Saturday, January 23, 2016

Falling Standards: ABA-Accredited Law Schools Have Collectively Enrolled a Much Higher Percentage of Students with LSAT Scores Below 150, Since 2010

Welcome to Law School, Moron!: On January 20, 2016, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry that was labeled “The Great Law School Brain Drain Is The Reason Why More People Are Failing The Bar Exam Than Ever Before.” Look at this opening:

“For the past two years, alarming headlines have followed in the wake of the scoring of the summer administrations of the bar exam. The first drop in nationwide bar exam scores in July 2014 prompted Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to declare that test takers were “less able” than their predecessors. Law school deans protested Moeser’s harsh categorization of their graduates, but when the stunningly subpar results of the July 2015 bar exam were announced, she was proven correct. Per Moeser, this wasn’t “unexpected” — after all, since the law school crisis began, students with lower qualifications who “may encounter difficulty” on the bar exam were being admitted in droves. Law school administrators were sorely mistaken if they thought that this would result in a happy ending. 

Now that the effects of the great law school brain drain are on display for the world to see, it’s time to take a look at exactly what caused this phenomenon to occur. Professor Jerry Organ of the University of St. Thomas School of Law has been tracking LSAT profiles of law school matriculants for years, and the results of his analysis are shocking. 

Research has shown that LSAT scores correlate with scores on the bar exam. Take a look at these changes in matriculant LSAT data from 2010 to 2015, and then you’ll see one of the reasons why fewer law school graduates have passed the bar exam in recent years: 

[Chart labeled LSAT Matriculant Score Changes 2010-2015] 

While the percentage of matriculants with LSAT scores between 150-159 has remained relatively stable, the percentage of matriculants with scores of 160 or greater has slowly declined, and the percentage of matriculants with scores of 150 or lower has continued to increase year after year. If that’s not scary enough for you, check out this line graph: 

[Chart labeled LSAT Matriculant Score Changes 2010-2015 Line Graph] 

This is what happens when law schools are so desperate for cash that they’ll admit anyone with a pulse.” [Emphasis mine]

The law school pigs CLEARLY do not care about admitting the mental midgets – and strapping those fools down with outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. They don’t even care about the residual effect this will have on future legal clients or the garbage “profession” itself. Then again, it’s not as if these “educators” practice law for a living. During Orientation, these cockroaches proclaim this as “a noble endeavor.” Yet, it should have raised some red flags – among the enrolled students – that the typical tenured “law professor” spent about 12 minutes in practice.

Organ's Analysis: On January 18, 2016, the Legal Whiteboard featured a piece from Jerry Organ, under the headline “Changes in Composition of the LSAT Profiles of Matriculants and Law Schools Between 2010 and 2015.” Read the portion below:

“In late December 2014, I posted a blog analyzing how the distribution of matriculants across LSAT categories had changed since 2010 based on the LSAC’s National Decision Profiles and on law school 50th percentile LSATs and 25thpercentile LSATs across ranges of LSAT scores. With the LSAC’s recent release of the 2014-15 National Decision Profile and the ABA’s recent release of Standard 509 data, I am posting this blog to provide an update with the 2015 data. 

At one level, this is a story that has already become well understood over the last year since my blog posting, with much discussion of the relationship between declining LSAT profiles and declining median MBE scores and bar passage rates. This 2015 information indicates that the decline in the LSAT profiles of matriculants and of law schools has continued, although with some moderation. 

Given that the LSAT profiles of matriculants and of law schools for fall 2013, fall 2014 and fall 2015 are less robust than those for fall 2011 and fall 2012 (the classes that graduated in 2014 and 2015, respectively), one can anticipate that the declines in median MBE scaled scores and corresponding bar passage rates in 2014 and 2015 will continue in July 2016, 2017 and 2018 absent increases in attrition (I discussed attrition rates in a blog posting in October), significant improvement in academic support programs at law schools, or improved bar preparation efforts on the part of graduates.” [Emphasis mine]

Scroll down for the following telling sign:

“Note that in terms of the percentage change in the number of matriculants in each LSAT category, the four highest LSAT categories are all down at least 30% since 2010, with 165-169 and 170+ down over 40%, while the two lowest LSAT categories are up, with <145 being up over 60%."

Yes, what a "prestigious" degree, right?!?!  hell, beating your neighbor's eight year old kid at chess is a bigger accomplishment than receiving an AccepTTTance LeTTTer from an ABA law school.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, only those on the payroll of ABA-accredited toilets - along with an occasional waterhead lemming who is intent on going to law school at all costs - will continue defending falling admi$$ion$ "standards." If law school truly was professional school, then morons who obtain pathetic LSAT scores would have no shot in hell of gaining admission to any approved JD program. We have reached the point now where a dunce with a 148 exam score will have his pick of several ABA commodes. When that same idiot is weighed down with $170K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt - and is working at PetSmart or Costco for a living - we'll see how proud he is then of his TTT law degree.


  1. Any law professor or law dean who cannot understand the correlation between LSAT scores and eventual bar passage rates does not have the intellectual capacity required to teach students to reason, argue, and write logically.
    Any law professor or law dean who does understand the correlation, but does not or will not admit it exists, is a liar.
    And any law professor or law dean who does not protest the admittance of students who have little or no chance of success studying the law and passing the bar, just because their school wants the student-borrower's Federal loan money (which the student will never be able to pay back) should cease to call himself or herself an educator.
    A law school that no longer cares about educating, but only wants to palm off a bill of goods to the unwary, should be put out of business, because it is the very essence of HACK-ademia.

    1. At this point, it's a question of integrity for every professor and administrator. Only the willfully blind can claim not to know about the scam.

    2. And these are the folks teaching the next generation of lawyers. Ethics anyone?

    3. Beware the mother that eats its children.

  2. They will simply pressure the Bar Examiners to lower standards. They will claim that it will impact "discrete and insular minorities." DePaul's interim Dean made that argument regarding Illinois. It is all about SALES. If their product is flawed, bar passage, then they have a defective product. A defective product will mean falling sales. SALES.

  3. A lot of these people won't even get the bullshit degree, which is worth about as much as one pulled out of a box of Cracker Jack. But they'll certainly have the non-dischargeable debt.

    Don't believe a word of the propaganda about opening up opportunities, expanding minds, preserving the rule of law, increasing diversity, defending dolphins, and the rest. Let me instead give you a simple rule:


    If you do score that well (and remember that 160 is at only the 80th percentile, not exactly a stunning performance), you still probably should not go to law school. Only 16 law schools deserve your consideration. I have given the list elsewhere.

    1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 23, 2016 at 2:40 PM

      Take a look at any Popular Mechanics or Popular Science Magazines from the 50s-60s. Right next to the bulldozer operator ads, one will find Blackstone College Law College and LaSalle Extension University. Both made the same claims!!!!!! Back in the day, they were characterized as getting your degree from the back of a matchbook cover. Listen to us guys with grey hair....

  4. Touro Law is a piece of fucking shit. Are they starting to take in kids with 138 LSATs yet?

  5. It's all about the Benjamins...

    1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 24, 2016 at 7:07 AM

      Except they won't be getting their "Billions Back, America."

  6. I scored a 155 and retook it, scoring 165. I had a 3.5 undergrad gpa and 3.85 gpa in my master's program. In 1994, I was admitted to 4 of the 10 schools to which I applied, and NONE were in the first tier. Suppose now I would be admitted to nearly all 10, with scholarship offers. What a joke.

    1. Now you'd get into many so-called first-tier schools, with large "scholarships" to boot. You'd even have a good chance at some of the 16 law schools that may possibly be worth attending.

    2. I was "wait-listed" with a 3.4 overall and a 3.7 in my major. That was in 1987 for either a second or third tier school. I recall crapping a brick that I wouldn't get in to any law school.

    3. And I'm sure several law schools laughed behind your back and smirked at you at the time, 7:13 AM. Nowadays, they would treat you like a f*****g KING! Red carpet, bottle service, scholarships, etc. etc.

      What a difference a few years makes in a truly pompous, navel-gazing, silver-spooned, self-important educational system. It's probably time that "The Law" got knocked off its pedestal - the shame is that thousands of students pay the price for it.

    4. I graduated in 1990 with a 3.4 undergrad GPA and 41 on the LSAT (it was scored on a different scale back then. Based upon percentile, that would translate to approximately 165 today). That was only good enough to get me into T2 law school with no scholarship money. Today, there are plenty of kids getting into elite schools with similar stats.

  7. The federal loan program has caused higher ranked schools to pig out on as many high LSAT scorers as they can get and then to gorge again on transfer students. There is nothing left for the law schools down the food chain, so to speak.

    Columbia has increased its class size by two thirds over the last 40 years. The 160 faculty members you pointed out in your last column represent a startling degree of excess. Why is this? Because they can, and they will be better and better paid the more they pig out.

    Harvard has started the transfer game in a big way, and has one of the largest law schools. Starting to see the dollar signs from the federal loan program in a big way.

    Only 5 law schools now have median LSATs at 170 or higher. The other law schools have to spend gobs of scholarship money to get high scorers.

    It is blood bath for law schools. Either lower standards or go out of business.

    Question is why the board of trustees of a top law school allows the class sizes to balloon.

    The employment stats for experienced lawyers from all of the top schools going out 15, 20 or 25 years or more are poor. It is because the classes of even the best law schools are twice the size of what the schools can place long term.

    The federal loan program is operated for the benefit of the law schools, not the students.

    1. "The federal loan program is operated for the benefit of the law schools, not the students."

      The law schools in the short term, but ultimately the banks and financial institutions who make these loans. They want you to make as many payments as you can, no matter how miniscule; the principal keeps accruing interest and is guaranteed by the US government. They can wait 10 or 20 years, they don't care, they will get paid anyway. If there is any debt forgiveness it just means that the government (read taxpayer) will foot the bill. It really is a devil genius plan.

    2. The law-school scam serves both the law skules and the banks—and pretty much no one else. The skules get as much money as they ask for, right up front, with no risk. The banks get a long-term handout from the state, and their only risk lies in the "full faith and credit" of the US government—admittedly a significant risk nowadays.

  8. The pigs don't give a shit about the profession. That much is evident.

  9. This is why I don't buy the lack of reliance argument the courts trot out to let the law schools off the hook.

    If people weren't relying on the fraudulent statistics, there would be no drop in applicants and especially quality of applicants.

    Sure, the absolute worst applicants would have still gone, but clearly anyone with decent statistics (165+ LSAT) likely would have skipped law school, especially since as other posters have pointed out several years ago and prior those statistics would not get a person into a decent law school (T8 and above really).

  10. I met a girl attending one of these legal toileTTTTs. She was 30 years old and spent her time listening to Taylor Swift (mental age 13), texting, videocaming, and drinking cheap wine. I guess next they are going to start recruiting directly from the homeless and abused women shelters, AA meetings, illegal detention centers, and the remaining mental institutions.

    1. I bet we can get at least half of the Syrian refugees to sign up for law school. Their experience makes them ideal candidates for all those 4T's immigration, human rights and international law programs. At $160,000 a pop it's not a bad business, and the loans are guaranteed by the federal government.

    2. Meanwhile shitholes like Brooklyn Law School will keep admitting retarded rednecks from Montana. When these dumb shitbirds fail the bar exam, the school will blame the students (lack of effort) or the bar exam itself.

