Saturday, August 6, 2016

News Flash: The Law School Pigs Do Not Give One Damn About Minority Students or Graduates

ABA Seeks Higher Bar Passage Rates and Pisses Off the Rodents: On August 3, 2016, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog published a Jacob Gershman piece that was entitled “Tougher Bar-Passage Standard for Law Schools Sparks Objections.”  Look at this opening:

“Bar-exam passage rates and racial diversity are two flashpoints in the legal industry. The two are now bumping against each other as the legal establishment weighs a proposal to tighten law school accrediting standards. legal education reporter Karen Sloan reports: 

Factions are again forming in the battle over the American Bar Association’s bar-passage standard for law schools, with diversity and consumer advocates at odds over a proposal to strengthen the rule. 

The ABA is considering a plan that would require 75% of a law school’s graduates who sit for a bar exam to pass the test within two years. The proposal has been floated amid a perplexing trend of declining bar exam scores nationwide and increasing attention on the racial make-up of the profession. 

A number of law school deans and the largest nationwide black law student association are objecting to the proposed standard, expressing concern about its potential impact on schools with larger minority student populations. 

If adopted, the new standard would “jeopardize the existence of traditionally minority law schools and ultimately erase the profession’s modest gains in diversity over the last several decades,” states a July 29 letter co-signed by the deans of more than a dozen law schools. The deans represent schools “designed to serve historically underrepresented minority population,” including Howard University, Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University and Florida A&M University.” [Emphasis mine]

These ass monkeys conveniently “forget” to mention that by attending a garbage law school, the student – minority or non-connected white – is already limited in his job prospects, from Day One. Biglaw firms are not going to hire your TTT educated carcass, and the federal government would rather hire a gerbil than give you a chance. Later on, this gem:

“Proponents of the 75% rule say low-performing schools aren’t advancing the goal of greater diversity. 

“Graduates who fail the bar exam cannot diversify the profession. Instead, these graduates suffer substantial personal and financial costs,” wrote Ohio State University law professor Deborah Jones Merritt, who studies legal education. “Maintaining the accreditation of law schools with poor bar passage rates, on the contrary, is a counterproductive way to diversify the profession.” [Emphasis mine]

That is crystal clear! If you cannot pass the damn bar exam, then you cannot obtain a law license – with the exception of Wisconsin candidates who attended law school in the state. Furthermore, if firms or clients are unable or unwilling to pay for your legal services, then you cannot make a living as an attorney. How the hell is that person adding to the diversity of the “profession”?!?!

The TTTT LeTTTTer: On July 29, 2016, a total of 20 cockroaches wrote a comment letter to the ABA Council for the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Check out this filth:

“We, the undersigned deans of ABA-approved law schools, the National Bar Association, the Society of American Law Teachers, East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association, and former Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso of the California Supreme Court, strongly object to the Council’s proposed changes to Standard 316. In contrast to the American Bar Association’s history of narrowing the opportunity of minorities to enter the legal profession through law-school admissions quotas and other barriers, the ABA today extols the virtues of diversity and the need to welcome more African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans into the profession, which, disturbingly, remains one of the least diverse in the country. 

The Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has, nonetheless, proposed a set of changes to Standard 316 that would, if adopted, jeopardize the existence of traditionally minority law schools and ultimately erase the profession’s modest gains in diversity over the last several decades. Moreover, the proposal would place minority bar examinees at a distinct disadvantage relative to their non-minority counterparts. 

Diversity Set Back Decades

Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos currently constitute a little over 30 percent of the country’s population. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, a mere 4.6 percent of American lawyers are African American and 5.1 percent are Hispanic or Latino, and the ABA has made little recent progress in improving these numbers. Over the last fifteen years, for example, the number of black lawyers has grown an anemic 1.2 percent and the number of Hispanic lawyers has increased by less than one percent. Minority communities, it should come as no surprise, remain woefully underserved.” [Emphasis mine]

These bitches and hags are vile, sick people. They are not concerned that minority JDs typically have fewer connections, or that they also incur outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. They are also more prone to attending ABA-accredited dung heaps and cesspits.

Conclusion: The pieces of trash who wrote and co-signed that letter to the ABA could not care less about dark-skinned law students or graduates. Hell, they don’t give a wet fart about poor whites who enroll in law school. They simply want to keep the scam rolling along – and they will use any pretense at their disposal. 

