Tuesday, February 14, 2017

ABA Nest of Cockroaches/House of Delegates Voted Against Proposed Stricter Bar Passage Rate Requirements at Member Schools


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

The Cockroaches Look After Their Own: On February 6, 2017, the ABA Journal published a Stephanie Francis Ward piece entitled “ABA House rejects proposal to tighten bar-pass standards for law schools.” Take a look at this opening:

“The ABA House of Delegates on Tuesday voted against a proposal to tighten bar passage rate standards for accredited law schools. 

Under ABA rules, the house can send the proposed rule, Resolution 110B, back to the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar twice for review with or without recommendations, but the council has the final decision on Standard 316 and other matters related to law school accreditation. 

A storm of criticism has surrounded Standard 316’s proposed revision, which would have required that to meet accreditation standards, 75 percent of a law schools’ graduates must pass a bar exam within a two-year period. At a notice and comment hearing the section held in August, various groups, including the National Black Law Students Association (PDF), testified that the proposal failed to address racial inequities in the law school admissions process and legal education. 

According to [data submitted] for the hearing by William Patton, a professor emeritus at Whittier Law School, 33.4 percent of black students in California and 29.8 percent of the state’s Hispanic law students attend the five ABA-accredited law schools that would be most at risk of violating the proposed revision. 

And in January, the Association of American Law School’s Law School Deans Steering Committee wrote the council to ask it to withdraw the proposal, based on concerns about different state bar scoring standards, falling bar-passage rates and a lack of diversity in the profession. 

No accredited law school has ever been out of compliance with Standard 316, and there are various ways to meet its current requirements. One is that at least 75 percent of graduates from the five most recent calendar years have passed a bar exam, or there’s a 75 percent pass rate for at least three of those five years. 

Also, a school can be in compliance if just 70 percent of its graduates pass the bar at a rate within 15 percentage points of the average first-time bar pass rate for ABA-approved law school graduates in the same jurisdiction for three out the five most recently completed calendar years.” [Emphasis mine]

As you can see, there are several ways for ABA-accredited trash pits to meet the current weak-ass requirements. And the spineless dung beetles on the House of Delegates want to keep it that way. You, the student, are a mere mean$ to an end, i.e. big piles of federal student loan cash. But you are going to enroll in a second tier sewer – or worse – and become a huge success, right, Lemming?!?!

http://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2017/02/bar_passage_proposal0.html

TTTT Press Release: On February 6, 2017, the American Bar Association – who motto is “Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice” – issued some garbage labeled “Bar passage proposal fails, immigration resolutions approved after spirited ABA House debate.” Try not to puke as you read the following filth:

“In other action, the House adopted new model rules for continuing legal education, which includes requiring credits for ethics, diversity and inclusion and mental health issues, as well as recommendations to improve the civil justice system. The 589-member House, which met on the final day of the ABA Midyear Meeting in Miami that began Feb. 1, sets policy for the association. 

The proposal from the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bardrew the most attention, and failed on a divided voice vote that was overwhelmingly opposed. The change would have simplified and strengthened the bar passage rate – considered a measure of the quality of a law school education – by requiring that ABA-approved law schools have 75 percent of its graduates who take the bar exam pass it within two years of graduation. The exam is given twice a year. 

The House action on Resolution 110B followed more than an hour of debate, and reflected the national debate in legal education for striking the best balance between goals of diversity in the profession and consumer protection of students. The ABA sets standards and accredits more than 200 law schools. Both the schools and ABA, because of its singular national accreditation role, are being criticized for enrolling and graduating too many law students who cannot pass the bar exam, and who leave law school with significant debt.” [Emphasis mine]

So, naturally these "scholars" and advocates stridently and overwhelmingly opposed the measure. Apparently, the cockroaches only give lip service to looking out for their students. Then again, they simply need to get asses in seats.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the ABA and its member law schools will not change anything substantially. The bitches and hags will not risk seeing several commodes shut down, because they fail to have 75% of graduates who take the bar exam pass within two years of earning their law degrees. So much for standing behind your product, huh?!?! Don’t forget how Odessa Alm, the assistant dean for student success at CharloTTTTe Sewer of Law referred to her pupils as morons. This is how the law school pigs view you! They tell you how smart you are and how you can make a difference in the world, when they recruit. When you cannot land a decent job – despite your best efforts – then you are dismissed as a loser or lazy bastard who expects everything handed to you. Still want to take the plunge, cretin?!?!