    3. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 24, 2016 at 9:45 AM

      I observed this phenomenon at a dinner party hosted by a law dean. There was this young lady in attendance who was husband shopping. Telling everybody there are no good men out there. I learned that she graduated from a shithole like DeVry with a 2.4 in Exercise Physiology. The Dean told her that there are many eligible men who attend his UNRANKED law mill and that it is a terrific opportunity to make money. She noted her grades. He told her "don't worry, I will shepherd your application..."

    4. Not guaranteed by -- directly borrowed from -- the Govt. With almost immediate disbursement to the law schools, risk-free, up-front cash. The law schools could flunk the student-borrowers out at mid-term and still get to keep all that Federal money!!!!!

    5. lol well she could always become a Taylor Swift hype woman afterward cuz her legal career will be done.

  11. The problem of lower and lower scorers applying to law schools, and fewer and fewer applicants each year, feeds on itself. Law school is widely known as toxic to peoples' careers.

    Prospective students who do the math and read the blogs see there are still half a million more licensed lawyers than there are jobs for attorneys. If they look at the job ads, they see many temporary jobs listed. On some boards, half the jobs are temporary jobs. The scam blogs are full of horror stories, some from graduates of top law schools.

    So you have a profession that is already grossly oversupplied with lawyers to fill jobs, and you have as many temporary jobs as there are permanent jobs available in the mix. Not an attractive prospect to the person who is really smart and has the stats to get into a T8 or T14 law school.

    The 10% making partner rate from Harvard and 7% from other top law schools is not attractive if you are facing an acceptance from a T6 law school. What are you going to do after big law? Will there be a legal job for you, or will you be a permatemp, struggling to find work and surviving on temporary work, if and when you can get it? Not attractive if you are graduating from Harvard College cum laude and have a 171 or 172 LSAT.

    Law schools are still enrolling double the number of students as their are long term jobs. Take the number of lawyer jobs and divide by 40, the number of years in a career. Comes out to 19,000 or a little more, including the huge number of temp jobs and solo practitioners.

    The high scorers can easily switch gears from day one in college, or late in college or after college, and ultimately go to medical school, where there is almost guaranteed high paid employment once the student gains admission to a U.S. based MD-granting medical school. The placement rate of US based MD granting schools in residencies is about 97%. Most medical specialties have more than sufficient employment opportunities in desirable geographic areas, usually where the person wants to be, for medical residents who have completed their training.

    Dentistry also offers relatively high paying positions, and not the same degree of oversupply of workers.

    Going into business, including getting an MBA from a top school, offers some degree of flexibility that law does not.

    With about $115,000 median incomes for those who get lawyer jobs, law is much lower paying than medicine or dentistry. Lawyers are about on a par with pharmacists in pay levels, if one can get work as a lawyer. However, you need tops academics to earn that pharmacists salary as a lawyer. However, pharmacists don't need to go to a highly selective school, where graduates of Harvard and Yale College are applying in large numbers, to get a pharmacy degree in order to find work as a pharmacist. Most of the 500,000 or so surplus lawyers in the United States who are licensed but not working in legal jobs may not be earning much at all, or may be working in retail to make ends meet.

    With the information out there about the career disasters in being a lawyer, the law school brain drain is not going to abate.

    1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 24, 2016 at 10:58 AM

      That 115K is from the BLS. It only includes data from "pay check" data. It does NOT reflect data from SOLOS or micro-firms which is 50% of the practice. IRS data according to Paul Campos pegs the average solo making slightly under 40K per year.

    2. This is a fantastic analysis. On the money. I will also throw in that when you factor in municipal employment in non white collar fields, i.e. LAPD, New York Sanitation, Chicago call dispatchers, it really doesn't make sense to pursue higher education, especially law school. Chicago call dispatchers had a contract getting paid between 80 and 90k, and given the city's problems, there was talk of a pay freeze. I remember reading an article where one of these guys, went right in after high school, said "everyone has to tighten their belts" to give him what was promised.

      I know many many attorneys, tons, who will never make 90k, let alone 115k, and let alone, as you said, the amount of skill and credentials by involved to hit 115k is insane.

    3. Those data also do not include non-practitioners—people who may nominally be (or have been) lawyers but couldn't make a go of it.

    4. Agreed, except for your assertion that high scorers can switch gears and go to med/dental/pharmacy school. Not really. The T14 has long been littered with liberal arts grads who are completely incompetent in STEM despite their otherwise high intelligence. A pre-med course of study with grades sufficient for med school admission simply isn't a viable option for most math-avoidant liberal arts majors, regardless of high LSAT scores.

    5. Maybe I should have gone to medical school.

    6. 9:20 am-That is crazy- to think that people from top undergrad schools who could get into a T6 law school a few years ago cannot make it into med school.

      People who go to Harvard or Yale undergrad have SATs in the mid-700s on each of the math and the verbal. Law school was attractive to those people because they thought it was a good deal. Now that people know law school is not a good deal, they are going to use their math and science skills.

      Someone with a 760 math on SAT1 and an 800 math on SAT 2 is not completely incompetent at STEM. Before the law school fallout, that person may have majored in economics and veered towards law school. No more though.

      Harvard and Yale Colleges have almost universal acceptance to MD-granting US medical schools.

      You are underestimating some of the smartest people in America.

      Down the food chain, people cannot do math and science. Not the Harvard/Yale undergrad crowd.

    7. "Harvard and Yale Colleges have almost universal acceptance to MD-granting US medical schools." Maybe—but not every student there applies to medical school. You're talking about a self-selected group: those who are interested in medical school, have completed the required courses in the natural sciences and mathematics, and have earned good grades. That's only a small part of the student body at Harvard and Yale.

    8. 6:50pm- There's a world of difference between objectively high performance in math at the SAT level and what it takes to complete a STEM or pre-med (or pre-dental, or pre-pharmacy) course of study with high enough grades & MCATs/DATs/PCATs to earn admission to med/dental/pharma school. The world is awash in pre-med dropouts, including those who went to Ivy League schools.

    9. My T14 was replete with Ivy+ grads without an inkling of scientific aptitude. Med school was not an option for any of them.

    10. I'm a STEM major that stupidly went to law school.

      There is really not much difference between science and other subjects. Especially the way it is taught in schools.

      The only really unique thing in math and the hard sciences is deriving equations to fit a problem you haven't exactly seen before. But the vast majority of students don't have that ability and don't need it, they'll just memorize all the possible equations instead, and then it's a simple matter of just working through the problems.

      And even that is primarily just Gen Chem and Physics, my two strongest subjects because I was indeed quite proficient at that.

      In Bio and Organic Chemistry it's really straight memorization and few derived equations at all.

      I was pulled aside in one of my upper level Bio courses one day and praised for my writing skill. The professor told me that a scientist that can write well has a very bright future, as most of his colleagues simply could not.

      I foolishly chose to go to law school as a result. I do wish I had continued to pursue science, I did enjoy a lot of it. Especially Genetics, that was such an intellectually intriguing subject to me.

      The smartest people I know are generally in finance, accounting, or other similar high income professions. There is no question they can easily handle science, in fact many do ease through the required science courses they do have to take.

      Someone that is intelligent enough to perform at a high level in a liberal arts subject can easily handle science. It's the mediocre performers that are coasting with preferential grading in liberal arts programs or are otherwise lazy that may have an issue.

      But anyone that makes Harvard or Yale through merit does not suffer from those issues. Legacy admissions are a different scenario altogether, but for those types nothing they did mattered anyway.

      Old Guy, generally I am in agreement with you, but in this case I am in complete disagreement.

      And if it matters, I had a 167 LSAT and went to a crummy T2 with a puny scholarship. My GPA was a bit low, but science gives out low GPAs, my non-science GPA was a solid 3.7+, unfortunately, even as a Dean's List student, my major GPA dropped me about a half point below that. Still competitive for medical schools, who understand the grading difference, but I suspect I never had a shot at a decent law school. I wonder what would happen if I applied today, although I would choose not to do so with the information I now have.

    11. One of the big issues with pre-med is the generally harder grading curve in some schools (e.g.,Princeton - average grades of 3.4+ in liberal arts vs 3.1 in science a few years ago). Aside from the low grading curve in science, you have to work like a dog all semester. Some people just have no exposure to medicine or science as a career. So you had a lot of smart people who turned their noses up at medicine for all of these reasons.

      I have a family member who went to Harvard/Yale or Princeton undergrad and never had any interest in science. He was a great writer and speaker. Won awards in history. Fast forward, and law school becomes a well known bust. He knows people starting premedical studies after college. Boom. You have a medical doctor who for many years would have been a lawyer. One of those stem dumb bunnies with mid 700s SATs from Harvard/ Yale or Princeton who did not know what a science was in college. Welcome to the new order -MDs who never looked at science and never did any science until they woke up after college and discovered that being an MD was the best possible career for them of all the possible careers.

    12. By the way, about 17% of the class at Harvard College wound up in medical school in 2013. More than half of that group applied after college, if Yale's published stats on this are any guide. The percentage of each class going to med school is likely higher now with all the bad press about law school.

    13. Another by the way -almost no one who went to Harvard, Yale or Princeton undergrad historically became a dentist or pharmacist. These were not considered high prestige professions. With a very high acceptance rate to med school from these colleges, few would go to dental school over med school. Only the small numbers who maybe did not make it to med school, although today there are so many DO schools, that would be a more likely option than dental school for a Harvard, Yale or Princeton undergrad, No one historically went to pharmacy school from one of these schools. The student would need to own Walgreens to make that choice from Harvard, Yale or Princeton undergrad.

    14. Gribble,

      Fellow STEM and struggling lawyer here. You could have been a cop, fireman, sanitation worker, toll booth collector, etc. in a major city. These are hard jobs, but you would be close to retirement by now, and you would be earning guaranteed six figures.

      It's not too late for you lemmings. Are you going to believe your boomer parents who outsourced the jobs and multiples the national debt by 10? Are you going to believe the government, when the President basically told America "tough it out, globalism is here to stay no matter what you do"? Do you want to work in an environment where you have no leverage, no political protection, high debt loads, high income for a short time and then low income forever, (or low income period)? Or do you want to get paid by voting? Do you want to have your pay linked to a politician's future, and have power by voting?

      The choice is your own. Don't be a fool, drop out of school (unless it's PHYS or MIT), and especially law school (unless it's HYS).

    15. 9:20am here- I think my point was missed. I never mentioned H or Y grads. My point is that law degrees, even at the top schools, are essentially advanced liberal arts degrees and thus attract many who are not capable of STEM study. The top law schools, which attract students from dozens of universities besides H&Y, are stacked with liberal arts grads who see law as way to leverage their otherwise worthless BA. Whether H&Y grads are capable of med school, engineering school, or dental school (or whether D-school is so unprestigous that they avoid it) is beside the point. Even the T14 is a haven for the otherwise unskilled liberal artist.

  12. No question that the standards are dropping to the point of open admissions-but there is, apparently, a virtually limitless supply of gullible OLs. It's clear that the scam deans and their protectors at the ABA will do almost anything to stay afloat, including, as we've seen, cutting professor positions, etc while adding fat cat administrators. It's shameless but it's also hopeless; no schools have collapsed and none will. They'll fire more law profs, take in people with GEDs and no college-whatever it takes to stay afloat. If they lower standards enough, they will never have to worry-and it's just about open-admissions time.
    And as is pointed out above, the next step is to pressure the MBE and the state bar examiners to drop standards, so that lower bar exam scores will still be considered passing.
    Will this all blow up? Sure, but not for 20 years or so, when the scam deans are safely retired to Maui. The debt bomb and the truly terrible lawyer bomb will explode at about the same time, and everyone will shocked, just shocked, that it happened.

    1. "Nobody saw this coming"

    2. The Cooley chain shut down a campus (the size of a large law school) a couple of years ago, and more recently Hamline effectively closed down by "merging" with another toilet. Last spring Charleston threatened to cancel its entire entering class. Indiana Tech's days are numbered.

      I do expect to see some more closures. Not enough, but some.

    3. OG-I wish I had your optimism. There's been a minor shake out, but that's it; Cooley got too greedy so it lost a campus, but it's still ruining hundreds of young lives a year with no end in sight, and charleston's still enrolling victims, er, students. And Indian Tech must have some secret godfather, as they've got to have wasted millions of dollars so far-but I see them getting provisional ABA accreditation this year.
      I hope I'm wrong and schools-hell, even one-fold(s) but it just appears the scam deans will stop at nothing to enroll the gullible and the special.

    4. I too believe that Indiana Tech will get accreditation this year. That doesn't mean, though, that it will long survive. It has depleted the parent university's endowment. Tuition this year is zero for the entire class. Enrollment is so low that classes could be held in a Volkswagen. Indiana Tech is headed for the rocks.

    5. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 26, 2016 at 1:49 PM

      Old Guy,

      If you haven't noticed, VW have increased in size since the original Jewish designed Beetle. Yes, a Jew designed Hitler's peoples' car. Back to the issue at hand. VW now makes a Tiguan and Toureg SUV. The Phaeton could squeeze lots of people in there. Are you giving Indiana Tech a back handed compliment? By the way, they removed their post on the Faculty Law Blog after I called them out on the Cooley post. Check it out.

  13. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 24, 2016 at 10:53 AM

    Nando, Old Guy...Did you hear? Is the ABA going to accredit the Erwin Rommell School of law?

  14. There are too many lawyers and law graduates but never enough for low income people who get screwed by the system.

    1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 25, 2016 at 7:47 PM

      First off, none of us can work for free. Shell does not accept Social Justice and good will at the pump. Second, many of us, including the Continuance King, will appear in court for 100.00 for a traffic or Misdemeanor Matter per court appearance. I can do that if the court house is close to my office or I have other matters up that day. The alleged low income people are folks that REFUSE to pay. Its a Walmart world with everyday low prices.

    2. Fresh from the trenches, so-to-speak…

      Caller today had a hideous broken family situation, needed an attorney. "Do you charge on a sliding scale based on income?"

      (This argument is in the form of "I make 0 therefore you charge 0.")

      "No, I don't, my office rent is not based on a sliding scale."

      You can't build much of a client base on this.

      Also this week. Recent widow needs legal advice on her husband's estate. "What will this take." "Pretty simple, some hundreds." "How many hundreds?" "3 or 4."
      With the statutory exceptions, etc., even estate work, long a practice mainstay of our predecessors in practice, is reduced to a simple form or two.

      These are the calls I get after 40 years of practice.

    3. Nonsense, there are plenty of lawyers for low income people. In fact, many of those lawyers are low income themselves!

    4. All of the above is correct-take it from a reformed solo: no one wants to pay anything for legal services, ever.

  15. The law school pigs have been accepting mentally deficient applicants at a much higher rate, for several years now. Read the following documentation.

    Back on April 16, 2015, at 10:01 am, JDU poster “ichininosan” started a thread labeled “Law School Brain Drain.” Here is his original post:

    “Compare the number of matriculants with 165+ LSAT scores:

    2010: 9480
    2011: 8950
    2012: 7570
    2013: 6150
    2014: 6180
    2015: 5420*

    To the number of matriculants with sub-150 scores:

    2010: 7010
    2011: 7100
    2012: 7910
    2013: 8480
    2014: 8360
    2015: 8700*

    The decrease in credentials / abilities of law students entering school in the past few years is substantial. Even compared to last year's class, the class entering in 2015 is significantly less-qualified.


