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.


  1. This is all public information-and it reflects millions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted on these loans. When is it all going to stop? Well, apparently never-when you get pass rates as low as these and none in authority(ABA/federal govt) does anything, that pretty much shows the scam will last forever.

    1. You would think that congress would get involved in putting a halt to these federal student aid scam, for profit universities, in this case, law schools. Wrong. That would require honest politicians. You can bet your boots that the investors @ sterling partners are very well connected to all the members of congress and donate generously to all their campaigns, PAC's, etc. Democrat and Republican alike. The congress won't put companies like infinilaw or the university of Phoenix out of business because they are getting huge kickbacks. Call it fraud, laundering, bribery, whatever, but it's all just another example of why our government sucks and is killing our country.

    2. Remember, @4:40, the loan money isn't really Congress's money, so what do they care if it is profligately and corruptly squandered?

    3. With both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans, I am amazed that nothing has been done to stop the hemmorhaging of Federal loan money in support of the generally left-wing law professoriate. I would have thought the spigot would have been shut off years ago!

    4. Hm, yeah, you would think that all the Right-wingers would take advantage of their current power to go after the Left-wingers this way, but surprisingly, they're not.

      Those on the Right love to decry how the Left control (and ruin) academia, but I wonder if their real complaint with this arrangement is secretly something like "How dare THEY control the system and make all that money by scamming young people and not US!"

      (And, of course, the Left could have done something about the student loan crisis BEFORE the Right took control of both houses of Congress; funny that they didn't, isn't it?)

  2. Wow, those bar-passage rates are atrocious.

    1. But that's what is really happening o0ut there though.

      Even more alarming is the thought that while the bar exam has always been the traditional gatekeeper to practice, ideally or at least theoretically protecting the public, it really does not measure one's ability or readiness to practice law. It really doesn't. It just sets a floor of knowledge for the potential practitioner; so these kids who are now flunking the bar in droves are that much further removed from realistically practicing law in any meaningful way.

      As a recovering sh!tlawyer, I can tell you surely that passing the bar is ONLY THE BEGINNING to a horrendous, stressful, mentor-less learning process for the average grunt forced to solo straight out of school. Beware kids!

  3. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJune 6, 2016 at 6:35 PM

    InfiLaw needs to open several law schools in and around Illinois and the Midwest. There are no law schools in the Chicago suburbs. Rockford, Peoria, Kankakee, Danville, Springfield, Bloomington/Normal and Alton do not have law schools. If enough students and alum attend Infilaw's chain of schools, it becomes the norm. Illinois has a law school gap.

    1. Good Captain,

      Any chance we can convince InfiLaw to eliminate the law school gap in Peoria by opening the Honorable Congressman Aaron Schock School of Law? The entire school could be modeled after the home in Downton Abbey, with a gym dedicated to developing six pack abs.

      E-4 Mafia

    2. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJune 7, 2016 at 9:47 PM

      I forgot Joliet. Lot's of empty buildings in downtown. The Joliet Junior College can be a feeder school. Joint GED-JD program.

    3. Hm, doesn't Joliet have that prison? Like in that movie The Blues Brothers? Right, they call it Joliet Correctional Facility these days! It would be a perfect opportunity to start the "prison-to-lawschool pipeline" - take a bunch of prisoners who have seen how the system works, claim that you'll make them better lawyers because of their experiences, and rake in the monies!

    4. Why not the Rod Blagojevich School of Law?

    5. "I'm Rod Blagojevich.."


    6. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJune 10, 2016 at 4:45 PM

      You have no testicular fortitude, Blagojevich circa 2007. Actually, the Old Joliet prion is is now a tourist trap, I mean attraction. Stateville is the Big House there now.

  4. Even people who pass the bar exam are unlikely to find work with enough income and stability to cover the cost of attending law school. That is true in spades of the sorts of toilets that cater to "students" with LSAT scores below the mid-150s.

  5. The magic formula myth is just a bunch of excuses for taking in dummies. Here's the real formula the school cares about: taking in as many students as possible so they can get their hands on more student loan monies.

  6. Team AAMPLE:

    Time to address the haters. Below 150 LSAT, no worries, I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that T4 law grads can compete with the T1 grads everyday of the week... and twice on Fridays.

    On the other hand I cannot support the steep tuition being charged by these Info Law guys.... In case your reading this please take a note from the HBCU's.

    Charging fair/reasonable tuition, while educating with the prime focus on increasing minority lawyers.. its,'s just the right thing to do.

    To the future minister's of justice, this goes out to you: Jewels of wisdom to grow by--

    1. Never let money get in the way of pursuing your dreams in law.

    2. The legal market is a big pie, get your slice of the dream.

    3. Network, Repeat... then network some more. There is a hidden job market, that the clueless will never tap into.

    4. Hustle hard, then hustle some more. Stop look around, do see your competition in the dust? If not try harder.

    5. I entering criminal law, do not be afraid to watch old episodes of "the practice". Yes their opening and closing arguments will be applicable.

    Lastly remember that being a lawyer is a calling. You will be among the most educated of society. You can do it !

    Forget the negative nay Sayers, swing for the fence. And always remember, "A smooth seas, does not make a seasoned sailor"...

    -Eugene Young - S04E6

    1. 6:34am: An amazing post, with not one iota of helpful advice. It's clear you've never practiced law anywhere, ever.
      Turn off the TV(it's worrisome that the extent of your knowledge of the profession is such that you've memorized the season/episode of a TV show cancelled over a decade ago), get off the couch, get out of your parents' basement, and go actually learn something. Anyone following your advice is guaranteed one thing only: financial ruin.
      Nando, this guy's posts were amusing in their vacuity at first, but it's time to ban him before any lemming takes his advice.

    2. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJune 8, 2016 at 3:04 PM

      You are referring to your colleagues in the Bar, as "competition to be dusted?" You treat other attorneys like that, just see how long you will last in this profession and what reputation you will cultivate. We have school loans to pay to...

    3. Regarding this AAMPLE/FAMU troll... I have to agree with the others; Nando, please get rid of him. He might have been an amusing little twit at first, but now he's hijacking your blog to trick lemmings and ruin people's lives and cause the very damage to their lives which you and the scambloggers are trying to prevent.

  7. (Slow clapping - ovation)

    Dropping real knowledge there "Amp", I wish more people were able to execute your ideas, with that big picture wisdom.

    Instead they look around their current environment, freak out, and fall down and play the victim. Please keep shining the light.

    I concur.... and I am sure that Old Guy also co-signs!

    1. 6:34a-why did you wait 8 minutes before posting again-were you waiting for a commercial break from your serial TV viewing?

    2. He has NO BUSINESS advising any of these naive kids on whether to enter this stressful, overcrowded, horrendous "profession".

      As a recovering solo sh!tlawyer, I have asked this dude repeatedly what his practice area was and it is clear he has NO IDEA WHASTSOEVER what the practice of law consists of. It is annoying, obnoxious and downright immoral to advise these kids on lol school when one has absolutely positively no idea what one is talking about!

    3. Oh, he's definitely dropping something, albeit not exactly knowledge.

      See pictuere at the top of page!

    4. Speaking of co-signors, one will definitely need parental co-signing for life by attending one of these low-tier trash pits, on top of living in said parents' basement.

      As for our AAMPLE friend, mediocre troll, though somewhat entertaining, I give it a 4.5/10!

    5. Even within the bounds of the crass world of the scam apologists, AAMPLE doofus is a bottom feeder. He has no idea what he's talking about, and as 12:32 so succinctly phrases it, this doofus' actions are immoral. He is utterly clueless, offering baseless advice intended only to harm the recipient. Doing what he does is simply wrong.

    6. Stonemason, Esq.June 10, 2016 at 9:04 AM

      It is possible that law schools have hit Peak Moron and can no longer merely stoop to the level of funding themselves through scamming fools. They may have been forced to resort to scamming the mentally ill now.

  8. Just how smart does somebody have to be to pass the bar exam? Seems to me anybody smart enough to graduate from a college should be able to buckle down and pass the bar exam with a review course and some effort.

    1. @ Anonymous (9:24AM). Not exactly. That might be true for the LSAT, but not the Bar exam. What's the difference? The LSAT is a skills test - meaning anyone should be able to figure out the solutions to the questions without any special knowledge.

      Conversely, the Bar exam is a KNOWLEDGE-based test. Meaning you must have a specific body of knowledge under your belt to understand the questions and the solutions.

      Hope that makes sense.

    2. A good review course should get one through the bar. It's not a walk in the park, but a good review course is all one needs to pass it. Law school is a horrendous fraud; one could bypasss all three years and take BarBri+PMBR and be good to go on the bar.

      The Law School Scam must be defeated; law school must be debunked!

  9. The InfiLaw Wikipedia entry suspiciously appears to have been edited by those swell chaps at InfiLaw. Regarding admissions selectivity, the Wikipedia entry dubiously claims: “[w]hile InfilLaw has also received criticism for their admissions standards (sometimes described as “lax”), with suggestions that these admissions standards could lead to fewer students passing the bar exam, recent research and studies have documented this to not be factual.”

    Under bar-passage rates, the entry proclaims, “[f]or Feburary, 2015…[o]ne of the most diverse law schools in the US, Coastal Law’s results were 10 percent above the state average among all Florida first time bar passers.” But the Wikipedia entry omits Arizona Summit’s bar passage results.

    Finally under employment outcomes, the Wikipedia entry ignores the low employment placement rates at the InfiLaw schools and presents dubious statements from Michael Simkovic along with student loan default rates. The article concludes with, “[t]he InfiLaw schools weighted average cohort default rate for 2011 was 1.6%, as 98.4% of InfLaw schools graduates are in compliance with the terms of their student loan agreements, well below the national rate of 13.7%. In 2015, Michael Simkovic, presented data referencing law school student debt and default rates. 1 [sic] Incomes for law graduates may seem low when they first graduate, but typically climb rapidly over the next several decades. Education loans exist precisely so that borrowed money can be repaid later in life, when employment is more stable and incomes are usually higher. For the cohort entering repayment in 2012 the national 3-year cohort default rate on federal student loans was 11.8 percent. The comparable figure for Florida Coastal was only 1.1 percent—more than 10 times lower. This isn’t a one-time fluke. In 2010 and 2011, Florida Coastal's 3-year default rates were 1.6 and 5.2 percent, respectively, compared to much higher national rates of 13.7 and 14.7 percent. Other measures tracked by the Department of Education, like repayment rates, also show law school borrowers performing as well or better than most.”


    Back on October 23, 2015, the Atlantic published a Paul Campos piece that was entitled “The Law-School Scam Continues.” Take a moment to review this brilliant opening:

    "Last year I published an article outlining how three for-profit law schools run by InfiLaw, a subsidiary of the Chicago-based private-equity firm Sterling Partners, was radically slashing its already-modest admissions standards while collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in federally funded educational loans, many of which were almost certain to never be paid back.

    The article described how David Frakt, a candidate for the dean position at one of the schools, had his presentation to the faculty cut short after he suggested the school’s abandonment of entrance requirements would likely lead to catastrophic bar passage results. The account proved to be too candid for the administration’s comfort.

    Because law-school graduates typically take the bar examination either three or four years after their initial enrollment, the slashing—or perhaps more accurately the de facto elimination—of admissions standards, which began in earnest at the Infilaw schools in 2012, is only now beginning to be reflected in state bar results. Yet those results are already providing compelling evidence that Frakt was correct—that the bar-passage crisis he predicted is likely to get much worse, and that, moreover, this crisis could affect a large proportion of the nation’s law schools.

    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.

    The InfiLaw schools’ bar-passage numbers are almost certain to get even worse. Although the schools reduced their admissions standards drastically in 2012, they have since cut them further, to the point where they are now admitting huge numbers of students with credentials including lower LSAT scores and GPAs that would have barred them from getting into these schools three years ago. The admissions process at the InfiLaw schools is now close to a fully open-enrollment system, that inevitably matriculates many people who have little chance of ever passing a bar exam.

    InfiLaw is not only exploiting these students, but also taxpayers who will foot the bill when these students cannot repay the hundreds of millions of dollars they borrow."

    Sadly, mental midgets will continue to enroll in these ABA-accredited dung heaps. Good luck repaying outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, while earning a paltry $35K-$45K in annual income.

    1. Even the dolts who were offered that "opportunity" must have been able to see that their shabby-ass alma mater was manipulating them for its own sake.

  11. Let’s take a look at InfiLaw’s self-description and mi$$ion:

    "About Us

    The InfiLaw System is a consortium that includes an independent network of ABA-approved law schools and companies that provide management solutions, new educational programs, and pioneering, technology-driven course delivery to law schools and higher education institutions nationally and internationally.

    InfiLaw's mission is to "establish the benchmark of inclusive excellence in professional education for the 21st Century." This mission is supported by three key pillars (1) centering on “serving the underserved,” (2) providing an education that is "student-outcome centered," and (3) graduating students who are "practice-ready." InfiLaw schools have a demonstrated ability to achieve superior outcomes that are a function of admission processes (which probe beyond traditional quality indicators and factor otherwise overlooked predictors of success) and programmatic innovation, academic support processes, and faculty focus on student success.

    Within the consortium, InfiLaw administers core non-academic functions, provides support for academic programs, processes, and innovations, and assesses institutional performance and outcomes. It facilitates processes for identifying and implementing best practices and continuous improvement opportunities. The entire management team is committed to a culture grounded in personal humility and vulnerability-based trust. The organization models itself upon principles set forth by leading experts on productivity, employee engagement, personal growth and development, and process excellence.

    Consortium schools operate as independent institutions and thus manage all academic programs and processes. Each is establishing itself as a regional center of excellence and governed by its own board of trustees.

    InfiLaw Management Solutions is a portfolio company dedicated to bringing disruptive best practices and continuous improvement processes to help law schools and other higher education institutions build strong student outcomes."

    How the hell are these TTTT grads “practice-ready,” when large portions of the class cannot even pass the bar exam?!?! So much for "establish[ing] the benchmark of inclusive excellence in professional education for the 21st Century." In the end, this for-profit enterprise does not give one damn about “building strong student outcomes.” They merely want asses in seats, so they can get their grubby hands on more federal student loan dollars.

    1. Allow me to explain:

      Inclusive: we take every warm body
      Serving the underserved: hoodwinking naïve minorities and lower-class people
      Student-outcome centered: our students are dipshits
      Practice-ready: we're no better than the 200+ other toilets

  12. Please help me understand something. When I went to law school in the late 80's the LSAT scores were different. The highest score was a 48. Can someone help me figure out how to understand the current format in relation to the old format? These current numbers don't make sense to me. I'm trying to figure out what a score of 150 or 160 means. In my day a 35 was all that you needed for most schools. Low to mid 40's as a powerful score. Thanks in advance.

    1. Star Gazer, I took the LSAT back in the day too (1989) and have been unable to find any kind of score conversion information. I remember that I got a 41 on the LSAT (which I recall being in the low 90's in terms of percentile). So based on percentile, that would be somewhere in the mid 160's today. Interesting to note, that score was only good enough to get me into a second tier school - shows you how far admission standards have fallen.

    2. In the early 1990s, it was changed to a scale of 120 to 180, centered roughly on 151.

      Use this chart (dated but still close enough) to look up the percentile associated with each score:

      For example, the score of 143, glorified as "serviceable" by Dougie Fresh Pond Scum of Indiana Tech Law Skule 'n' Biker Bar, is at the 20th percentile. And 128, which has gotten people into the Univershitty of Texas, is at the FIRST percentile. (Random guessing would be expected to yield 125.)

      I consider 160 the minimum for admissibility to law skule. Unfortunately, it isn't in practice.

    3. Thanks for the info, guys. Keep up the good work.


Web Analytics