Monday, March 28, 2016
The Gravy Train Rolls Along: Fourth Tier Trash Pit Thomas Jefferson School of Law Wins TTTT Court Case
The Expected Result Happens: On March 24, 2016, ABC News published an Associated Press story by Julie Watson, under the headline “California Jury Rejects Graduate’s Suit Against Law School.” Look at this opening segment:
“A jury found Thursday that a San Diego law school did not mislead a graduate who sued on the grounds she was lured to the school by false promises that her degree would land her a job after graduating.
The San Diego Superior Court jury rejected Anna Alaburda's claim against the Thomas Jefferson School of Law on a 9-3 vote that was reached after about four hours of deliberations over two days…
Alaburda, who filed her lawsuit in 2011, argued that Thomas Jefferson used inflated data to bolster the success rate of its job-seeking graduates. The 37-year-old woman graduated near the top of her class in 2008 and says she has been unable to find a full-time job as a lawyer. Meanwhile, she said has been saddled with $170,000 in student debt. She sought $125,000 in damages.
The trial came amid growing debate over such promises by schools competing to recruit students. The lawsuit was among more than a dozen similar ones filed in recent years against law schools, including Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco and the University of San Francisco School of Law. Though most of the lawsuits have been dismissed, critics say they point to a need for greater regulation and transparency for law schools, so prospective students know their employment prospects, the debt they will incur and their chances of successfully passing the bar.
Michael Sullivan, an attorney for the law school, acknowledged "isolated mistakes" and "clerical errors" in data collection but said there was no evidence that the school lied. He said the verdict set no precedent but may send a signal to other students who sue. "Having an opportunity where it's fully litigated, and depositions and documents examined, to see the hype, the chatter about that did not prove to be the truth, as found by a jury, I think that's a helpful message," Sullivan told reporters after the verdict.” [Emphasis mine]
It’s uncanny how these “institutions of higher learning” ALWAYS manage to make errors that benefit the school, huh?!?! The fact that juries are comprised of people who are too damn dumb to get off of jury duty seems to have benefited the commode. Now scroll down to this comical conclusion:
“Thomas Jefferson representatives noted broad efforts to improve reporting at all law schools and expressed regret about any stain that the lawsuit inflicted on the school's reputation.
"This is not, you know, Trump University," Sullivan said. "It is so not that. It is such a really excellent law school."
This inarticulate fool comes across as a frat boy. One wonders whether he wore khakis, JC Penney loafers, and a cheap blue blazer into court. Anyway, it is damn near impossible to hurt the reputation of a certfied dung heap. If this is the best school you can get into, I seriously question if your IQ is in the 90-95 range. As you can see, TTTThoma$ Jeffer$on Sewer of Law is once again ranked as a FOURTH TIER TRASH PIT – by US “News “ & World Report!
Other Coverage: On March 24, 2016, Law School Truth Center posted an OTLSS entry that was labeled “Alaburda v. TJSL and the Grand Pyrrhic Victory.” Scroll down for this nugget:
“But at the end of the day, consider where we were prior to the litigation compared to now. The New York Times' marquee article on the so-called "scam" didn't hit until 2011. LawProf's first post didn't hit until August of that year. While there was a solid trend of "scamblogging" prior to that, the denial on the institutional side was significantly stronger. In five years, applications and bar exam scores have plummeted and the institutional position has changed radically. While the courts have been hostile to claims of shenanigans, the market doesn't lie. That many of the students who applied in droves in 2010 would not be caught dead applying to law school in 2016 is a sign of progress - and not for the law schools. Awareness about the true state of the job market has spread, and I would it to you that the lawsuits have been an instrumental part of that process.
