the advocacy group Law School Transparency.
Every number is pointing down, particularly jobs. While law school applications have slid by nearly 40 percent nationally since 2010, enrollment has dropped by only about 30 percent and full-time faculty members have decreased by less than 15 percent, according to ABA data.
VU's applicant pool is also down, which is why the school cut 21 faculty members and expects its law school population to drop by a third within two years.
VU's law school might be facing two unpalatable choices. Admit more unprepared students, which fulfills goals for diversity and inclusion, but damages graduation rates and quality. The school apparently already tried that model without success.” [Emphasis mine]
When will the jackals start admitting bums, prostitutes, and drug addicts? By the way, it’s always great to read about ABA-accredited dung heaps getting rid of some members of their worthless-ass faculty. If you ever feel sorry for these bloated cockroaches, just think of all the young lives they have helped ruin over the course of their greedy tenure. To them, the students and graduates are merely collateral damage.
Prior Coverage: On November 17, 2016, the Indiana Lawyer posted an Olivia Covington article headlined “Valparaiso Law public censure puts admission policies to test.” Take a look at this opening:
“Only weeks after Indiana Tech Law School suddenly announced it would be closing at the end of the academic year, another Indiana law school found itself in the news, dealing with a public censure from the American Bar Association over past admissions practices.
How much the sanction will impact that school, Valparaiso University Law School, depends on who you ask.
The ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar posted the notice of public censure Nov. 15, after the ABA Accreditation Committee found the northern Indiana law school had not demonstrated compliance with Standards 501(a) and 501(b). Those standards require that “a law school shall maintain sound admission policies and practices” and “shall not admit an applicant who does not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.” [Emphasis mine]
Keep in mind that the ABA does not take this action often, even though dozens of member schools have reputations lower than alligator piss. Later on, the author includes this gem:
“Kyle McEntee, executive director and co-founder of Law School Transparency, does not see an easy way forward for Valparaiso. The 2016 entering class had a median LSAT score of 147, which is a modest improvement, he said, but not enough for the law school overcome this new obstacle.
Valparaiso is already having trouble meeting the current ABA’s standards for bar passage and those requirements could get more rigorous, McEntee said. A proposal from the Council of the ABA for the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar would close some loopholes and mandate that law schools post a 75 percent bar passage rate for graduates within two years of graduation.
The proposal is scheduled to be presented to the ABA House of Delegates in February 2017. Even if the delegates do not give their approval, McEntee expects the ABA legal education section will adopt the new standards anyway.” [Emphasis mine]
As you can see, the swine are happy to admit and enroll waterheads with pathetic LSAT scores. What a bastion of “integrity,” huh?!?! Still want to roll the dice on your financial future, Dumbass?! If so, then you do not have the mental fortitude to order from a drive through window.
Ranking: According to US “News” & World Report, Valparai$o Univer$iTTTTy Sewer of Law is rated as a FOURTH TIER TRASH PIT! Yes, what a prestigious insTTTTiTTTTuTTTTion of higher learning!
Conclusion: Avoid this certified cesspit as if your life depended on it, lemming. I don’t care if the desperate fools throw a full scholarship at you – or throw in a set of steak knives and some movie passes. It is not worth the opportunity costs or lost time and energy. Plus, decent law firms have no interest in hiring the typical TTTT graduate. You will not be served well by incurring an additional $145K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a garbage law degree. Look for this pile of excrement to continue to admit mental midgets, and I would not be surprised if LSAT scores, for subsequent first year classes, even drop a little further.
Posted by Nando at 5:31 AM
Friday, December 2, 2016
Booyah: On December 1, 2016, the ABA Journal featured a Stephanie Francis Ward piece that was entitled “10 to 15 law schools could close if enrollment keeps shrinking, higher-ed market analyst says.” Enjoy this spectacular opening:
“Although there’s been a contraction in the law school market, tuition continues to rise, including at private institutions that take first-year students with lower LSAT scores and have high attrition rates, says Robert Zemsky, a professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania. Zemsky predicts several of these schools will close if trends continue.
His study, Mapping a Contracting Market, analyzed 171 law schools and found that enrollment dropped by 21 percent at private law schools between 2011 and 2015. At public law schools, enrollment dropped by 18 percent. Zemsky also analyzed attrition rates at schools within both categories.
He found that while private schools with the lowest attrition rates and the best LSAT scores had the highest market price per student, those with the highest attrition rates and the worst LSAT scores still cost more than private institutions seen as second or third-tier law schools. Zemsky’s use of market price also figures in scholarships and grants received from schools, rather than just the listed tuition prices.
“You’d think the least attractive school would charge the lowest price. What they’re doing is admitting students with relatively low LSAT scores, and charging them a high price for gambling on them,” says Zemsky, who presented his findings at a recent Chicago conference hosted by the Access Group Center for Research & Policy Analysis.
If the law student market contracts further, it’s possible that between 10 and 15 schools will close, says Zemsky, a founding director of Penn’s Institute for Research on Higher Education. He notes that law schools are already losing money.
“You can’t continue to muddle through and hold your breath,” he told the Chicago audience on Nov. 16. “You can only hold your breath for so long.” [Emphasis mine]
Short of open admissions, enrollment will continue to decline. Smarter college graduates are avoiding law school in droves. At the rate of tuition increases, even waterheads are reconsidering this route. What the hell is the point of following a proven path to financial ruin?!?
Prior Forecasts: Back on November 3, 2016, Paul Caron wrote a TaxProf Blog entry that was headlined “After Indiana Tech, How Many More Law Schools Will Close? 20? 80? Will A Top 25 School Be Among Them?” Look at this conclusion:
“The likelihood of law school closures has been a hot topic among law school professors and bloggers for the past two years.
Jerry Organ, of University of St. Thomas, compared today’s law school environment to what happened to dental schools in the 1980s. Ten percent closed due to a significant decline in the number of applicants. Could 10 percent of law schools shut down, he asked?
Dorothy Brown, of Emory University School of Law, believes a top law school will shut down in the next two to four years. “Primarily, the law school would have to be hemorrhaging a lot of money over a sustained period of time with no end in sight,” she wrote. “Not just a one-time deficit, but millions of dollars in deficits over a sustained period.”
And David Barnhizer, of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, said 80 law schools are at risk of closing. “Just as the legal employment market is over-saturated due to the surplus numbers of graduates law schools pumped into the system over the past twenty years, the productive capacity of the law school ‘industry’ is entirely out of balance with all foreseeable need for law graduates,” he wrote. “Given the direction the traditional employment markets for lawyers are heading no more than 80-100 law schools could easily serve America’s need for new law graduates.”
In a Kaplan Test Prep survey, 65 percent of law school admissions officers thought it would be a good idea if at least a few law schools closed.” [Emphasis mine]
I’m sure none of those admi$$ion$ cockroaches felt that their dung heap should be closed. Not a single one!
Back on October 3, 2012, Brian Leiter prognosticated that up to 10 ABA toilets could be shuttered within 10 years. His piece was labeled “Predictions about Closings of ABA-Accredited Law School Over the Next Decade.” To wit:
“That 15% think no law schools at all will close may be wishful thinking, but perhaps there is a sound explanation for thinking that correct. My own opinion was that we'll see several law schools close during the next decade, but probably not more than ten--and that was the majority view among readers by a wide margin. Most vulnerable are going to be free-standing law schools that are relatively young. Relatively young law schools part of universities that are in vulnerable financial shape are also likely candidates.” [Emphasis mine]
Conclusion: Since then, Hamline Sewer of Law merged with William Mitchell Commode of Law – and Indiana TTTTech Law $chool announced that it will shut down in July 2017. Thomas Cooley has “affiliated” with Western Michigan University and still had to close up its Ann Arbor campus, one among several . Other cesspits have been purchased by larger schools, such as Texas Wesleyan selling its ass to Texas A&M. Several ABA schools have had to slash support staff and buyout “professor” contracts. Enrollment continues to drop, and schools are taking in dumber students. Do you get the picture yet, cretin?! This is excellent news for humanity, but a blow to the greedy academic pigs. Again, do not piss away your future just so these “educators” can buy a vacation home or lease another Mercedes.
Posted by Nando at 5:21 AM
Sunday, November 27, 2016
The News: On November 25, 2016, the Valley Morning Star published a piece from staff writer Danya Perez-Hernandez, under the headline “Will Valley get a new law school?” Take a look at this opening:
“A new legislative year is bringing renewed hope for Rio Grande Valley lawmakers who hope to establish a law school in the area.
“The law school is a natural progression as our demographics grow, as our population grows,” said Eddie Lucio III, D-Brownsville.
“There are some great, very talented young professionals who for financial reasons or reasons related to family cannot travel to San Antonio, which is our nearest law school.”
Lucio III and Armando “Mando” Martinez, D-Weslaco, both filed legislation — House Bill 169 and 46, respectively — last week calling for the establishment of a public law school in either Cameron or Hidalgo County.
Just like with the creation of the medical school at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, for which legislation was filed more than 70 years ago, the idea is to lay the groundwork for the creation of the law school.
The Valley had been slated at some point by the UT System Regents as the next best place for a medical school and, according to Lucio III, the same should be said for the law school.
“If you look at other parts of the state — Houston, Dallas, San Antonio — everybody has a law school,” Martinez said. “We believe that we are able to compete with the rest of the state, and we want to be able to provide that opportunity to our bright students here.”
The bills call for any university system to establish the law school and, even though UTRGV might be the first to come to mind, the fact that there has been more interest from other systems, like Texas A&M, expanding to the region opens up more avenues.
