Thursday, October 27, 2016

Have Fun, TTT Grads: Tougher Bar Passage Standards Apparently Are One Step Closer


http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/aba-finally-adopts-tougher-bar-passage-standards-for-accreditation-well-almost/

Sleep Well: On October 24, 2016, Kathryn Rubino posted an ATL entry labeled “ABA Finally Adopts Tougher Bar Passage Standards For Accreditation – Well, Almost.” Check out this opening:

“We’ve documented in these pages the continued abysmal bar passage rates around the country. And, after being threatened with having its accreditation powers stripped by the Department of Education, the American Bar Association has taken action, by tightening up the bar passage requirements for accredited schools. 

On Friday, the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar passed the tightened standard, but the change hasn’t officially happened yet. The ABA’s House of Delegates must approve the measure, and the earliest time they can do that is in February at the midyear meeting. The earliest the rule change can go into effect is for the 2017 grads who sit for the July bar exam. 

The new standard, if adopted, is designed to close loopholes and mandates a 75 percent bar passage rate two years after graduation, whereas the current rule mandates that passage rate over five years. As Law.com reports:

The new rule isn’t a dramatic change, but supporters say it closes several loopholes in the existing standard and makes it more straightforward. It mandates that at least 75 percent of a law school’s alumni pass the bar within two years of graduation—rather than the current five-year period. It also eliminates a provision allowing schools to meet the standard if its first-time bar pass rate is within 15 percent of the statewide average, and a provision enabling law schools to meet the standard based on data from only 70 percent of graduates. 

That first-time provision makes little sense for states with just one or two law schools, and allows low-performing schools to meet the standard by dragging down the statewide average with high failure rates, critics said. 

But despite the rhetoric about new standard, there may be a loophole to even this tighter rule that law schools are teeing up. As Rick Bales, former Dean of Ohio Northern Law School, notes:

Arizona Summit (formerly Phoenix Law School), the same school that paid its low-GPA graduates not to take the bar exam yet still had an overall July 2016 pass rate of 19.7%, has created a new requirement that each student with a GPA below 3.33 must pass the school’s mock bar exam as a prerequisite to graduating. Theoretically, Arizona Summit could set the mock-bar pass rate at 10%, meaning that only the top-10% would qualify to sit for a bar exam. That would virtually guarantee technical compliance with the ABA’s 75% rule. Meanwhile, 90% of the school’s students would have paid $136,062 in tuition (plus expenses, lost opportunity costs, etc.) for a degree that does not qualify them to sit for any bar. 

So, unless a school is completely sure you’re going to pass the exam, they are able to stop students from taking the bar exam (by preventing them from graduating), thereby circumventing the actual point of the rule.” [Emphasis mine]

The swine will take advantage of any possible loopholes. For $ome rea$on, these academic swindlers don’t have the balls to make a living on such technicalities in the private legal practice. Then again, they would be required to work more than 4-6 hours per week, and they would need to produce something of actual value. Plus, they wouldn’t be able to employ the idiotic SocraTTTic MeTTThod on judges, opposing counsel, or senior partners. 

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/legal_ed_council_approves_proposed_standard_for_bar_passage_rates_amidst_di

Other Coverage: On October 21, 2016, the ABA Journal published a story from Stephanie Francis Ward, under the headline “Legal-ed council approves proposed standard for bar passage rates amid diversity concerns.” Read the following excerpt:

“A proposal to tighten bar passage rate standards for ABA-approved law schools was passed Friday by the council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. 

Under the proposal for Standard 316, 75 percent of the graduates must pass a bar exam within a two-year period. The proposal is expected to go the ABA House of Delegates in February 2017. Most council members voted in favor of the proposal; an exact vote count was not available at press time.

With the current standard, there are various ways a law school can be in compliance. One is that that at least 75 percent of graduates from the five most recent calendar years have passed a bar exam, or there’s a 75 percent pass rate for at least three of those five years. Also, a school can be in compliance if just 70 percent of its graduates pass the bar at a rate within 15 percentage points of the average first-time bar pass rate for ABA-approved law school graduates in the same jurisdiction for three out the five most recently completed calendar years.

No accredited law school has been out of compliance with the current “ultimate bar passage standard,” Barry Currier, the ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, told the council.