31 comments:

  1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingFebruary 14, 2017 at 6:02 AM

    Even "C" and "D" graduates deserve to be $49.00 Chicagoland billboard Traffic Ticket Lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tell that professor emeritus pig to include some additional "data" about the joke Law Skool he wallows in:

    -46% fail-out rate for incoming $tudents.
    -22% passage rate on the July 16 bar exam.
    -Exactly 1 damn person got a big law job from the entire 2015 class.
    -and the cherry on top, don't forget the $284,000 total cost of attendance!





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When half of the class fails out, something is wrong. Look first at the admissions function.

      Delete
  3. Law is supposed to be a profession. Unfortunately, it’s clear that law schools are operated for the benefit of the administrators and professors rather than the benefit of the profession.

    Compare law to medicine. According to the National Resident Matching Program, in 2016, there were 27,860 first year residency positions. U.S. MD schools produced 18,187 applicants. 93.8% of those applicants obtained a residency. The remaining residency slots were filled by graduates of DO programs and foreign medical schools.

    According to the National Board of Medical Examiners, 94% of examinees from MD granting US/Canadian Schools passed the USMLE step 1 exam in 2015.

    So, more than 90% of US medical school graduates can pass their professional exams and obtain a paid residency practicing medicine.

    The 2016 law school employment data is not yet available. According to NALP, in 2015 there were 39,984 law school graduates (there were just over 18,000 US medical school graduates in 2015). 63% of law school graduates obtained a full time bar passage required job. Over 10% of law school graduates were unemployed. These numbers are shameful for schools purporting to train students to enter a profession.

    Bar passage rates have plummeted across the country. The response from ABA accredited law schools is not to improve curriculum to produce better results. The schools responded that a 75% bar passage rate is too onerous for ABA accredited law schools. Hell, even Caribbean and foreign medical schools could come close to meeting a 75% passage rule. In 2015, 72% of examinees from foreign medical schools passed the USMLE step 1 exam.

    There is a simple reason you see these disparities between US medical schools and ABA accredited toilets. US medical schools are operated to produce doctors. ABA accredited toilets are operated to transfer student loan money from the Federal treasury into the coffers of law school administrators and professors.

    There are other aspects of U.S. medical education vs. legal education that illustrate the professionalism of medicine and the dishonesty of law. U.S. medical schools produce less graduates than the number of residency positions because they want their graduates to actually obtain a residency and practice medicine. ABA accredited law schools don’t care about the outcomes of their graduates and just want the student loan money. Medical schools don’t play hide the ball with the Socratic method because their purpose is to educate professionals. Courses are graded pass/fail. Scholarships are offered without strings attached. Law schools use the Socratic method to confuse students and make grading easier in accordance with their strict curve. The curve allows schools to identify to employers which students should be hired, to suppress GPAs in order to revoke conditional scholarships, and to prevent students from transferring to higher ranking schools. The professors at medical schools actually see patients and practice medicine, do research, and teach students. The research is used by doctors around the world to better diagnose and treat patients. The professors at law schools cannot be bothered with practicing law because they need to produce law review articles. The law reviews are subsidized by student tuition money, read by nobody that actually practices law, and generally regarded as worthless. Law professors enjoy 6 figure salaries for doing very little work.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While it's doubtful that a Betsy DeVos led Department of Education is going to do jack squat about this, we can still hope that some sort of expansion of the gainful employment rule will be enacted. Expecting the completely captured ABA to tighten any sort of law school standards is simply delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This Patton scamster makes a selling point out of the high concentration of Black and Latino students at the stinkiest of the toilet schools, including his own (Whittier, better called Shittier).

    There are reasons for that high concentration, in particular the predatory approach to admission that exploits unqualified applicants solely because of their access to federally guaranteed student loans.

    In any event, toilets that can't even meet the low standard of 75% do not significantly enhance diversity in the legal profession, but they do take monstrous advantage of racialized people and saddle them (and the public) with colossal debt for the benefit of a mostly privileged and white population of professors and other scamsters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shittier was on probation for bar pass rates being in the toilet years ago. Quickly got off probation. Tells you all you need to know about the ABA.