While the law schools, like many large institutional actors, figured out how to comply with the letter of the law without regard to the spirit, they are unable to counter the truth. And from a combination of books, blogs and websites, and - yes - these lawsuits, the truth is now more well-known than ever. These institutions can claim that the Frank McIntyres of the world are experts and that law degrees are worth a gazillion dollars, but the buyers - sophisticated consumers, right? - seemingly aren't taking the bait like they used to.” [Emphasis mine]
Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory, cockroaches. As noted in this OTLSS piece – from December 28, 2015, and based off 509 disclosure forms – TJ$L’s 25th percentile LSAT score went from 149 in 2010 down to 141 in anno Domini 2015. You can count on even lower bar passage rates for your graduates, in the next several years.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the average person does not have much sympathy for broke-ass lawyers or debt-strapped JDs. When people hire attorneys, it’s usually out of necessity – and it is typically not a pleasant experience. Divorce proceedings, custody hearings, land disputes, and depositions don’t bring out the best in people. Why should they then feel sorry for the men and women who were unable to crack into this GLUTTED U.S. legal job market? After all, even many of the idealistic dolts thought that they were going to represent the downtrodden – while driving around in a Jaguar XJ R-Sport and wearing Brooks Brothers suits.
The best way to avoid financial ruin is to avoid applying to, or enrolling in, garbage law schools. Once you are attending, ego and pride may compel the simpleminded to complete the TTTT journey. You are MUCH better off remaining in your current job, working your ass off to make management, and developing real connections in your workplace and industry than you will ever be by racking up $140K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a putrid academic “credential.” Don’t even think of going to cesspools such as TTTThoma$ Jeffer$on Sewer of Law!
Posted by Nando at 4:43 AM
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
The News: On March 9, 2016, the Spectrum, the student newspaper at SUNY, published a Tom Dinki piece that was entitled “UB still paying former law school dean Makau Mutua full salary despite his new job.” Look at thiz excellent opening:
“Law professor Makau Mutua has been on leave from UB for nearly a year and recently took a job in Washington D.C., yet the university is still paying the former law school dean his full salary – a salary that nears $300,000.
Mutua is working as a human rights adviser for World Bank, an international financial institution that provides loans to developing countries. Such consultants in Washington, D.C., where Mutua’s Twitter account shows he spends most of his time, make an average salary of $90,000.
World Bank would not confirm if Mutua made such a salary or his exact position, but on his social media accounts he calls himself a World Bank human rights adviser.
Mutua did not respond to Spectrum email requests for an interview about this story.
According to SUNY policy, the university president has to approve outside income for a faculty member earning salary while on sabbatical. The president also can choose to lower the faculty member’s salary if that member receives outside income while on leave.
That did not occur in Mutua’s case.
UB officials say this is because Mutua is on a special kind of leave, known as Title F leave, which doesn’t require faculty members to get approval for outside earnings.
President Satish Tripathi, and all SUNY university presidents, can grant employees Title F leave with full salary, reduced salary or no salary. UB officials confirmed Mutua is being paid full salary.” [Emphasis mine]
What the hell do you expect from swine? When have these “legal scholars” ever shown integrity or common decency?! By the way, Pig Mutua is being paid – while employed elsewhere – despite MAJOR cuts to faculty. So much for belt-tightening, huh?!?!
Mutua and His Wife’s Salaries: The Empire Center provides salaries of public employees. On the left hand side of the screen, go to Subagency/Type and enter the letter S – and then select SUNY Buffalo. This is the quickest way to pull up the following information:
“Name: Mutua, Makau W.
Total Pay: $293,443
Subangency/Type: SUNY Buffalo
Title: Dintinguished Professor
Name: Mutua, Athena D.
Total Pay: $151,559
Subagency/Type: SUNY Buffalo
Title: Professor (Law)” [Emphasis mine]
As you can see, the law school pigs look after their own. After all, it is only federal student loan money they are playing with, right?!?! Plus, they are performing a “public service.” They are providing students with a “legal education” – and who can place a price tag on that “benefit”?! Some of these TTT grads might even have an extremely remote chance of becoming future human rights lawyers or advisers.
Other Coverage: On March 10, 2016, Paul Caron wrote a blog entry labeled “SUNY-Buffalo Law School, After Reducing Faculty By 50% Through Buyouts, Pays Former Dean $300k While He Works For World Bank.” Head to the Comments section for the following insights.
An anonymous poster provided this remark on March 10, 2016 6:07:46 AM:
“Golden parachutes for some, belt-tightening for others. America in 2016.”
A user with the handle “Dad of law student” wrote the following, on March 10, 2016 6:48:56 AM:
“$300K a year for doing nothing, paid for by students who will be working off their share of his one-year benefice for maybe 30 years. Who's the slave here? Who's the master? Speak!” [Emphasis mine]
Yes, these academics are so honorable! Prostitutes on the street have higher ethics and more integrity than their counterparts in law schools.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, it is ALL about the money! Do you think for one damn second that these “educators” care about YOU, the student or recent graduate?!?! As long as those federal loans clear and are in their hooves, they wouldn’t notice if you got hit by a city bus and ended up in the cemetery. It was never about “educating the next generation of lawyers,” idiot. The cockroaches who run and operate ABA-accredited law schools know that the U.S. attorney job market is GLUTTED. They are well aware of this fact. However, they have continued to admit too many students, and then pumped out an excess of law grads, because they want to be paid fat salaries for minimal “work.” YOU, lemming, were a mere mean$ to an end. Now have fun repaying $135K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, on your weak-ass $41K salary.
Posted by Nando at 4:55 AM
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Average Law School Indebtedness List: Before we get to the meat and potatoes, let me state a basic fact of life: Robert Morse of US “News” & World Report has become an even bigger pussy. This debt figure is an important metric, in many ways more crucial than whether you attend the 56th “best” law school or the 71st “greatest” diploma mill in the country. After all, the students at both in$TTiTTuTTion$ face the same weak-ass employment prospects. So what has Vagina Bob Morse done now, you ask? Well, the eunuch no longer places the amounts in descending order of debt. He has recently decided to list these alphabetically by state, and then within each state he approximately lists the schools who reported, alphabetically. Yes, this old, wrinkled cunt is certainly looking out for the students, right?!?!
I had to do some searching, but according to USN&WR, here are the schools with the highest average law school indebtedness, for those members of the JD class of 2015 who incurred debt for law school. Remember that these figures do not take interest that accrues while the student is enrolled into account. The second number on each line represents the percentage of each diploma mill’s class who took on such debt:
1. Thomas Jefferson School of Law: $172,726, 90%
2. Columbia University: $168,627, 59%
3. New York University: $166,022, 69%
4. University of San Francisco: $162,434, 79%
5. The John Marshall Law School: $162,264, 82%
6. California Western School of Law: $162,260, 89%
7. New York Law School: $161,910, 80%
8. Florida Coastal School of Law: $160,942, 94%
9. Georgetown University: $160,606, 73%
10. American University (Washington): $160,274, 80%
11. Vermont Law School: $156,710, 87%
12. University of Miami: $155,796, 72%
12. Northwestern University (Pritzker): $155,796, 78%
Look at that, people. Another tie, this one for 12th place! As you are well aware, each year’s overall law school rankings feature numerous idiotic ties. For instance, the tool will often bunch together several toilets in one rating spot. Specifically, this year, Third Tier Drake shares 111th place, with 11 other ABA law schools! What are the odds?
Student Loan Calculator: It’s sad that college students and grads give more thought to which blend they should buy from Starbucks than to taking out insane amounts of NON-DISCHARGEABLE loans. Ironically, MANY of these simpletons will end up as baristas after earning worthless degrees from pathetic “institutions of higher education.”
Instead of trying to gain admission to any ABA-accredited dung heap, they should these words from FinAid’s Mark Kantrowitz:
“The debt-to-income ratio is a standard tool for assessing whether a borrower will have difficulty meeting his or her repayment obligations. For example, most banks will refuse to issue a loan if the total of your monthly debt payments (i.e., mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, educational loans, etc.) exceeds 37% of your income. It is recommended that your educational loan payments represent no more than 10% to 15% of your income. This calculator uses the debt-to-income ratio and a projection of your starting salary to derive a manageable debt load for you.
A good rule of thumb is that for the Stafford Loan, the manageable debt load is about the same as your starting salary.” [Emphasis mine]
How many TJ$L grads are going to make $200K+ per year, coming from that dung heap?! Keep in mind that they will have accrued loans from undergrad, as well. Hell, people attend Harvard and Yale Law so they can make $160K per year as a Biglaw associate – and they are happy to get that type of job.
The Glutted Lawyer Job Market: Check out the NALP National Summary Report for the Class of 2014. You will notice that there were 43,832 graduates, competing for 27,928 jobs that "require bar passage." However, this does not show the extent of the glut fully. Scroll down to page two, until you reach Size of Firm. There were 18,587 members of this cohort who obtained private law firm positions. Of that amount, a mere 5,043 were in offices with more than 250 attorneys – and those firms don’t want TT, TTT or TTTT grads.
Conclusion: Try not to be a vegetable, lemming. Do you think – for one millisecond – that you are going to land a Biglaw job coming out of TJ$L or VermonTTT?!?! All you will be sure to obtain is $150K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a worthless law degree. Yes, that is a wise “investment,” huh?! Do you believe that you will roll around in a nice Jaguar, while representing “the people” against evil, giant corporations? Maybe you will help baby sea lions, through your legal acumen? Perhaps, you feel that you will make a living as a legal aid worker. How does making $36K per year sound to you, Bitch?!
Take a look at the names of the schools on the Average Law School Indebtedness list, from US “News” and Bob Morse. TTTThoma$ Jeffer$on Law Sewer, Univer$ity of $an Franci$co, The John Marshall Law Sewer, California We$TTTTern, New York Law $chool, Florida Coa$TTTTal Sewer of Law, and VermonTTT. Law firm hiring managers will laugh at your ass, the moment they see your pathetic resume and cover letter. Non-law employers will ask you if your law degree is from an online school or if its accredited. In the final analysis, it simply does not make ANY financial sense for you to incur $180K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for a garbage law degree. All you are doing is supporting the lifestyle of lazy pig “law professors” who DO NOT GIVE ONE GODDAMN about you or your family, your future, or your inability to support yourself. Make sure you don’t drink wet paint either, Dumbass.
Posted by Nando at 7:40 AM
Monday, March 14, 2016
Sinking Turd: Brooklyn Law School Drops Another 19 Spots in Latest US “News” & World Report Rankings, According to Above the Law
Flushed Again!: On March 10, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry that was entitled “The 2017 U.S. News Law School Rankings Leak: The Top 100.” On the second page, you will find the following news:
“Which law school has had the worst performance thus far in this year’s rankings?...
SUNY Buffalo also struggled this year, landing itself right back in the same place it had climbed out of just last year. Perhaps those faculty buyouts weren’t so helpful after all. (It’s worth noting that many of the law schools that offered faculty buyouts did poorly in this year’s rankings. We’ll see how this plays out in the rest of the rankings.)
Last, but definitely not least, we’ve got the worst performance in the 2017 rankings thus far. Unfortunately, it looks like Brooklyn Law wasn’t able to stick the landing after its 15 percent tuition cut. The law school now finds itself 19 spots lower in the U.S. News rankings, drifting dangerously close to being knocked out of the Top 100 entirely.” [Emphasis mine]
Wait for Cockroach Nicholas Allard to blame this HUGE drop on the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the Van Allen belts, or the shooter on the grassy knoll. After the official USN&WR list comes out, look for a $TTaTTemenTT from the pig.
The Toilet Also Fell 15 Spots in the 2014 Rankings: Back on March 12, 2013, Elie Mystal wiped his ass with Brooklyn Law School, in his article, “Responding to the New U.S. News Rankings: The Parade of Butthurt Deans Begins Now.” Check out the following segment:
“And finally there is Brooklyn Law School. As we noted last night, Brooklyn fell from #65 to #80. Brooklyn Law Dean Nick Allard told his students that it was the school’s decision to not give U.S. News what it wanted, and somehow they’re surprised that it mattered so much:
‘Our reported figure for 2011 graduates employed nine months after graduation reflects a significant drop in this category from previous years…. Quite apart from their impact on the rankings, our employment statistics are a clear concern for BLS’s leadership, and one that we are working tirelessly to address. We have committed significant new resources to help our students pursue and obtain the jobs that they want and deserve.
Our “9 months out” employment rate, however, does not alone explain our unexpected decline in the rankings. We believe that it is the result of our decision not to report a figure for the percentage of graduates employed at graduation. The information U.S. News requested for that category was changed dramatically this past year. They asked for details that we did not collect in 2011, and we (like some other schools) decided that rather than attempting to construct after the fact an imprecise number to answer to U.S. News’s question, we simply would not provide an answer for that category. This was done in an effort to ensure that our reported figures were completely accurate and transparent. Obviously we did not realize that we would be penalized harshly for not reporting data we did not collect at that time, nor that it would impact our ranking so starkly.’
A few points here, in no particular order:
• Really, you weren’t collecting data for “employed upon graduation”? Really?
• The “details” that U.S. News was asking for were really designed to prevent you from gaming the rankings. It sounds like your plan of obfuscating the facts just didn’t work out this year.
• So instead of giving U.S. News what they wanted, your plan was to give them nothing at all and just, what, hope that U.S. News decided it didn’t really want that information?
Honestly, even taking BK Law at its word, the hubris is kind of amazing. They just didn’t report crucial employment information and were surprised that they were punished. Would they accept that from students? “Oh, I just didn’t show up to Tax because I don’t want to be a tax lawyer, but I did not realize I’d be penalized so harshly in my grade.”
Look, the days of law schools taking their employment outcomes lightly are at an end. I guess Brooklyn knows this now.” [Emphasis mine]
Mystal destroyed that pile of excrement, with his brutal analysis!
But the Trash Pit is “Prestigious” in Other Ways: On August 19, 2015, the commode issued a press release that was labeled “Brooklyn Law School Faculty Scholarship, Brooklyn Law Review Among Tops in Field.” Make sure that you are not drinking anything, as you read the tripe below:
“Brooklyn Law School’s faculty has been named to the prestigious Leiter Top 40, ranking 33rd on the Leiter scale in scholarly impact as measured by citations. Among the Law School’s most-cited tenured faculty members were Professors William Araiza, Miriam Baer, Anita Bernstein, Dana Brakman Reiser, I. Bennett Capers, Marsha Garrison, Edward Janger, Roberta Karmel, Elizabeth Schneider, Lawrence Solan, Nelson Tebbe, and Aaron Twerski.
“This prestigious ranking is more evidence of the powerful collective impact of the scholarly work being done by our world-class faculty,” said Dean Nick Allard. “The depth and breadth of our faculty scholarship is simply astounding and firmly places us among the finest law schools in the nation.”
What a pretentious douchebag. In the real world, where results matter, nobody gives a damn about placement on an academic hack’s list of influential faculty. Other than Crooklyn JDs, how many of you have heard of any of the “educators” in the segment above?
Conclusion: Brooklyn Law Sewer is a vile, sickening, vomitous mass of putrid filth. The smell of ass emanates from the building and reaches the stratosphere. When Crooklyn Law graduates send in their resumes and cover letters, the stench of the degree overwhelms the firms’ email server and fax machines. When hiring partners and their assistants get over the feral scent, they proceed to laugh until their sides hurt. Hell, they can’t even use those applications to line their pet’s litter box, since that smell is worse than cat piss.
If you are even considering attending this cesspool, now rated as the 97th “best” law school in the nation, then you are a mouth-breathing cretin who is mentally incapable of ordering from a McDonald’s menu. By the way, if you graduate from this rancid dung heap, you can look forward to serving Big Macs, chicken McNuggets, and cheap sundaes. You don’t have the mental fortitude to work the drive thru window. Make sure to add a large fry, Bitch!
Posted by Nando at 4:46 AM
Thursday, March 10, 2016
The News: On March 4, 2016, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog published a piece from Sarah Randazzo, under the headline “ABA to Consider Change to Bar-Passage Rules for Law Schools.” Enjoy the following portion:
“Law schools may soon have to do a better job at proving they actually prepare students for the practice of law.
At a meeting next week in Phoenix, the American Bar Association’s accrediting arm will consider changing a bar passage rate rule schools must follow to stay accredited.
The change would require 75% of a law school’s graduates who sit for a bar exam to pass the test within two years.
The ABA already essentially aims for the 75% mark, but the current rules offer a convoluted web of possible loopholes. They also give schools five years to meet the mark, and emphasize first-time test taker results in addition to the overall success rate.
The tweak, proposed by a committee that evaluates changes to law school accrediting standards, would eliminate more than 700 words of explanation from the rule, leaving a single sentence.
As the committee explains in its recommendation to the governing council of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, “an ultimate pass rate is the more appropriate measure of whether a school is operating a sound program of legal education, and it is not subject to the idiosyncrasies that can be found with a reliance on the pass rate of first-time takers.”
The current bar passage rate requirements haven’t given too many law schools trouble, and it’s not clear yet how much resistance there might be to the new proposed rule.
Since 2000, Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco and Whittier Law School in Southern California were both put on probation for low bar passage rates, but later had the probation lifted. Two other California schools, Western State University College of Law and the University of La Verne College of Law, lost accreditation, in part because of bar passage issues. Western State is once again fully accredited while La Verne has provisional accreditation.
As Law Blog readers know, bar exam passage rates have been falling nationwide, with some states reporting lower than 75% passage rates for first-time test takers.
Also at next week’s meeting, accreditors will consider eliminating a requirement that law schools must use an admissions test for incoming students.” [Emphasis mine]
Re-read that last sentence. That item is actually going to help the law schools admit more idiots and dolts. Furthermore, these two measures are not congruent. How the hell can you allow ABA-accredited diploma mills to make it easier to admit students, but then also require that they improve their bar passage rates?!?! Look for the American Bar Association rodents to apply pressure on state bar examiners to lower their standards.
Prior Coverage: Back on February 11, 2016, the ABA Journal featured a Mark Hansen article entitled Tougher, simpler bar-passage requirements for law schools to be considered by ABA committee.” Check out this opening:
“An ABA committee on Friday will take up a proposal that would toughen—and greatly simplify—the bar passage requirements of the law school accreditation standards.
Under the proposal, a law school would have to demonstrate that 75 percent of its graduates who took a bar exam within two years of their graduation passed.
Under the current standard, a law school can meet the bar pass requirement in one of two ways. It can show, as most schools do, that its first-time bar pass rate was no more than 15 points below the average bar pass rate for ABA-approved schools in states where its graduates took the exam. Or it can demonstrate, as some schools have resorted to doing, that 75 percent of its graduates who took a bar exam in three of the previous five years passed.
The proposed new standard would eliminate the first option altogether. It would keep the 75 percent bar passage rate from the second option but reduce the time frame for demonstrating compliance from five to two years. It also would require schools to account for all of their graduates. Under the current standard, a school needs to account for only 70 percent of its graduates.
The proposal would not relieve a school of its obligation to report and publish its first-time bar passage rates. But it would eliminate a loophole that now allows schools to exclude a group of test-takers known as “non-persisters”—graduates who fail a bar exam once and don’t take it again the next two times it is offered—from their calculations.” [Emphasis mine]
Even if this change occurs, the law school pigs will get an exception or find a loophole – such as “If we try to reach grads but are unable to do so, we cannot be expected to include them in our stats.” Those also happen to be the JDs who are embarrassed to report their low incomes. Plus, who will enforce this new rule and how often? Remember, the “educators” DO NOT GIVE ONE GODDAMN about the students and recent graduates. They only care about keeping the gravy train of federal student loan dollars rolling along.
Conclusion: The following facts are irrefutable. Collectively, ABA-accredited law schools KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY lowered admi$$ion$ “standards,” over several years, in response to a shrinking pool of applicants. Bar passage rates continue to drop. Instead of looking at themselves, the academic swine blame their bar examiners for “making the licensing exam too hard.” The bitches and hags then still move ahead and push for using other tests which are easier, such as the GRE, in lieu of the LSAT. Now, the ABA parasites are considering increasing bar pass requirements for member schools.
I smell a rat, in this arrangement. This is the equivalent of asking a dumber person to practice less, and then simultaneously play several expert level chess players in timed rapid games, and obtain better results. This is unrealistic, unless there is something else at play, such as collusion or trickery. I suspect the ABA will discuss this measure, and then not pass the damn thing. In the alternative, they will permit several exceptions to the new rule, rendering it meaningless. Which is in line with what the ABA typically does on a daily basis.
Posted by Nando at 4:57 AM
Sunday, March 6, 2016
No Surprise: On February 18, 2016, the Lansing State Journal published an RJ Wolcott piece, which was entitled “Enrollment up, scores down at Cooley.” Read this opening:
“After five years of declining enrollment, Western Michigan University Cooley Law School brought in more first-year students last year than it did the year before, according to American Bar Association data.
But only by three students.
And halting the slide seems to have come at the expense of selectivity.
Cooley has long been one of the least selective law schools in the country, but the average GPA and LSAT scores of its most recent entering class are the lower than any class at Cooley in at least a decade.
The median GPA and LSAT scores for new Cooley students last year were 2.85 and 141, respectively. Students in the 25th percentile had an average LSAT score of 138. LSAT scores range from 120 to 180. A score of 138 falls in the bottom 11 percent of scores from recent years.
By comparison, Michigan State University Law School's median GPA and LSAT scores last year were 3.46 and 154. At the University of Michigan, they were 3.76 and 168.
Cooley has not lowered its admissions standards, said Jim Robb, associate dean of external affairs.
Students are evaluated using a complex admission formula that weighs an applicant’s LSAT scores and GPA, Robb said. In recent years, the school has placed more value on GPAs.
“The admissions formula (allows us to compare) prior students who’ve entered into the program and their chances of success versus incoming students,” he said.
While Cooley may have reached lower within the acceptable range in recent years, Robb said, admitted students have the potential to succeed in law school and beyond.” [Emphasis mine]
Putting the words Cooley and selectivity in the same sentence is the equivalent of mentioning Madonna and chastity in the same breath. Keep the following in mind: the 25th percentile for the most recent entering class at this commode was 138. Simply put, these jackals are accepting federal student loan money in order to enroll certified morons.
Other Coverage: Paul Caron posted an TaxProf entry labeled “Cooley Craters: Enrollment, Faculty Down 60%, Tuition Up 40%” – on February 19, 2016. Scroll down to the comments section of this article, for some insight into this $iTTTTuaTTTTion. On February 19, 2016 at 1:49:53 pm, “Unemployed Northeastern” pointed out Jim Robb’s blatant lie:
"In recent years, the school has placed more value on GPAs. ..."
Which have also fallen, a remarkable feat in this age of grade inflation. A lot of law schools have had falling LSATs to keep enrollment up. Very few have had the median GPA drop by any measure, let alone by nearly .2 on the 4.0 scale.” [Emphasis mine]
If they are not lying, then it appears that the admi$$ion$ pigs at this notorious toilet also suck at math. A median UGPA of 3.02 in 2011 dropped to 2.85, in 2015. There was also a decrease in undergraduate GPAs in the 25th and 75th percentiles, at TTTT Cooley, over this same period. That is quite an accomplishment, huh?!?!
On February 19, 2016 4:29:43 pm, an anonymous poster furnished the following remarks:
“Wow. O.k., I'm going to give this Robb guy the benefit of the doubt and assume that he concedes that Cooley's numerical admissions standards (both LSAT and GPA) have declined significantly. The numbers are the numbers, and even the slickest snake oil salesman couldn't get around that fact.
Is his argument that the "quality" of student, defined as intangibles other than LSAT/GPA, has not gone down, despite those students comparatively lower numerical credentials?
Are we to understand that Cooley has found some novel way to evaluate students and has concluded that those with lower numbers are equivalent to or better than those in prior years with better numbers, thus Cooley's admissions "standards" have not declined because the quality of the students being admitted now (which stood less chance of being admitted 5 years ago, mind you), are the same or better???
Why the poor bar passage and high attrition, then? Would Cooley care to share its magical assessment formula, and can it truly be said to be working???” [Emphasis mine]
Perhaps, the Cooley cockroaches are giving more weight to the pointless written essay portion, at the end of the LSAT. Hell, maybe the desperate bitches and hags are focusing more on the prospective student essay attached to the application.
Conclusion: In sum, the pigs at We$TTTTern Michigan Univer$iTTTTy TTTThoma$ M. Cooley Law Sewer will do and say anything, in order to “justify” their sinking admi$$ion$ “standards.” Street cats who haven’t eaten in two days are more selective than these rodents. As Unemployed Northeastern noted, we are in an age of grade inflation in U.S. colleges and universities. “Higher education” is Big Business in this nation, and “educators” and administrators respond to the demands of their consumers/students. The fact that Cooley is admitting college grads with LOWER undergrad GPAs speaks volumes about this dung heap’s “selectivity.” They CLEARLY DO NOT A DAMN about their students, recent graduates, potential clients, or the “profession.” These thieves don’t even care about the school’s reputation, which is already lower than crocodile piss.
Posted by Nando at 6:44 AM
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Fourth Tier Trash Pit Valparaiso University Law School Now Offering Buyouts to Tenured Faculty Swine
Tighten Your Belts, Pigs: On February 26, 2016, the Chicago Post-Tribune published a piece from freelance reporter Amy Lavalley, under the headline “VU Law School announces ‘right-sizing’ plan.” Enjoy this beautiful opening:
“Valparaiso University announced Friday that in the wake of declining enrollment for its law school, it is offering buyouts to tenured faculty and faculty members with multi-year contracts.
The school has 21 tenured faculty and six with multi-year contracts and any of them could be eligible for a buyout, said Andrea Lyon, the law school's dean, adding she couldn't comment on a target number for the buyouts because that would depend on salaries and the school's budget.
She said the school is "right-sizing" its faculty because of a drop in students. The school has an enrollment this year of 430 full- and part-time students, and had an incoming class in the fall of 133 students.
At its peak, the school had 600 students, she said, and while the number of students at law schools nationwide has been dropping for 40 years, the decline became precipitous with the recession several years ago. The number of students taking the LSAT, a standardized test required for law school admission, has dropped 50 percent nationwide since 2009.
The incoming class at VU hovered around 150 or 160 students for a few years but is now declining, Lyon said.
"For the size we are and are becoming, our faculty is too large and that's why we're doing this," she said, adding the school wants to make sure its students are prepared to succeed and the faculty is doing that.” [Emphasis mine]
You’re welcome, bitches! Scroll down, near the conclusion, for this gem:
“By the end of March, Lyon said administrators should know which faculty members have accepted the buyout and what the school's next step will be.
"We are very grateful to our faculty who have been here, many of them for 30 years or more," she said, adding the decision to offer the buyouts was not one the school took lightly. "It's not a referendum on any faculty member, or that anybody has done anything wrong. It's a response to the market. My colleagues are wonderful people and I will miss them very much."
Tuition for this school year for full-time students was $39,450, which Lyon said would remain the same for the coming year.” [Emphasis mine]
Perhaps, you greedy pigs should drastically reduce your tuition rates. Of course, that thought never entered your little mind.
Other Coverage: On February 26, 2016, Rob Earnshaw’s article, “VU Law School to offer faculty buyouts,” appeared in the Times of Northwest Indiana. Take a look at the following excerpt:
"Dean of the Law School Andrea Lyon said there are 36 full-time faculty members and the number of buyouts to be offered is still undetermined. Once there is a target number, officials hope the buyout works and the school can be right-sized.
Lyon said if they don't reach the target number "we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it."
Lyon said enrollment in the Law School has been going down and the school's been more selective from a much smaller pool of applicants. She also said legal education has taken quite a hit and people taking the LSAT nationwide has gone down 50 percent from 2009 to now." [Emphasis mine]
Let’s see how selective the commode has been, in it’s admi$$ion$. After all, that’s what the dean of the law school said.
Scraping the Bottom of the Bowl: Reviewing the garbage heap’s 2015 Standard 509 Information Report, you will note the following:
"75th percentile UGPA: 3.27
Median UGPA: 2.93
25th percentile UGPA: 2.63
75th percentile LSAT: 148
Median LSAT: 145
25th percentile LSAT: 142" [Emphasis mine]
Hell, I could score higher on the LSAT, if Sofia Vergara was sitting on my lap the entire time. By the way, if this pile of excrement is becoming more selective, who were they admitting before?!?!
Ranking: A law school that charges such outrageous tuition MUST have one hell of a reputation in the legal and academic communities, right?!?! Well, according to US “News” & World Report, Valaparai$o Univer$iTTTTy Law Sewer is rated as a FOURTH TIER DUNG HEAP! What an incredible feat, huh?!?!
Conclusion: Valparaiso “University” Law Sewer is a decrepit toilet that is desperately trying to stay in the game. You can bet your ass that the univerity brass grew tired of no longer relying on this cesspool as a cash cow. Then they see that jackals with JDs, who do not submit articles in peer-reviewed journals, are making MUCH more than men and women armed with PhDs in core disciplines such as math, history, physics, and biology. At least, a smaller pool of applicants and students will result in fewer Valpo Law grads eating Alpo dog food.
Posted by Nando at 5:54 AM