Take a hard look at all of the excrement piles on that list: St. Thomas University, Howard, Thurgood Marshall Sewer of Law of Texas Southern University, Southern University Law Cesspool, University of the District of Columbia, North Carolina Central University, Florida A&M, Loyola University New Orleans, Barry University, Widener, Golden Gate Commode of Law, VermonTTT, Western State Commode of Law, Mississippi College Sewer of Law, California Western, WhiTTTTier, TTTTouro Law CenTTTTer, University of La Verne, TJ$L, and Florida Coastal. Do you see one single quality program in that entire lineup?!?! That speaks volumes about the swines’ motivation.


  1. When will La Raza open a law school? You know the ABA will approve that shit right away.

  2. Go Rattle Snakes !!!!!

    It was only a matter of time until they point the finger in your direction!

    A JD is a JD !!

  3. There is an easy fix.

    A law graduate will be counted as a bar exam "pass" even if they fail during the 2 year period, IF the law school refunds all tuition, and pays a $15,000 a year stipend to the law graduate, in a lump sum, at the end of the two years.

  4. "The proposal has been floated amid a perplexing trend of declining bar exam scores nationwide."

    There is nothing perplexing about it. Declining bar passage rates are directly linked to the lowering and in some cases, complete elimination of law school admission standards. There was a time when half of all law school applicants did not get into a single school - even a shit pit like Cooley. Now, there are dozens of schools that will gladly accept anyone with a pulse and the ability to sign the student loan forms.

    1. That time was quite recent. An LSAT score that would have kept one out of Cooley just four years ago would get admission with a "scholarship" from many a law skule today.

  5. Last time I checked a black JD with $100,000 in student loans and working in fucking retail doesn't actually add to diversity in this shitty profession.

  6. Serious question: most of the people that participate in the law school scam movement are liberals; in light of what is going on here, how can most of you still be liberals? Isn't it clear that modern liberalism is just a way for people who are connected to steal lots and lots of money, and the vehicle for the theft is bullshit like this?

    As Nando accurately states, most firms and government agencies, primarily staffed by liberals, would never- ever- hire a TTT grad, minority of otherwise?

    I don't understand how people don't see this.

  7. Soft headed liberals think everyone (and I mean absolutely fucking everyone) should go to college. The dumbshits don't realize that not everyone can be an engineer, doctor, lawyer, manager, teacher.

    1. These people aren't stupid; they are criminals. They want to steal money because they can't produce or compete in a free market, and as such, they need to have the government create a market to support them at everyone else's expense). Of course, when people figure out that they are being raped, they don't like it. In order to keep the raping going, they need to divide their victims on issues that don't matter, ie race,sex, etc. The black kid, Hispanic kind, fill in the blank kid, is going to get fucked just as hard as the white kid if he or she attends a trash pit. They know this very well.

      There is a reason that the most conservative guy on the Supreme Court is a black guy, i.e. He knows what's up. He experienced real, hard core racism and poverty, and he knows that when a group of parasites wants to feed off a group of people, they have to get the victim mentality going.

    2. Medicine doesn't really belong in there. Medicine HIGHLY modulates its entrance requirements allowing only, ONLY, the number of students they have residencies for. Teaching, lawyering, etc. just doesn't run this kind of tight ship. Medicine protects the value of their kids by controlling supply. That is the key.

  8. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" Samuel Johnson famously said.

    If he were alive today, he would blog:

    "Diversity is the last refuge of law school scamsters."

  9. Federal government needs to quit issuing student loans to these idiots.


    Take a look at this comical entry from LSTC, on August 5, 2016. It is entitled "Black Juris Doctors Matter." The entire text is below:

    "The Wall Street Journal has a piece about the inane "war" over "tougher" bar passage "standards" for law schools that will inevitably jeopardize the existence of certain minority-heavy schools which like to provide opportunity to minorities who score in the 140s of the LSAT and are only projected to pass the bar every now and then.

    First of all, there has never been a better time to be an African-American carrying a 155 LSAT. Never. For all the criticisms law schools get, a black man with a 155 LSAT is a diamond compared to the ejaculate-encrusted quartz of a 155 LSAT white male. Is that not racial progress? Do we not deserve a trophy and a letter from Jesse Jackson?

    Second, and more importantly, the entire civil rights era was about opportunity and equality. For the state apparatus to come in and arbitrarily set a "standard" for bar passage that just happens to be above a level that makes exploiting a new lode of African-American applicants practicable, the state apparatus is denying those individuals the same opportunity and equality afforded to white students who score marginally better on the LSAT.

    Of course, it's really the law schools that would be prejudicial in this scenario, basically concluding ex ante that a black student with a 145 LSAT would not pass the bar in three years' time based on prior data that evaluates students along racial lines. So, uh, WOW, LOOK AT THAT BUTTERFLY OVER THERE!

    As should be obvious by now, setting a bar passage standard at any level is inherently racist. You could set it at 170 and it would be racist. You could set it at 120 and it would be racist. You could require applicants to successfully color a turtle cartoon and it would be racist. Why? Because no matter where you set the applicant entry level, law schools have a social prerogative to subtract ten, grab as many minorities as possible, and claim they're doing society a great favor by making academically marginal candidates (in the relative sense) take on $150-200k in debt so they can get their trophies and letters from Jesse Jackson.

    And why? Because it's all about opportunity and equality, you see. If white folk are allowed to in-debt themselves so hard they need a proctologist to extract the master promissory note, then black people should be free to do so in equal or greater numbers.

    So what if the whole ordeal resembles shackling minorities with the manacles of unpayable debts and intangibly indentured servitude? That just sounds to me like a poetic coming-full-circle, does it not?

    Bottom line here is that if you are in favor of establishing bar passage minimums (or LSAT minimums, the de facto result), you are a racist and you are opposed to a fantasy of low-scoring minority prospects proving themselves and diversifying the lily-white profession.

    Go burn a cross or something. I'll scam on, and collect my trophy and letter from Jesse Jackson."

    Yet, the cockroaches who charge these unconnected minorities $43K+ in annual tuition are "enlightened," right?!?! Remember, the "professors" will do and say anything - in order to avoid real work. The pigs have no shame.

  11. Ok, I do this with great trepidation-but I agree with a law professor...Merritt is right-people who don't pass the bar don't diversify the profession b/c they never enter the profession. And it's clear that the ABA/BigLaw etc etc-all the shakers and movers in this great "profession" have done ZERO to improve minority representation. There are a ton of legitimate ways to increase minority representation in the law-but allowing TTTs to accept students(and their $$$) who will never pass the bar is just wrong.
    Bloomberg's take:

  12. This could be solved with a few lines of code in an Omnibus Budget Act, requiring a 148 or higher on the LSAT to get a loan for law school. It won't happen, though. Check out Laureate University, which bought failing colleges in Latin America and made a fortune, and also paid their "Honorary Chancellor" 16.5 million USD from 2010-2015... maybe you've heard of him - Bill Clinton.

  13. Even if you pass the bar exam, if no firm hires you then you're not really a lawyer. And if you don't have the money to start up your own firm, you're not really a lawyer either.


    Back on August 25, 2015, the courageous Steven J. Harper wrote a New York Times piece that was entitled “Too Many Law Students, Too Few Legal Jobs.” Look at this epic opening:

    “Ten months after graduation, only 60 percent of the law school class of 2014 had found full-time long-term jobs that required them to pass the bar exam.

    Even that improvement over the class of 2013 (a 57 percent employment rate) came with three asterisks: Last year, the American Bar Association changed the job-reporting rules to give law schools an extra month for the class of 2014 to find jobs; graduates employed in law-school-funded positions count in the employment rate; and the number of jobs that require bar passage fell from 2013 to 2014.

    Amazingly (and perversely), law schools have been able to continue to raise tuition while producing nearly twice as many graduates as the job market has been able to absorb. How is this possible? Why hasn’t the market corrected itself? The answer is that, for a given school, the availability of federal loans for law students has no connection to their poor post-graduation employment outcomes.

    Students now amass law school loans averaging $127,000 for private schools and $88,000 for public ones. Since 2006 alone, law student debt has surged at inflation-adjusted rates of 25 percent for private schools and 34 percent for public schools.

    In May 2014, the A.B.A. created a task force to tackle this problem. According to its recent report, 25 percent of law schools obtain at least 88 percent of their total revenues from tuition. The average for all law schools is 69 percent. So law schools have a powerful incentive to maintain or increase enrollment, even if the employment outcomes are dismal for their graduates, especially at marginal schools.

    The underlying difficulty is that once students pay their tuition bills, law schools have no responsibility for the debt their students have taken on. In other words, law schools whose graduates have the greatest difficulty finding jobs that require bar passage are operating without financial accountability and free of the constraints that characterize a functioning market. The current subsidy system is keeping some schools in business. But the long-term price for students and taxpayers is steep and increasing.”

    Does this seem to be a “profession” that is looking out for students, minority or otherwise?!?! Do you think – for one damn second – that the “professors,” deans or career services peons have your best interests at heart, Dumbass?! Of course not! They simple want your borrowed money. These pigs get paid up front, in full – while you hold the bag of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. Their salaries are not tied to your employment outcomes, in any way! Sadly, waterheads will continue to enroll in overpriced diploma mills/trash pits, proving once again that they are indeed “special.”

  15. @ Nando: I am guessing you are likely aware of this article, but I am posting it here nevertheless. It is from Aug 8th, 2016

    Crack Down on Law Schools That Don't Pass the Bar

    1. I read that article this morning. This will be my next entry. It's nice to see the mainstream media still kicking the law school pigs in the teeth. In a just world, they would be slow roasted over a camp fire.

  16. Once upon a time, law schools were created to teach people to be lawyers. This is no longer true.
    Law schools now exist-and this is true from the Yale all the way down to the sorriest TTTT-is to keep deans and law professors in jobs, period full stop. No law school cares a whit about its students actually getting jobs. Because the law is a prestige driven profession, the top students at the top schools get jobs. The rest...well...
    The law schools now exist only for the deans/profs and they will fight fight fight to keep the loan conduits enrolling, and the loan $$$ flowing.

  17. "Once upon a time, law schools were created to teach people to be lawyers." Uhmmmmmm, not really.

  18. The reason for lack of progress of blacks in the legal profession is lack of enforcement of laws against racial and dual age and racial discrimination.

    The up or out system in large law firms virtually assures that most of the survivors are white male.

    The dual discrimination in the legal profession is egregious, and it is what you call disparate impact discrimination.

    Enforcement agencies will take on only direct discrimination, so there you have the reason for the lack of minority progress in the legal profession.

    If the up or out system were revised to require substantial numbers of OLDER, MORE EXPERIENCED MINORITIES in associate slots in large law firms, you would have more diversity in the legal profession.

    If you are a 45 year old black associate with 18 years experience earning more than $180,000 a year in a large or mid-sized law firm with a strong client base and you can sit in your job for the next 20+ years, you have advancement opportunity.

    If you are that same person and were forced out of the circuit of high paying jobs 10 years ago after attending Stanford or U Va Law, you are likely a statistic of African Americans who are poorly represented in the legal profession.

    We need more enforcement. Why are large law firms allowed to have almost no African Americans over the age of 40? Why are law firms allowed to impose experience caps on most positions that have the effect that their workforces over the age of 50 are predominantly white male?

    I say force the big law firms to hire and retain older minorities with aggressive enforcement.

    Keeping toilets alive that fail to place minority lawyers in significant numbers is not the answer here.

  19. There is not a similar problem in medicine of not enough minorities. Residencies are heavily dependent on passing GRADED standardized tests. Minorities who are black pass these tests and have no trouble getting top residencies. Since there is not an oversupply of doctors, minorities can easily get $180,000 jobs in medicine.

    In law, the huge problem is lawyer oversupply and it has an extremely adverse effect on the employment opportunities and survival rates of minorities.

    There are only about 900,000 licensed doctors in the US for about 700,000 jobs. The demand for doctors in growing faster than average.

    By contrast, you have 1.3 million licensed lawyers for a little more than 700,000 jobs. There are 1.8 million law graduates, many of who left the legal profession because they could not find work.

    The supply demand imbalance in law fuels the lack of opportunities for minorities.

    The answer to the lack of opportunities for black Americans in the legal profession is clearly not to create even more minority law graduates from lower tier schools who cannot find work as lawyers. The answer is to limit the supply of lawyers so supply and demand bear some reasonable relationship to one another.


Web Analytics