Thursday, June 16, 2016
ABA Cockroaches Allegedly Audited a Small Fraction of Class of 2015 Employment Data
The Tepid News: On June 14, 2016, the ABA Journal publised a piece from Debra Cassens Weiss, under the headline “Law school job statistics get extra job scrutiny in random ABA audits.” Here is the full text:
“The ABA is for the first time conducting random audits of jobs data provided by law schools for the class of 2015.
The auditors are examining data from 10 randomly selected law schools and from 382 randomly selected students from 156 law schools, Law.com reports. The aim is to make sure schools followed proper procedures in collecting and verifying the employment data, which was released in May.
A range of sanctions are available if serious errors are discovered. They include a private or public reprimand, fines and probation.
The ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar hired an outside consulting firm to conduct the audits. It is funding the audits with a $250,000 fine imposed on the University of Illinois College of Law in 2012 for misreporting admissions data.
Barry Currier, the ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, says the audits began when the schools reported their data. “We want to do our job of making sure that schools are reporting complete, accurate, not misleading data, and this is one way to do that,” Currier tells the ABA Journal.
If audits over the next few years find law schools are doing a good job, the ABA may change to a system of less intensive audits, Currier says. The hope, he tells the ABA Journal, is that the audit results will confirm that schools are doing a good job of reporting, giving the public more confidence in the reliability of the data.
Currier says the audit results with regard to specific schools won’t be publicly released, unless problems lead to a public sanction. The audit protocol is here.” [Emphasis mine]
Yes, that sounds truly revolutionary and groundbreaking, huh?!?! Hell, this is a bigger breakthrough than when the U.S. Postal Service started issuing self-adhesive stamps, i.e. stickers, circa 1989. You would think that a true “professional” membership organization would have been looking at their member schools’ data, for several years already – at the very least. Then again, this cartel is run by vile “law professors,” deans and Biglaw gluttons who collectively do not give one damn about typical students or recent graduates.
Other Coverage: On June 15, 2016, Outside the Law School Scam featured a post from Law School Truth Center. The entry was labeled “ABA to Finally Audit Law School Employment Reporting.” Enjoy the following excerpt:
“Better late than never, eh?
The ABA has announced that through a third party firm it is (has been) conducting random audits on the Class of 2015 employment numbers reported by law schools. If you are a glutton for this sort of thing, the standards are outlined in full here...
The ABA doing audits is somewhat revolutionary and, superficially, worthy of praise for actually giving the appearance of effort. Slowly but surely, the consensus over the last decade has moved from naively trusting self-published law school employment numbers to a broad acknowledgement that there was (and probably still is) funny business afoot in how graduate outcomes are counted. Legally not fraud, of course, but perfectly legal puffery funny business. Creative accounting.
For several years now, critics have asked for audits. Instead, we got some modified standards and suddenly the employment rates - as opposed to the singular numbers boasted about in the advertising literature of yore - moved to more accurately reflect the reality in which most of us live.
Still, audits would represent an important check upon the accuracy of the information now being advertised by law schools. In that respect, the ABA is taking what should be an essential step in regulating such things.
But then Currier says that these audits actually started when the data was received, which was a few months ago if I'm not mistaken. One has to wonder why the ABA had not announced this when the audits started - or even before as a deterrent mechanism against chicanery (it's not like next year will benefit from the audits being a surprise, after all).
My hunch is that the ABA didn't want to announce audits and then have them be an unmitigated disaster. Instead, start doing them, get at least some positive feedback, and then announce them; had there been only negative feedback, I suppose the ABA has someone who can delete a press release.” [Emphasis mine]
One can also look at the tiny-ass sample size reviewed by the American Bar Association rodents, to see that this is not a serious effort. Hell, walking on the beach with a beautiful, kind and loving woman - on a lazy Sunday - requires more energy.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the ABA swine are reviewing data from 10 supposedly “randomly selected” law schools, as well as from 382 randomly selected students from 156 law schools. The latter figure represents an average of 2.44 grads from each accredited toilet. There are over 200 ABA-approved diploma mills in the United States, and the pigs are focusing on 10 of those institutions. I suspect the bitches and hags will include some high-ranked schools in their little audit – and they will “somehow” manage to find mostly individual success stories, even at the cess pits. The NBA Draft Lottery process is more transparent.
As OTLSS noted earlier: “All the ABA has to do now is effortlessly announce that no sanctions will be handed down and the audits - maybe even the identity of the schools audited - will remain a secret, even if they would reveal potentially damning evidence, so long as the ABA - the same organization that accredited Indiana Tech - doesn't find the behavior worthy of a reprimand.” Yes, the cockroaches are really looking out for the students’ and applicants’ best interests, right?!?!
Posted by Nando at 4:50 AM