At an August hearing about the proposal, various groups, including the National Black Law Students Association and a group of law school deans from institutions associated with historically black colleges and universities, expressed concern with how the proposed change could decrease diversity in the profession.” [Emphasis mine]

Of course, you can always count on a few dolts to add in the fear mongering/argument of decreasing diversity in this gutter “profession.” Then again, do you see these gerbils pointing at Biglaw’s paucity of minority partners?!

Conclusion: Keep in mind that this change has not been enacted yet. The ABA cockroaches may decide to scale it back, or to postpone a final vote in order to “study the issue further,” in February 2016. In the final analysis, you can bet your ass that the brunt of this will fall on TTT graduates. The law school pigs will continue to get fat off of federal taxpayers via student loans. Their pay is not tied to any performance results. I would also not be surprised if the ABA gives the commodes several years before compliance, as a way to ensure that the bottom-feeding schools get more time to turn things around, i.e. financially rape more students.

27 comments:

  1. Can't wait to hear the screeching of the law schools. God forbid that there should be a rigorous standard that is easy to measure and calculate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingOctober 27, 2016 at 9:18 AM

    If your child brought home a 75% on her homework assignment, would you accept that? That is a "C." When I was an undergraduate, using my typewriter and then this new fangled thing from IBM using WordPerfect 1 came out, I thought a "C" was damn near failure. I recall during the mid-nineties, pre-USNWR, when my now RANKED law school's Bar Passage rate dipped to 91%, the Dean and alumni freaked out. It was a HUGE deal. Huge man. What did my school do? Hiked up admissions standards and decreased enrollment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dumber applicants = lower bar passage rates (as long as state bars don't go full retard)

    Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Go back and take a look at this 2014 absolutely amazing gem from GW law “professor” Orin Kerr responding to critics of the Socratic method:

    “The bar exam uses multiple choice questions and essay grading by non-experts, so they have to test on a fake simple version of the law instead of the actual complicated version. They have to dumb it down and pretend it’s easy to make it simple (and low cost) to grade. Bar exam materials are simple because they teach the fake simple version of the law that is tested on the bar exam. Given that, I don’t think differences between bar exam materials and what is taught in law schools shows that law schools are doing it wrong.”

    http://abovethelaw.com/2014/06/former-law-prof-says-the-socratic-method-is-a-shty-method-of-teaching/?rf=1

    So when critics of the law school scam questioned the pedagogical value of the Socratic method a few years ago, the law school pigs circled the wagons. The pigs squealed, you can’t just learn the law from Barbri. That is a fake simple version of the law! You need to pay us $150,000 so that we can train you to think like a lawyer using the Socratic method! It’s the only way to teach the real law!

    I had no idea that the issue of who owns a fox in early 1800s America is the complicated real version of the law. And it’s strange that no other professional school or Phd program has employed the Socratic method to teach their students to think like a businessperson, doctor, engineer, researcher, etc. But I digress.

    Now that bar passage rates are crashing because the toilets have open admissions to keep the student loan dollars flowing into their coffers, the pigs now squeal that the bar exam is too hard!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rubino semes to have misunderstood. Arizona "Summit" is setting its mock bar exam as a requirement for graduation. Those that don't pass won't get "a degree that does not qualify them to sit for any bar"; they won't get any degree at all.

    And that's why this scheme will backfire. Even the sorts of dolts that Arizona "Summit" attracts will probably think twice about attending a law skule that might deny them a degree after they had completed all required coursework.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nando... Nando

    Let me get this right......

    1. So we prevent the minorities in the USA from getting education.. Historically ..... therefore they have to establish HBCU's.....

    Not just on an undergrad level, but for education at the master's degree level and for degrees at a professional level (PHD's, MD, JD), in order to compete in society.

    ( US history dictates it was illegal for slaves (African American's) to read and write at a certain point in time).


    Now they fall behind, the BS standards and you point the finger at them like they had a fair chance in the first place?????

    This is like running a race and you and a certain group of people get a head start ....(in life).. the others will always end up either behind .. or last..

    BECASUE THE RARCE WAS NEVER FAIR TO BEGAN WITH!!!!


