Monday, July 24, 2017

Glass Ceilings in the Legal Field: Asians Avoiding Law School Despite Strong Entrance Credentials


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

Losing Interest in Law School: On July 20, 2017, the ABA Journal posted a Debra Cassens Weiss article, under the header “Asian-Americans are apparently losing interest in law school; report shows outsize enrollment drop.” Check out this opening:

“Asian-American enrollment in law school has declined more steeply than that of other racial and ethnic groups, according to a report documenting a glass ceiling for this group in the law.

From 2009 to 2016, Asian-Americans’ first-year enrollment in law school dropped by 43 percent, compared to a 28 percent drop for all students, a 34 percent drop among whites and a 14 percent drop among African-Americans. Hispanic enrollment, meanwhile, increased by 29 percent.

In 2016, the Asian-American share of first-year enrollment was 6.1 percent, the lowest since 1997. Overall, Asian-Americans make up nearly 7 percent of law school enrollment, while they make up 5.6 percent of the U.S. population.

The report (PDF), “A Portrait of Asian Americans in the Law,” suggests the decline could be because of instability in the market for legal employment, the relative attractiveness of other professions, and recruiting efforts by law schools seeking African-American and Hispanic students.

The report’s major conclusion—that Asian-Americans are underrepresented among the top ranks of the legal profession—was released in January. Findings include: Asian-Americans are the largest minority group at major law firms, but they have the highest attrition rates and the lowest ratio of partners to associates. Asian-Americans make up only 3 percent of the federal judiciary and only 2 percent of state court judges.

Before the drop in law school enrollment, Asian-American enrollment in law schools was increasing, rising from 1,962 students in 1983 to a peak of a peak of 11,327 in 2009. Even after the drop, Asian-Americans were disproportionately enrolled in higher-ranked schools. In 2015, 34 percent of Asian-American law students were enrolled in the nation’s 30 top ranked law schools.” [Emphasis mine]

This is not surprising, as Asians often work hard, go to top schools, and then end up hitting a glass ceiling. A while back, I ran across this hard-hitting piece from Wesley Yang. It appeared in New York Magazine on May 8, 2011, under the headline “Paper Tigers.” Once the grades are earned and the degrees are handed out, political and social connections play a much bigger role.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/18/there-are-94-united-states-attorneys-only-three-of-them-are-asian-american/?utm_term=.9bde5732cb81

Other Coverage: On July 18, 2017, the Washington Post published a Tracy Jan piece that was entitled “Law schools are filled with Asian Americans. So why aren’t there more Asian judges?” Take a look at this portion:

“While Asian Americans are the fastest growing minority group in law, and are overrepresented in the country’s top law schools as well as at major law firms, they lag behind all other racial groups when it comes to attaining leadership roles in the legal profession, according to a study released Tuesday by Yale Law School and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.

“Asian American growth in the legal profession has been impressive but penetration into leadership ranks has been slow,” said Liu, who co-authored the study with a group of students at Yale Law School, his alma mater.

Asian Americans comprise 10 percent of graduates at the country’s top law schools although they make up just 6 percent of the U.S. population. But only 3 percent of the federal judiciary and 2 percent of state judges are Asian American, the study found.

Of the 94 U.S. attorneys, only three are Asian American. And only four of the 2,437 elected prosecutors are Asian American.

In the private sector, Asian Americans have been the largest minority group in major law firms for nearly two decades, making up 7 percent of attorneys. But they have the highest attrition rates and the lowest ratio of partners to associates of any racial group.

And in academia, Asian made up only 3 out of 202 law school deans in the country in 2013, and 18 out of 709 associate or vice deans.

“Asian Americans do well when it comes to competition and selection with objective metrics” such as LSAT scores and grades, Liu said. “But when the selection begins to involve things that are intangible for promotions, they kind of flip off the radar.”

The disparities become evident straight out of law school. Asian Americans make up just 6.5 percent of federal judicial law clerks and 4.6 percent of state law clerks, despite their heavy presence at the top 30 law schools.

In contrast, while whites make up 58.2 percent of students at top law schools, they landed 82.4 percent of all federal clerkships and 80.2 percent of state clerkships.” [Emphasis mine]

If Asian students perform better overall on the LSAT and typically go to premier law schools, then it also stands to reason that they all do well on bar exams. Yet, their job outlook is limited – even when they do end up in large law firms. You don’t see that in the medical field!

Conclusion: In the final analysis, Asians have figured out that taking on huge amounts of student debt, for a “career” that may last 3-5 years, is idiotic. They see that their hard work – and degrees from top law schools – will not typically be rewarded with a Biglaw partnership or a judge position. Furthermore, even the supposed liberals in legal academia are not too keen on placing Asian professors in leadership positions. Remember, this “profession” is based on social capital and connections. It is better to be a drunk kid from a wealthy family than it is to be an unconnected hardass, when looking for legal jobs. But go ahead and take out $178,512.56 in loans, for your TTT law degree, Lemming.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Average Ohio Law Student Debt Approached $100K for the JD Class of 2015


http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/07/ohio_law_school_grads_had_aver.html

The Numbers: On July 17, 2017, the Plain Dealer published a Karen Farkas piece, under the headline “Ohio law school grads face debt of nearly $100,000 and few job prospects, report says.” Take a look at this opening:

“Many Ohio law school graduates are facing high debt and few job prospects, according to a study by the Ohio State Bar Association. 

The average 2015 Ohio law school graduate has approximately $98,475 in law school debt, according to a draft report released this month by the Futures Commission. "Only approximately 58 percent of 2015 Ohio law school graduates are employed in jobs requiring bar passage." 

The commission was established by the association more than a year ago to study "a number of challenges surrounding the delivery of legal services in Ohio amid a time of great social, economic, and cultural change, and to offer recommendations for how best to meet those challenges." 

The 29-member commission considered the "unprecedented burdens faced by new lawyers; the need for acquisition of knowledge and the skills necessary to develop and carry on a successful practice; the lack of regulation for new legal service delivery options; and the widening access to justice gap." 

The report provides information on the four topics and provided recommendations. 

Lawschooltransparency.com has recently issued Ohio law school information that includes an estimated average debt of about $132,000 to $271,000 when students who enter law school this fall graduate three years later.

The American Bar Association has posted employment information for 2016 graduates as reported by each law school.

A national study shows median law firm starting salaries have dropped more than 40 percent from 2009 to 2013.” [Emphasis mine]

A large portion, i.e. over 2/5 of that cohort, did not enter the “profession” after having accumlated huge amounts of student debt. Off the top of your head, name several non-legal jobs that would pay a recent law school grad about $98K per year. Remember, “requiring bar passage” does not necessarily mean an attorney position. Think of doc review. Furthermore, if you are not using your JD to practice law, then you will be viewed with more scrutiny. 

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

Previous Ohio Ruling on Student Loans: Back on January 13, 2011, the ABA Journal featured a Debra Cassens Weiss article that was entitled “Law Grad with No Plan to Repay Debt Fails Character and Fitness Mandate, Ohio Top Court Says.” Here is the full text below:

“Ohio State University law grad Hassan Jonathan Griffin of Columbus, Ohio, has a part-time job in the public defender’s office and no feasible plan to repay his law-school and credit-card debt.

That combination means Griffin has so far failed to satisfy the character and fitness qualification to get a law license, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled. The opinion (PDF) upholds a recommendation by the Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness. 

Griffin had $170,000 in student-loan debt and $16,500 in credit-card debt. He earns $12 an hour at his part-time job with the PD. 

“We accept the board’s findings of fact and conclude that the applicant has neglected his personal financial obligations by electing to maintain his part-time employment with the Public Defender’s Office in the hope that it will lead to a full-time position upon passage of the bar exam, rather than seeking full-time employment,” the opinion says.

Griffin will be able to reapply, however, for another bar exam, in February 2011 or later, and he may submit a new character-and-fitness application, the opinion says.

Above the Law is outraged by the decision. “What the hell kind of legal education system are we running where we charge people more than they can afford to get a legal education, and then prevent them from being lawyers because they can’t pay off their debts?” the blog asks. “If Griffin can’t pass C&F, Ohio might as well say that half of the recent graduates in the state don’t have the ‘character and fitness’ to be a lawyer.” [Emphasis mine]

I suppose that the moral of the story is to not take out too many loans to pay for the ridiculously expensive and risky venture of law school – even if you are working in the field. Hell, Mr. Griffin graduated from the best program in the state and he was in a paid position at a public defender’s office. Even though the job was part-time, that is a better outcome than many JDs who attend TTTs and end up never entering this glutted “profession.”

Conclusion: As it becomes more common for recent law grads to walk away with $160K in student loan debt, expect more of these men and women to become professional students. If nothing else, they can at least put off their loan payments for several years. Interest will continue to accrue and the principle will balloon, of course. Perhaps, some of these fools hope that Congress will wipe out their debt by the time they earn another degree. However, students are not a vital voting bloc and they are not individually or collectively wealthy. Plus, bailouts are for large industries that hire thousands of people – not singular broke-asses with useless academic “credentials.”

Saturday, July 15, 2017

ABA Will Decide Whether Member Diploma Mills Can Use GRE as Alternative Law School Entrance Exam


http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/rather_than_accept_more_entrance_exams_some_law_school_deans_favor_eliminat?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=navigation&utm_campaign=most_read

More Ways to Get Into Law School: On July 13, the ABA Journal published a Stephanie Francis Ward article entitled “Why should law schools have to require LSAT or GRE? Law deans ask the question.” Focus on the portion below:

“The Newton, Pennsylvania-based Law School Admission Council, which administers the LSAT, also submitted a statement (PDF) ahead of the hearing. Law schools have relied on the test for more than 50 years to set a common standard for candidate evaluation, according to the LSAC, and the test is based on solid research and evaluated on a continuing basis. The statement was signed by Christina B. Whitman, chair of its board of trustees, and Kellye Y. Testy, its president and chief executive officer. 

If another admissions test is as good as the LSAT, the statement reads, the LSAC has no objection to law schools using it, and the organization “does not seek a monopoly” in legal education. 

“Today, many law schools are experiencing economic stress as they adjust to changes in the admission and employment markets stemming from structural change in the profession as well as from continuing challenges to the rule of law in society,” the statement reads. “It is tempting during such times of stress to seek to reduce standards of quality, and often these reductions in standards come forward as arguments for innovation and deregulation.” 

“Like the council, and I think everyone in this room, we support equality and fairness in legal education,” Joan E. Van Tol, the LSAC’s general counsel, said at the hearing. “If other tests meet those goals, we support those as well, but we urge the council to set high standards for both validity and reliability.” 

David Yassky, the law school dean at Pace University, is opposed to the proposed revision to Standard 503. “Serious law school applicants,” he wrote in his statement (PDF), will likely continue taking the LSAT, and most if not all law schools will continue to accept it as an entrance exam.” [Emphasis mine]

The law schools are tired of getting drilled for their declining admi$$ion$ “standards.” Law School Transparency has detailed reports on each ABA-accredited diploma factory. Applicants can see that the toilets keep accepting lower LSAT scores. Foolishly, some may be happy that a 143 score might get into a dozen cesspools.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/in-the-lsat-v-gre-battle-should-the-aba-get-involved/?rf=1

Other Coverage: On July 13, 2017, Kathryn Rubino posted an ATL entry labeled “In The LSAT v. GRE Battle, Should The ABA Get Involved?” Check out this opening:

“There’s a battle brewing between the LSAT and the GRE. After years of being the only game in town, the LSAT is now feeling pressure as some law schools have made a move to accept the GRE in lieu of the law school standard. The trend started with Arizona Law, citing decreased barriers to entry, which coincidentally coincides with a decrease in applications, particularly for lower-tier law schools (and some argue that lower barriers aren’t necessarily a good thing). Then Harvard Law shook up the game by deciding to accept the GRE, and all of a sudden, the GRE for law students became mainstream. 

This week, the ABA will hold a hearing on a proposed rule change to Standard 503, which currently allows law schools to accept alternatives to the LSAT (read: the GRE) if they can prove another test is valid and reliable. If the rule change passes, schools will no longer be able to decide an alternate test is valid and reliable, that determination would be the sole province of the ABA. That’s a… major change, as Jeff Thomas, executive director of pre-law programs at Kaplan Test Prep, notes: 

The American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is set to debate one of the most controversial amendments to its Standards in years. If the ABA adopts its proposed amendments to Standard 503, it will immediately stifle law school attempts to circumnavigate the current LSAT requirement and at least temporarily halt schools’ desire to use the GRE for admissions purposes. However, incorporated into the proposed changes is a call for a process for the ABA to vet admissions exams other than the LSAT, which may set the stage for a sweeping ruling allowing law schools to accept the GRE in the future. Rejecting the proposed amendments will likely result in trickling adoption of the GRE. At Kaplan, we’ll be tracking the issue closely to ensure that students have the most accurate and up-to-date information possible to make informed decisions.

Given this looming change that would radically alter the current trend of legal education, what do law schools think about it? According to a Kaplan survey of 119 law schools, including 18 of the top 30 as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, the opinions are split: 

Of the nearly 120 law schools polled, 61 percent say the ABA should make a statement saying that law schools are either permitted or not permitted to allow applicants to submit GRE scores as an alternative to scores from the LSAT, long the only sanctioned law school admissions exam. Twenty-seven percent say it should not; and 13 percent are unsure.” [Emphasis mine]

The schools want to be able to use different exams as way to get more asses in seats. But they want the backing of the ABA, to help justify their decision to take in applicants who never sat for the LSAT exam.

Conclusion: The American Bar Association will continue to look out for the law school pigs. Expect this organization to allow member schools to accept the GRE, as an alternative to the LSAT. After all, they realize that having a bunch of commodes with 25th percentile scores of 145 – or worse – is embarrassing to the cartel. Now that several respectable in$titution$ accept this exam, it seems this will become standard practice. If this happens, don’t be surprised if ABA schools strongly encourage borderline applicants to take the Graduate Record Examination, instead of the LSAT.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Asked and Answered: There Are Too Many Damn Law Schools


http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202792445992/Are-There-Too-Many-Law-Schools?mcode=0&curindex=0

The Question: On July 7, 2017, the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune published a piece entitled “Are There Too Many Law Schools?” Take a look at this exposition:

“Have you heard of Charlotte School of Law, or of Whittier Law School? Well, you may not hear of them for much longer. Both were scheduled to close this year, though in both cases there were campaigns by faculty and alumni to keep them open. 

Charlotte has been faltering in recent years, with bad news that has included being placed on probation by the American Bar Association due to the dismal record of its graduates in passing the bar exam and being kicked out of the federal student loan program by the Department of Education. 

Two deans then quit in rapid succession, and the North Carolina attorney general began an investigation of the school's state operating license. Though the school has applied to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to be allowed back into the federal student loan program, it is likely that too many current Charlotte Law students have moved to other schools to allow Charlotte to qualify for reinstatement. Whether students would be able to get their student loans discharged due to the school's closing was expected to remain a complicated and frustrating experience for students at the for-profit school. 

Schools like Charlotte, Whittier, and Arizona Summit Law School, another faltering school, illuminate a larger problem, or set of problems. Law schools still struggle to some extent with a diminishing number of applicants, though some suggest that the news reports of all those attorneys working on their computers on the floor in airports when the travel ban hit may inspire a number of people to consider law school after all. But the last few years have seen a steep decline in the number of applicants to law schools, estimated by some as at least 30 percent. In an effort to fill classes, some schools accepted students whose college records would never have supported admission in the past. Then, to no one's surprise, those students failed to pass the bar exam after graduation. The result is a population of young people not able to find employment, yet saddled with significant loans to pay off.” [Emphasis mine]

There are over 200 ABA-accredited diploma mills located in the United States. And by all accounts, only a handful of these are worth attending. Another dozen or so are calculated risks to the student – and I am being a little generous in that assessment. This means that roughly more than 180 are bad investments for the borrowers seeking a law degree. Do you like your odds, lemming?! How do you think you will fare with your 146 LSAT and 2.8 UGPA from Lancaster Bible College, idiot?

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/law-schools-agree-there-are-too-many-law-schools/

Prior Judgment: Back on October 6, 2016, Kathryn Rubino posted an ATL entry labeled “Law Schools Agree: There Are Too Many Law Schools.” Enjoy this opening:

“Finally, we get a chance to look behind the curtain and find out what law schools really think. These seemingly inscrutable actors have tremendous pull on the overall direction of the legal profession, but, hidden behind a veil of bureaucracy and academia, observers are often left to reverse engineer their motivations and opinions. But no more, finally they speak. 

Well, sort of. Kaplan Test Prep conducted a survey of law school admissions officers, and participation was high:

For the 2016 survey, 111 of the 205 American Bar Association-accredited law schools were polled by telephone between August and September 2016. Included among the 111 are 12 of the top 25 law schools, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report

So, what exactly did they say? Here’s the big one: 65 percent of schools surveyed agree it “would be a good idea if at least a few law schools closed.” I suppose none of the schools that answered in the affirmative think their institution should be the one that is shuttered. At a time when law schools are said to be in the midst of a “brain drain” with high quality potential applicants eschewing the law school life, this provides some valuable insight. It seems most schools recognize just because a student has the ability to take on educational loans for law school doesn’t mean they should be going to law school. Churning out graduates for the sake of the churn doesn’t benefit the profession. 

Despite this welcomed bit of realism, another data point suggests that even though they recognize more law students for the sake of law students isn’t always a good thing, getting schools to do something about it is more challenging.

24 percent of law schools cut the number of seats for their 2016 class of first-year students, lower than the 35 percent who reported doing so for the 2015 class of 1Ls and and the 54 percent who did for the 2014 class.” [Emphasis mine]

For $ome rea$on, the law school pigs want other commodes to close their doors. They want to remain in operation so that they can continue to financially ruin LEGIONS of law students each year. How admirable, huh?!?! If the bitches and hags had a single shred of integrity, then they would insist of thinning the herd, at the beginning of the process – and not after the individual simpletons graduate with $165K in additional, NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt.

Conclusion: Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that there are many damn law schools in this country. As a corollary, the job market for lawyers is GLUTTED. Yet, the federal government continues to annually issue billions of dollars in student loan money to these stench pits. If you are still considering this route at this point in time, then you are a lost cause. Hell, you are the type of person who needs to read the side of a paint can, so that you do not drink the contents. Also, if someone encourages you to go to law school, ask them where they earned their JD and the year in which they graduated. Then ask them if they practice law. If they do so, follow up with how much they make and then inquire about their debt load. I have seen a few Boomers without law degrees push younger people towards this path. By the way, a $48K salary is not impressive, if the person has accumulated large amounts of student loans. 

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Fourth Tier Trash Can Florida Coastal School of Law to Further Shrink Enrollment and Reduce Classes


http://jacksonville.com/news/education/2017-06-30/florida-coastal-cuts-enrollment-classes-boost-bar-exam-results

Beautiful News!: On June, the Florida Times-Union published an Amanda Williamson piece entitled “Florida Coastal cuts enrollment, classes to boost Bar exam results.” Enjoy this wondrous opening:

“Florida Coastal School of Law plans to cut enrollment and reduce course offerings as its leadership looks to avoid a fate similar to its sister schools in North Carolina and Arizona.

Within the past year, the American Bar Association placed both Charlotte Law School and Arizona Summit Law School on probation for admission policies and academic standards. 

Jacksonville’s Florida Coastal expects to see an enrollment decline for the fall semester as it rolls out stricter admission requirements for incoming first-year students. The tougher criteria is just one piece of the for-profit school’s plan to bolster its own bar passage and employment rates — both issues the school has been criticized for in the past.

“In order to raise standards, we have to shrink the size of our classes,” Florida Coastal Dean Scott DeVito said. 

Research indicates doing well on the Law School Admission Test can result in a better chance of passing the bar on the first try, but that’s not always the case. Schools continue, however, to place heavy weight on the standardized test. 

Florida Coastal intends to raise the minimum score accepted by the law school nearly 7 points.

“That is the type of lever you can pull on to predict bar passage rates,” DeVito said. “It is hard to tell based on GPA and school choice.”

According to the American Bar Association, Florida Coastal extended offers to more than 59 percent of the students who applied in 2016. The year before they offered 71 percent of applicants a spot at the Jacksonville institution. As the criteria increases, those numbers can be expected to go down — at least until the applicant pool matches the quality of student Florida Coastal hopes to enroll.” [Emphasis mine]

Do you still want to take the TTTT plunge, waterhead?!?! This festering pile of garbage readily admits applicants with 2.9 UGPAs and 145 LSAT scores. Without doing so, the enrollment would be even lower now. Once the pigs at this commode realize that if they stop taking such cretins – without losing some faculty – then they will keep accepting morons who have no place representing others in legal matters.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/07/after-71-enrollment-decline-florida-coastal-plans-to-further-shrink-1l-class-to-raise-minimum-lsat-s.html#comments

Other Coverage: On July 3, 2017, Paul Caron provided a rundown of the situation at Florida Coa$TTTTal Sewer of Law – in an entry labeled “After 71% Enrollment Decline, Florida Coastal Plans To Further Shrink 1L Class To Raise Minimum LSAT Score By 7 Points And Avoid Fate Of Arizona Summit, Charlotte Law Schools.” Since his report is a cut and paste job, I will provide this comment from that post. It is courtesy of Old Ruster, from July 3, 2017 at 9:31:48 AM.

“Speaking of the LSAT, Coastal's dean stated:

“That is the type of lever you can pull on to predict bar passage rates,” DeVito said. “It is hard to tell based on GPA and school choice.” 

How nice to have in such a clear public statement, a fact that lots of deans of schools with recently-lowered admissions criteria still don't want to admit!!”

Unfortunately, since many fools cannot be bothered to conduct 10 minutes of research into the cost of “legal education” and the GLUTTED job market for lawyers, ABA-accredited stench pits will continue to operate. The swine at Florida Coa$TTTTal claim that they want to take proactive measures to keep enrollment down. Even Pig DeVito has admitted that LSAT scores are a good indicator of those who will pass or fail the bar exam.

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/floridacoastal/

LST Entrance Info: Take a look at the following data from Law School Transparency, regarding this dung heap. For the class that entered Fall 2016:

75th percentile LSAT: 149 
50th percentile LSAT: 144 
25th percentile LSAT: 141
75th percentile UGPA: 3.27
50th percentile UGPA: 2.87
25th percentile UGPA: 2.57 [Emphasis mine]

Truly embarrassing admission numbers. What the hell more needs to be said about those pathetic figures? 

Conclusion: In the final analysis, Florida Coa$TTTTal Sewer of Law is a rancid cess pit with no redeeming qualities. It does not benefit society, students, graduates, potential legal clients, or the “profession.” If you are stupid enough to even consider attending this FOR-PROFIT, FOURTH TIER TRASH PIT, then you have proven yourself to be too damn dumb to order food from a drive through menu. I wouldn’t trust you to walk home alone safely, from the corner convenience store. The odds are higher that you would walk carelessly into traffic, dunce.

Saturday, July 1, 2017

Mainstream Media Outlets Ask “Still Want to Go to Law School, Dumbass?”


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/28/law-schools-hunkering-down-enrollment-slips/430213001/

Time to Reconsider: On June 28, 2017, USA Today published a piece from reporter Greg Toppo, under the headline “Why you might want to think twice before going to law school.” Take a look at the following excerpt:

“Future lawyers, heed this. Whittier's demise could be a sign of things to come. 

As several trends hit the law profession — fewer graduates, fewer jobs and the specter of growing automation in legal services — experts say more law schools could take a hit. 

For young lawyers in all but the most elite schools, jobs are already harder to find. While a newly minted Harvard, Yale or Stanford Juris Doctor (JD) will nearly always find security and top-paying work, those attending non-rated or poorly rated schools will struggle as their profession contracts. Even students at moderately rated schools could see their prospects shrink, statistics suggest.” [Emphasis mine]

Did that information come from an angry scamblogger? Hell, this data has been FREELY AVAILABLE for damn near a decade. If you cannot bother to do ten minutes of research regarding the law school gamble, then how do expect to competently represent other people – or companies – in important legal matters?!?! Oh that’s right; you’re “special.”

Scroll down for this nugget:

“As corporate legal departments and law firms operate under growing pressure to cut costs, technology is also displacing young lawyers who in years past would have spent their days doing research. Online startups like LegalZoom, Avvo and LawDingo, many of which also match clients with lawyers, are automating “low-level lawyerly tasks” — not just research, but contracts and wills, among other tasks, [Michael] Horn said. 

“E-discovery” tools are also getting more sophisticated, further reducing the need for humans. 

Automation, Horn said, is “basically making lawyers within big firms more productive, so it’s reducing the need to bring in first-year lawyers, as you did in the past.”

Andrew M. Perlman, dean of Suffolk University Law School in Boston, noted a “significant decline” in the number of students applying to law schools overall, with the market for new lawyers “adjusting to what I think is a ‘new normal.’” 

Technology, he said, “will not make lawyers obsolete, but there will probably be fewer opportunities for lawyers in the future.” [Emphasis mine]

Lemmings, when you are not too busy being dumb, look up Moore’s law. $omehow, this has not yet displaced "law professors" - but administrators will at least consider this route, at some point. Make sure to take a nap after taxing your little pea brain. Of course, Cockroach Andrew Perlman feels that it’s actually “a great time” to enter this gutter “profession.” Then again, the bastard is making a fat salary off of his stupid law students!

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/6-questions-to-ask-yourself-before-you-go-to-law-school.html

Ask Yourself: On June 21, 2017, CNBC posted a Leah Ginsburg article entitled “6 questions to ask yourself if you think you want to go to law school.” Here is one small sample:

“But is law school right for you? CNBC spoke with Laura Hosid, law school admissions and career counselor, about the questions you should ask yourself first. 

Why do you want to go to law school?

The biggest mistake people make is going for no good reason or for the wrong reasons, says Hosid. So if it's because you think it looks fun or you want to be rich, you might want to think again… 

Similarly, the idea that being a lawyer will make you rich is off-base, says Hosid. "There are actually a lot, a lot, a lot of jobs that … don't make a lot of money," she says. According to U.S. News & World Report, the median private sector salary was $68,300, and the median public sector salary was $52,000 among J.D. recipients in the class of 2015 at ranked law schools. Only 35 law schools of the 197 ranked reported median private sector salaries in the six figures.” [Emphasis mine]

Keep in mind those figures are based on who responds to the graduate surveys. And those who ended up making $35K in a garbage job tend not to report their weak-ass income – out of a sense of shame. Plus, there is nothing to stop a chump from claiming that he earns $170K per year. Do you think that an ABA-accredited toilet is going to look into such matters?

Also, for $ome rea$on, those without jobs 10 months after earning their law degree are not included in the stats. This further skews the average reported starting salary for new JDs. Imagine how those figures – at each commode - would be reduced with several incomes of zero thrown into the mix. By the way, the schools get away with not taking these into account – as if they are outliers. However, if a large portion of every single damn class remains unemployed – or working in various capacities for free – how the hell can anyone argue that these graduates are an exception?

Conclusion: The CNBC coverage also noted the following: “The truth is, a law degree from a school ranked below the top 14-to-25 does not open the same doors as a degree from a top tier institution[.]” If this strikes you as news, then you have not done any significant research into this important FINANCIAL decision that WILL affect the rest of your life, waterhead. On that note, good luck passing the bar exam, landing numerous paying clients, and having a successful legal career – especially if you graduated from a third tier commode or fourth tier trash pit. Employers can smell the stench of your toilet from a mile away, genius.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Fifth Tier Trash Pit Charlotte School of Law May Lose License to Operate Within North Carolina


http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article157447189.html

Beautiful News!: On June 21, 2017, the News & Observer published a Jane Stancill article, entitled “The clock is ticking for Charlotte School of Law to prove it’s financially stable.” This excerpt should make your day a little brighter, your morning commute smoother, and your breakfast a bit more savory:

“The Charlotte School of Law has until early August to prove its financial stability or face revocation of its license to operate in North Carolina. 

A committee of the UNC Board of Governors, acting on behalf of the full board, voted Wednesday to severely restrict the school’s activities as it seeks to survive long enough to graduate its remaining 100 students.

The action Wednesday gives the for-profit school a limited amount of time to prove that it’s stable. The conditions must be met or Charlotte School of Law’s license would automatically be revoked, and it would cease operations in the state. 

The law school, already on probation by the American Bar Association, cannot admit new students and must present evidence to UNC by Aug. 1 that it is in compliance with state licensure standards. It must have a sufficient tuition guaranty bond, which would refund students’ prepaid tuition if the school went out of business. And by Aug. 10, the school must obtain permission from the ABA to “teach out” its remaining students and a decision by the U.S. Department of Education to allow the students access to financial aid.

The school’s president, Chidi Ogene, who was present at the committee’s meeting in Chapel Hill on Wednesday, declined to comment. 

The school’s officials have told UNC’s General Administration that it has a remedial plan to continue operations and restructure its debt. They are seeking re-certification from the Department of Education so that the school’s students can participate in the federal loan program. The school has 11 first-year students, 55 second-year students and 34 third-year students. In addition, 73 students have taken a leave of absence, meaning they are no longer enrolled but haven’t officially withdrawn.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, that is a truly vibrant law school, huh?!?! Simply put, if the commode cannot admit new idiots, then it is in serious trouble. Also, notice that the cockroaches must get the ABA’s permission to teach out the remaining simpletons. 

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/much-maligned-law-school-in-very-serious-danger-of-losing-its-license-to-operate/

Other Coverage: On June 22, 2017, Staci Zaretski posted an ATL entry labeled “Much Maligned Law School In Very Serious Danger Of Losing Its License To Operate.” Enjoy this stellar opening sequence:

“Last month, we reported that the University of North Carolina’s Board of Governors had decided to review whether or not the Charlotte School of Law would be able to retain its license to operate within the state. Earlier this week, the Board of Governors met to determine the law school’s fate, and the result may sound the death knell for the embattled school. 

The school, which is already on probation with the American Bar Association, must now deal with severe restrictions as it attempts to prove that it’s stable enough to continue operations. The News & Observer has additional details: 

The law school … cannot admit new students and must present evidence to UNC by Aug. 1 that it is in compliance with state licensure standards. It must have a sufficient tuition guaranty bond, which would refund students’ prepaid tuition if the school went out of business. And by Aug. 10, the school must obtain permission from the ABA to “teach out” its remaining students and a decision by the U.S. Department of Education to allow the students access to financial aid. 

If Charlotte Law does not meet these conditions, its license to operate will automatically be revoked. (For what it’s worth, Charlotte isn’t the only InfiLaw school that’s been ordered to post a surety bond for its students financial safety. Last month, the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education required Arizona Summit Law to do the same, to the tune of $1.5 million.) 

Charlotte Law currently has 100 students — 11 1Ls, 55 2Ls, and 34 3Ls — who currently do not have access to the federal loan program. As noted in the News & Observer, many of those students want to complete their degrees at the school because they “don’t have other options.” 

Joe Knott, a UNC board member who had reservations about the school’s continued operation, said what is perhaps the most appropriate thing that’s ever been said about a law school that’s in such big trouble: “I’m wondering, from all that I’ve heard about this school, is allowing the students to remain in such a school actually doing them any favors? Would it not be better for them to stop this endeavor and find an educational opportunity at a better school?” [Emphasis mine]

Anyone dumb enough to even consider this dung pile – let alone submit an application to it – ought to be stomped in the nuts until they puke. This is the worse than borrowing an ass-load of money, and wasting it on things you don’t need. Hell, at least in that scenario, you can walk away from the loan. Plus, you would not be pissing away three of your income-earning years, sitting in a classroom learning mindless junk

Conclusion: In the last analysis, CharloTTTTTe Sewer of Law is a rancid, vile, filthy garbage pit that preys on the mentally weak fools who enroll there. It is operated by sick academic pigs, and owned by a Chicago private equity firm, Sterling Partners. Why in the hell would anyone choose to apply to such a stink pit?! Does it make sense to pay $42,320 in annual tuition to attend this FIFTH TIER PILE OF EXCREMENT? Do you think – for one microsecond - that law firms, government agencies, or non-law employers will want to hire you, Stupid?!?! With that in mind, how do you plan to repay $160K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, waterhead?!

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Wipe Thoroughly: Which ABA-Accredited Diploma Mills Have the Most Unemployed Graduates?


http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/the-law-schools-with-the-most-unemployed-graduates-2016/?rf=1

Toilets on Parade: On May 24, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “The Law Schools With The Most Unemployed Graduates (2016).” Take a look at this straightforward opening:

“How is the employment scene looking for recent law school graduates? We’ll start with the good news: compared to the class of 2015, a larger percentage of 2016 law school graduates were able to find full-time, long-term jobs where bar passage was required (that were not school-funded) within 10 months of receiving their degrees. About 62 percent of 2016 graduates landed these plum jobs, up from 59 percent in 2015. 

Now, for the bad news: the good news we just discussed wasn’t so good after all, as the total number of desirable law jobs recent graduates landed declined by 4 percent since 2015 — that’s 1,033 fewer jobs. The only reason that the overall employment rate increased is because there were 2,860 fewer law school graduates trying to secure jobs. As we mentioned previously, this is the third straight year that the declining number of law graduates has propped up the employment rate while the number of law jobs actually declined.

So, with fewer law school graduates competing for jobs, one would assume (or hope) that would mean that fewer law school graduates were unemployed 10 months after receiving their degrees, right? Wrong. 

Law.com produced several helpful charts based on law school employment data for the class of 2016. Today, we will highlight the most alarming chart of all, the 20 law schools with the highest percentage of unemployed graduates. Here are the top 10 law schools on that chart for your sadistic viewing pleasure: 

1. Charlotte Law: 30.88 percent 
2. Southwestern Law: 28.97 percent 
3. Thomas Jefferson Law: 28.57 percent 
4. Florida Coastal Law: 27.76 percent 
5. Valparaiso Law: 24.38 percent 
6. U. San Diego Law: 24.31 percent 
7. Elon Law: 23.60 percent 
8. LaVerne Law: 23.53 percent 
9. Chapman Law: 23.42 percent 
10. U. Pacific McGeorge Law: 23.02 percent (corrected) That was depressing.” [Emphasis mine]

You will notice that all ten of these trash cans have the following in common: (a) they are private schools; and (b) they are low-ranked landfills. They each offer piss poor employment prospects – even for those who end up in the top 10%-20% of the class. Huge tuition will be rammed down your throat, as a student at any of these “institutions of higher learning.” Still want to sign on the dotted line at any of these piles of excrement, Dumbass?!?! 

http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/05/16/where-the-law-jobs-are-the-2016-edition/

Charts and Graphs: On May 16, 2017, Law.com featured a Karen Sloan article entitled “Where the Law Jobs Are: The 2016 Edition.” The text was essentially covered by Above the Law in its entirety. 

https://public.tableau.com/profile/publish/ABA-School-Jobs-2016/Story1#!/publish-confirm

Go to the charts and select the entitled “Unemployed.” Here is the next group of ten, foul garbage heaps, as listed by Law.com:

11. University of San Francisco School of Law: 22.86 percent
12. Golden Gate University School of Law: 20.54 percent 
13. University of Oregon School of Law: 20.16 percent 
14. Western Michigan University Cooley Law School: 19.48 percent 
15. Willamette University College of Law: 19.30 percent 
16. DePaul University College of Law: 19.23 percent 
17. Santa Clara University School of Law: 18.60 percent 
18. Campbell University Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law: 18.45 percent 
19. Barry University School of Law: 17.41% 
20. Liberty University School of Law: 17.24%

That listing only includes one public school. Starting to see a pattern here, genius?!?! Anyone enrolled at any of the 20 piles of waste above is simply too damn dumb to represent other people in legal matters. Would you want any of these clowns to draft a simple will for your grandmother?! Perhaps you would be okay with these dunces filing a small claims action on your behalf. Then again, if you have an Associate’s degree or some common sense, then you are most likely capable of writing it up yourself and presenting your side well in a less formal court setting. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust these idiots to order food for someone else at a restaurant. Hell, I’m not sure I would feel confident letting any of these morons drive me around in a car. 

Conclusion: In the final analysis, if you even consider any of these 20 cesspools, then you deserve your fate. If you end up owing $200K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – and the only job you can land is “sandwich artist” – who cares? You chose to attend a pathetic pile of rot for your “legal education” – and you should have done some basic research, fool! If you bothered to look up job outcomes for these commodes – for more than five minutes – then you decided to ignore the data. Do not try to seek sympathy on this site. The information has been out there for damn near a decade. And best of all, it is free to peruse. Think about that when you are “freelancing” as a dog walker, Bitch. Be nice to the successful people who hire you, and they might tip you. Also, don’t forget to pick up Buddy’s turds either. Hell, those who pay will likely be younger than your ass too, Stupid.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Cretins Keep Applying to Law School While Fewer Sudents Overall Seek to Enroll in ABA Diploma Mills


http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/the-law-school-brain-drain-continues-to-wreak-havoc/?rf=1

Dummies Not Heeding the Message: On June 13, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “Law School Brain Drain Continues To Wreak Havoc.” Here is the full text of her article:

“Hot on the heels of the news thatstudents with terrible LSAT scores are applying to law school in droves comes an update from the Law School Admission Council that there are fewer applicants seeking law school admission for the upcoming academic year. As of June 2, 52,853 applicants sent 343,393 applications to ABA-accredited law schools for the 2017-18 academic year. While applications are up by 1.4 percent, the number of applicants has dropped by 0.5 percent.

As we previously discussed, the number of law school applicants with LSAT scores of less than 150 has increased by 146 percent over the course of the past 10 years. This is distressing for a number of reasons, and Dean Paul Caron of Pepperdine Law told Karen Sloan of Law.com as much in this interview: 

“It’s not a great thing for the profession or for law schools when the best and the brightest are not going to law schools in the same proportion that they have gone in the past,” Caron said in an interview Monday. He said that it’s not a surprise that if LSAT scores are down, three years later, students are having a harder time passing the bar. 

“It’s not a ringing endorsement for the profession,” he said. 

What is to be done about the law school brain drain? According to Dean Caron, it’s up to law schools to make the legal profession more appealing to millennials. That might not be an easy task, given recent graduates’ inability to pass the bar exam coupled with their burgeoning debt loads. How many recent law grads would recommend going to law school? The answer, we fear, is not many. 

Until the wisest of millennials can be convinced that law school is worth the high cost, we may continue to feed the cycle of dismal bar exam passage rates, producing yet another generation of unhappy, unemployed, or underemployedlaw school graduates. This does not bode well for anyone.” [Emphasis mine]

Waterheads continue to enroll in law school, and you know that they will end up in garbage heaps that provide weak-ass employment prospects. Furthermore, the dolts will perform worse on the bar exam. Of course, you will then see more pigs publicly bitch and cry that the test is too damn hard for their inferior graduates. Yet, those same swine have no problem charging those idiots $35K+ in annual tuition. 

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202789663946/Fewer-Law-School-Applicants-in-Line-for-Upcoming-School-Year?slreturn=20170515230022

Other Coverage: On June 13, 2017, the New York Law Journal re-published a David Ruiz piece entitled “Fewer Law School Applicants in Line for Upcoming School Year.” Take a look at this opening:

“The number of law school applicants has dropped for the upcoming academic year, according to new data released by the Law School Admission Council. 

The numbers, as of June 2, show that American Bar Association-accredited law schools received 343,395 applications from 52,853 applicants for the 2017-18 school year. Compared with last year, applications are up 1.4 percent, but the actual number of applicants dropped 0.5 percent. 

Those totals are coupled with increasingly mediocre performance by prospective law school students taking the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT. 

The number of law school applicants who scored more than 160 on the LSAT has gone down 35 percent since 2010, according to Paul Caron, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law and editor of TaxProf Blog. Inversely, the number of law school applicants with LSAT scores lower than 150 has gone up 146 percent since 2010.” [Emphasis mine]

Does anyone with a functioning brain stem think – for one microsecond – that this is a good trend for the commodes?! That is a huge drop in applicants who scored higher than 160, while at the same time dunces have flooded to law school.

Now, scroll down to this conclusion:

“Caron said it is up to law schools and lawyers to make the legal profession appealing to millennials. He said there are valid criticisms of both the LSAT and the bar exam, but that focusing only on tests ignores the other side of the problem. 

"There's been a decline in the top student coming to law school," he said. "The data is irrefutable there."

Of course, more ABA-accredited diploma factories – including quite a few of the name brand schools – are now accepting the GRE in lieu of the LSAT. The pigs do so, under the veil of “opening the doors of the profession to more people.” In the end, they merely use this to attract more lemmings.

Conclusion: The fact that those with higher LSAT scores are choosing to avoid law school speaks volumes about this gutter “profession.” Those young men and women understand that if they do not get into an elite school, then their employment outlook will not justify the expense of three years of their lives – and an additional $150K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. The prospects for TTT grads is MUCH worse. The lawyer job market in this country is GLUTTED, and only a damn fool would argue otherwise.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

ABA Cockroaches Grant Provisional Accreditation to University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law


http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/the-aba-is-giving-us-a-new-law-school/

Another Public Toilet: On June 7, 2017, Joe Patrice posted an ATL entry labeled “The ABA Is Giving Us A New Law School.” He seems to think that this is a positive development. Read the entire text below and draw your own conclusion:

“The ABA has granted provisional accreditation to the University of North Texas Dallas College of Law, giving us one more real law school in the already crowded market of law schools. The difference is… this is a good thing.

This isn’t to say the world really needed another law school. Hell, TEXAS didn’t need another law school. But what UNT offers is critically important to the legal academy — it’s cheap. While America faces the troubling lawyer supply conundrum of too many lawyers for declining top-flight jobs and simultaneously not enough lawyers for public interest and underserved market roles, UNT is filling the niche of providing a low-cost legal education for people who won’t then run away from lower-paying work. In fact, UNT makes expanding legal education to low-income communities part of its mission, offering its scholarships based on financial need, not on LSAT mastery. 

So, obviously, the ABA dragged its heels on accrediting UNT because after years of gleefully accrediting diploma mills to tend to the relatively affluent — or at least those credit-worthy enough to be relatively affluent on paper — they suddenly had concerns that these law students might not be able to pass the bar exam. Apparently not charging an arm and a leg triggered the ABA’s spidey sense. We can’t start giving out law degrees here! Lawyers might start actually helping people! 

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and offered UNT provisional accreditation (as we would have if we were in charge). This doesn’t absolve UNT of its obligation to put its graduates in a position to work in the profession — UNT may be half the cost of Texas, but that’s still a lot of money — and we’ll continue to hold them to the fire if they’re failing to mint lawyers capable of paying back their education. 

But it’s good to see a school proving that lawyers can be made without a mountain of debt. If only some other schools would pay attention.” [Emphasis mine]

The problem is still that Texas has a GLUTTED legal market. This has been documented for years, by Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. The state already has NINE other damn ABA-accredited schools! Texas A&M purchased Texas Wesleyan’s trash pit in 2013. Outside of the diploma mill at the University of Texas, the rest are filth. I don’t see how adding one more toilet to the mix is a good thing.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2017/06/06/second-try-unt-dallas-law-school-closer-accreditation

Other Coverage: On June 8, 2017, the Dallas Morning News featured a Nanette Light piece that was entitled “On its second try, UNT-Dallas law school gets provisional accreditation.” Check out this opening:

“Three years ago, UNT Dallas College of Law opened its doors as an unaccredited college in downtown Dallas with a bold plan to teach a diverse group of students while keeping tuition low. 

But success for the city's first public law school hinged on one key factor: accreditation. 

On Tuesday, the university announced it receivedprovisional approval for accreditation from the American Bar Association. The full accreditation process will take about three years. Until then, the school has the same privileges as full accredited colleges, meaning students can still take the bar exam. 

Royal Furgeson, the law school's dean and a former federal judge, called the milestone a relief.

Sometimes you rise up in your [money-stuffed] bed at 3 in the morning thinking, 'My God, this is really important to a whole lot of people, and we just can't let them down,'" said Furgeson, who was home recuperating from back surgery when he received the news.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, accreditation was important to the administration and “law professor” pigs at the Univer$iTTTTTy of NorTTTTTh TTTTTexa$ aTTTTTT Dalla$ Commode of Law. Otherwise, many – but not all - of the waterheads who applied to that cesspit would instead try to get into any of the other numerous garbage heaps located in the state.

By the way, William Royal Furgeson Jr. - in his capacity as a federal “judge”/politician in black robe – appears to have outrageously abused his power against a defendant. When you have a moment, read this piece. The fact that this evil man is the dean of this law school speaks volumes. Of course, most of the applicants to this toilet will not bother to look him up. Hell, I did a quick Google search of the bastard – only because his name sounded vaguely familiar. Took me five seconds. Look up “Jeff Baron Royal Furgeson” and grab some popcorn. One wonders if the pig’s conscience ever bothers him at night, regarding his conduct in that case.

http://lawschool.untsystem.edu/financial-aid/costs/cost-attendance-2016-2017-academic-year

Tuition: For the 2016-2017 academic year, in-state tuition was $15,133 – and non-residents were charged $27,264. Fees account for another $546, for all students. Don’t forget living expenses. So even Texas residents living with mom and dad will incur cost for transportation, personal, loan fees, etc. I also can’t imagine too many parents allowing a 25 year old staying with them rent free. My guess is that if they do, they will lose patience with you and then make your life a living hell.

Conclusion: The American Bar Association would accredit a ham sandwich, so this is no surprise. Also, the dolts have been making new dung pits wait until their second year of application, before giving them provisional accreditation. They have to give the appearance of being judicious, after all. This is the equivalent of an easy girl in high school or college turning down the occasional guy – only to blow him two weeks later in her trailer park home or in his dingy-ass apartment. So much for “standards, huh?!?!” At any rate, the addition of new law school in Texas is a moronic idea. Also, most of their graduates are NOT going to represent low-income clients. Instead, they will return to their old jobs or become insurance agents. You can do that without a law degree.

Monday, June 5, 2017

California Bar Passage Rates Continue Descent Into the Toilet, in February 2017: Overall Pass Rate of 34.5 Percent


http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/california-bar-exam-results-by-law-school-february-2017/

Flush!: On June 1, 2017, Above the Law featured a Staci Zaretsky piece entitled “California Bar Exam Results By Law School (February 2017).” Look at this prelude:

“Shocking results from the February 2017 administration of the California bar exam were released on May 12, 2017. Given the disappointing overall pass rate, people have been wondering about the pass rates by law school ever since. 

The only information we’ve had until now has been the frighteningly low overall, first-time taker, and repeat taker pass rates of 34.5 percent, 39 percent, and 33 percent, respectively. We also knew the overall pass rates for first-time takers who attended ABA-accredited law schools, both in-state (45 percent) and out-of-state (39 percent). Granted, February pass rates are generally lower than July pass rates due to the number of repeat takers, but here at Above the Law, we are focused on first-time takers, and these pass rates are very, very low.” [Emphasis mine]

Two paragraphs later, ATL gets down to assessing the performance for each ABA-accredited diploma mill: 

“Which in-state law schools did the best on the test, and which schools did the worst? We now pass that information along to our readers, with the caveat that it only includes California law schools that had at least 11 first-time and repeat takers, or no first-time takers and at least 11 repeat takers. The Bar disseminates information in this manner to help shield the identities of graduates of law schools that had fewer test-takers during each administration of the bar exam. 

Here’s a list we’ve created of pass rates for first-time takers on the February 2017 administration of the exam for all ABA-accredited California law schools that had 11 or more test-takers for the exam. Take a look:

• Santa Clara: 69 percent 
• Loyola (LA): 67 percent
• Western State: 67 percent 
• UCLA: 64 percent 
• Pepperdine: 59 percent 
• U. San Diego: 53 percent 
• McGeorge: 50 percent 
• STATEWIDE AVERAGE: 45 PERCENT 
• California Western: 45 percent 
• Golden Gate: 33 percent 
• U. San Francisco: 31 percent 
• UC Hastings: 27 percent 
• Southwestern: 24 percent 
• Thomas Jefferson: 24 percent” [Emphasis mine]

In a just world, anyone who attends the worst toilets on this list would not be eligible for federal student loans – and would instead need to come up with collateral and obtain private funding for their garbage “legal education.” Then again, “higher education” is a financial windfall – for the institutions. 

http://www.jdjournal.com/2017/05/15/february-2017-california-bar-exam-results-almost-23-of-applicants-failed/

Other Coverage: On May 15, 2017, JD Journal published a Teresa Lo piece, under the headline “February 2017 California Bar Exam Results – Almost 2/3 of Applicants Failed.” Enjoy this opening:

“On Friday, the California State Bar released its official test results, and only an abysmal 34.5% of test takers were able to pass the notoriously difficult exam. The passage rate for first-timers was slightly better, but it was still an unimpressive 39%. These rates were a decline from last year where the overall passage rate was 35.7 percent, and the first-time takers’ passage rate was 45 percent. In California’s press release, Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, the Executive Director of the State Bar of California, acknowledged the decline and the Board stated it was conducting an investigation, which will begin May 15. “I’d like to congratulate the applicants who passed the Bar Exam,” Parker said. “Regrettably the pass rate shows a continuing decline, a trend happening nationally. The State Bar is committed to a better understanding of the problem to determine how to address it.” [Emphasis mine]

Still want to take the plunge, Dumbass?!?! You can already see that the law school pigs will make a major push to have the state bar exam simplified, for their cretinous students and graduates. Hell, why not make it as difficult as a Driver’s License test, right?!?! After all, California already has an incredible GLUT of attorneys. This has been well-documented for years.

Conclusion: Do you see what the weak performing trash pits have in common, genius?!?! Yes, they are rated in THE FOURTH TIER – by US “News” & World Report. Somehow, special snowflakes/waterheads will continue to ignore all the warning signs – and they will enroll in these foul piles of excrement. Remember, idiots have dreams too. However, seeing that you are essentially required to incur an additional $175K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for a chance to enter a ridiculously oversaturated lawyer job market – should at least make you reconsider. 

The plain truth is that you are MUCH better off remaining in your current job, work your ass off, make real connections with those in your field, and try to separate yourself from the pack. That does not require you to piss away three years of your life, or to accumulate outrageous sums of student debt in the process. However, if you had such insight, then you would not even think of going to law school in the first place. Enjoy trying to repay those massive loans on a paltry $41K annual salary, Bitch.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

School’s Out Forever: Celebrate the Closing of Indiana Tech Law School


http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-techs-closing-of-law-school-leaves-unanswered-questions/PARAMS/article/43828

Glorious News: On May 31, 2017, the Indiana Lawyer published a Marilyn Odendahl article that was entitled “Indiana Tech’s closing of law school leaves unanswered questions.” Enjoy this wondrous opening:

“Little more than a week after graduation ceremonies, Indiana Tech Law School was well on its way to extinction.

The name had been removed from the building, the Fort Wayne law school’s website redirects visitors to the main Indiana Tech homepage, and all mentions of the legal education program had been scrubbed from Indiana Tech’s homepage. Neither Dean Charles Cercone, former interim dean andrĂ© douglas pond cummings nor university spokesman Brian Engelhart returned phone calls or emails. 

Questions are unanswered about the final steps being taken to close the school, what will happen to money given for endowed scholarships, where will the materials in the law library go, what will be done with the curated art collection, and how the $15 million building, constructed especially for the law school, will be repurposed. 

The American Bar Association, which provisionally accredited the law school, has not spoken publicly about the closure since it issued a statement that Indiana Tech would have to follow the procedure for ceasing operation outlined in Rule 34 of the ABA Rules of Procedure for the Approval of Law Schools. The U.S. Department of Education did not respond by IL deadline to an inquiry about any role it has in the closure and how much federal loan debt Indiana Tech law students have. 

While silence has prevailed outside the school, members of the Class of 2017 said the atmosphere inside changed immediately after the university announced in October 2016 its plans to shutter the legal education program at the end of the academic year. 

A planned legal conference on campus was cancelled, support staff were pulled from the building and the receptions and informal gatherings held periodically with the faculty stopped. The day after the announcement, students saw workers measuring the classrooms and evaluating how the space could be reused.

The Indiana Institute of Technology, which opened the law school in August 2013, cited a $20 million loss as the primary driver behind the decision to close. Still, the 2017 graduates were angered by the university’s action. They opted to hold their own graduation ceremony, off campus at the Allen County Public Library, so they would not have encounter retiring Indiana Tech President Arthur Snyder at the main commencement May 13.” [Emphasis mine]

You’re welcome, bitches! Frankly, the university did the right thing, in rectifying their earlier mistake. Hell, the administration lost $20 million on that joke of a law school – and they didn’t have a large endowment to support this peTTTTT projecTTTTT. The graduates could have held their little ceremony in a Starbucks – site of their future employer. Plus, the “educators” can pack that curated art up their ass. 

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/last-class-graduates-from-indiana-tech-law-school/PARAMS/article/43693

Other Coverage: On May 15, 2017, the Indiana Lawyer featured another piece from Marilyn Odendahl, this one under the headline “Last class graduates from Indiana Tech Law School.” Review the following excerpt:

“The class did have a private hooding ceremony the evening of May 12 at the Allen County Public Library in downtown Fort Wayne since some did not want to include the university in their celebration. About 17 graduates attended the event with their families and received their degrees from law school dean Charles Cercone and associate dean Charles MacLean. 

“That was basically our ceremony which was very meaningful and important because we had stuck together and gotten through this process,” [60 year old Philip] Davis said.

Waiting for the main commencement exercises to begin, Davis and his four classmates stood apart in the sea of black caps and gowns. They were clustered under the sign designating where the law school graduates should stand and talked quietly amongst themselves. 

Snyder presided over the 96th Indiana Tech graduation and his last as the leader of the university. Despite criticism for opening a law school in 2013, a time when lawyers were struggling to find J.D.-required jobs, Snyder championed the new venture. His retirement coincides with the school’s closure.

The law school graduates were among the first to enter the arena, taking seats near the commencement stage. As Cercone called their names, they walked across the stage, had the hood placed on their shoulders and proceeded back to their chairs. No mention was made that they were members of the final law school class.

Noah Moore, who relocated from Jackson, Mississippi, to attend Indiana Tech Law School, called the graduation day bittersweet.

“We put in a lot of hard work,” Moore said of the Class of 2017. “That’s what actually makes (this day) bittersweet and kind of has me upset. Our hard work can’t be overlooked.” [Emphasis mine]

Did hip hip and the law extraordinaire AndrĂ© Douglas Pond Scummings appear as the DJ for that sad event? By the way, Noah Moore: no one cares about all your “hard work,” which consisted of studying commercial outlines and listening to boring lectures. Now make that a large latte.

Conclusion: The idiots at Indiana Institute of Technology – not to be confused with ITT Tech – ignored the warnings about opening a law school in the midst of a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. legal job market. Hell, why not open up a penmanship class at the school? Or teach students how to operate a horse and buggy? Those skills will surely come in super-handy, right?!?! Don’t feel bad about this “institution of higher learning” losing $20 million on this stupid, greedy venture. Instead, rejoice over the fact that potentially hundreds more were spared financial ruin – in the form of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt.

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Arizona Summit Law Sewer to Pay $1.5 Million Surety Bond Against Closure


http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2017/05/26/arizona-summit-law-school-ordered-create-surety-bond-in-case-closure/338048001/

Pay Up, Bitches!: On May 25, 2017, the Arizona Republic published an Anne Ryman piece entitled “Arizona Summit Law School told to create financial safety net for students as precaution.” Take a look at this opening:

“A private law school in Phoenix recently put on probation by the American Bar Association is being required to put money aside to reimburse students if the school were to close. 

The Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education, the for-profit-college licensing agency, voted Thursday to require Arizona Summit Law School to post a $1.5 million surety bond to guarantee students would be repaid should the school fail. 

"It's just to protect the public, just in case," said Keith Blanchard, the board's deputy directory. 

Arizona Summit officials said the school has no plans to close and is preparing for its incoming fall classes. 

School argues against bond 

The board requested the bond because the school was recently put on probation for low passage rates on the State Bar exam. The institution's sister school under the same ownership, the Charlotte School of Law, is also on probation by the Bar. The U.S. Department of Education announced in December it was pulling Charlotte's federal student-loan funding. 

Arizona Summit officials argued before the board that the bond wasn't necessary and would send a negative message to prospective students.” [Emphasis mine]

What kind of negative message would that send exactly? That your commode had a 29.5% first-time bar passage rate on the February 2017 Arizona Bar Exam – and a 24.6% passage rate for the same test in July 2016? Or that the commode is currently on probation by the ABA, a notoriously lax organization when it comes to holding member schools accountable for their noxious actions? Something tells me your typical applicant will not be bothered by this latest bond. 

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/law-school-ordered-to-post-1-5m-surety-bond-in-case-it-closes/

Other Coverage: On May 26, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “Law School Ordered To Post $1.5M Surety Bond In Case It Closes.” She addresses that concern in her conclusion below:

“If the fact that graduates of Arizona Summit have shown year after year that they’re unable to pass the bar exam on the first try hasn’t spooked prospective students, then a little $1.5 million surety bond certainly won’t do them much harm. After all, they seem to be immune to all of the negative information about the school that would cause others to run in the opposite direction.

Trish Leonard, the board’s president, said she “really [felt] a bond [was] required,” likely due to the fact that if Arizona Summit were to suddenly shutter, the state’s Student Tuition Recovery Fund would be completely tapped out. The school’s additional bond would act as further consumer protection and insurance for law students who would otherwise be left between a larger rock and a harder place than they already are if the school were to close. 

If this isn’t a sign to get out while the getting is still good, we’re not sure what is. Best of luck to those who decide to remain at Arizona Summit Law School.” [Emphasis mine] 

http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2017/05/arizona-summit-must-post-15m-against.html

Here is the full text of Old Guy’s take, from May 26, 2017 – “Arizona Summit must post $1.5M agains possible closure.” Enjoy!

“The licensing board in Arizona has just required Arizona Summit (Arizona Scum Pit) to post a $1.5M bond with which to reimburse the students in the event of the toilet school's closure. 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2017/05/26/arizona-summit-law-school-ordered-create-surety-bond-in-case-closure/338048001/

Only 30% of Arizona Scum Pit's graduates who attempt the bar exam pass it on the first try. At 74%, the rate for the other two law schools in Arizona, both of which are Tier 4 institutions (https://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.ca/2017/05/the-seven-tiers-of-law-schools.html), is still disgraceful.

Arizona Scum Pit and its fellow Tier 6 institutions Charlotte (Harlotte) and Florida Coastal (Horrida Coastal) make up the notorious InfiLaw scam-chain of profit-seeking law schools. All three are in trouble. Harlotte has lost access to federally guaranteed student loans, and Horrida Coastal may join it next year.

Arizona Scum [P]it is on probation by the American Bar Association. Arizona Scum Pit told the board "that the bond wasn’t necessary and would send a negative message to prospective students". Which negative message? That Arizona Scum Pit is at risk of closing before they complete their Mickey Mouse degrees? If lemmings present and prospective haven't noticed that by now, they won't catch on just because the toilet has to post a bond with the state. Nothing, evidently, would get their attention.” [Emphasis mine]

Hell, if the moronic applicants were told the school was located on a Superfund site, they would not be dissuaded from choosing this trash pit. It’s sad really.

Conclusion: As you can see, this private toilet is a mess. You would be better off wrestling a crocodile than attending this pile of rancid fecal matter. At least then, you would not be FINANCIALLY RUINED for the rest of your life. Plus, if things went wrong with the croc, your family would probably still be able to collect on your life insurance policy in the former scenario. Avoid this school the same way that you would stay away from meth-addicted prostitutes.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

University of South Carolina Opens New $80 Million Law School Building; Dung Heap Still Ranked 88th Best by US “News” & World Report


http://www.postandcourier.com/business/university-of-south-carolina-hopes-new-law-school-building-woos/article_69f1137a-3c1f-11e7-942a-8be61d361168.html

Bottoms Up!: On May 20, 2017, the Charleston Post and Courier published a Mike Fitts article, entitled “University of South Carolina hopes new law school building woos students, boosts rankings.” Take a look at this opening:

“After almost two decades of waiting, the University of South Carolina School of Law is moving into an elegant new $80 million building that its dean hopes will be a boost in the competition to land the best and brightest. 

“We know it’s had an impact on faculty recruiting already,” Dean Robert Wilcox said last week. “We hope it will have a similar impact on recruiting students.”

Students will begin taking classes on the top floor of the three-story building this summer as the school moves out of its 1970s-era structure, which has only small windows and few spaces for the kind of collaborative learning that is a part of legal education today, Wilcox said.

How outdated was the old building? When originally built, it had no women’s bathrooms. 

The former law school, which will become undergraduate classrooms, likely was a hindrance in attracting top-quality students and likely hurt the college in nationally published rankings, Wilcox said. USC's law school is tied for 88th in U.S. News & World Report rankings and stands ninth out of the 12 Southeastern Conference colleges with law schools. 

“I’ve never known how many students didn’t come because of the old building. I’m quite certain that none came because of the old building,” said Wilcox, a Charleston native who graduated from the law school in 1981. “We have really sent the message that the school has arrived.” 

That arrival has taken years of fundraising and a long march to get the project launched. Planning began before the year 2000, but the money required to start construction was slow to come in, prompting some in the state’s legal community to worry about the school’s success and focus. 

“There was a concern that the building had become the mission of the school, which is not what you want,” Wilcox said.” [Emphasis mine]

What a pre$TTigiou$ “institution of higher education,” huh?!?! Wow, 88th greatest, most phenomenal law school in the entire damn country! What a remarkable accomplishment!! This tidy sum should surely boost the commode into the stratosphere of “legal education.” Hell, it could even end up as “high” as 69th or 73rd “best” law school in the country someday. 

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article150836627.html

Other Coverage: On May 16, 2017, The State featured an article from Avery G. Wilks, under the headline “USC unveils new $80 million law school.” Here is the full text of that piece:

“The University of South Carolina Tuesday unveiled its new, $80 million law school building – a swanky, 187,500-square-foot facility that occupies nearly an entire city block at Bull and Gervais streets.

The building is expected to help the USC School of Law recruit “top-flight” students and faculty, dean Robert Wilcox said. Wilcox also expects it to help with the law school’s No. 88 national ranking in the widely watched U.S. News and World Report rankings. 

“You don’t go up in a ranking just because you have a new building,” Wilcox said. “But you go up in a ranking if you can bring in the students you need and if you can do the research you need and if your academic program is good enough to really raise your reputation. 

“We have a feeling that as people come into the school – we host some conferences here and things – while the building doesn’t count directly into the numbers, it will have an impact on the reputation.” 

A few things to know about the law school’s new digs:

▪ The building features 17 classrooms, ranging in size from 20 to 95 seats, and two realistic courtrooms, including one that also can be used as a 300-seat auditorium. 
▪ The judge’s bench in the larger courtroom is the original heart-pine S.C. Supreme Court bench from the 1870s. 
▪ USC paid for the building with $20 million from the Legislature, $18 million in private donations and borrowing. 
▪ New students will begin to use the building for summer classes starting June 1.” [Emphasis mine]

Don’t confuse this cesspit with the 19th rated USC Gould College of Law, i.e. the one located in Los Angeles. And many of those grads go onto teach grade school! Anyone who thinks or believes that a shiny new law school building is going to attract “top flight” law students is a damn fool. If some college student in Columbia, South Carolina scores a 175 on the LSAT, he is going to attend a real law school – not the local toilet. Also, I don't care if that bench was hand crafted by Roger B. Taney - and used by Jefferson Davis!

By the way, how many new urinals and commodes does the new building contain? That is important since that will give the best reflection of the prevailing job market for University of South Carolina JDs. Also, it is sickening that the bitches and hags had to get $20 million of the loot from state taxpayers. Then again, politicians and “educators” have never lost a wink of sleep spending an ass-load of other people’s money – on stupid projects!

Conclusion: The Univer$iTTy of SouTTh Carolina Sewer of Law is still a middling trash pit. Being rated as the co-88th best law school is the equivalent of being a beauty show contestant with the most feminine hands. No one gives a damn. You are dealing with college graduates, i.e. people who should have a modicum of intelligence. Yet, the dean of this pile of manure, Cockroach Robert Wilcox, is acting as though he is trying to recruit to high school football players who want to don 13 different uniforms during the course of the season. In the end, pretty much all schools are engaged in the “higher education” arms race. You dolts put $80 million into a new building, as opposed to a significant scholarship fund for students. Other schools are doing the same thing. But you anticipate an influx of pupils who are smart enough to get into Ivy League law schools, right?!?!
 
Web Analytics