Monday, June 6, 2016
Breaking News: InfiLaw Trash Pits Admit Morons Who Then Fail the Bar Exam at Higher Rates
Breakdown of the Scam: On June 3, 2016, David Frakt wiped his ass with InfiLaw in a Faculty Lounge post entitled “Three Myths Used to Justify Predatory Admission Practices – The Instructive Example of InfiLaw.” Enjoy this brilliant opening:
“For some time now, I have been warning of the catastrophic consequences of admitting students with very poor LSAT scores and correspondingly low grades because such students are at very high risk of failing the bar even if they manage to make it through law school. The plummeting bar passage statistics from the last several administrations of the bar exam have borne out these warnings.
The Law Schools engaged in these irresponsible admission practices have offered a variety of explanations for admitting significant numbers of students with very low indicators. These explanations of what are really exploitative admission practices typically fall into three general categories or themes…
Theme 1: The Magic Formula Myth
Under this variation, law schools claim to able to identify students who have a reasonable likelihood of success despite very low LSAT scores and poor undergraduate grades. These schools claim to have some secret sauce -- a special blend of personal characteristics and life experiences -- which purports to be a more accurate predictor of success than test scores and grades. Schools using this approach often say things like “you are more than just a number” to appeal to those who have low test scores and grades. But, of course, these schools also claim that their magic formula is proprietary or otherwise refuse to share it, so it can’t be reviewed or independently validated. Such magic formula claims should be taken with a very large grain of salt.
Theme 2: The Miracle Worker Myth
Under this variation, schools claim that poor predictors really don’t matter, because with their uniquely well-designed curriculum, special methods of instruction, and robust academic success programs, they can impart the necessary knowledge and boost the academic skills that the student lacks to ensure that they pass the bar. The schools will claim that with three or four years to shape the student, that by the time the student graduates the entrance credentials of the student will have little bearing on their chances of success. While some law schools have demonstrated some ability to help students of modest ability to succeed, the assertion that a school can take large numbers of students with very low predictors and miraculously turn them into law school graduates capable of passing the bar is unsupported by actual experience. However dedicated and skilled law professors and academic support staff may be, there is only so much they can do with students with no real aptitude for the study of law. They are not miracle workers.
Theme 3: The Fairness through Failure Myth
Some schools claim, truthfully, that some students with poor predictors will succeed, but it is difficult to tell which ones. So, in an effort to provide opportunities to those who might succeed, especially those from underrepresented groups, the school is generously choosing to give a chance to some students with slightly weaker indicators.” [Emphasis mine]
In the end, the law school pigs – at any ABA-accredited cesspool – are only concerned with one thing: making sure that the student loans are cashed. How honorable, huh?!?!
Prior Coverage: Paul Campos documented that latest TTTTacTTTTics from this dung pit, in an entry labeled “Nefarious LGM.” Look at the following excerpt:
“[T]wo years ago I wrote an article that, among other things, pointed out that the Infilaw schools were slashing admissions standards drastically in order to keep a stream – more like a water cannon — of federal educational loan money flowing into the coffers of Sterling Partners. I predicted this would lead to a collapse in bar passage rates for the graduates of those schools. This is exactly what has since happened:
Bar-passage rates at the InfiLaw schools are now in a free fall. (The following percentages are for first-time takers of the July exam in the schools’ home states.) Florida Coastal’s bar-passage rate has fallen from 76 percent to 59 percent, Charlotte’s has fallen from 78 percent to 47 percent, and Arizona Summit’s has gone from 75 percent to an astonishing 30.6 percent.
This collapse has taken place despite the fact that, according to allegations in a lawsuit filed by a former Arizona Summit administrator, all three schools have been offering money to graduates who the schools identified as being at especially high risk for failure, to get them to hold off on taking the bar exam. Indeed, in July Arizona Summit’s dean confirmed that she had called various graduates the night before the exam, imploring them to consider the “opportunity” to withdraw from the test, in exchange for a $10,000 living stipend, that would be paid to them if they enrolled in enhanced bar-preparation courses provided by the school.” [Emphasis mine]
The cockroaches have no standards or any integrity. They willingly accept applicants with garbage LSAT scores and weak-ass UGPAs. If you as the graduate cannot pass a state bar exam, that is YOUR problem! After all, the student loan checks have long since cleared.
Conclusion: If you are even considering these InfiLaw schools, then your future in this GLUTTED “profession” is already putrid. All three of these in$titution$ are FOURTH TIER TRASH PITS. Do you see yourself having a successful legal career, with that TTTT pedigree? Decent law firms want to hire graduates of good law schools, preferably the name brand ones. The American Bar Association allows these cesspools to operate, even though their bar passage rates are BEYOND pathetic. That is because the academic swine do not care what happens to YOU, the student or recent grad.
Posted by Nando at 4:40 AM