      Delete
  6. Professor Deborah Merritt wrote this about the ABA decision on Bloomberg Law:

    But appeals to diversity ring hollow when schools pursue scholarship policies that disproportionately burden minority students. Law schools with low bar passage rates invoke diversity to justify admitting students who have little chance of passing the bar. But do those schools award scholarships to these at-risk students? Law schools turn their backs on diversity if they reserve scholarships for the most privileged students in their classes. They openly mock diversity if they force disadvantaged students to subsidize those privileged classmates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who cares whether they award "scholarships" to those students? They shouldn't be admitting those students at all.

      Delete
  7. This isn't surprising, though is it... I mean, everyone who's paid even a little attention to the law school scam knows that the ABA is too self-interested and too incompetent to enact actual reforms.

    Enforcement Now = fewer jobs for professors and admins almost immediately.

    Let the Dept of Ed do it = fewer jobs a few years down the road.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boomers have demonstrated themselves to be masters at kicking the can down the road, and there is a strong correlations between Boomers and ScamDeans/LawProfs/admins...

      Delete
  8. The ABA has no integrity. And hasn't had any for some time now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Particularly appropriate photo, Nando. I just wish there were a visual that depicted how incredibly warped the ABA's logic is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As I read this stuff, I don't know whether to have pity or disdain for the lemmings who decide to go to these low-tier cesspools. On the one hand, these law schools are engaging in deceitful marketing practices. But on the other hand, anybody with a functioning brainstem could spend about an hour online and come to the conclusion that matriculating in law school is probably a bad idea.

    I'm thinking that this is in part a product of our "everybody gets a (participation) trophy" mindset that pervades our education system and other parts of our society. If everyone gets a trophy for just trying to play soccer, then it follows that everyone who wants to go to law school can get into law school. Are these kids just a bunch of spoiled brats who think law school is just an easy way to a guaranteed six-figure salary without much in the way of merit?

    Nando, you've discussed at length how the law school pigs are ruining students' lives and burdening them with debt. But what of the cost to society? Too many lawyers = more frivolous law suits = increased costs of goods and services. And defaulted student loans ultimately cost the taxpayers money.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingFebruary 15, 2017 at 7:30 PM

    If enough prospective lawyers see these Chicagoland billboards shilling Traffic Ticket defense for $49.00, the market will take care of itself. No professional will work for $49.00 and kill a morning in court. Three or four hours at around $13.00 per hour. These billboards are the best advertising for not going to law school.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Captain, according to the firm website, they have nine attorneys willing to work for $49.00. Two of the attorneys attended The John Marshall Law School (like The Ohio State University, you put “The” in front of John Marshall) and one attended Western Michigan University (the firm website left out the Cooley part). One of the attorneys supplements their income as an adjunct at Loyola.

      Delete
  12. http://lawschooltruthcenter.blogspot.com/2017/02/thanks-aba-or-good-times-these-are-good.html

    On February 13, 2017, the Law School Truth Center featured an entry labeled “Thanks, ABA! or: Good Times, These are the Good Times!” Enjoy the following segment:

    “Remember how the ABA has been debating tightening bar examination pass rates with respect to law school accreditation? You don't, but they have.

    House of Delegates says nope! Diversity, that all-encompassing Wonderbread of American geopolitical argument, always cheap and filling, to the rescue:

    A storm of criticism has surrounded Standard 316’s proposed revision, which would have required that to meet accreditation standards, 75 percent of a law schools’ graduates must pass a bar exam within a two-year period. At a notice and comment hearing the section held in August, various groups, including the National Black Law Students Association (PDF), testified that the proposal failed to address racial inequities in the law school admissions process and legal education.

    According to data ... submitted for the hearing by William Patton, a professor emeritus at Whittier Law School, 33.4 percent of black students in California and 29.8 percent of the state’s Hispanic law students attend the five ABA-accredited law schools that would be most at risk of violating the proposed revision.

    And in January, the Association of American Law School’s Law School Deans Steering Committee wrote the council to ask it to withdraw the proposal, based on concerns about different state bar scoring standards, falling bar-passage rates and a lack of diversity in the profession.

    In other words, vague sociological ideals trump some strict "standard" that also happens to disadvantage quite a few law schools and other institutional actors who need more people of color in the feel-good brochures that solicit donation$ from mostly liberal lily-white donors.

    What I particularly love about this particular issue is that apparently no one in this "debate" has ever seriously questioned the Defenders of the Faith on what, exactly, the causal connection is between having race-neutral strict bar passage standards as an output and a sufficient level of minorities being enrolled in law schools as an input.

    It seems a highly relevant question where there is already a massive oversupply of lawyers generally and at least some minorities living in the legal profession's margins of incompetence or pseudo-poverty. And if the legal profession really is too damned white, couldn't we cull some of the barely ethical boomers pulling the slouching court system towards Gomorrah?

    Consider how beautifully nonsensical this argument becomes upon even a whiff of scrutiny: If minority students are able to pass the bar and the law schools deny them admission out of fear of stereotypical failure, the law schools are being blatantly racist. If minority students aren't able to pass the bar, the law schools aren't doing them a favor by admitting them.”

    Apparently, the pigs believe that adding legions more marginally-employed minority lawyers – and broke-ass JDs – somehow contributes to the “diversity” of this garbage “profession.” In the end, the bitches and hags will say and do ANYTHING, to get asses in seats. Because that is all they need. Get suckers to enroll, and when they can’t land decent legal employment, who gives a damn? “We merely offer an education.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they don't believe that. They don't give a tinker's damn about diversity. They're simply using racialized people to perpetuate the law-school scam.

      Delete
    2. This kind of reminds me of the complaints that Blacks took a disproportionate share of the casualties in the Vietnam War. Well, it's true that they did but the people who raise the issue try to pin it on racism within the military, which was not the problem. Volunteer or draftee, when you go in the service you take some tests. Then as now folks with higher scores were trained for more technical jobs while those with lower scores tended to end up in the infantry, which usually suffers the highest casualties.

      The problem was that a lot of the Black men who were going in were the products of segregated schools that tended to do a lot better on separate than on equal, so they in turn tended to score lower. The problem wasn't racism in the military, it was what these people came to the military with.

      In the law school context, if minorities are failing bar exams at a disproportionate rate the first question should be whether white students with equal credentials going into law school are doing the same on those exams. If they are then the issue that needs to be addressed has zero to do with race in admissions, and the solution is to find out why Blacks with lower credentials are getting into law schools at a disproportionate rate. If it's lack of opportunity to be properly prepared then in the long run far more good would be accomplished by dealing with the disadvantages these people face before law school rather than encouraging them to saddle themselves with a hopeless debt burden and then subjecting them to a push-them-off-the-dock-and-let-them-figure-it-out swimming lesson.

      When people professing to represent the interests of minority law students are preaching sink-or-swim the bitches and hags, who as Nando points out are just trying to fill seats and line their own pockets, have pretty much got a free pass.

      I mean, what the f*** is the point of demanding admission of people who will never be allowed to practice law even if they could find a job? How can you say you're helping them?

      Delete
    3. Spot on, 12:01 PM.

      Delete
    4. There was real racism within the draft boards, which were run almost exclusively by white people.

      Delete
    5. To help all with this, 25% of those who served "in country" during the war were draftees while draftees accounted for 30.4% of the combat deaths. (Draftees, overall, were 66% of those who served in World War II) Both the proportion of Blacks who died due to hostile action and the proportion who died by other causes (non-combat fatalities were over 18% of all deaths) were below Blacks' proportion of the draft-age population. We must all be careful with statistics and urban legends, but I think 12:01's overall point is still well taken.

      Delete
  13. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/02/california-law-deans-take-bar-exam-complaints-to-lawmakers-state-bar-director-admits-there-is-no-goo.html#more

    The West Coast swine are banding together to try and lower the bar, literally. The California bar exam is now "too hard" for the brain dead graduates these TTT skools currently churn out.

    Given that this state is already 7th in lawyers per capita and has dozens of unneeded ABA and non-ABA law schools, lowering the exam requirement is the LAST thing that should happen!





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the bar exam is intended to protect the public from incompetents and not to keep lawyers employed, but there is a bit of crossover. What I am seeing on the ground is that new grads of TTTs of marginal ability get a license and can't get a job. They then hang out a shingle but rarely last very long so they end up hurting clients while bidding rates down to absurd levels.

      Delete
  14. http://abovethelaw.com/2017/02/stat-of-the-week-25-of-schools-setting-up-significant-numbers-of-students-to-fail/

    On February 3, 2017, Brian Dalton guest posted an ATL entry entitled "Stat Of The Week: 25% Of Schools Setting Up Significant Numbers of Students To Fail." Here is the full text:

    "Yesterday, Law School Transparency revisited its 2015 investigation into the weakened admissions standards at dozens of law schools. Two years ago, LST concluded “a minority of schools made unethical admissions decisions in response to budgetary pressure.” This minority comprised 44 schools categorized as either “extreme risk” or “very high risk” based on 25th percentile 1L LSAT scores. (LSAT scores are the best predictor before law school of whether students will pass or fail the bar exam.)

    Today, LST finds that the group of “extreme” or “very high” risk schools has swollen to 51. In other words, “one in four law schools had gone too far in 2016, enrolling large numbers of students likely to fail.”

    You can see why the ABA cockroaches and law school pigs are so opposed to the tougher bar passage proposal. What beacons of integrity, huh?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Somebody rake these people over the coals:

    Quartz: Trump... made law school cool again.

    https://qz.com/909501/trumps-disregard-for-the-judicial-system-has-accidentally-made-law-school-cool-again/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Trump Administration will only last at most 4 years. The debt you incur from going to law school will last you a lifetime.

      Delete
  16. Law school is not about the students. It's about cushy jobs for professors. They could give a shit about the students. We've known this since the 1980s.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Newspaper editors in Tacoma really, really want a law school!

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/article133495419.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. Law professors are filthy cockroaches who transmit a disease called lifelong debt to their unwary students.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment is directed at lemmings who are still considering law school. Take note.

    Do you think - for one goddamn second - that you will be hired by a Biglaw firm, coming out of a toilet such as CreighTTTon, Pace, or Whittier? If not, then why in the hell are you willing to take on an additional $140K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt?!?! Do you believe that you can reasonably repay that amount, and pay for essentials, while earning $38K or $47K per year?

    If that is not your plan, then what is your end goal? Do you think that you are going to roll up in a brand new Maserati GranTurismo, dressed in a Brooks Brothers suit and sporting a $50,000 Patek Philippe watch, on some street thugs who need legal representation and score a big case? Perhaps, you feel that you will unexpectedly land a huge civil case, as some scientist will send you an encrypted email about unknown toxicity levels in the local bay that can be directly connected to some gigantic, evil corporation. Quit reading Grisham novels. Otherwise, you might end up employing a large black bodyguard with a shaved head, a criminal record, and black belts in three different martial arts disciplines.

    Representing the downtrodden is not a feasible way to pay off your student loans, and lead even a middle class lifestyle. Broke-asses cannot afford large legal bills, and they have just as many – if not more – legal problems than the typical person. If some drug-addled bitch with five kids from four different men cannot pay her monthly rent, then how do you figure she will be able to pay your ass for legal services?!?!

    Maybe you believe that you will be able to change or challenge the $y$tem. Yeah, good luck with that, genius. You aren’t the first person to think of that – and fail miserably. If you are able to land a legal aid position, then you will figure out quickly that you can’t do a damn thing when you are making $35K per year.

    In the final analysis, if you are not ridiculously connected, wealthy, or otherwise protected, you are not getting a Biglaw job coming out of a law school outside the top dozen. If your commode is not in the top 50, then you have a higher likelihood of a beautiful brunette waitress at your favorite restaurant coming over to you and serving you dessert under the table. Get the picture, Dumbass?!?!

    If your backup “plan” is to work in product liability or medical malpractice, do yourself a favor and perform a Google search on tort reform. Congress and state legislatures have placed limits on such awards. Also, as a solo “warrior,” you will be competing against well-heeled law firms and corporate entities that can bleed you dry, if they so choose. Also, why would clients hire you, Stupid, when they can hire well-established plaintiffs firms on a contingency basis?!?!

    Do you see yourself doing wills or estates and trusts? Look up LegalZoom and other forms providers. Plus, much of that is boilerplate anyway. Furthermore, most Americans don’t have much to leave to their family, other than maybe a home, a couple of nice items such as a horse saddle or a family heirloom necklace or watch.

    Lastly, if you go the route of DUI and traffic ticket defense, just realize that you will be one insignificant ant in a GLUTTED field. You will be required to “compete” against well known local law firms who have done this work for decades. They make money representing DUIs for $500, because they deal in volume. These firms take tons of cases, and make quick plea deals with the prosecution. You, moron, will NOT be able to represent individual clients, file numerous motions, make several appearances in court – and fight the charge all the way to a jury – for that tiny amount!

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics