Thursday, May 5, 2016

Law School Cockroaches Back University of Arizona James E. Rodgers Commode of Law in Dispute With LSAC Over Use of GRE for Admissions

LSAC TTThrows Down the GaunTTTleTTT: On May 2, 2016, Paul Caron covered the controversy in a piece entitled “The Empire Strikes Back: LSAC Threatens To Expel University of Arizona Over Use of GRE in Law School Admissions.” Check out the following portion, which relies heavily on the Wall Street Journal story:

“A top-tier law school’s decision to make the Law School Admission Test optional has put it on a collision course with the powerful national nonprofit group that administers the exam and controls much of the law-school application process nationwide. 

University of Arizona College of Law has started allowing applicants to take the Graduate Record Examination test in lieu of the LSAT, a move the school hopes will expand and diversify the pool of students considering enrolling. 

Since 2010, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the number of students applying to law schools has shrunk considerably and is only now starting to stabilize. Allowing the GRE, the thinking goes, could give a boost to applications; at least five times as many people took the GRE in the latest admissions cycle as the LSAT… 

Arizona Law, based in Tucson, says a study it conducted has convinced school administrators that the GRE, which is accepted by most business schools, is a reliable standardized substitute. But the change of its requirements has drawn them into a clash with Newtown, Pa.,-based Law School Admission Council Inc., which controls the LSAT and acts as a key application clearinghouse for more than 200 law schools across the nation.

LSAC’s general counsel in April notified Arizona Law that the school’s new policy may violate its bylaws, which require that “substantially all of” a law school’s applicants take the LSAT. 

The group is considering expelling Arizona Law from its membership, which would effectively cut off the school’s access to a crucial student admissions pipeline.” [Emphasis mine]

Frankly, this seems to be an empty threat. Both the LSAC and law schools are parasites, and they need the lifeblood of young students and federal student loans to survive. They both benefit by morons applying to, and enrolling in, ABA-accredited cesspits. I laughed when I read that the bitches and hags want to “expand and diversify the pool of students” considering law school. It is ALL about the money, and that has ALWAYS been the name of the game! Providing opportunities to historically under-represented groups is meaningless tripe, merely designed to mask their ill intentions.

The Cockroaches Unite Against the LSAC: On May 4, 2016, Kathryn Rubino posted an ATL entry labeled “Law School Deans Fight Back Against The Tyranny Of The LSAT.” Check out this opening:

“When 148 law school deans all come together to say something, you’d better listen — especially if you administer the Law School Admission Test. For those who haven’t been following the story, Arizona Law decided to accept students who have taken only the GRE, not the LSAT. As the body that runs the traditional law school exam, the LSAC had a few choice words about that move. Earlier this week, they informed Arizona Law that if “substantially all” of their law students didn’t take the LSAT, they were in danger of getting kicked out of the LSAC, losing access to applicant data and the common application process… 

LSAC has managed to consolidate quite a bit of power in the law school admissions game, and they are not looking to share that anytime soon.

Now a majority of law school deans have written a letter to the president of the Law School Admissions Council, Daniel Bernstine, in response to LSAC’s actions against Arizona Law.

They’ve picked a side, and it is Arizona’s:

We write as law school [cockroaches] to express our great concern over LSAC’s threat to expel the University of Arizona Law School because it experimented with using the GRE as a small part of its admissions process. Experimentation benefits all of us. We all expect to learn from the University of Arizona’s experiment and it should not be punished by LSAC. 

Most importantly, we strongly urge that the Board of Trustees allow the University of Arizona to remain a member of the Council. Expelling it for this is unwarranted under the existing rules and sends a terrible message to law schools about experimentation in the admissions process. Also, as deans at ABA accredited law schools and members of the LSAC Council, we urge the LSAC Board of Trustees to modify the provision of LSAC Bylaws Article I, Section 1, which “requires that substantially all of its applicants for admission” take the LSAT. The rule should be changed to allow experimentation with alternative tests.” [Emphasis mine]

As you can see, the Raid-resistant, academic subspecies of the American cockroach came together to fight yet another evil destroyer of dreams. Remember when these pieces of garbage – led by Crooklyn’s Nicholas Allard – went after the National Conference of Bar Examiners, for making the MBE portion of the bar exam too damn difficult for their dumbass graduates?

On page two of this ATL piece, you can read the cockroaches’ letter to the president of the Law School Admissions Council. I guess they are taking no chances that this is a bluff. Somehow, I’m not surprised to see that the dean of Third Tier Drake joined the peTTTiTTTion.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school swine want to be left alone – so that they can continue unabated to FINANCIALLY RAPE LEGIONS of students each year. They don’t want anyone – including organizations that are peripheral to the scam – to interfere with their scheme to grab more federal student loan dollars. As noted on Outside the Law School Scam by dybbuk, the “educators” are now looking to exploit community college pupils. Remember, they want to expand and diver$ify the applicant pool. Their experiment regarding the admi$$ion$ process can only hurt the students.  

Often, these young men and women come from rougher backgrounds and lower socioeconomic status. Typically, they are brown or black – and they often juggle their course work with one or two low-wage jobs. The academic thieves want to get their claws on these marks. After all, they DO NOT GIVE ONE GODDAMN about their current students, many of whom come from middle class families. Despite all their liberal rhetoric, these “scholars” CERTAINLY do not care about Marquis, Shanice, Enrique, or Trang.


  1. Hilarious! Looks like internecine warfare within the Law School Cartel has finally started.

    When no money was involved, it was all platitudes and meanie-scambloggers trying to ruin peoples futures. Now that money is at stake, the gloves come off.

  2. Team AAMPLE:

    This is actually good news! The LSAT has been side stepped by other alternative admissions programs for years and now they are allowing another substitute test instead of the LSAT.

    The LSAT has always been an artificial barrier and needs to be decommissioned when it comes to law school entrance consideration.

    Some people are lousy standardized test takers, but kick a$$ on law school exams. Same as in undergrad. LSAT has no correlation to taking law school exams, so do not see why it is needed.

    Ok, if you can not let the Socratic method of teaching in class scare you hint hint (this is where canned briefs come in, please read before class). And you learn how to IRAC and actual write a law school exam you can do well enough to pass (hint hint, the library usually has previous years exams and answer keys, you can use to practice, over and over again. If not you can find exams online). Then fine tune issue spotting**this is key**. The more time spent perfecting this, the higher your grades will be.

    Cant do this for the LSAT. Kaplin, Power score bibles, all nonsense. Then you enter law school and wonder why the heck you had to take the LSAT in the first place, if it has really nothing to do with law school exams, and the bar in general ( Shout out to BAR/BRI).

    In conclusion minorities tend to do worst on the standardize exams in general. Do you really have to ask why given America's history. When one class of society is oppressed / held back from receiving equal education and opportunities for generations the playing field will never be equal. That's why we have HCBU's.

    Having options other than the LSAT with the GRE is just a start. Get rid of it!!!

    Old Guy.... Do You Concur ??

    1. Mr AAMPLE: have you started co-signing loans for the AAMPLE applicants yet? If not, why not?

    2. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingMay 5, 2016 at 6:19 PM

      I can tell you are an AAMPLE grad. You don't know how to write. In the second sentence alone, you use redundant language; "other alternative." You also have several run on sentences. I don't mean to be a grammar prude, but your stripes are showing. Are you sure you passed a Bar Exam?

    3. Captain-don't waste your time, as he's been writing "HCBU" as the acronym for Historically Black Colleges and Universities in every post, for example. That would be HBCU but he can't learn, as he's a don't confuse me with the facts kind of guy. He's keeps selling AAMPLE, which has nothing to do with HBCUs and is in fact proprietary to Infilaw. But that doesn't concern him, as he just wants to sell, sell, sell. He clearly has never practiced law and didn't attend law school. He adds nothing to any discussion, as he won't even acknowledge the surplus of lawyers.

    4. Captain

      The tone of your post is out of line. Instead of trying to be an English Grammar Natzi, you should stand shoulder to shoulder with Team AAMPLE and provide your support.

      @ Team AAMPLE, keep shining the light.

    5. So you've started co-signing loans for the AAMPLE applicants?

    6. These neo-liberal predators, like this AAMPLE guy, are probably some of the worst human beings in society today. They are using the negative emotions stemming from past wrong-doings, in conjunction with class envy, not only to screw the tax payer, debilitate the profession, and fuck up society as a whole (the law school scam is a microcosm of the higher education scam), but To also decimate the lives of the least fortunate amongs us in society, the very same people they are claiming to help.

      A young black kid, today, can take the fireman examination in every single major municipality in the United States. That same black kid will make six figures after five years, have no debt, the option to pursue education for free, total job security, and adequate leisure. If he or she is ambitious, they can open a business on the side (the fire department in New York required two days on only).

      I know two Italian brothers who joined the department and have a side business in their spare times. They leveraged the security of the job and the conversed opportunity advantage (they started at 21) not to make six figures, but seven figures. I shit you not these two guys are millionaires and they haven't hit 40. One of them told me his pension, which he'll get at 42, is just his fun money.

      If you have a little humility, this is a realistic dream, and even if things don't work out as well, you'll still make six figures and retire comfortably. Instead of encouraging the most unfortunate in our society to do this kind of thing, these neoliberal predators are using class envy to stuff money in their pockets, rob the tax payer, and destroy the minority community. They are talking as if these programs and schools are going to give minorities over the white man, you know a Charles Wasdworth V kind of person.

      Folks, let's be clear, you aren't going to go to these schools or through these programs and stick it to the man. You are going to fuck yourself. The people you envy aren't rich because they entered a specific profession, or make a particular income working, even if it's working in big law. They are rich by birth and connections that are birth rights. They know how to speak and act in front of other rich people because they grew up with them, not because they became lawyers or doctors.

      For instance, I went to school with a chick that works at a local DAs office. She owns a 1 million dollar apartment and drives a 100k Mercedes. The law school would like you to believe that's because she is a professional, but the truth is that she has that because she inherited money. She has wealth and connections that stem from birth. I make Triple her wage as a worker, but that doesn't matter. That's not wealth. Wealth is owning, and the only path to ownership is investing and owning a business, both of which will be set back if you go to law school.

      (I'll also mention that she has a great deal of contempt for her colleagues because their life styles are a daily reminder of the value of her personal achievements).

      If you want to beat the system, get a secure job, think outside the box, and open a business. If you listen to neoliberal predators, like Mr. AAMPLE, you'll wind up, best case, making less money than high school drop outs in the trades, and when you complain, Mr AAMPLE will tell you to adjust your expectations.

      One last point, the two firemen I mentioned in this story, who are certified millionaires before 40, came from nothing and built what they have from scratch. That's America. That's how you cure social injustice. You don't do it by wrecking your finances playing a system that rich guys, irrespective of whether they look like Obama or Bush, wrote for them and theirs. You go around the system. You listen to AAMPLE you are
      Another statistic in a long line of an oppressed underclass of this society; you listen to me and you might beat the system.

    7. Instead of your noxious comments shilling for The Law School Scam, why don't you instead expend your boundless energies by encouraging the kids to spend some time working in a REAL LAW FIRM while in undergrad to see if they REALLY WANT TO BE A LAWYER first. Then, and only then, worry worry about the entry exams.

      By the way, 2:26, once again, I didn't catch what your practice area was. What was that again?


      a Recovering Sh1tlawyer

    8. AAMPLE person-your inanity knows no limits-scolding someone on his "tone" and then calling him a Nazi. Nice. You're obsessed with AAMPLE, and have no clue as to how the practice of law works or how crushing law school debt can be. Please go away, before some poor naif gets trapped by your pap. It's not funny, it's not enlightening-it's just plain wrong. You don't know what you don't know, but that doesn't stop you from posting terrible and incredibly uninformed advice. Go practice law for a couple of years then come back and give your sage advice.
      Team AAMPLE-dispensing nonsense for its entire existence.

    9. He also wants to get his lips surgically grafted to OldCry's butthole. This guy is DYING of anal poisoning!

      OLD!!! CRY!!! DO!!! YOU!!!! CONCUR!!!!!!!!

    10. 4:41's post brilliantly outlines how toxic AAMPLE doofus' posts are. The posts were so inane they supplied comic relief, but that time is past. It's time to block his access; if he wants to spew this nonsense, let him set up his own blog.

    11. @ Anonymous at 4:41-
      *standing ovation* Excellent post, I was agreeing with every word of it. Especially the parts about using envy and resentment to trick people into running headlong into these traps.

      That part in particular reminded me of something else I'd read before, about how even people working in the legal industry who get crapped on by the lawyers try to become lawyers themselves...

      Read the whole thing, but allow me to emphasize the final paragraph here...
      "Please, dear Little Person, think outside the box. You are going to have to be a bit smarter about it if you’re going to successfully overthrow the ruling elite. A JD won’t buy you class – it’ll likely drop you down a couple rungs on the totem pole. We all want to overthrow the junta and seize power for ourselves. But heading off to a JD degree mill that calls itself a law school isn’t rebelling against your betters – it’s walking into a trap they’ve laid for you."

  3. Next they'll accept the TOEFL, 3 AA recovery tokens or the home economics certificate from the local halfway house.

  4. I make a counter proposal. They can use GRE scores and look to enrolling community college students, as long as the total cost of tuition and fees for the degree is $20,000 for all 3 years.

    1. This of course ignores the over supply of attorneys.
      And unless you've got a magic wand, and suggestion on how you'll get these thieves to lower tuition?

    2. They might be thieves but they're not stupid.

    3. My local community college offers a two year paralegal program and probably trains their students to do exactly the same jobs as any of our 3 regional unranked Law schools without incurring in 200K in non-dischargeable loans.

    4. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingMay 5, 2016 at 8:23 PM

      The wanted advertisements for paralegal gigs offer better pay more than most advertised attorney jobs in my jurisdiction. Same for legal secretaries. One of my buddies law buddies applied for an 80K federal gub'mint paralegal.

  5. I have a Jenny Craig's certificate of completion and an eBay power seller diploma, can I use those instead?

    1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingMay 5, 2016 at 8:25 PM

      Even a Certificate for successful completion of Retail Theft Diversion School qualifies. Parenting class too!

    2. Top credentials:

      Notary public and member in good standing of the National Geographic Society.

  6. Is anyone surprised by this? The fact that all those deans got together proves one thing: the scam will never die. Taking the GRE will soon become the acceptable choice at all law schools, and if those numbers drop or law schools start enrolling very low test scorers-voila!-it will be determined that standardized testing is not needed, thank you.
    So while the LSAT may eventually die, the law schools will not; they are just too adaptable. The best analogy-they are viruses-just when it looks like a cure has been found, they mutate.

    1. 4:03 is spot on with the virus analogy. Another analogy is the tobacco industry. When 1000s of scientific studies linked tobacco to cancer and other diseases, the tobacco companies ran ads in the 1950’s disputing the data. The tobacco companies paid for junk science studies that purported to dispute the cancer link. They even tried to market “safer” cigarettes by adding filters. The government stepped in during the 1960s and required warning labels on tobacco products and restricted tobacco advertisements. That didn’t stop the tobacco companies. Over the next several decades they launched ad campaigns directed at children, women, minorities, and the poor. It has been documented that there are a higher number of tobacco advertisements in poorer and minority neighborhoods than in non-minority and wealthier neighborhoods. Despite the data that tobacco causes cancer, the lawsuits, and the government restrictions, the tobacco companies are still standing. They have always been able to find a group to profit from.

      When graduates came forward and data came out that law school was devastating to your financial and personal well-being, the cockroaches denied everything. They came out with garbage statistics and rationalizations (a JD is a million dollar degree, the unemployed graduates are entitled losers, it’s the recession, you can do anything with a law degree, network, there are JD advantage jobs out there waiting for you, go to Nebraska). Eventually they could no longer dispute the data. They were forced to publish real data and admit most people were left unemployed and financially ruined.

      So applications and enrollment plummeted at these toxic burn pits. The cockroaches responded by making their product “safer.” They offer discounts off the sticker price, they temporarily employ their graduates, and they offer clinics that make their graduates “practice ready.” American Toilet School of Law offered their students improv classes to improve their networking. None of this changes the fact that law school is still far too expensive, and there are far too many graduates than jobs available.

      The cockroaches changed their marketing strategy in response to the crash in applications. A few years ago, the cockroaches started claiming, “now is the best time to go to law school!” They claimed by 2015 we would have far too few law grads for all the jobs out there. They ignored the BLS data and claimed the lawyer shortage was near due to the baby boomer retirements. The pig at Loyola Sewer of Law Chicago tried claiming you can’t look at the data 10 months after graduation, because it takes 10 years for that legal career to really take off. None of that garbage worked on smart college grads. It’s gotten far more difficult than ever to get into medical schools and elite MBA programs because smart kids are applying to those programs rather than the Toilets of Law. They know law school is a scam.

      The cockroaches responded by moving onto another mark. They started accepting anyone with a pulse, no matter how lazy or incompetent they were. The cockroaches were too greedy, dumb, and shortsighted to foresee that these people could not pass the bar. No problem, they are using their political power to lower bar exam standards and eliminate the exam altogether. Now the cockroaches have identified a couple other groups they can con - community college students and students that have taken the GRE.

      The cockroaches may still be standing, they may have evolved to survive like a nasty strain of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, but the information about their scam is out there now. If people want to financially destroy their life, then that is on them.

      E-4 Mafia

  7. Reluctant though I am to say anything in favor of the LSAC, which richly funds its notorious "conferences" for thousands of law-school scamsters, I have to defend the requirement of the LSAT here. The LSAT score is the only common element on the application, and it does effectively measure thinking and reading skills.

    The "experimentation" with the GRE only superficially involves trying out another test. It serves above all to muddy the waters, for the benefit of the many toilets (such as the Univershitty of Arizona) whose LSAT scores have been plummeting.

  8. Notice how all the cockroach professors come from the same TWO schools?

    Forget the T14, it seems that 80% of the "academic class" comes from Harvard or Yale. They're all circling the wagons to protect their classmates.


    On May 4, 2016, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog featured a Sarah Randazzo article that was entitled “Law Deans Unite to Support Arizona Law’s GRE Acceptance.” Read the following excerpt:

    “Drama is heating up over the Law School Admission Council’s step to potentially kick University of Arizona College of Law out of its network if the school continues to accept the GRE in lieu of its own test, the LSAT, for some students.

    Tuesday, the majority of the country’s law school deans sent LSAC President Daniel Bernstine a letter showing support for Arizona Law’s testing experiment and promising to block any attempt to take action against the school. Signed by 148 law deans, the letter, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, starts:

    We write as law school deans to express our great concern over LSAC’s threat to expel the University of Arizona Law School because it experimented with using the GRE as a small part of its admissions process. Experimentation benefits all of us. We all expect to learn from the University of Arizona’s experiment and it should not be punished by LSAC.

    The deans write that expelling Arizona Law over their acceptance of a new test “is unwarranted under the existing rules and sends a terrible message to law schools about experimentation in the admissions process.”

    Arizona Law said earlier this year that it hopes to diversify its pool of prospective students by letting applicants opt out of the LSAT and apply instead with the GRE, a more general graduate admissions test. LSAC’s bylaws, the deans say, “should be changed to allow experimentation with alternative tests.” Right now, the organization requires that “substantially all” of a school’s applicants must take the LSAT. Arizona Law said that so far, it’s admitted just three students using the alternate test.

    An LSAC spokeswoman took issue with the deans’ letter. In a comment Wednesday to Law Blog, spokeswoman Wendy Margolis said, “We have received the letter, but want to emphasize that our inquiry to the University of Arizona Law School was a request for clarification on the law school’s new policy, which we had only learned about through media reports. To characterize this as a ‘threat’ is unfortunate.”