    In the end, the law school cockroaches DO NOT GIVE ONE GODDAMN about the students, recent graduates, taxpayers, potential legal clients, or even the supposed “profession.” They simply want to keep the gravy train of federal student loan money rolling along. If they could, the bastards would enroll house cats and dead people.

    1. Totat enrollment has plummeted, yet enrollment of dumb bunnies has increased.

    2. The New Reasoning!
      1. The lower the LSAT, the less the student-borrower can negotiate down from sticker (and the less likely the student-borrower even knows he CAN negotiate down!).
      2. The less negotiating-down from sticker, the less the law school makes in Federal loan disbursements (I mean tuition revenue).
      3. THEREFORE, We target the dumbest bunnies to enroll in our law school!


    Back on January 16, 2015, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a Ry Rivard piece that was aptly entitled “Lowering the Bar.” Check out this killer opening:

    “As the number of students going to law school drops dramatically, law schools are increasingly competing for students with lower undergraduate grades and LSAT scores.

    Thomas M. Cooley Law School – the largest law school in the country – is known for admitting students other law schools would not touch. The reputation is increasingly inaccurate. Last fall, seven law schools had entering classes with lower median LSAT scores than Cooley’s.

    Professors who study legal education worry that schools are enrolling more and more students who have not proved they can graduate law school. Equally concerning is that law schools are admitting and then graduating students who might not be able to pass the bar exam.

    Five years ago, no American Bar Association-accredited law school had an entering class with a median LSAT score of less than 145. Now, seven law schools do, according to Jerome M. Organ, a professor at University of St. Thomas School of Law who studies the legal market. That means at least half the first-year students at seven law schools scored a 144 on the LSAT or lower.

    The LSAT has a scale of 180 down to 120. The average LSAT score is around 150.

    The LSAT has a margin of error, but 145 is considered a symbolic line by legal education experts and school administrators.

    "At one level, we’re in uncharted territory,” Organ said.

    Southern University Law Center – part of the historically black Southern University and A&M College System – is one of those seven schools. Its median LSAT score last fall was 144. Still, it is running into competition for students.

    “Certain schools never would have admitted a student with a 145 LSAT score several years ago,” said SULC's vice chancellor, John K. Pierre. “But this year they did and last year they did, and in some cases they are even offering students with that profile scholarships or tuition reductions.”

    What a “prestigious” degree program, huh?!?! Hell, earning a JD from dozens of ABA-accredited dung heaps is LESS OF AN ACCOMPLISHMENT than making the winning shot in a game of pick up basketball, with your co-workers. Does that penetrate your tiny gray matter, Lemming?!?! Did I put that in terms that you can understand, Bitch?! Or do you need Elmo and Big Bird to spell it for you, cretin?

    1. Just a few years ago, only a handful of law schools would have admitted a person with a 145—and only with some excuse for a compelling reason, except at Cooley.

      Today, by contrast, 37 law schools (not counting the Puerto Rican ones, where language explains the relatively low scores) have a score of 145 or lower—often much lower—at the 25th percentile, and 88 (almost half of the accredited law schools) with a score of 150 or lower. Ten law schools have 145 or lower at the 50th percentile, and one—cHARLOTte—has 145 at the 75th percentile.

    2. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 26, 2016 at 6:25 AM

      Those schools, like Marshall or Cooley a few years back catered to second career types (40 and older) who opened a Solo practice, night school adults and divorced women and coppers. Marshall was also a safety net if you didn't get into a ranked school. If they did accept you, it was known as a flunk out school. You had to bust your ass. So in that sense, Marshall gave you a CHANCE, but washed you out if you weren't lawyer material. There were standards. We now have newbies with 10 AVVO ratings ginning up their reputations with other newbies who say the "contribute to AVVO." Junk.


Web Analytics