“So you are not only saying the University of Texas School of Law,” Martinez said. “You are saying ‘Any public university that would like to create a law school in Texas, here, we have the framework for it and now you can do it.’” [Emphasis mine]
Did anyone notice that these moronic legislators failed to mention the lawyer glut in this nation?!?! By the way, Houston and Dallas are huge metropolitan areas – and San Antonio is a large city. According to this Wikipedia page, Hidalgo County is the eighth largest in the state. And Cameron County had an estimated 406,220 people as of the 2010 census. Do you think that either area can support a new toilet, lemming?!?! If so, then you are likely in the 142 LSAT crowd.
Other Coverage: On November 25, 2016, “Old Guy” authored a hilarious OTLSS entry, which was entitled “Texas legislators contemplate yet another law school.” He is spot on with regards to the foolishness of the “need” for a new public toilet in that state. Enjoy:
“Scant weeks after the notorious law school at Indiana Tech announced its closure, legislators in Texas proposed the opening of a law school in the southernmost part of the state:
Why? Because "everybody [else] has a law school". A perfect reason! Why shouldn't every half-ass town in the state get its share of the pork barrel?
In addition, "[t]here are some great, very talented young professionals who for financial reasons or reasons related to family cannot travel to San Antonio, which is our nearest law school". (Wrong: the nearest law school is at the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey.) The same argument was deployed at Indiana Tech: pity the many "great, very talented young professionals" (even though actually most of the students there were well past 30) who are so poorly served by the mere four other law schools in Indiana and the thirty-odd within a four-hour drive of Fort Wayne!
Not a word is said about demand, quality, prospects for employment, or even the experience of so many failed or failing law schools, including some in Texas itself. Such paltry considerations should not scupper the latest hackademic boondoggle…Just open the goddamn law school and ask questions later.” [Emphasis mine]
Hell, the waterheads did not even mention the fact the UNT Dallas Commode of Law is not yet fully accredited by the American Bar Association cockroaches. This is a group that regularly approves any structure that has bookshelves, couches, internet access, and a fax machine!
Need for More Schools in Texas?: As you can see, Texas is already home to nine ABA-accredited commodes. The only decent school among the whole group is the state flagship university. After the University of Texas, the drop off in quality or name brand is severe. Even SMU and the University of Houston are middling trash heaps.
Conclusion: The idiots pushing this measure are merely trying to add some “prestige” and pork to their little corner of Texas. Take a moment to reflect on your idea, fools. Can you picture in your little minds – for one microsecond – legions of debt-strapped law grads being able to make a decent living while representing broke-ass dirt farmers and welfare recipients in your community?!?! Here is the reality of the situation: even when Wanda has some discretionary income, she is more likely to piss that money away on an Xbox for her 32 year old man-child husband. In the alternative, she will use those funds on an ankle tattoo that she has wanted for some time. Yet, you are willing to waste revenue on exploring this path. Go back to your coloring books and Play-Doh.
Posted by Nando at 6:39 AM
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Ouch!: On November 21, 2016, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “California’s Bar Passage Rate Reaches 32 Year Low.” Take a look at this opening:
“All bar exam results from the July 2016 administration of the test have officially been released, and in California’s case, it seems that the absolute worst may have been saved for last. The results of the state’s exam were scheduled for mailing on Friday, and test-takers were able to see whether their names were on the pass list on Friday evening.
Save for a few states, bar passage rates have continued to decline nationwide, and many have been waiting to see if California’s passage rates for the July 2016 exam would tank as badly as they did in July 2015, which were the worst the state had seen in nearly three decades. If you thought last year was bad, just wait until you see this year’s results.
According to a press release from the State Bar of California, the overall pass rate for the July 2016 exam was 43 percent, while the pass rate for first-time takers was 56 percent. In July 2015, the overall pass rate was 46.6 percent, and the pass rate for first-time takers was 60 percent. Although California’s overall pass rate dropped by 3.6 percentage points, its examinees seemed to be more able than test-takers in other states. The state’s mean scaled MBE score was 1421 compared with the national average of 1403.
Perhaps that bright spot ought to be taken with a grain of salt, because this is the lowest overall pass rate California has seen for the July administration of the bar since results were released in the fall of 1986, when only 44.4 percent of all test-takers passed the exam. The state hasn’t seen an overall pass rate this low in 32 years. In fact, this passage rate is historically mediocre — it’s actually the third-lowest summer passage rate the state has seen since 1951, when the July passage rate was just 37.6 percent.” [Emphasis mine]
Imagine incurring outrageous amounts of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for a law degree, only to then fail the bar exam. That is a waste of three years of time, money, energy. This represents a loss of significant loss of income as well. But at least the law school pigs were paid up front, in full, right?!?! While this pass rate also includes graduates of out of state ABA commodes, California-accredited schools, and non-accredited cesspits, these results are pathetic.
Press Release: On November 18, 2016, the state bar issued a release entitled “State Bar Announces Results for July 2016 California Bar Examination.” Read the portion below:
“The State Bar of California's Committee of Bar Examiners reported today that 43 percent of the applicants passed the July 2016 General Bar Examination (GBX). If the 3,332 people who passed the July 2016 exam satisfy other requirements for admission, they will become members of the State Bar, and therefore licensed to practice law in California.
Preliminary statistical analyses show that of the 7,737 applicants who took the GBX, 66.7 percent were first-time takers. The passing rate for the 5,164 first-time applicants was 56 percent overall. The passing rate for the 2,573 applicants repeating the examination was 17 percent overall.” [Emphasis mine]
Of note, at the end of the page, you will see the following: Membership now stands at more than a quarter-million. That figure pertains to active lawyers in the state of California. Still want to join this GLUTTED field, Dumbass?!?!
According to this Sacramento Bee story from December 16, 2015, the state’s population exceeded 39 million. If we go with a conservative estimate, and divide 39 million by 250,000 attorneys, then that means there is a lawyer for every 156 people in California.
Other Commentary: JDU denizen “cocolawyer” started a thread labeled “California Bar Passage Rates…” on November 22, 2016. Check out the following remarks:
"cocolawyer (Nov 22, 2016 - 1:56 pm)
Well if you look at overall pass rate it's 43%. This is the lowest pass rate for the July Exam in California in over 30 years.
Basically, the exam is getting easier, but the students are stupider. I hope firms are paying attention. You may want to pay your 3-6 years even more because they will be having to babysit brain dead mouth breathers.
jcad (Nov 22, 2016 - 2:09 pm)
“The trend in California is similar to the trend in New York and perhaps we should extrapolate from that to have such trend apply nationwide.
[T]he number of passers who are ABA approved California school grads (who are also first takers) was about 66% of those who passed the July 2012 exam.
July 2012 = 3157 passers
July 2016 = about 2100 passers
This reduction in ABA California school grads who are first takers and who passed is similar to the reduction seen in New York.”
Conclusion: Don’t put it past the law school cockroaches to point to the continuing decline in bar passage rates nationally – and resultant drop in recently licensed attorneys – as proof that we need more law students and graduates. After all, low-income families need representation in legal matters. Of course, if you owe $160K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, but do not have a law license, then you are not in a position to help those broke bastards. For $ome rea$on, the “professors” and deans conveniently “forget” to mention that fact.
Posted by Nando at 5:24 AM
Saturday, November 19, 2016
The News: On November 16, 2016, Dan Filler posted a Faculty Lounge entry labeled “ABA Places Charlotte Law On Probation & Censures Valpo Law.” Check out this excerpt:
“Today, the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar announced it is placing Charlotte Law School on probation for non-compliance with ABA Standards 301(a), 501(a), and 501(b). The remedial steps ordered include: The Law School shall, by December 15, 2016, supply to the Committee its admissions data and admissions methodology, which includes the Law School’s admissions practices and policies, for the fall 2017 entering class. Where factors other than grade point average and LSAT are used to support an admissions decision, the Law School shall report those factors, explain how they are determined and applied in the review of applicant files, and report on any analyses that have been done or are contemplated to review the outcomes of admissions decisions based on these factors.
Until the Law School is determined by the Accreditation Committee or the Council to be operating in compliance with Standards 301(a), 501(a), and 501(b), each semester, within 30 days of the completion of the assignment and distribution of semester grades for the Law School’s students, the Law School shall advise each Law School student, in writing, of the following, in the same communication: (a) the North and South Carolina first-time bar examination passage rates, by class quartiles, for Law School graduates sitting for the North and South Carolina bar examinations over the six administrations preceding the semester for which results are known; and (b) the class quartile into which the student then falls. The Law School shall provide evidence to the Managing Director’s office, within five days of its distribution to students, that the required information has been appropriately and timely communicated.
At the same time, the ABA Committee censured Valparaiso Law for non-compliance with Standards 501(a) and 501(b). The notice is here. The remedial steps ordered for Valpo were similar.” [Emphasis mine]
The pigs were placed on two years of probation, by an organization known to be extremely forgiving when it comes to enforcing its own pathetic standards. However, the American Bar Association clowns also has a track record of always restoring full accreditation to its foulest toilets. After all, they want more trash pits producing tons of law graduates unnecessarily.
Other Coverage: On November 17, 2016, the Charlotte Observer published reporter Michael Gordon’s article, “Charlotte School of Law promises higher pass rates after landing on probation.” Enjoy this opening:
“After years of falling test scores, the Charlotte School of Law has been placed on two year’s probation by its accrediting agency.
In taking the action, the American Bar Association has publicly criticized the for-profit school’s admission standards and its plummeting pass rates on the bar exam.
The ABA, which fully accredited the Charlotte school in 2011, has given the school 30 days to deliver a report on how it plans to fix the problems.
The school also is required to tell students how many are passing the bar exam.
The passing rate, 45 percent on the most recent exam this summer, is the lowest in North Carolina, a full 20 percentage points beneath the state average. Faculty turnover has been a growing problem, and as with many law schools, enrollment has fallen.
Failure to meet the bar association’s demands carries a list of penalties, from fines and censure to a loss of accreditation. An unaccredited school means the students can’t qualify for federal loans or take the bar exam in many states.
Charlotte School of Law Dean Jay Conison, says the school already has a comprehensive plan in place to increase the requirements for incoming students while adding programs and academic support to improve student performance on the bar exam.
“We are extremely disappointed over the news we got Monday,” he said, but added. “We have an obligation to make some improvements. And we have a very, very comprehensive plan that we are very confident in.” He predicted the school would be back in ABA compliance well within the two-year window.” [Emphasis mine]
The bitches and hags at this cess pit admit and enroll cretins, KNOWING full well that a significant portion of each class does not have the acumen to pass a bar exam. Yet, they need to get their claws on more federal student loan dollars – so they take in a plethora or dumbasses every year. How “honorable,” huh?!?! Look at these LSAT and UGPA numbers for CharloTTTTe SOL, courtesy of Law School Transparency.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the American Bar Association cockroaches are merely trying to appear competent. They had a little heat earlier from the U.S. Department of Education, and now the bastards need to “show” that they are indeed enforcing their own accreditation “standards.” Since the ABA routinely restores full accreditation to any commode it places on probation, do not expect anything different this time. See Whittier, Western School of Law, La Verne, etc.
Look for CharloTTTTe Sewer of Law to dissuade graduates from taking the bar exam. Perhaps, they will institute a baby bar, in order to weed out the real weaklings after first year. Or they might offer to pay idiots not to take the test. In the alternative, they may turn the last two years of schooling into a bar prep program. The slimy cockroaches will need to do something. As noted earlier, for the Fall 2013 entering class, the 25th percentile score was 141 and the 75th percentile LSAT was 149. For Fall 2015, those numbers dropped to 140 and 145, respectively. That indicates lower exam passage rates for this toilet, as long as the state bars hold up their standards.
Posted by Nando at 6:49 AM
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
The TTTTT Nerve: Back on October 19, 2016, North Texas Daily published a Tiffany Ditto piece that was entitled “UNT unaccredited law school to buy Dallas building where Lee Oswald was shot.” Take a look at this opening:
“UNT Dallas is paying the city of Dallas $1 for the city’s former municipal building with plans to house UNT’s law school there. But the building will cost $56 million to renovate, and UNT’s law school is still not accredited, officials said.
The university has been negotiating the deal with the city for the last 10 years, Law School Chancellor Lee Jackson said. The city of Dallas is donating the building, the land it sits on and $16 million worth of restorative work.
“We believe the location is ideal for a public law school because of the many courts and law firms in the downtown Dallas area,” Jackson said in an email.
After a decade of planning and gaining the state’s approval to issue $56 million in bonds, UNT is finally able to acquire the building, Jackson said. The long-term bonds will be issued by UNT but the state of Texas will reimburse the debt and interest.
The city of Dallas has already invested $16 million into restoring the building’s exterior walls, stabilizing the structure and demolishing of the interior of the building.
Renovation of the inside is set to begin January 2017 by UNT’s architects. The goal is to modernize the inside so that it can function as a 21st-century law school while keeping its old charm. James Maguire, vice chancellor of the law school, will oversee the architectural changes made to the interior of the building, but he could not be reached for comment.
The building, at 106 South Harwood Street, was erected in 1914 and was home to Dallas’ city government for over 60 years. The building gained fame when Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and jailed there after assassinating President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Two days later, Jack Ruby shot Oswald while he was being lead out of the municipal building.
With millions of dollars being poured into the new law building, UNT hopes it will be able to acquire the accreditation needed from the American Bar Association to graduate students that can go on to be lawyers.” [Emphasis mine]
Yes, this deal reeks of a foul stench. Apparently, the pigs at the Univer$iTTTTTy of NorTTTTTh TTTTTexa$ Dalla$ Commode of Law believe in their vision so much that they have to rely on taxpayer funds to make their dreams come true! Sadly, state legislator idiots agreed to this scheme.
Other Coverage: Back on September 26, 2016, the Dallas Morning News featured a Robert Wilonsky story that was labeled “Despite accreditation woes, UNT ready to buy historic City Hall for downtown Dallas law school.” Make sure to read the following portion:
“Dallas' first public law school, in the heart of downtown, remains at risk of not being accredited by the American Bar Association. But that isn't stopping UNT Dallas College of Law from proceeding with long-standing plans to buy the old Municipal Building from the city.
On Monday morning, Lee Jackson, chancellor of the University of North Texas System, went to Dallas City Hall to outline its purchase plans for the 103-year-old landmark, which served as the city's fourth city hall until 1978. UNT plans to renovate the building, which is across the street from Main Street Garden, using $56 million in tuition revenue bonds approved by the state Legislature last year.
The city agreed to turn the building over to UNT at no cost but with an agreement that the historic structure be restored.
UNT first expressed interest in the old muni building a decade ago, and the City Council has repeatedly passed resolutions in support of planting a law school downtown. There was just one problem: Until it received the Legislature's blessings, UNT didn't have the money to make its dream tangible.
In the interim, the city is spending some $14 million in bond money to rehab the building's exterior, especially a rotting roof, and other pieces of the Beaux Arts building gone to seed because of deferred maintenance.” [Emphasis mine]
Of course the pigs expressed interest in more freebies. Was the old Texas School Book Depository building not available to lease, on the public’s dime?!?! What about the Texas Theatre, where this bastard was arrested? You couldn't get the city to shell out some cash to you for that location?!?! Perhaps, you could set up shop in an abandoned warehouse or homeless shelter. After all, these seem to be places where you can find your future grads.
Conclusion: As noted on the trash pit’s website, the Univer$iTTTTTy of NorTTTTTh TTTTTexa$ Dalla$ Commode of Law is currently not accredited by the American Bar Association cockroaches. Hell, these dolts typically approve any potential law school that has running water, bookshelves, a library, and a fax machine. It seems that the ABA cretins will eventually give their stamp of approval. However, YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE PART of a school that has no alumni base – and a garbage reputation. In the final analysis, only a moron would even consider attending such a pathetic in$TTTTTiTTTTTuTTTTTion.
Posted by Nando at 5:12 AM
Friday, November 11, 2016
Fourth Tier South Texas College of Law Changes Its Name Yet Again, for Second Time Within the Last Five Months
What’s in a Name?: On November 7, 2016, the Houston Chronicle published a piece from Gabrielle Banks, under the headline “Another new name announced for Houston law school.” Check out this opening:
“The dean of Houston's 93-year-old law school announced Monday morning the school will henceforth be known as South Texas College of Law Houston, on the heels of an injunction by a federal judge barring the school from using the name Houston College of Law while a trademark suit played out in court.
The new name is designed to avoid confusion with the University of Houston's Law Center while still helping potential students find the Houston-based law school.
Just after South Texas College of Law announced its Houston-focused name in June, the University of Houston regents sued for trademark infringement.
UH attorneys argued that those interested in their institution had become confused about with school was which when viewing the new branding at college fairs and online.
In mid-October U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison found that UH had a strong likelihood of prevailing at trial on the grounds that the new law school name prominently featuring the words Houston and Law along with a new red-and-white color scheme were likely to confuse consumers in the marketplace. The judge upheld UH's motion for an injunction.
At a subsequent hearing before Judge Ellison, Houston College of Law's attorneys acquiesced, agreeing to take down billboards and banners and revise Internet and letterhead branding. The attorneys said the school would share its new name confidentially with lawyers for UH Friday, and the parties complied with that agreement. If UH didn't see the proposed name as problematic, the downtown law school would move forward.
"We agreed to it and we don't have any problems with it at all," said Dona Cornell, general counsel for UH. As for the lawsuit, Cornell said, "I totally anticipate its going to be over in very short order." [Emphasis mine]
Who wouldn’t want to attend a cesspool named $ouTTTTh TTTTexa$ Commode of Law Hou$TTTTon?!?! Hell, senior centers are more selective in who they admit than this steaming pile of excrement! Furthermore, the bathroom stalls at old age homes smell better than a degree from this toilet.
Prior Name Change in June 2016: Back on June 23, 2016, Above the Law featured a Kathryn Rubino entry labeled “Law School’s Name Change Sparks Ire, Potential Lawsuit.” Take a look at this portion:
“Just yesterday we told you about South Texas College of Law’s decision to change its name to Houston College of Law. The only problem? A little less than four miles away there is already a University of Houston Law Center, and they share the same red school color.
Tipsters and folks on social media had an immediate reaction, nearly all of it negative. Changing your school’s name after 93 years is bound to be controversial, especially when there is a good chance the school could be confused with one significantly ahead of it in the U.S. News and World Report Rankings.”
And now, the University of Houston Law Center is weighing in on the issue. They are not pleased. From Dean Leonard Baynes:
It has come to the University of Houston’s attention that South Texas College of Law has announced that it is changing its name to Houston College of Law. The University of Houston Law Center has an established history of nearly 70 years in the City of Houston. The University of Houston is concerned about the significant confusion this creates in the marketplace and will take any and all appropriate legal actions to protect the interests of our institution, our brand and our standing in the communities we serve.” [Emphasis mine]
I’m sure it was a mere set of coincidences the pigs initially changed their name to Houston College of Law – and amended the school colors to match those of the University of Houston. What are the odds? Then again, I suppose the $TTTTCL cockroaches felt they could claim that this was an “error.”
Ranking: As you can see, $ouTTTTh TTTTexa$ Commode of Law-Hou$TTTTon is rated as a FOURTH TIER TRASH CAN, by US “News” & World Report. What a great distinction, huh?!?! Perhaps, the dolts only wanted to change their name to Houston COL in order to be placed earlier in the Rank Not Published section – since those garbage pits are listed alphabetically.
Conclusion: Avoid this cesspool at all costs, despite whatever name changes it undergoes in the next several months or years, lemming. In the final analysis, a TTTT law degree isn’t worth the paper it is printed on, fool. Case in point: full-time tuition at this ABA-accredited dung heap stands at $30,600 – for the 2016-2017 academic year. Have fun trying to repay back massive amounts of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, when you are relegated to jobs making $45K or less, per year, Bitch! Does that strike you as a wise investment, Stupid?!?!
Posted by Nando at 6:17 AM
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Passing the Buck: Pigs at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Blame Lazy Graduates for Lower Bar Passage Rate
Throwing JDs Under the Bus: On November 4, 2016, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry entitled “Law School Blames Lazy Graduates With Low GPAs for Abtsmal Performance On Bar Exam.” Check out this opening:
“While law schools across the country have tried to find a solution to their graduates’ bar exam problems, be it through blaming the test for being unfair or too difficult or allegedly begging their graduates not to take the exam at all, passage rates in many jurisdictions have continued to drop precipitously.
Law schools in New York are still a bit tense, and with good reason — after all, the overall pass rate of 64 percent for the state’s first administration of the Uniform Bar Exam in July 2016 was only a modest improvement over the results from the July 2015 exam, which were the worst New York had seen in more than three decades. One New York law school seems to have pinpointed the exact reason why its overall pass rate was so low. The school revealed in a recent email to all students that graduates with low GPAs and students who refused to work hard on studying dragged down the school’s overall pass rate. Which law school could it be?
The school in question is Hofstra Law School, and its bar passage rate has progressively slipped from 84 percent in July 2013 to 64 percent in July 2016. You can be sure that any law school with a 20 percentage point drop in graduates capable of passing the bar exam would search for the root cause of the problem, but like many law schools that have lowered their admissions standards in recent years, Hofstra’s quandary may be of its own doing.
Last night, Hofstra’s dean sent an email to current students about the school’s abysmal bar passage rate. That email contained the following information:
The July 2016 New York State Bar results were released, and our pass rate for first-time takers was 64 percent, a decline of 3 percent from the previous year. The average pass rate for first-time takers at New York schools was 83 percent. …
Hard work is truly an important factor in Bar success. Studies have found that students who complete at least 75 percent of their commercial Bar prep work have a significantly higher chance of passing the exam. Also, the strongest indicator of success continues to be a student’s final law school GPA. If you are currently ranked in the bottom 50 percent of your class, I strongly encourage you to reach out to our academic success advisors.
It’s no wonder Hofstra graduates with low GPAs have suffered when it comes to passing the bar exam. Take a look at how the law school’s admissions criteria have sunk since 2010, particularly in the 25th percentile range. Students who entered the school with those numbers may well have become graduates with low law school GPAs, which have been shown to correlate strongly with success (or lack thereof) on the bar exam.” [Emphasis mine]
It’s easier to blame supposed lazy-ass students for bar exam failures than it is to make changes at the school charging them outrageous sums of money in tuition. By the way, you cockroaches chose to admit and enroll those students. Furthermore, only half of any law school class can finish in the top 50 percent of that cohort. These weak “arguments” further illustrate that “law professors” truly are terrible at math.
Garbage Admissions Policy: Take a look at the Law School Transparency report for Hofstra University. Scroll down to the bottom of the page, to see the chart showing that the pigs have KNOWINGLY LOWERED their admi$$ion$ “standards” – in order to get more asses in seats, as the number of applications dropped. This is evidenced by the fact that first year enrollment was 365 in Fall 2010, as opposed to 251 in Fall 2015.
Here are the 25th percentile LSAT scores:
Fall 2010: 156
Fall 2011: 155
Fall 2012: 153
Fall 2013: 151
Fall 2014: 147
Fall 2015: 147
The median LSAT scores were 158, 159, 157, 154, 152, and 153 for the same respective years – and the 75th percentile results were 160, 160, 159, 157, 154, and 155. The 25th percentile LSAT in Fall 2010 was higher than the 75th percentile LSAT figure – at the same damn school – in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015! Do you understand the implications of those numbers, Lemming?!?!
The Toilet’s Ranking: As you can see, the Maurice A. Deane Sewer of Law at Hof$TTTra Univer$iTTTy is rated as the 111th greatest, most fantastic, and amazing law school in the entire damn country! Hell, it “only” shares this distinction with 11 other commodes. What a tremendous in$TTTiTTTuTTTion, huh?!?!
Tuition: This is incredible, folks. Full-time tuition at the Maurice A. Dean Sewer of Law – for the 2016-2017 academic year – stands at $55,860. How is that for a slap in the face? In comparison, full-time tuition at top ranked Yale Law School is $57,615, for 2016-2017.
Conclusion: Do not even consider applying to the rancid pile of fecal matter known as the Maurice A Deane School of Law at Hofstra University. Do you think – for one microsecond – that you will stand a chance competing against JDs from NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard or Yale, for the high-paying jobs needed to repay your NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt?!?! If so, then you do not possess the mental capacity to order food for yourself from McDonald’s. But if you do graduate from Hof$TTTra, then you may have a decent chance to scrub toilets for that establishment.
Posted by Nando at 6:02 AM
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Booyah!: On October 31, 2016, the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel published one of the most beautiful and poignant news articles in the history of print media. The piece from Kevin Leininger was entitled “Indiana Tech Law School to close next June; losses at $20 million.” Take a look at this glorious opening:
“Indiana Tech's law school, which opened in 2013 with far fewer students than expected, failed in its first attempt at accreditation and graduated its first students this year — only one of whom passed the state bar examination — will close, The News-Sentinel has learned.
The school on Maumee Avenue just east of downtown built its $15 million law building to accommodate up to 350 students and expected 100 in its initial class but attracted 28. At the time, some critics doubted the need for the school, saying first-year law school enrollments had dropped 28 percent since 2010 to their lowest level since 1973.
Indiana Tech [president] Arthur Snyder said the university has lost $20 million on the law school and, given projected enrollments, expected the deficit to continue. “This was an extremely difficult decision for all involved," Snyder said. "Over the course of time it has become apparent that the significant decline in law school applicants nationwide represents a long term shift in the legal education field, not a short-term one. Specific to Indiana Tech, the assessment of the Board and our senior leadership team is that for the foreseeable future the law school will not be able to attract students in sufficient numbers for the school to remain viable.”
Indiana Tech Law School currently has a total of 71 students, and Snyder said they will have the option to complete the year, with those in their third and final year having the ability to graduate from the law school in May. First and second year students will have the option to transfer to other law schools at the start of the January 2017 semester, or to complete the year at Indiana Tech Law School and then transfer for the start of the fall 2017 semester.
Chris Mackaronis, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing one of the faculty members affected, said the university’s Board of Directors had recently voted unanimously to close the school at the end of the academic year in June 2017. The vote, he said, conflicts with years of representations to the students, faculty and the American Bar Association regarding the university’s commitment to pursue full accreditation and long-term success for the law school.
“Most of the faculty accepted their appointments at great professional risk (based on that commitment)," Mackaronis said, calling the closure a "complete betrayal of what the university and the Board of Trustees represented to the faculty, staff, and students repeatedly over the last few years . . . By all measures, the plan was working,” he said.” [Emphasis mine]
Sure the plan was working, douchebag. Out of your inaugural class of 20 graduates, only three damn former students managed to eventually pass the Indiana bar exam – including on appeal. Yes, those are excellent results, right?!?! Then again, the academic bitches and hags were paid up front, in full.
Other Coverage: On October 31, 2016, Above the Law posted a Staci Zaretsky entry labeled “Indiana Tech Law School To Close, Citing $20 Million Loss.” Enjoy the following, joyous segment:
“Indiana Tech School of Law opened its doors in 2013, amid cries that the state had no need for another law school. In its first year, only 30 students enrolled, despite the school’s goal of an inaugural entering class of 100. After being denied accreditation in May 2015, the school was granted provisional accreditation by the American Bar Association in March 2016. Shortly thereafter, the 20 remaining students in the school’s charter class graduated, and 13 of them registered to take a bar exam. Only three of them were successful, for an overall passage rate of 23.1 percent. This fall, the school enrolled 55 students, its largest class ever.
Today, Indiana Tech Law School is announcing its closure.
At a meeting this afternoon, Indiana Tech University President Arthur Snyder is expected to tell faculty, staff, and students that the Board of Directors, citing $20 million in losses, voted unanimously to close the school at the conclusion of the academic year. Its final day in operation will be June 30, 2017. Faculty members are understandably upset, as many of them “accepted their appointments at great professional risk,” according to Stone Mattheis Xenopoulos & Brew partner Christopher G. Mackaronis, who represents a faculty member who prefers to remain anonymous.” [Emphasis mine]
The author also includes some advice to the idiots still enrolled in this cesspit, i.e. do some research on closed school loan discharge. [Read: do not attend another ABA-accredited trash pit, as you will be in worse shape completing a law degree.] Sadly, most of these morons will continue their pur$uiTTTTT.
Conclusion: The greedy pigs at the Indiana Institute of Technology failed to perform basic research, regarding the need for another garbage law school in the state. Hell, Paul Campos and several other critics warned these dolts not to start a fresh toilet. Yet, the academic thieves willingly ignored reality. The prevailing job market for law grads was already in the gutter, but the swine decided to open a new in$TTTTTiTTTTTuTTTTTion in August 2013. Yes, that was a brilliant decision!
The university heads finally woke up and stopped the bleeding. Of course, the law faculty are now upset. However, they will not be on the hook for outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – while armed with a TTTTT law degree. These “scholars” should have no trouble at all commanding a high six-figure salary and a corner office in any law office of their choice.
Posted by Nando at 6:40 AM