    She added that LSAC’s board plans to discuss the issue Friday at its regular meeting and that “We can assure our members, and everyone in the law school community, that we are taking all perspectives into account as we consider these issues.”

    Hell, it seems that the LSAC is already backing down. I’m sure the pigs will reach a compromi$e, where the schools will be able to use graduate school exams – as long as LSAC gets a cut of the money from the test. Of course the ABA-accredited toilets are backing Arizona in this TTT cause; the cockroaches want to rely on GRE for admi$$ion$ as well, especially since smarter college grads have figured out that law school is a terrible, stupid gamble.

  10. Greek Chorus: Arizona would want to hear this. This is business, not personal.

    LSAC: They shot my LSAT? It's business, your ass.

    Greek Chorus: Even the acceptance of the GRE was business, not personal, LSAC!

  11. And why wouldn't they? The law schools will do anything to keep those federally-backed student loan dollars pouring in. Forget about lawyer overproduction. Forget about a tapped-out middle class incapable of paying for legal services. Forget about automation and outsourcing. Forget about the death of a once noble profession.

    It's all about the money.

  12. The first knife fight in a phone both begins.


    On May 9, 2016 at 3:28 pm EST, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog posted a Sarah Randazzo piece, which was entitled "LSAT Maker Backs Away from Showdown With Arizona Law over GRE." Check out the following excerpt:

    "It’s been a heated few weeks between University of Arizona College of Law and LSAT-maker Law School Admission Council over Arizona Law’s decision to allow students to apply using the GRE instead of the LSAT.

    The majority of the nation’s law school deans rallied in support of Arizona Law after LSAC told the school it was looking into whether it still qualified for inclusion in LSAC’s membership, an important designation for schools needing to access information about applicants.

    But for now, LSAC is backing off. In response to the letter from the law school deans, LSAC posted a letter on its website that it’s going to “maintain the status quo” until the American Bar Association reaches a conclusion on Arizona Law’s acceptance of the GRE in lieu of the LSAT for some students.

    As LSAC explains it its letter, addressed to UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky:

    It is unfortunate that our recent inquiry about Arizona Law’s admission policies was misunderstood and characterized as a threat to the school and an obstacle to innovation and experimentation in legal education. This was not our intent. Simply put, this inquiry is not about the GRE or any other standardized tests. Rather, LSAC’s bylaws require member schools to meet and maintain certain membership eligibility criteria. We believe our invitation to Arizona Law to provide input was appropriate and necessary, given reports that Arizona Law no longer requires that any of its applicants take the LSAT, which on its face is in violation of our bylaw provision that member schools require that substantially all of their applicants take the LSAT.

    Arizona Law Dean Marc Miller said Monday that the school appreciates LSAC’s decision not to exclude it from membership, but that there’s still a larger question out there about the role of standardized testing in law school admissions."

    As expected, LSAC backed down from the law school pigs. If fewer applicants register for the LSAT, then the rodents will likely raise the LSAC fees for those who do use the traditional option for applying to ABA-accredited diploma mills. This is not a bad option for them. After all, if waterheads are willing to incur an additional $157,823.12 in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt - for a law degree from Pace Univer$iTTTTy - then they will not blink at paying a little more to LSAC. Thanks for playing, and keeping the law school pigs fat and happy, Idiot.

    1. "Threat? What threat? We didn't threaten anyone..."


  14. I have been following and posting for about 4 years.

    The whole law school scam reeks of an old western hanging gone bad, where the "poorly hanged" condemned does not expire at the end of the drop.

    Watching the scam is agonizing. Yet the horror continues.

    This is not hyperbole.

    Just as high school football exists, with tens of thousands of participants, to produce 30 or 40 prospects for colleges and professional ball, the law school scam exists to produce a couple thousand for BigLaw, and the rest can go suck wind.

    And they do.

    The 0L's do not understand that JD production needs to be cut IN HALF-NOW-to provide even a modicum of chance for the other half who earn JD's.

    "Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn?"


Web Analytics