Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Second Tier Sewer Dean David Faigman Posts LA Times Op-Ed Bitching About the California Bar Exam Being Too Difficult


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-faigman-california-bar-exam-cut-score-20170321-story.html

Crocodile Tears: On March 21, 2017, David Faigman posted a Los Angeles Times op-ed, headlined “The California bar exam flunks too many law school graduates.” Take a look at this opening:

“I still remember opening the envelope with my California bar exam results. It’s one of those flashbulb memories. I passed, with more relief than joy. Much has changed since then. Graduates no longer open envelopes; they check scores on a computer. I was a professor then, and now I am the dean. But the basic experience has not changed. Thousands of graduates continue to hold their breath each fall as they check their scores. A lot depends on those results.

Graduates who fail face losing jobs already started, not getting jobs that were promised, debt, embarrassment and more debt. Simply taking the exam again costs more than $700, and add to that the cost of further bar review classes, living expenses in the meantime and income lost. All told, thousands more dollars may be piled onto law school debt that is increasingly well above $100,000.

Most of those who fail their first attempt eventually pass the bar on the second or third try. After each attempt, however, these graduates do not learn to be better lawyers, they simply learn how to beat the test. And the damage done from the initial failure can be great. In addition to the financial costs, they may find themselves timed out of promising professional opportunities that never reappear. Finally, there are the emotional and psychological costs that are possibly the most overwhelming consequence of even one failed attempt.

Given the stakes for the individual law graduate, as well as the state’s obligation to ensure that those given a license to practice law are qualified, one would think the state bar, which administers the test, would have sound reasons for how it sets the line — the “cut score” — between passing and failing. If you thought that about California, you would be mistaken.” [Emphasis mine]

You consign your students to outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, but you are focusing on $700 for an applicant to re-take the bar exam?!?! That is the “logic” of law school pigs. Of course, these bastards are going to teach you how to “think like a lawyer.” By the way, have you ever laughed at how these supposed wordsmiths and “scholars” keep using this grammatically incorrect phrase?

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/12/whos-to-blame-for-schools-horrific-bar-results-maybe-the-california-bar-examiners/

Earlier Coverage: Back on December 6, 2016, Joe Patrice authored an ATL entry labeled “Who’s To Blame For School’s ‘Horrific’ Bar Results? Maybe The California Bar Examiners.” Enjoy the following segment:

“The California Bar Examiners have sent letters to law schools informing them of their passage rates. For UC Hastings, acting Dean David Faigman was on the receiving end of “horrific” news. The July 2016 passage rate for first-time takers from Hastings was a mere 51 percent. 

Holy hell.

Faigman certainly doesn’t sugarcoat it in a message sent to the Hastings community. He calls it unacceptable. He highlights that the school is 11 points below the state average. He outlines concrete efforts the school will make to help those who failed. He explains that he’s already taken steps designed to improve passage rates going forward. You can read his entire message and evaluate his proposals for yourself here. 

And while some alums are understandably dissatisfied with what they see as the deeper problem born of slackening admission standards in the post-industry collapse world, at least this school is willing to be blunt about its bar exam problem instead of hiding behind a wall of obfuscation… 

As an aside, let me express my utter incredulity with the conduct of the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California. The pass-rate for first-time takers of ABA accredited California law schools was 62%. In comparison, New York’s bar-pass rate was 83%. The California Bar is effectively saying that 38% of graduates from ABA accredited law schools are not qualified to practice law. This is outrageous and constitutes unconscionable conduct on the part of a trade association that masquerades as a state agency. 

However shameful the State Bar’s conduct, it does not relieve us of our obligation to fully prepare our students to pass the bar exam.” [Emphasis mine]

Your admi$$ion$ “standards” keep dropping, ass-wipe. Is that the state bar examiners’ fault?! 

http://www.uchastings.edu/about/admin-offices/financial-aid/cost/2015-16/index.php

The Toilet’s Tuition: As you can see, estimated in-state tuition and fees for full-time students at University of California, Hastings Commode of the Law stand at $48,971 – for the 2017-2018 school year. Non-residents attending on a full-time basis will be ass-raped to the tune of $54,971 in tuition and fees, for the same academic year. Still want to take the plunge, waterhead?!?! 

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+3

Check Out the Trash Pit’s Ranking: According to the cat litter box liner known as US “News” & World Report, the Univer$iTTy of California Ha$TTing$ Commode of the Law is co-rated as the 54th greatest, most fantastic and remarkable law school in the entire damn country! At least it only shares this “distinct honor” with two other diploma mills: University of Connecticut and University of Houston.

Conclusion: David Faigman is your typical academic con man. He takes no responsibility for his actions or those of his ABA-accredited dung heap. If the toilet takes in dumber students, in order to get more asses in seats, the resultant drop in bar passage rates is the the fault of somone else, i.e. lazy-ass JDs or the state bar examiners. How honorable, huh?!?!

27 comments:

  1. "Most of those who fail their first attempt eventually pass the bar on the second or third try. After each attempt, however, these graduates do not learn to be better lawyers, they simply learn how to beat the test. And the damage done from the initial failure can be great. In addition to the financial costs, they may find themselves timed out of promising professional opportunities that never reappear."

    Precisely why Law School should not be a six-figure endeavor, Dean Rocket-Scientist. Don't act like the Cartel isn't compounding the problem by making the Bar Exam a do-or-die situation.

    Gotta get dat six-figure salary, yo, off the back of six-figure-paying students.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the time of chimpanzees I wanted to be a doc review monkey
      Meth in my veins so I'm a strung out junkie
      With a shit ton of student loans, spray paint the windows
      Eating dog food but this is the path I chose
      Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
      Roll down the garage door and put it in cruise control
      My life’s in ruin and I can barely afford to pee

      Got a couple of couches sleep on the love seat
      Someone keeps sayin' I'm insane to complain
      About a shit ton o’ education and a shit stain on my shirt
      Don't believe everything that you casebook read
      You get a parking violation and a cop grabbing you on your sleeve
      So shave your face with some mace in the dark
      Savin' all your food stamps and burnin' down the trailer park

      I failed the bar exam
      I'm a loser baby so why don't you kill me?

      I failed the bar exam
      I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me?

      Forces of evil in a bar’zam nightmare
      Banned all the music with a phony bullet in the chamber
      Cause one's got a weasel and the other's got a flag
      One's got on the pole shove the other in a bag
      With the gun barrel shows and the lack of a job

      I failed the bar exam
      I’m a loser baby, so why I don’t I put a gun in my mouth and kill me?

      Delete
  2. There are 41 damn law schools in that state!

    The bar exam is hard b/c any dope can get a law degree from the back of a MAD magazine in CA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingMarch 22, 2017 at 9:11 PM

      You may have "41 damn" law schools in California, but I will bet you don't have any billboards advertising $49.00 Traffic Ticket Defense lawyers. Illinois only has 9 law schools but is blessed to have these wonderful billboards offering legal services to the underserved.

      Delete
  3. I am always entertained by the illogical arguments that we hear from the law deans and professors. Ask a law dean or professor about all the unemployed grads, and they will tell you that the unemployed grads are lazy, entitled, and unimaginative. You can do anything with a law degree! You can go into business, consulting, politics, or corporate compliance. One of the deans of career services at Wisconsin actually claimed that accounting firms prefer JDs over accountants, because you can teach a JD math, but you can’t teach an accountant law. Of course, there is the famous junk study touted by the deans and professors, that merely possessing a JD translates into an extra million dollars in earnings over a lifetime. This “study” supposedly included all JDs, not just practicing attorneys.

    These arguments failed to convince rational and intelligent people to enroll in law school. Applications plummeted, so law schools drastically lowered standards to keep up enrollment. As a consequence, bar passage rates plummeted.

    When the less qualified law students started failing the bar exam in substantial numbers, one would have expected the law deans and professors to tout the versatility of the JD. After all, if the grads can’t practice law because of the dearth of lawyer jobs or they failed the bar, then they can just take one of those amazing “JD advantage” jobs.

    But the law school deans don’t tell their students that fail the bar to take a “JD advantage” job. Instead they claim the bar exam is unfair and feign sadness that their grads will not obtain a job as a lawyer. The reason for this illogical argument is quite simple. There are no rules governing graduate employment rates. But there are ABA rules that sanction schools for having low bar passage rates. If the school is sanctioned by the ABA, they face the loss of access to student loans like Charlotte SoL.

    As has been said many times, law school deans and professors don’t give one damn about you, the student. They will do and say anything to get your student loan money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is exactly the conduct of a shyster lawyer. Charge an outrageous fee, promise a good result and then blame the judge or jury for everything...

      Delete
    2. "One of the deans of career services at Wisconsin actually claimed that accounting firms prefer JDs over accountants, because you can teach a JD math, but you can’t teach an accountant law."

      Amazing that ScamDeans and LawPrawfs spout this kind of arrogant, untruthful drivel. They are so self-unaware and tone-deaf that they can't begin to understand why everyone hates them.

      Delete
    3. "because you can teach a JD math"

      I'm not so sure about that.

      Delete
  4. The bar passage rates, if anything, are simply too high. These con artists are graduating students who can't even pass a basic competency exam after 3 years of law school. The real problem is the ABA allowing at least twice as many lawyers into law school and the Department of Education allowing to waste billions of tax dollars to fund this stupidity.

    Don't be like me kids, don't go to law school. I went to T4 with a 164 LSAT and thought I would get a job. There are no jobs. The market is collapsing slowly and it's not going to ever get better. If I can save one person from attending law school, this post was worth it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I'd make the bar exams more difficult. They're too damn easy.

      Delete
  5. "Most of those who fail their first attempt eventually pass the bar on the second or third try. After each attempt, however, these graduates do not learn to be better lawyers, they simply learn how to beat the test."

    No. At bar review, they actually learn the material for subjects that they either did not take in law school or were not properly taught in law school. Here's an idea; actually construct the legal curriculum around core legal subjects, make those required courses for the first two years, and (importantly) offer those courses every semester. Everyone who calls themselves an attorney should know the fundamentals of secured transactions, company law, evidence, domestic relations, alternative dispute resolution, insurance law, contract drafting, and damages. The faculty do not want to have any other courses than the standard first year courses required so they can continue to teach their arcane bullshit. Also, (and just listen to the faculty scream), every faculty member should have taken and passed the bar exam in the state where they teach so they can properly convey the nuances of local law.

    It's not just that the standards for admission are lower, but the law-and-ice-cream courses are more numerous and students are being encouraged to take these vanity courses instead of core legal subjects. A 3L friend of mine complained last year that there was only one section of evidence offered during his entire third year, and it closed due to full enrollment. There were plenty of bullshit courses available though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Law and Ice Cream? I used to say Law & Marshmallows.

      Professors teach those bullshit courses because they can. Scheduling a section or two of Civil Evidence practically requires an act of Congress. But there will always be an assload of useless shite along the lines of "Hip-Hop and the US Constitution", preferably all in lower-case letters.

      Delete
  6. Throwaway AttorneyMarch 22, 2017 at 12:14 PM

    This kind of thinking is so out of touch with the realities of the legal job market. I mean, who really gives a shit about bar passage rates if a graduate can’t get a job regardless of whether he or she passes?

    Just looking at LST's numbers for this place ought to make a prospective student want to vomit. A quick perusal at this school’s post-graduation employment numbers reveals numbers more akin to a third-tier toilet than just another high-ranked California trap school.

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

    And those are 2015's numbers...

    Obviously, Dean Faigman continues to wrongly believe that there continues to exist an abundance of legal jobs being created for people who actually manage to pass the bar. Faigman ought to know by now that this is simply not the case.

    Do some basic math here: If only 20% of UC Hastings' grads are landing large firm gigs right out of the gate and only 40% of its graduates managed to have a job waiting for them at graduation, something should be sending up a huge red flag. 15.3% of this school’s graduates never even found work after graduation.

    And let's face it: Most good-paying lawyer jobs in California end up going to Stanford, Berkeley and the other top 8 law school graduates. The kids of the rich and connected classes end up getting the rest.

    Clearly, Dean Faigman, just like any other scam dean, only cares about his school's graduates passing the bar. From there, he can simply wash his hands of the 50% or more graduates who end up losing the law school gamble. Things like being able to competently represent a client or paying back student loans aren’t this guy’s responsibility.

    The fact remains that there simply aren't enough bar license required jobs being created for all the new grads being churned out by way too many law schools. People like Dean Faigman know this, yet continue to put their own self interest first.

    That the ABA refuses to do anything about the realities of legal education and lawyer overproduction only reinforces the notion that this profession is in serious need of reform.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was a news story last year about a 2016 Hastings grad who committed suicide after learning that he failed the California bar. The stories focused on the bar failure and largely ignored the fact that this poor sap was also very much unemployed at the time he killed himself (i.e., 6 months after graduation). If you have a job and fail the bar, most employers will at least give you a chance to pass the February exam before kicking you to the curb. But if you fail the bar when you are unemployed, you’re in big trouble. The first question any prospective employer will ask is if you passed the bar. As soon as you say no, your resume goes on the reject pile. Best case scenario, you study for and pass the February exam. But by the time you find out the results, you are competing for jobs with a whole new graduating class and most employers will see you as damaged goods. That Hastings grad was fucked, and he knew it.

      It would be interesting to know what percentage of the people who fail the California bar are unemployed. I bet it’s pretty high. But, like you said, you don’t hear the scam deans talking about that. They can put pressure on the bar examiners to lower the passing score, but they can’t force employers to hire their grads.

      Delete
    2. David Feigman is a parasite. He drains loan money from the government, yet provides nothing valuable in return. He should be removed from his overpaid position and forced to pick oranges 6 days a week.

      Delete
  7. I know someone who went to one of these for-profit law schools in California and failed the bar, but fortunately, she did not lose any income because - wouldn't you know it - she did not have a job lined up when she graduated. Just like 72.3% of her fellow graduates.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I knew a guy who went to an ABA shit pit. Ended up working in a grocery store afterward. But, um, yeah, law skool's a good bet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I passed the New York bar exam in 1993 as did 90% of the test takers that July. It is unfathomable that the majority of test takers in a given state these days do not pass the bar exam. I can't think of something more scandalous than to spend 200k-300k on an education that results in a failure to become licensed in a given field. My goodness gracious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too passed the NY Bar in 93. I knew a lot of people who took the exam that summer, and none of us failed. But of course, back then, even shitty law schools had real admission standards. I didn’t exactly bust my ass studying either. I went to a Bar Bri class on week days and spent a couple hours studying every night. As the exam got closer, I studied a little more. That was it. As long as you have the aptitude, it’s not that hard. If you don’t have the aptitude, that’s another story. The pinheads coming out law school today all too often lack the aptitude. Just like the average Joe can’t dunk a basketball, they can’t pass the bar. So the scam deans have decided that the rim needs to be lowered.

      Delete
    2. The bar exam is the last line of defense against the collapse of the public's trust in the profession. The work required to pass the bar exam pales in comparison to the work that we lawyers do every day. The real scandal is that the students are taken for a ride for years before they are finally prevented from practicing law. The weeding out process needs to occur at the beginning of the journey, not the end.

      Delete
  10. https://www.lstreports.com/schools/hastings/admissions/

    Take a look at the commode’s sinking admi$$ion$ “standards” – courtesy of Law School Transparency:

    “Fall 2016
    25th percentile LSAT: 156
    50th percentile LSAT: 159
    75th percentile LSAT: 161

    Fall 2015
    25th percentile LSAT: 155
    50th percentile LSAT: 159
    75th percentile LSAT: 161

    Fall 2014
    25th percentile LSAT: 155
    50th percentile LSAT: 158
    75th percentile LSAT: 161

    Fall 2013
    25th percentile LSAT: 155
    50th percentile LSAT: 159
    75th percentile LSAT: 163

    Fall 2012
    25th percentile LSAT: 157
    50th percentile LSAT: 162
    75th percentile LSAT: 165

    Fall 2011
    25th percentile LSAT: 157
    50th percentile LSAT: 162
    75th percentile LSAT: 165

    Fall 2010
    25th percentile LSAT: 160
    50th percentile LSAT: 164
    75th percentile LSAT: 165”

    In the span of six years, the 25th and 75th percentile LSAT scores both decreased by four points, and the 50th percentile figure went down by five. Yet, Cockroach David Faigman wants to complain and cry about the state bar exam being too damn difficult. Do you see the bitch holding his own toilet responsible?!?! Did the California Bar Examiners order this ABA-accredited dung heap to admit morons and cretins?! Then again, what the hell do you expect from the “Chancellor & Dean” and John F. Digardi Di$TTingui$hed Profe$$or of Law at UC Ha$TTing$ COL?

    http://www.uchastings.edu/faculty/faigman/index.php

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Nando - Remember when the principal LS talking point was to call all of us "whiners" for calling out the scam? Complaining about the substance of a bar exam (that didn't seem to be a big issue before the scam was exposed and the schools had to resort to enrolling any moron who took the LSAT) for the miserable passage rates sure seems like whining to me!

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://abovethelaw.com/2015/07/california-bar-exam-cut-from-three-days-to-two/

    Back on July 27, 2015, Joe Patrice wrote an ATL article entitled "California Bar Exam Cut From Three Days to Two." Here is the full text of that post:

    "Rejoice, future California lawyers! The CA State Bar Board of Trustees just voted to scale back the state’s onerous three-day exam, said by some to be the hardest bar exam in the country, to a more comfortable two-day affair.

    This isn’t an entirely unexpected development. Back in March, Excess of Democracy reported that that California was weighing a proposal to alter the test format to include one day of essays (5 one-hour essays and a 90-minute performance test) and one day of the MBE, with both days weighed equally. As noted in that post, this scales back the performance test from its previous 3-hour length. This may not make the test “easier” — indeed, California will probably shift the scoring around to maintain their famously high standards — but the process of sitting for the exam will definitely become a lot more pleasant. It also raises the possibility of California bar candidates taking a second state’s test.

    News of the vote spread throughout the Twittersphere over the last hour, with the State Bar Law Practice Management and Technology Committee tweeting about the unanimous vote:

    LPMT Section
    @calbarlpmt

    The State Bar of #California Board of Trustees vote unanimously to shorten bar exam to two days from three, beginning July 2017.
    #calbar

    1:39 PM - 27 Jul 2015

    The change will take place effective July 2017, so condolences to all the rising 3Ls out there who have to sweat out another marathon session next July (and, God forbid, the following February).

    We reached out to the California State Bar earlier, but they did not have anyone available to comment on such short notice. We will edit this story to include any statement they may offer.

    Meanwhile, every California lawyer should start working on their “in my day…” stories about how newly minted lawyers are soft. Those should keep everyone entertained for a few decades."

    Apparently, Patrice celebrated too early. It seems the dolts performed poorly, despite having the exam cut down to two days. Imagine that, people! The pigs admitted more waterheads and dim bulbs - and the bar exam has hammered them. Still want to incur an additional $158,754.22 in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a worthless-ass law degree from an ABA toilet?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  13. If they fail once, it'll cost them $700 more to retake it. (sobbing)

    Yeah, but you motherfuckers don't see it as a problem for the students when you charge them $45K per year in tuition. Even if the school is a piece of shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charge $700 to take it the first time but $7000 to take it again.

      Delete
  14. "The bar exam is the last line of defense against the collapse of the public's trust in the profession. The work required to pass the bar exam pales in comparison to the work that we lawyers do every day. The real scandal is that the students are taken for a ride for years before they are finally prevented from practicing law. The weeding out process needs to occur at the beginning of the journey, not the end."

    Amen to that, Star Gazer!

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics