Thursday, January 19, 2017

Ninety-Four Law School Pig Deans Ask ABA to Reconsider New Standards

Bam!: On January 18, 2017, Kyle McEntee posted an ass-kicking ATL entry labeled “Law School Deans Ask For Extension on Exploitation.” He came out swinging. Take a look at this opening:

“More than 90 law school deans have asked their accreditor to halt new standards that would hold schools accountable for very low bar passage rates.

Last October, the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education & Admissions to the Bar approved two new standards to stop exploitative admissions and retention practices. At a time when demand for law school decreased significantly, a minority of law schools began admitting swaths of students who, after three or more years of legal education, were not adequately equipped to pass the bar exam. 

Why would a law school choose to do this? To keep tuition dollars flowing.

The bar exam carnage began in 2014, reflecting admissions choices in 2011 that would only worsen each year. Bar passage rates fell substantially in 2015 and 2016, with no signs of improvement because law schools still need the revenue to remain open and face only minimal pressure from the current ABA accreditation standards.

The two new standards are simple. Within two years, 75 percent of a school’s graduates who took the bar exam would have to pass it. (Note: 99.9 percent of graduates who pass the bar do so by their fourth attempt.) Moreover, a school could not fail more than 20 percent of its entering students without a great reason. Together, these standards would require schools to acknowledge and confront the impact of their admission and retention of students.

When the Council approved the new standards, it did so overwhelmingly via voice vote. More serious than the debate to approve was the debate about whether a 75 percent minimum bar passage rate was high enough. As I have outlined previously here on Above the Law, the current bar passage standard is nearly impossible to fail because it is riddled with loopholes. For example, a school’s own poor performance can help the school stay within compliance of the current standard. Moreover, it’s a near mathematical certainty that schools in 14 states cannot fail the current standard.

At this point, one final hurdle remains for the two new standards. At the ABA mid-year meeting, the ABA House of Delegates must vote to acquiesce to the new standards or to send them back to the Council for further consideration. (If sent back, the Council can re-approve the standards.) The letter from these law school deans asks that the Council withdraw the new standards from consideration. If the Council declines, the letter then asks the House of Delegates to send the standards back to the Council. 

‘[W]e urge postponement for one year for additional consideration and study. This issue is simply too important to be rushed unnecessarily.’

Of course, the matter has not been rushed. The Council and its committees considered this exact bar passage standard several years ago before it was quietly quashed.” [Emphasis mine]

The fact that these bitches and hags want to postpone this simplified – and easy to achieve – rule tells you all you need to know about their values and their “character.” They have no guiding principles – other than to financially ruin young people, so the “educators” can get fat.

The Pigs’ Letter: LST re-published the January 13, 2017 excrement from the A$$ociaTTTion of American Law $chools. Here is the selfish pigs’ argument below:

“We write as a group of [cockroaches] of ABA-accredited law schools to urge the Council of the ABA Section on Legal Education & Admissions to the Bar to withdraw for the time being the proposed change to ABA Standard 316, the standard proposing a stronger and simpler requirement for bar passage to maintain accreditation. Failing that, we urge the ABA House of Delegates at its February meeting in Miami to recommit this proposal to the Council for further scrutiny. More specifically, we urge postponement for one year for additional consideration and study. This issue is simply too important to be rushed unnecessarily. 

We believe this Council action requires further consideration and scrutiny in light of significant issues raised by member deans and by legal education organizations, and, more recently, by the results of the July 2016 administration of the California bar examination. 

The California bar results, if they become the “new normal” for graduates of ABAaccredited law schools in California, could potentially imperil the accreditation of a very large number of law schools–law schools whose history and profile have demonstrated over many decades an ability to educate and graduate successful law students by any reasonable measure. 

We hasten to add that the signatory deans express no consensus view on the current Standard 316 proposal. A number of deans have expressed public support for this proposal. Other deans have expressed deep concern. For example, a June 29, 2016 letter signed by many deans of the law schools that are part of historically Black colleges and universities expressed concern about the impact of this new standard on opportunities for students of color. Moreover, serious issues have been raised about the different scores required by different states to pass each bar exam and the different pass rates across jurisdictions.

Despite the diversity of opinion on this difficult issue, all the deans who have signed this letter believe that there should be an opportunity for further reflection, and perhaps more careful study and analysis, before a new standard is adopted, especially because this standard could well have serious, albeit unintended, consequences on the welfare of many law schools and students.” [Emphasis mine]

If you want the bar results to not be in the toilet, then stop admitting and enrolling waterheads. Is that too hard for you to understand, greedy bastards?!?! By the way, your diversity "stance" is tired - and it is a mere diversion.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, law school is run for the benefit of underworked, overpaid faculty and administrators – not the students! This is CRYSTAL clear, and only a cretin would argue otherwise. The students are essentially required to incur outrageous sums of additional NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for the benefit of lazy-ass “scholars.” ABA-accredited commodes have lowered their “standards” to the point where waterheads with a 2.8 UGPA and 141 LSAT can gain admi$$ion to their vaunTTTTed programs. These students are not intelligent enough to pass a bar exam, and this has been confirmed by the last several years of lower passage rates. Something had to be done, so the ABA weasels passed a weak new standard. And now, the selfish deans want to postpone the new rules. Yes, they really care about the students and recent graduates, right?!?!


  1. Unbelievable that Deans of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford would sign such a letter. Maybe they don't want their elite students to lose an opportunity to "teach" in these failing cesspits. The alternative is that they might face hardship and stress actually practicing law...

  2. Yes, "postponement" simply means stonewalling: these scam-supporting deans want to kill the proposal through unending delay. After a year's "postponement", they'd once again say that more investigation was needed, that the proposal was being rushed, that the implications for this or that haven't been given sufficient attention. Delay, delay, delay.

    These scam-deans are afraid that the proposal "could potentially imperil the accreditation of a very large number of law schools". Who gives a fuck about the students, or the public coffers that keep the law-school scam afloat? Nothing matters but the law skules.

    Note too that this letter is not the work of the Cooleys alone: it bears the signatures of the deans of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, NYU, Stanford... Why are the deans of the few respectable law schools so eager to throw their weight behind this scam-perpetuating scheme? Could it be that they too feel threatened by greater regulation and higher standards?

  3. A Tax Prof Blog poster going by the name Theordore Seto, the Loyola Los Angeles Sewer of Law professor, responded to Law School Transparency. The pig wrote:

    “It is unclear how holding schools in a jurisdiction where the average pass rate is 44% (California) to the same standard as school in a jurisdiction where the average pass rate is 83% (Missouri) constitutes holding law schools accountable. If the California bar exam is harder than the Missouri bar exam (which many believe to be so), applying the same pass rate standard to schools in the two states gives Missouri schools a pass while placing California schools in an impossible position for reasons having nothing to do with educational adequacy.”

    Loyola’s July 2015 Bar Passage Rate for first time takers was 76%. The July 2016 rate dropped to 72%, below the ABA threshold.

    Ted is feeling the heat after wrongly predicting that “beginning in fall 2015 and intensifying into 2016 employers are likely to experience an undersupply of law grads... long-term demand for law grads will outstrip long-term supply into the indefinite future.”

    What a pathetic piece of trash. Who is forcing Loyola’s students to take the California bar? The students can take any state bar exam. The toilet merely needs 75% of them to pass any bar exam. When graduates couldn’t find jobs, the pigs told them to go to Nebraska. They have no problem taking their victim’s cash and leaving them jobless. But when the pigs’ jobs are threatened by ABA sanctions for failing to graduate students capable of passing the bar, the pigs throw a fit.

    The pigs are feeling the heat. They don’t want to be tossed out on their ass like the pigs at Indiana Tech and Charlotte Sewer of Law. They know the legal market is crap and they will likely end up unemployed like their grads. If the lower ranking toilet law schools have to maintain a 75% bar passage rate, they will not be able to maintain sufficient class sizes to stay open.

    And good luck to the pigs fired by Charlotte Sewer of Law over the last few days! You should have no problem returning to your big law job where you would have made one million per year had you not become a law professor.

    1. Somebody please tell Mr. Seto that the Cal bar first-time pass rate for in-state ABA schools was in fact above 75% as recently as 2013!

      The percentage dropped only when toilet Skools gave up on any pretense of admission "standards" and therefore had weaker graduates sitting for the bar three years later.

      Remember, lemmings, the law is a "helping profession." As in, you unwittingly "help" the scam Dean pay for the addition to his vacation home in Vermont.

  4. 94 pigs signed the letter? Well that means 110 or so other assholes didn't sign it.

  5. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 19, 2017 at 9:13 PM

    There is a shortage of lawyers in Illinois. Only 98,000 and billboards shilling $49.00 traffic ticket defense. Bring on the newbies...I am offering DUI defense for $25.00. Payments accepted!!

  6. HBCUs cry about anything that might hurt their bottom line. Maybe 50 or 100 years ago, they really cared about their students. Now they just want to keep the gravy train rolling. Sad.

  7. Seton Hall law still provides an outstanding education. The placement rate is top notch. The finical aid for students will minimize your student loans. The alumni network is price less.

    You would be hard pressed to find an unemployed Seton grad, especially when NYC is close by and the legal market respects the good Seton Hall name!

    We need to the let the educational free market be, and kindly ask the ABA to stop interfering.

    1. Actually, cocksucker Seton Hall grads can't even get interviews for the Biglaw firm right across the street from the law school.

    2. Seton Hall / Team AAMPLE troll is back with his morning post.

      The education at Seton Hall is so outstanding, that only 75.6% of graduates passed the July 2016 New Jersey bar exam (first time takers). The placement rate is top notch into temporary NJ state judicial clerkships. 52% of the class of 2015 took these lucrative clerkship jobs instead jumping right into private practice. Good luck minimizing your student loans with conditional scholarships and section stacking. The school’s grade curve helps ensure that free loaders become paying students. The bottom 30% of the class must have a grade of B- or less. This allowed the school to eliminate scholarships for 18 lemmings last year. The Seton Hall name is so well respected, that only 9% of graduates were hired by firms of 101+ attorneys.

      Next time you troll for Seton Hall, don’t forget to mention Michael Simkovic and his “million dollar degree” study. I can’t wait to hear about his latest study on the value of an LLM.

    3. Unfortunately, yes, that sounds about right for Seton Hall outcomes.

    4. Remember when the dean of SeTTon Haul was the athletic director of the university at the same time? Go Butt Pirates!

  8. LSAT takers increased 7.6% this cycle.... maybe dumb kids trying to become Jedi Knights and fight Trump by going to law school?

    Both Harper and Campos have lost their damn minds because of politics. Wonder if they'll join the call of "come to law school.... because Social Justice!"

    1. LSAT takers are up 7.6% for the last test, not the cycle. For the cycle, more like 3%. My belief is more and more people take the test more than once. We can only hope the 7.6% is not indicative of applicants for the year -- which are currently down 4% from last year (as of 1/13/17)


    On January 19, 2017, Paul Caron covered this developmenTTT in his entry, “94 Law School Deans Ask ABA To Postpone Proposed 75% Bar Passage Requirement.” From the Comments section:
    Via user “Jojo” on January 19, 2017 5:24:02 am:


    For the first time in 40 plus years please show some spine. Do what every non biased person involved in legal education knows needs to be done. Put this measure to the delegates and pass it. The schools cannot and will not self reform or self police. This has real and negative consequences to students. Give this to the delegates.”

    Check out this scorching commentary from an anonymous poster, furnished January 19, 2017 at 6:11:27 am:

    “Deans to ABA: "Please give us another year to bilk unqualified students of their money".

    The following was provided by “JM” – on January 19, 2017 6:32:42 am:

    “I take out of this that over 100 Deans support the new standard. Surely every last Dean was asked repeatedly to sign. Smart move too, culling the bottom 30 or so law schools may mean the survival of many further up on the food chain.”

    Later in the comments area, Pig Theodore Seto chortles in with some nonsense. The fact remains that the law school swine DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about their students or recent graduates. To them, these young people are a mere mean$ to an end. After the cockroaches are paid up front, in full – while the students are saddled with outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt.

    1. Law professor Steve Diamond wrote a comment to the Tax Prof post that was surprisingly somewhat honest.

      He wrote, “I think this approach by the deans is unfortunate. We are several years into the cyclical downturn and while many schools have downsized it seems clear that few major curriculum or structural changes are taking place that might better match law school with new economic forces and technological change...Certainly the vast majority of law school applicants presume that law school will prepare them to become lawyers. If they can't pass the bar that is not possible. Now it may be that the bar exam itself is the problem but that seems unlikely. More likely the problem is that law school curriculum is no longer adequately preparing students to confront the kinds of problems most lawyers have to help clients solve. The 75% rule would put pressure on schools to consider serious and creative structural change.”

      Of course he won’t admit that law schools are admitting unqualified applicants to profit off of the student loan system. But I give him credit for supporting the 75% rule and admitting that the bar exam is not the problem.

      Also, the Dean of Syracuse and Texas A&M joined to write a TaxProf Blog op-ed today supporting the 75% rule. The deans actually conceded that some law schools are “predatory” and need to lose their accreditation. They concluded by saying “we think it is reasonable for professional schools that hold out to their students the promise of a legal career to be held to a reasonable standard for graduating students who actually are capable of obtaining the license needed to have that career.”

      It is nice to hear some honesty from law school deans for once.

    2. The predatory group includes Syracuse and Texas A&M, both of which are toilets that nobody should attend.

      Texas A&M costs $200k, with most of the class paying full fare. Almost 20% of the class is non-employed, according to LST. Just under half of the class reported a salary; the median was $60k. That income will not support the payments on typical debt.

      Syracuse costs almost $250k, although most students do get discounts. A quarter of the class is non-employed. Again, just under half of the class reported salaries; the median was $60k, which is not enough to support the payments on typical debt.

  10. More from the comments portion of the Caron article cited above:

    Theodore Seto is a “law professor” at Loyola Law Sewer Los Angeles, and he posted the following excrement on January 19, 2017 at 8:22:23 am:

    “Re Law School Transparency: It is unclear how holding schools in a jurisdiction where the average pass rate is 44% (California) to the same standard as school in a jurisdiction where the average pass rate is 83% (Missouri) constitutes holding law schools accountable. If the California bar exam is harder than the Missouri bar exam (which many believe to be so), applying the same pass rate standard to schools in the two states gives Missouri schools a pass while placing California schools in an impossible position for reasons having nothing to do with educational adequacy.”

    An anonymous contributor takes Pig Seto’s ass down hard, with this comment on January 19, 2017 10:11:32 am:


    So what? All exams aren't created equally, and, given the intensely regional nature of most law school's job placement prowess, it is a school's job to prepare its students to pass the exam that the majority of its students are known to sit for. Failure on that exam is a failure in relative educational adequacy, and students of ABA approved law schools are certainly free to sit for any exam that they perceive to be an easier barrier to entry in other jurisdictions. That a jurisdiction imposes a more difficult test than another does not give schools a pass to knowingly continue produce high numbers of debt-riddled failing students on that exam. Meet the requirement or shut down.”

    On January 19, 2017 10:58:27 am, another reader – using handle “Bar exam transparency” – followed that up with a kick to Seto’s snout:

    “Theodore Seto's statistics are rather misleading. California's bar passage rate has historically been so low because California allows people from unaccredited law schools to take the exam.

    As recently as 2013, the first-time bar passage rate on the California bar for graduates of California's ABA schools was 76%, and it was even higher than that in the late aughts. The vast majority of graduates of California ABA law schools passed the bar on their first try before many of those schools started slashing their entrance requirements in response to declining applications.”

    Then again, the law school swine don’t care about facts, especially since they show that law school is a terrible bet for the vast majority of students. The bitches and hags end up obfuscating and grasping at straw men.

    Back on June 11, 2013, I barbecued this portly hog on this blog. That was due to the ass-hat claiming – with NOTHING to back up his assertion – that beginning in Fall 2015, employers would experience a shortage of law grads. Yes, that must be why so many JDs end up working as baristas, insurance salesmen, bartenders, hotel clerks, etc. Maybe I should roast his big ass again.

    1. Who says that the threshold for passing must lie between California's and Missouri's? Set the required rate for accreditation at 90% and watch toilets vanish by the score.

  11. It's all about keeping the scam going.


Web Analytics