    The legal field is changing, but it's time the shake happens and it should not be a an "Old Boys" club...while excluding others


    Yes, this is why AAMPLE was created..to level the playing field, but other programs have been put in place to side step the LSAT and other unfair artificial barriers....


    AAMPLE represents the people ( from American History that have been done wrong by the USA).


    So look down on them all you might.....

    BUT DEEP DOWN INSIDE ..YOU AND I KNOW THE RACE WAS NOT FAIR, AND YOU HAD A HEAD START .. HOW DARE YOU TURN AROUND AND POINT HE FINGER !!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are grasping at straws, moron. First of all, affirmative action has been in place over 50 years. It turns out that the biggest beneficiaries have been white women, not racial minorities. Those in the workforce can observe this, just by seeing the number of female managers in most settings - and many of them were middling entry-level employees.

      http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

      Since you are so passionate about minorities getting a fair shake, why don't you inform us how taking in someone with a 149 LSAT to your TTT program - and sending them off with $110K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt - helps them? To use your analogy, that seems to be the equivalent of starting a 5K run with a 10 minute disadvantage - and then having shackles placed on your legs when you do start.

      By the way, cretin: the legal "profession" is an old boys' club of sorts, at the top. Rich, old white guys are the senior partners at Biglaw firms - and they will continue to hire from Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and handful of other schools. I'm sure this does not apply to their young, attractive, female secretaries. This is not changing anytime soon. Maybe you should email those partners and ask them to hire more minority attorneys, including those who graduate from ABA-accredited stench pits.

      http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/only_3_percent_of_lawyers_in_biglaw_are_black_which_firms_were_most_diverse

      Delete
    2. Troll...Troll,

      1) As I understand things, Nando is a minority, (apologies to him if I am wrong), so he has no axe to grind on that front, ie holding minorities backs and what not.

      2) To summarize your position, keeping the most expensive and time consuming barrier to practice law, i.e. law school, empowers minorities, but the bar exam, a relatively inexpensive and watered down exam, that's the real barrier, am I right? Lol. Fucking law school trolls are getting more ridiculous as time passes. Even though your position makes no sense because having incompetents practice law doesn't serve the incompetent or the public, it would be somewhat legitimate if you were arguing for getting rid of law school as a requirement and keeping the bar exam; or better yet, get rid of any requirements, and let anyone practice. If the law has become a sales business and we want any grifter, minority or otherwise, to practice as such, get rid of all the requirements. If you can't pass the bar, you won't make it in law because you know the law or can do legal analysis, you'll make it because you can sell and results won't matter.

      But we know the truth, grifters like you don't care one iota about minorities or otherwise. You want that sweet, sweet guaranteed federal cash rolling in.

      Minorities will stick it to the man when they start getting the real middle class jobs: cop, fireman, sanitation worker, etc. Those are the middle class jobs of the present and future.

      Delete
    3. 6:07 PM: Dear AAMPLE friend. Law hasn't been an "old boy's club" in ages. In the old days, I might've bought that. But there has been a lawyer surplus since AT LEAST the 1980's. It has not been an exclusive profession in decades. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who want to go to law school can find one somewhere, someplace which will gladly admit them.

      you have been asked repeatedly in this forum what you particular area of law practice is. You have intimated none. I believe sincerely you know not of the practice of law.

      1964 called, they want your perceptions back!

      Delete
  7. This troll always brings up diversity, HBCUs, and AAMPLE. I remember some time ago sewer rat Brian Leiter tried claiming that the law school scam bloggers were racists and sexists. Nando tracked down someone from the University of Chicago searching this blog for racist slurs. This troll is trying to get a racist response. It’s probably not Leiter, he is busy mailing feces to his enemies and blaming the law school bloggers for murdering a law professor. But it is probably another law school pig working on their garbage law review article about how law school scam bloggers are unprofessional and mean. Since law “professors” just have to rehash the same garbage cases like Pennoyer v. Neff every year, and they don’t have to actually teach anything using the Socratic method, they have a lot of free time allowing them to troll law school blogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The few racist comments that have been posted here have been removed or denounced.

      Delete
  8. As bar passage rates continue to plummet, I fear that the law school pigs will be able to make more fraudulent sales pitches to attract lemmings. I foresee the pigs squealing that their high unemployment rates are due to lemmings failing the bar and having to put off employment so they can study and take the bar a second time. According to NALP, last year about 62% of grads obtained full time jobs requiring bar passage. You will probably see a similar number reported next year for the class of 2016. State bar passage rates are approaching similar numbers. The pigs will squeal the evil bar examiners are holding back their grads from getting jobs. They will tell incoming classes of lemmings, if you just put in the work and pass the bar you will get a legal job! They will whine about how the employment statistics do not include the students who pass the par on the second attempt and get a legal job.

    I know they will make these fraudulent arguments because these are the people who lied about employment outcomes for years. When they were finally called out for lying, the pigs blamed the recession. Then the pigs claimed grads were entitled losers because they were supposedly turning down lower paying jobs waiting to get hired into big law jobs. If only the grads would move to Nebraska! When applications plummeted to these toilets, the law school pigs starting admitting objectively less qualified applicants to get their hooves on student loan dollars. Then when the grads started failing the bar exam in record numbers, the pigs squealed that their grads were just as qualified as previous grads. They blamed the evil bar examiners. In fact, when the bar passage rates first plummeted a few years ago, the pigs tried blaming a “glitch.” In recent years the pigs have been telling us that 2015, er, 2016 will be the year that law grads will be in high demand. They even told us a JD alone is worth one million dollars.

    So I expect to hear more lies coming from the pigs in the coming months.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If the law skools keep taking in bigger retards with lower lsat scores, and the bar exam gets harder you can expect to see lower bar pass rates.

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/08/03/tougher-bar-passage-standard-for-law-schools-sparks-objections/

    Back on August 3, 2016, Jacob Gershman posted an excellent piece on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. It was entitled “Tougher Bar-Passage Standard for Law Schools Sparks Objections.” Check out 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.

    Law.com 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 attentionon 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.”

    The law school pigs who signed that letter were merely shedding aligator tears over the proposal. After all, the sick bitches and hags still charge outrageous sums in tuition – even for TTTT programs. Yes, they are so concerned for their minority students, right?!?!

    Also, the black law student groups opposing this change are run by idiots who don’t ask the bigger questions: why are there so few black Biglaw attorneys, and how in the hell are we supposed to repay $124,561.82 in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – while making $43K per year?!?! The black law “professors” and deans are even worse, since they are basically engaging in affinity fraud.

    Do you see or hear these ass-wipes tell their students during orientation: “Listen, if you are brown or black, you have a lower chance of passing the bar exam. In fact, your LSAT scores were likely lower than your white counterparts here. You also have almost no shot at Biglaw, especially attending this cesspool. This means that even if you do get licensed, you will be stuck working in toilet law.” Of course not! For $ome rea$on, this is not mentioned, or alluded to, on recruiting DVDs, mailers, or on their TTT websites. How “honorable,” huh?!?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If law is indeed a profession, it should enforce a standard of competence. There are good ways to address the problem of underrepresentation of certain racialized groups, but abandoning standards is not among them. Nobody is well served by the licensing of practitioners who cannot even achieve the already minimal threshold on the bar exam.

      Delete
  11. Do like the medical profession. Weed 'em out during the application process. That way you're not buried in student loans with nowhere to go.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Graduating more minorities with a law degree but no license (because they can't pass the bar exam) actually doesn't increase diversity among lawyers. Just sayin'...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sort of logic is the instrument of white male patriarchal imperialism and deprives people of their human rights....

      Delete
    2. It's not like it matters if they pass either.

      They won't get full time jobs with wages that justify the expense and time of the law degree, and further will have such a low quality of life even if the pay is livable that they'll want to either drink themselves to death or hasten the process, as evidenced by the high substance abuse and suicide rate of the profession, along with the high attrition rate.

      Delete
  13. Another TTTT is requiring students to take bar prep courses to graduate. Atlanta's John Marshall LS is now requiring students to take 2 semesters of bar prep to graduate. One lemming expressed concern that the new requirement could be part of a plan to flunk out students so that they can't take the bar and drag down the toilet's abysmal bar passage rate. It appears lemmings do read the law school scam blogs:

    http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/after-years-of-terrible-bar-passage-rates-another-law-school-makes-bar-prep-courses-a-graduation-requirement/

    Atlanta's John Marshall LS posted a 41.7% bar passage rate on the July 2016 Georgia Bar Exam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ideally, shouldn't "bar prep" be at least two out of your three years at law school anyway? We took every MBE subject during our first year except for Property, Con Law and Evidence at my school (and Property and Con Law I were still required to graduate.)

      I think the real problem here is John Marshall admitting whole classes with LSAT medians way below 150. Then again, if they didn't do that they'd shut down. We can only hope. John Marshall is a fucking joke, nobody takes it seriously in Georgia and nobody knows what it is outside Georgia unless they read scamblogs.

      Delete
    2. Atlanta John Marshall has two problems: Problem 1; they admit a lot of bad students. Problem 2; all of the good students that they do admit transfer to another school. Anywhere in the state is better, but most make a jump to either Georgia State or Emory. So, unqualified students don't pass the bar and the school looks terrible. But they do teach the core MBE classes. The mandatory bar prep is at least a better alternative to you must pass a mock bar exam or you don't graduate. (That's not really saying much - I know)

      Delete
  14. Is there hope?

    http://law.indianatech.edu/news/

    ReplyDelete
  15. LAW SCHOOL DOWN! LAW SCHOOL DOWN! INDIANA TECH TO CLOSE!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Indiana Tech Law School To Close, Citing $20 Million In Losses

    http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/local/Indiana-Tech-Law-School-to-close-next-June--losses-at-million

    HURRAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/10/29/law_schools_are_admitting_too_many_poorly_qualified_students.html

    Back on October 29, 2015, Slate published a Jordan Weissmann piece that was headlined "Desperate Law Schools Are Admitting Way Too Many Poorly Qualified Students." Take a look at the following segment:

    "As their application numbers collapsed in recent years, a good number of law schools were forced to choose between their academic standards and their finances. With fewer qualified candidates to go around, some decided to shrink their enrollment numbers and forgo a bit of revenue rather than drastically relax their admission criteria. But many others took the path of least resistance, opening their doors to poorly qualified students willing to pay tuition.

    As a result, a depressing number of law schools are now filled with students who may simply not belong there. According to a new study released this week by the advocacy group Law School Transparency, there were 37 institutions last year where at least half of all new students scored below a 150 on the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT, up from just nine such schools in 2010. Why is that significant? The group argues that students who fail to break the 150 mark face a "serious risk" of eventually failing their state bar exam once they graduate, which would leave them unable to actually practice law.

    To put this in perspective, there are only 203 law schools accredited by the American Bar Association. That means nearly 1 in 5 are now admitting classes that are half made up of at-risk students. At 74 schools, meanwhile, at least a quarter of new students failed to clear a 150 on their LSAT.

    "We are not aware of a time when so many law schools had something like an open enrollment policy," the report states, noting that 4 out of 5 people who applied to law school last year were admitted by at least one. "To a real extent, we're in uncharted territory."

    Get Slate in your inbox.

    Under ABA rules, law schools have a responsibility to admit students who stand a chance of one day passing the bar, because the vast majority of states require them to do so in order to become licensed lawyers.1 The problem is that, while research suggests that students with lower LSAT scores are more likely to fail the bar, there's no real consensus in the legal academy about how low is too low on the entrance exam. In part, that's because it varies with geography; passing the bar is far harder in some states than others. (God help the poor J.D.'s of California.) But the bigger issue is that nobody really seems to collect the data. The ABA doesn't require schools to report bar passage by LSAT score, and those that track it internally are loath to reveal it to the outside world.

    Traditionally, this has made it hard to shame or crack down on law schools for admitting large numbers of underqualified students, since the precise definition of underqualified has remained vague (administrations have also argued that stricter requirements would make it harder to admit minority students, who tend to score lower on the LSAT). Making the situation worse: Law schools aren't required to report standardized test scores of students below the 25th percentile, so nobody truly knows how low their standards might go."

    Garbage in, garbage out. Dumb students in their 20s - or older - will not suddenly transform into intellectual giants. Idiots who barely muster a 143 on the LSAT have little to no shot at passing a bar exam. For $ome rea$on, the law school pigs are okay with taking their borrowed money.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The shame of the whole damn thing is the waste of resources. 20 million would have gone a long way towards building something constructive, not a TTTT!

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics