Monday, June 27, 2016

U.S. Department of Education Panel Recommends Suspending ABA Cockroaches from Accrediting New Law Schools, for One Year

It’s About Damn Time!: On June 24, 2016, Inside Higher Ed published a Paul Fein piece that was entitled “Accreditor on Life Support.” This headline refers to another garbage accrediting agency, but check out the following portion as it pertains to the law school pigs:

“Most notably, the panel on Wednesday rebuked the American Bar Association, in part for its lack of attention to student achievement. 

The ABA accredits law schools, some of them freestanding institutions. NACIQI, after three contentious votes, recommended that the department suspend the association's ability to accredit new members for a year. The panel said the ABA had failed to implement its student achievement standards and probationary sanctions, while also falling short on its audit process and analysis of graduates' debt levels.

Barry Currier, the ABA's managing director of accreditation and legal education, said the finding followed a department staff report that listed minor technical deficiencies with the association's accrediting process. 

"The council believes that it is operating in compliance with the recognition criteria," Currier said in a written statement, "but will make any changes to its accreditation standards and rules of procedures that are necessary to stay in good standing with NACIQI and the Department of Education." [Emphasis mine]

Notice how Cockroach Barry Currier does not even address bar passage rates or JD student debt levels. His mother must be exceptionally proud of her little hatchling. On June 24, 2016, poster “Unemployed_Northeastern” provided this scathing analysis:

“I think my favorite part of this long, long overdue penalty for the ABA's feckless, disinterested, and usually anti-student *accreditation practices* is this: Barry Currier, the ABA's managing director of accreditation and legal education, was formerly dean of Concord Law School, an unaccredited, for-profit, online law school in California, owned by Kaplan, that, according to Wikipedia, had an average bar exam pass rate in California of just 36% between 2003 and 2011.”

In fact, the old hag is still listed on Concord Law Sewer’s website as “dean emeritus.” For $ome rea$on, he conveniently forgot to mention that in his reply.

Other Coverage: On June 24, 2016, Paul Caron posted an entry labeled “Department Of Education Panel Recommends Suspension Of ABA's Power To Accredit Law Schools Due To Its 'Lack Of Attention To Student Achievement'” Look at this brief introduction:

“In stunning news, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) voted on Wednesday to recommend that the U.S. Department of Education suspend for one year the ABA's power to accredit new law schools due to the ABA's "lack of attention to student achievement[.]"

Scroll down to the Comments section, for the following gems. First, Sam Browning’s remarks on June 25, 2016 7:55:57 am:

“I await the arrival of a couple law professors who will inevitably argue that we face a critical shortage of lawyers and law schools in this country and 204 law schools are simply not enough to serve ______________ segment of our population.” [Emphasis mine]

Courtesy of Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King – posted on June 25, 2016 at 10:56:50 am:

“Reading this post made my day!!!!! The ABA is nothing more than a trade group like the National Automobile Dealers Association or National Retail Federation and on and on. Who is the ABA? What authority do this group have? GW Bush was correct to "de-authorize" the ABA from having any sort of influence or veto power regarding Supreme Court nominees. What does the ABA do? Hold a trade show once a year where you can pick up stress balls and candy from West?”

As you can see, those with a brain stem and some honesty can see the pigs’ next move. You can bet your ass that the American Bar Association filth will argue that they have the students’ best interest in mind – and that no other agency can better or equally perform their tasks and enforce their rules. Here is their stated Goal II



1. Promote the highest quality legal education. 
2. Promote competence, ethical conduct and professionalism. 
3. Promote pro bono and public service by the legal profession.” [Emphasis in original]

Yeah, accrediting dung heaps such as TJSL, Cooley, Arizona Summit, Ave Maria, etc. shows that you take this objective seriously. Who cares if these graduates incur RIDICULOUS SUMS OF NON-DISCHARGEABLE DEBT, for pathetic job prospects, right?!?!

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the ABA is a scum organization. The swine who run the institution have the no integrity or any guiding principles. In a just world, these sick bitches and hags would be prosecuted under the RICO statute. Hell, if purchase several trailers, install the internet, provide bookshelves, running water, and a fax machine, you can get approval. Just make sure to set aside enough cash for ABA site fees. Don’t expect this action to do much, other than to perhaps embarrass the cockroaches. Then again, they have proven that they have no shame.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Fourth Tier Explosive Diarrhea: Valparaiso University School of Law Once Again in National News

The Story: On June 17, 2016, the New York Times published a Noam Schieber piece that was entitled “An Expensive Law Degree and No Place to Use It.” Check out this splendid opening:

“By most measures, John Acosta is a law school success story. He graduated from Valparaiso University Law School — a well-established regional school here in northwestern Indiana — in the top third of his class this past December, a semester ahead of schedule. He passed the bar exam on his first try in February. 

Mr. Acosta, 39, is also a scrupulous networker who persuaded a former longtime prosecutor to join him in starting a defense and family law firm. A police officer for 11 years in Georgia, Mr. Acosta has a rare ability to get inside the head of a cop that should be of more than passing interest to would-be clients… 

Yet in financial terms, there is almost no way for Mr. Acosta to climb out of the crater he dug for himself in law school, when he borrowed over $200,000. The government will eventually forgive the loan — in 25 years — if he’s unable to repay it, as is likely on his small-town lawyer’s salary. But the Internal Revenue Service will probably treat the forgiven amount as income, leaving him what could easily be a $70,000 tax bill on the eve of retirement, and possibly much higher.

Mr. Acosta is just one of tens of thousands of recent law school graduates caught up in a broad transformation of the legal profession. While demand for other white-collar jobs has grown substantially since the start of the recession, law firms and corporations are finding they can make do with far fewer in-house lawyers than before, squeezing those just starting their careers.” [Emphasis mine]

Broke-ass, criminal defendant scum clients will not be able to appreciate Acosta’s background – at least not where it counts, i.e. with dollars. Now scroll down to this disgusting portion:

“Belatedly, many schools are starting to respond to this brutal reality, or at least the collapse in applications it has set off. In February, Valparaiso announced it was offering buyouts to tenured professors. As of May, 14 of 36 full-time faculty members had either accepted the package or retired. The law school plans to reduce its student body by roughly one-third over the next few years, from about 450 today. 

To the faculty at Valparaiso and the roughly 20 percent of the 200 or so American Bar Association-accredited law schools that have cut back aggressively in recent years, these moves can feel shockingly harsh. 

“Maybe I was na├»ve, but I didn’t think it would be as stark,” said Rosalie Levinson, a longtime constitutional law professor at Valparaiso who recently headed a committee on restructuring the school. “The number of tenured faculty that would be leaving — not gradually but immediately — just personally, that was difficult.” 

But from the perspective of the students caught up in the explosion of unrepayable law school debt, the shake-up at the school, and others like it, look rather pedestrian. 

Given the tectonic shifts in the legal landscape, the relevant issue may not be how much law schools like Valparaiso should shrink. Today the more important question is whether they should exist at all.” [Emphasis mine]

As you can see clearly, the law school pigs do not give one goddamn about YOU, the student or recent financial rape victim/graduate. Instead, their hearts bleed for their fellow swine who were given buyouts. What beacons of integrity, huh?!?!

Other Coverage: On June 17, 2016, Elie Mystal wrote an ATL entry that was labeled “Vivisection Of A Dying Law School.” Enjoy the following excerpt:

“The New York Times: Dealbook had a brilliant article yesterday, written by Noam Scheiber, called “An Expensive Law Degree, and No Place to Use It.” Don’t let the 2009-era headline fool you, this thing is actually a case study of one, totally screwed, lower tier law school. It’s jammed packed with personal anecdotes that put a human face on the tragedy of bad law schools. I encourage you to read the whole thing. 

The school is Valparaiso and… Jesus, the confluence of bad decisions is just amazing. Look at the first student profiled, a 39-year-old former cop who is trying to start a criminal defense practice.. 

Just marvel at the things that are wrong in those two paragraphs: 

* You don’t borrow $200,000 to go to Valparaiso Law. If somebody gave you $200,000 and you spent it on Valpo Law, you should be kicked in the nuts, daily. 
* You don’t borrow $200,000 to go to ANY law school, if your goal is to hang out a shingle as a criminal defense attorney. 
* You are not a “success story” if you can only crack the top third at freaking Valpo. Going to Valpo and finishing out of the top five percent means you failed. 

John Acosta had a good job and not $200,000 of debt, and he traded it for a Valparaiso Law Degree and the magic beans of hope. 

And Acosta isn’t in the worst shape. The article closes by profiling a woman who graduates in 2015 and now works at Meijer (Meijer is like K-Mart and Gristedes had a baby that grew up homeless in Flint) having failed the bar twice.” [Emphasis mine]

Acosta is in TERRIBLE financial shape. According to the NYT story, he managed to get engaged to another Valpo Law student – and they will have close to half a million dollars in debt. She also has a child to support. Yeah, law school was a great decision, right?!?!

Conclusion: In the final analysis, Valparai$o Univer$iTTTTy Sewer of Law is a FOURTH TIER TRASH PIT – as rated by US “News” & World Report. The jackals running that cesspit could not care less about you, the student or recent graduate. They saw an easy mark, and they enrolled your ass. I’m sure they told you that you were “special” throughout the application process and during OrienTTTTaTTTTion. Three years later, they dumped your corpse along the side of the road – and moved on to the next group of victims. After all, “professors” and deans need to make bank for pathetic amounts of “work” each week. You, the student, are a mere means to an end.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

ABA Cockroaches Allegedly Audited a Small Fraction of Class of 2015 Employment Data

The Tepid News: On June 14, 2016, the ABA Journal publised a piece from Debra Cassens Weiss, under the headline “Law school job statistics get extra job scrutiny in random ABA audits.” Here is the full text:

“The ABA is for the first time conducting random audits of jobs data provided by law schools for the class of 2015. 

The auditors are examining data from 10 randomly selected law schools and from 382 randomly selected students from 156 law schools, reports. The aim is to make sure schools followed proper procedures in collecting and verifying the employment data, which was released in May. 

A range of sanctions are available if serious errors are discovered. They include a private or public reprimand, fines and probation.

The ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar hired an outside consulting firm to conduct the audits. It is funding the audits with a $250,000 fine imposed on the University of Illinois College of Law in 2012 for misreporting admissions data. 

Barry Currier, the ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, says the audits began when the schools reported their data. “We want to do our job of making sure that schools are reporting complete, accurate, not misleading data, and this is one way to do that,” Currier tells the ABA Journal

If audits over the next few years find law schools are doing a good job, the ABA may change to a system of less intensive audits, Currier says. The hope, he tells the ABA Journal, is that the audit results will confirm that schools are doing a good job of reporting, giving the public more confidence in the reliability of the data. 

Currier says the audit results with regard to specific schools won’t be publicly released, unless problems lead to a public sanction. The audit protocol is here.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, that sounds truly revolutionary and groundbreaking, huh?!?! Hell, this is a bigger breakthrough than when the U.S. Postal Service started issuing self-adhesive stamps, i.e. stickers, circa 1989. You would think that a true “professional” membership organization would have been looking at their member schools’ data, for several years already – at the very least. Then again, this cartel is run by vile “law professors,” deans and Biglaw gluttons who collectively do not give one damn about typical students or recent graduates.

Other Coverage: On June 15, 2016, Outside the Law School Scam featured a post from Law School Truth Center. The entry was labeled “ABA to Finally Audit Law School Employment Reporting.” Enjoy the following excerpt:

“Better late than never, eh?

The ABA has announced that through a third party firm it is (has been) conducting random audits on the Class of 2015 employment numbers reported by law schools. If you are a glutton for this sort of thing, the standards are outlined in full here... 

The ABA doing audits is somewhat revolutionary and, superficially, worthy of praise for actually giving the appearance of effort. Slowly but surely, the consensus over the last decade has moved from naively trusting self-published law school employment numbers to a broad acknowledgement that there was (and probably still is) funny business afoot in how graduate outcomes are counted. Legally not fraud, of course, but perfectly legal puffery funny business. Creative accounting.

For several years now, critics have asked for audits. Instead, we got some modified standards and suddenly the employment rates - as opposed to the singular numbers boasted about in the advertising literature of yore - moved to more accurately reflect the reality in which most of us live.

Still, audits would represent an important check upon the accuracy of the information now being advertised by law schools. In that respect, the ABA is taking what should be an essential step in regulating such things.

But then Currier says that these audits actually started when the data was received, which was a few months ago if I'm not mistaken. One has to wonder why the ABA had not announced this when the audits started - or even before as a deterrent mechanism against chicanery (it's not like next year will benefit from the audits being a surprise, after all).

My hunch is that the ABA didn't want to announce audits and then have them be an unmitigated disaster. Instead, start doing them, get at least some positive feedback, and then announce them; had there been only negative feedback, I suppose the ABA has someone who can delete a press release.” [Emphasis mine]

One can also look at the tiny-ass sample size reviewed by the American Bar Association rodents, to see that this is not a serious effort. Hell, walking on the beach with a beautiful, kind and loving woman - on a lazy Sunday - requires more energy.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the ABA swine are reviewing data from 10 supposedly “randomly selected” law schools, as well as from 382 randomly selected students from 156 law schools. The latter figure represents an average of 2.44 grads from each accredited toilet. There are over 200 ABA-approved diploma mills in the United States, and the pigs are focusing on 10 of those institutions. I suspect the bitches and hags will include some high-ranked schools in their little audit – and they will “somehow” manage to find mostly individual success stories, even at the cess pits. The NBA Draft Lottery process is more transparent.

As OTLSS noted earlier: “All the ABA has to do now is effortlessly announce that no sanctions will be handed down and the audits - maybe even the identity of the schools audited - will remain a secret, even if they would reveal potentially damning evidence, so long as the ABA - the same organization that accredited Indiana Tech - doesn't find the behavior worthy of a reprimand.” Yes, the cockroaches are really looking out for the students’ and applicants’ best interests, right?!?!

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Law School Pigs Recently Roasted Beyond Recognition by Disillusioned Attorneys

Epic Rant: On June 7, 2016, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published an op-ed from lawyer Bob Larsen, under the header “Law school fundraising: Solicitations will be bitterly denied.” Enjoy this opening screed:

“To my greedy law school:

No. Stop asking. I’m not going to give you any money. Ever. So you can stop sending those fundraising letters every few months, begging for more of my hard-earned cash.

I’m not blaming you for the collapse of the legal job market (although, one would think it behooves law schools to keep a close eye on the number of new lawyers vs. the number of new associate positions). I’m blaming you because you lied to us. You reported employment statistics — even back in 2007, when things were decidedly rosier — that led prospective students to believe that a huge portion of your graduates walked out of your hallowed halls and right into lucrative associate positions at fancy law firms. The reality, as we now know, is that you were counting everyone with any kind of job at all — from the guy working just a few hours per week at the 7-Eleven to the girl who took your perennial temporary position in the student affairs office — as employed, for the purposes of bragging about postgraduation employment. 

Go ahead — continue shifting that blame to the victims of your dissembling and empty promises. It’s our fault that we took your claims at face value and didn’t do our own research (although that conflicts with what I learned about the law in this area). It’s our fault that we took on monumental debt loads to pay your inflated tuition prices (we’ll just ignore the fact that you scheduled classes for the cohorts in such a way that it was virtually impossible to hold a job while in school). It’s our fault that we listened while your professors reassured and cajoled and promised everything short of a bona fide job offer in order to keep us from dropping out when so many of us were reconsidering in the face of massive layoffs in the legal field. 

I truly, deeply regret attending law school. Full of youthful optimism, I tried to better my life through education, and was slapped down hard. Despite assurances to the contrary, the things I learned haven’t helped me in the slightest.” [Emphasis mine]

This man sandblasted his commode. Still want to take the law school plunge, moron?!?! Now, scroll down to his conclusion:

“But worst of all is the debt. We’re not talking the paltry $25,000 that the average undergrad is saddled with nowadays. We’re talking $100,000 or more — $170,000, in my case, despite a 50 percent scholarship that seemed generous at the time. That level of debt demands a monthly payment that’s twice what my mortgage is. That’s money that I could be using to provide for my retirement. For my kids’ college. For any of the myriad expenses that life throws at you. But instead, I’m shouldering the crushing weight of astronomical student debt, stuck in debt slavery, the penalty for thinking that maybe, just maybe, education was the ticket to an elite career. 

It feels like a grave insult every time you request a donation. At every turn, you’ve done me a disservice. You’ve taken so much from me, and given precious little. My life is worse for having known you. I have paid and will continue to pay for that mistake. But you don’t care; you’re just a bloated glutton, constantly demanding more.

So, in light of that, I’m sure you’ll understand when I say, “Go to hell, you parasite.” [Emphasis mine]

He pulls no punches. This is how you call out the cockroaches. Hopefully, this will cause some lemmings to reconsider their idiotic decision to apply to, and enroll in, law school.

More Criticism: On June 3, 2016, Steven Waechter wrote an article entitled “If You MUST Go to Law School…” After pointing out that LSAT scores and first year grades matter more than anything else, the author drop this knowledge:

“Your law degree isn’t going to stop child abuse, save the orphans, heal broken families, save the dolphins, get people raises, or increase the wealth and prosperity of the nation. Your law degree will leave you in serious debt, and badly in need of a paying job. If it is a job in the law, it will be a job that involves paperwork or bureaucracies. Nearly half of graduates don’t get jobs in the law at all.

Oh, and you will not be able to help all the “poor and working-class Americans who can’t afford a lawyer” that law school deans talk about all the time. They can’t afford legal services. They. Can’t. Afford. Lawyers. When you graduate from law school with six-figure student loan debt on top of the normal costs of life, you will not be able to work for free. Put it together, genius.

Law Is a Business 

Law is a service industry; it provides legal services to those who can pay for them. Your decision to attend law school needs to be approached in a business-like manner as well. It is an extremely expensive and time-consuming venture whose outcome is not guaranteed.

The costs and the benefits need to be weighed carefully, and the risks of failure and disaster are present and need to be accounted for along with things like tuition. Those costs can and should be minimized, like in any other investment. If the costs outweigh the likely benefits, you should consider staying away from law school. 

More romantic people than I will tell you that law is a “calling,” and that it isn’t just about the money. Ask these people to contribute money for your tuition. Yes, we need lawyers. We may not need you as a lawyer. Of 1.5 million law school graduates, only about half actually practice law for a living, and it isn’t because of a lack of “calling.” It is because of a lack of “money.” The business of law is just as susceptible to supply-and-demand as any other market. Supply now outstrips demand, and the business of law is financially strapped as a result.” [Emphasis mine]

Did that penetrate your tiny brain, prospetive law student/rape victim?!?!

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school swine DO NOT GIVE ONE GODDAMN ABOUT YOU, the student or recent graduate. The bitches and hags simply need to get their grubby hands on federal student loan money. Since you have a pulse, and an LSAT score above 143, you are their meal ticket. You are nothing more than a student loan conduit. What happens to you upon graduation is not the pigs’ concern. They got paid up front, in full.

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.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Second Tier Sewer St. Louis University School of Law Reinvents Itself Amid Shrinking Enrollment

Sewer Rises: On May 31, 2016, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published reporter Koran Addo’s piece, “SLU law school redefines itself.” Look at this opening:

“Three years ago, St. Louis University’s law school found itself in crisis at the exact time it was trying to pull off a major relocation to a new building downtown. 

Then-university President Lawrence Biondi was openly feuding with Dean Annette Clark. Her anger at being left out of big decisions, including the law school move, led to her abrupt resignation a month before the relocation. 

The plan to replace her on an interim basis with brash personal injury attorney Tom Keefe lasted just six months before he quit after provoking an uproar on campus over a series of comments even he described as “politically incorrect.” 

On top of those personnel issues, there was uncertainty over whether the move made sense financially and how it might affect students. Not to mention the move came as law schools around the country were starting to see significant declines in the number of students pursuing legal degrees. 

Among American Bar Association-approved schools, law school enrollment dropped to 119,775 students in 2014 from a historic high of 147,525 in 2010. 

Three years after moving downtown, people in the know say SLU’s law school is a different institution than the one formerly housed on the Midtown campus. 

It has quietly reduced staff and bought out faculty members as the number of students has declined to 502 in 2015 from 954 in 2010. 

But unlike other higher education institutions where a similar loss of students would almost certainly spell disaster, people inside and outside of SLU’s law school say that, at worst, the school has stabilized itself.” [Emphasis mine]

That was perfect timing to move into a donated building in downtown St. Louis! Now, scroll down to this conclusion:

“SLU law school spokeswoman Jessica Ciccone says that in response, law schools are competing for a smaller pool of students, and consequently are offering more scholarship money to the students who apply. 

SLU law professor Sidney Watson was a part of the faculty group that helped with the consulting and reorganization. 

Finding the right balance of students, and then offering them enough financial support to finish, is a noble strategy, she said. 

“It’s what the Jesuits would do,” she said. 

Several others pointed out that the market is shifting in favor of students. 

“This is the perfect time to go to law school,” SLU law professor John Ammann said. “There are fewer people applying and there is more scholarship money available.” [Emphasis mine]

Did those “law professors” provide details as to how to the legal job market is starting to favor students? Or did the cockroaches merely rehash old filth, such as “Older lawyers are going to retire in waves”?!

Tuition: As you will see the commode charges $38,750 in tuition for full-time law students, for the 2015-2016 school year. Yes, what a bargain for the students. Apparently, the Jesuits have no compunction about charging exhorbitant rates for young people trying to obtain a “legal education.” Then again, it always comes down to money.

Average Law School Indebtedness: According to USN&WR, the average indebtedness figure for the SLU JD class of 2015 who incurred debt for law school was $113,070. Hell, 82% of this class took out student loans to attend this second tier cesspit. Remember that these figures do not take interest that accrues while the student is enrolled into account.

Ranking: Based on the shiny building and cost, this school must have an outstanding reputation in the legal and academic community, right?!?! Well, US “News” & World Report rates $TT. Loui$ Univer$iTTy Sewer of Law as the 82nd greatest, most magnificent and sensational law school in the United States. It shares this distinction with LSU, Northeastern, and University of New Hampshire. Wow, only 81 law schools in the country are ranked higher!

Conclusion: In the final analysis, $TT. Loui$ Univer$iTTy Sewer of Law is not going to provide you with even an unrealistic shot at Biglaw. Yet, it will lead to most students taking on outrageous sums of loans – for a chance to enter this GLUTTED “profession.” Perhaps the toilet is offering more tuition discounts, i.e. scholarships, to admitted students. However, these men and women are looking at taking out an additional $110K-$160K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for law school. Working at legal aid for $36K a year isn’t going to help you repay your loans – and put food in your fridge or a roof over your head.
Web Analytics