Sunday, May 14, 2017

Are Low-Ranked, ABA-Accredited Toilets at Risk of Closing?


http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/the-law-schools-with-the-lowest-and-highest-acceptance-rates/

Commodes With the Highest Acceptance Rates: On May 9, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “The Law Schools With The Lowest (And Highest) Acceptance Rates.” Take a look at the following excerpt:

“What do things look like on the opposite side of the coin? For your daily dose of schadenfreude, we’ve done some research to present our readers with the top 10 law schools with the highest acceptance rates. Check them out:

[Respective figures are for the following:] School Full-time and part-time applicants (fall 2016); Full-time and part-time acceptances; Acceptance rate; U.S. News rank (2018) 

Thomas M. Cooley 1,067; 915; 85.8 percent; RNP 
Loyola New Orleans 711; 603; 84.8 percent; RNP 
Thomas Jefferson 1,107; 915; 82.7 percent; RNP 
Vermont 647; 524; 81 percent; 134 (tie)
Capital 528; 418; 79.2 percent; RNP 
Charleston 1,165; 912; 78.3 percent; RNP 
Northern Kentucky 420; 327; 77.9 percent; RNP 
Creighton 903; 688; 76.2 percent; 120 (tie) 
Willamette 507; 376; 74.2 percent; 142 (tie) 
Mitchell Hamline 1,033; 750; 72.6 percent; RNP

Cooley no longer has to settle for being the second-best law school in the country, because the school is finally the best at something. Congratulations, Cooley! As for the rest of the law schools with the highest acceptance rates, the fact that their admissions offices have to accept so many applicants in a world where law schools are merging or closing their doors is a bit… concerning.” [Emphasis mine]

Hell, that list is beyond pathetic. If you are considering any of the commodes on that list, then you do not have the mental capacity to walk to your neighborhood convenience store and back. You would be at a high risk of crossing the street into oncoming traffic.

https://bol.bna.com/are-law-schools-with-low-bar-pass-rates-at-risk-of-closing/

Low Bar Passage Rates: On May 12, 2017, Bloomberg Law published a Stephanie Russell-Kraft piece entitled “Are Law Schools with Low Bar Pass Rates at Risk of Closing?” Enjoy this opening:

“The University of La Verne College of Law enrolls over 100 students each year, and if past history is any indication, only slightly more than half, 54 percent, will likely pass the bar on their first try after graduation. 

Should that affect whether it stays open? 

The disconnect between a school’s low bar passage rate, relative to other schools in the country, and its ability to draw applicants raises a question that’s been looming for legal education regulators: Is the bar passage rate the best way to measure whether a law school is adequately preparing its students to become lawyers?

On one side, there are voices urging the ABA to raise the standard of graduates who must pass the bar exam on their first attempt. They say the high cost of a legal education means schools owe it to their students to guarantee a certain level of success and chance of a career in the law.

“When law schools admit students, they are making at least an implicit representation to these people that they are going to be or at least quite likely be eligible to practice law,” said Paul Campos, a professor at [University of Colorado,] who studies legal education. “I do think the ABA ought to be more aggressive in forcing schools to be more explicit about risks associated with not becoming eligible to become an attorney.”

Others argue the ABA’s standards would limit diversity in the legal profession by disproportionately forcing the closure of law schools that serve historically underrepresented populations. They claim a focus on bar passage rates does not adequately capture their success or account for the role they play in their communities. 

La Verne’s Dean Gilbert Holmes said critics such as Campos get it wrong: The bar passage rate measured by the ABA only looks at first-time scores. If a student fails but then retakes the bar and passes, that pass is not counted. Holmes claimed that over three years, a much higher percentage of his students — from 83 to 92 percent depending on the year — pass the bar.” [Emphasis mine]

Pig Gilbert Holmes is a con man, along with the rest of the “legal education” cartel. He asserts a high eventual pass rate – without providing any facts or proof. However, the swine conveniently fails to point out that law firms typically do not bother to hire JDs from non-elite schools, if they take too long to pass a bar exam. After all, the diploma mills keep pushing out FAR TOO MANY graduates each year. Why look at a La Verne dolt who got licensed three years after earning his TTTT law degree?!?!

Conclusion: Low-ranked trash pits will continue to operate, as long as the the spigot of federal government loans keeps running. Idiots still believe that THEY will personally buck the trend. If these cretins were truly exceptional, then they would not end up in law schools that admit anyone with a pulse. Don't go into financial ruin, in order to pay under-worked, lazy-ass "law professors" a handsome salary, i.e. try not be too damn stupid.

44 comments:

  1. Many years ago, someone investigating the many diploma mills that award a PhD for "life experience" and a thousand bucks got his cat such fine academic laurels—presumably on the strength of Fluffy's many years of scratching up furniture and chasing small animals.

    Might a cat get into Cooley? That might depend on its eligibility for federally guaranteed student loans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Old Guy is referring to Colby Nolan, the wonder cat who "earned" an MBA from something called Trinity University. From a May 31, 2013 post entitled "Zooniversity." Enjoy this portion:

      http://nowiknow.com/zooniversity/

      "In 2004, Colby Nolan graduated with a masters of business administration (MBA) from Trinity Southern University in Texas. He had a 3.5 grade point average, according to his official transcript, making him out to be a very strong student. But Trinity Southern did not know much about Colby. Trinity Southern, a correspondence school of sorts, only asked about Mr. Nolan’s work experience, awarding him an MBA based on his life’s experiences. He had worked a paper route, babysat, and once had a job at a fast food joint, the school learned. They didn’t care that Nolan, a lifelong Pennsylvania resident, only wanted a bachelor’s degree. They probably didn’t care that his entire résumé was a lie. And the school most likely never knew that Colby was only six years old at the time. Because while any of this should have precluded Trinity Southern from giving this particular student an master’s degree, one other fact trumps them all.

      Colby Nolan was a cat.

      Yes, an actual house cat — owned, in this case, by a deputy attorney general in the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office. As the Associated Press reported, the Pennsylvania AG’s office was running a sting operation. Trinity Southern was widely regarded as a “degree mill,” a faux educational institution which sold diplomas without actually educating the customers. For $299, Trinity Southern would give you a bachelor’s degree; for $100 more, qualified (whatever that meant) candidates could receive an executive MBA. To demonstrate the incredibly lax (to say the least) standards of the so-called University, the Pennsylvania authorities concocted a scheme to get Colby the cat into college. It worked, and Colby earned his degree (and for an extra $99, his owner was able to get a copy of his transcript). The owners of Trinity Southern were fined and the business was shut down."

      Hell, if this cat had received a law degree from Cooley, TJ$L, CreighTTTon, or any of the other trash pits on this list, then it would probably water down the value of his MBA. At least, you could then use the JD as liner for the cat's litter box.

      Delete
  2. But my neighbor's sister's coworker's mailman's 3rd cousin got a law firm job after passing the bar'zam on the 4th attempt. So there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Looking at those acceptance numbers I am reminded of Caron's observation that no school will ever get to numerical 100% acceptance because they have to weed out the seriously mentally ill, including those who show the potential to "go Appalachian." I would submit, therefore, that places like Cooley and Loyola-ew Orleans are de facto at the point of open admissions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They also have to turn down people who don't submit a full application (maybe omitting an LSAT score or a transcript) and those who don't satisfy the very few and minimal requirements (such as having completed a degree, although even that is not a requirement at Cooley's campuses in Michigan). Such applicants must be particularly common at the Cooleys.

      So, yes, these toilets effectively practice open admissions.

      Personal statement, written in crayon: "I is applyin a this hear law skule so's I kin bee a loyer an make lotsa munny."

      Admissions office: "Us'n's is happy ta give youse a 50% skollership."

      Delete
    2. Do they accept people who don't speak English?

      Delete
    3. Do they accept people who do?

      Delete
  4. Throwaway AttorneyMay 14, 2017 at 4:27 PM

    You hit the nail on the head, Nando. These career and life killing law schools will continue to operate until the feds stop backing student loans to attend. And there are plenty of suckers out there who will gladly sign their life away for a law degree from one of these places in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence proving these places can barely prepare students to pass a bar examination and offer few, if any, genuine career opportunities.

    You're doing the Lord's work here, man. I only hope people learn from yours and our mistakes.

    A law degree from a growing majority of U.S. law schools is no longer worth the cost in time, money and opportunities to pursue other careers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agreed, an 80%+ acceptance rate is essentially open admissions. At that rate, the only people not getting in are pretty much just those with significant criminal histories, frank mental health problems, and/or people who lack the ability to satisfactorily complete the application process.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cooley's accepting almost 86% of applicants? Who the fuck aren't they admitting? Repeat felons? Those with documented mental illness? People with 126 LSATs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And people whose application includes a statement such as "I am not eligible for student loans, so I hope that you will give me a generous discount".

      Delete
  7. I really hope another law school shuts down soon, and that Whittier wasn't an exception but the start of a trend.

    Still (and sorry I didn't mention this sooner)... what is the likelihood that other bottom-tier toilers will try to absorb the displaced Whittier students to increase their own enrollment? Would a law school closure here or there help other bottom-feeder law schools?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Short term, yes, but the trend is about parent universities growinng weary of the red ink and stand-alones with small endowments unable to generate enough tuition cash flow. Just putting off the inevitable.

      Delete
    2. Some people who otherwise would have gone to Shittier or Indiana Tech may end up at Thomas Jefferson or Valpo. Others will be frightened away from the law-school scam. Even if the closures don't shock toileteers, they may shock people of higher intelligence—the types that might have gone to a Tier 4 or even a Tier 3 institution, rather than a Tier 6.

      Anyway, a few extra students might not sustain a Tier 6 über-toilet (unter-toilet?). I don't think that the closure of some toilets will be a significant boon to others.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, you guys are right, thanks for pointing all that out. Still, here's hoping that even more close, and soon.

      Delete
  8. Seems these schools are about as selective as community colleges. And this is supposed to be professional school. Yeah right.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The problem with passing the bar on your third or fourth try, is that it pushes you back to compete against several additional classes of law school graduates and you can't show that you were practicing law during this 1-3 year gap. So solo land here you come!

    Unless of course you are John John, aka JFK Jr. but he was white, rich (family money) had political clout, and graduated from NYU school of law (a top 14) Plus his employer gave him up to three tries to pass. (most employers only give two chances if that.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, there are several problems: taking the test over and over again costs a lot of time and money, interferes with employment (not many unsuccessful candidates could prepare again for the exams while holding down a full-time job), and, as you said, leaves one uncompetitive for positions in law.

      Delete
  10. Speaking of low ranked toilets closing, the last class just graduated from Indiana TTTTTech. Graduate Noah Moore told The Indiana Lawyer, that he plans to move to Georgia and look to begin his career in either the district attorney’s office or the public defender agency. Sure buddy, with all of the unemployed grads out there, your degree from defunct Indiana TTTTTech will stand out above the rest.

    Another graduate, 60 year old Philip Davis, plans to stay in Fort Wayne and practice real estate and business law. Davis told The Indiana Lawyer that the education was a mixed bag. Davis said that having done some pro se work, he had more Indiana trial experience than the entire faculty at the school. What a prestigious school!

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of the 21 graduates, only 5 attended the graduation ceremony, as they didn't want to have to shake the hand of the university's president, whom they seem to blame for killing their toilet law school. Instead, 17 of them attended a separate event at the local public library, where scam-dean Cercone gave them their degrees.

      Oh, brilliant. Snub the president but embrace the scam-dean. Idiot lemmings.

      And Indiana Tech managed to misspell Philip Davis's name on the program. How the hell could they mangle that name?

      And get this line from one of the graduates: "having done some pro se work, he said at one point he had more Indiana trial experience than the entire faculty at the school." That may well be true. Certainly the ass-eyed jokers hired by Indiana Tech don't inspire confidence.

      Delete
  11. I would expect to see more ABA shitholes take in welfare recipients and recovering drug addicts. Those idiots have dreams too. Why not sink them with a shit ton of student loans too?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with May 14, 2017 at 4:27 PM. You are doing the Lord's work here, Nando.

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.livescience.com/59065-deep-blue-garry-kasparov-chess-match-anniversary.html

    On May 11, 2017, LiveScience commemorated the 20 year anniversary of the IBM supercomputer victory over world chess champion Garry Kasparov, in a piece by Assistant Managing Editor Denise Chow. The article was entitled "Deep Blue vs. Garry Kasparov: 20th Anniversary of Epic Chess Match." Here is the full text below:

    "It took just 19 moves. Today marks the 20th anniversary of an epic chess match between IBM's computer Deep Blue and world chess champion Garry Kasparov. On May 11, 1997, the undefeated Kasparov faced off against the chess-playing machine in the sixth and final game of a hotly contested match. After only 19 moves, Deep Blue claimed victory over the chess champ, marking a key milestone in the burgeoning world of artificial intelligence.

    "I lost my fighting spirit," Kasparov said as he resigned the final game, reported The New York Times.

    It was the first time a chess champion was bested by a machine in a traditional chess match, and it was a stunning demonstration of the computing power of machines over the human brain. In the best-of-five match, Kasparov won the first game, Deep Blue won the second, and then the subsequent three matches ended in draws, setting the stage for the sixth and final game.

    After the fifth game, Kasparov said he had not been in the mood for playing, and when asked to elaborate on his outlook, he said: "I'm a human being. When I see something that is well beyond my understanding, I'm afraid," he said, according to the Times."

    In my view, Garry Kasparov is the greatest chess player in recorded history. He had a great fighting style, and he was brilliant across the board. This match was a watershed moment in human history. It signaled a sea change in the way we view knowledge. While Alan Turing’s vision of artificial intelligence has not come to fruition, since supercomputers do not think, they are capable of doing the work of thousands – in the fraction of the time. They are also more accurate on many tasks than are humans.

    In the years since, technology has continued to advance by leaps and bounds, while people have remained about the same. I’m pretty sure that human brains are not going to increase in size the way that computer systems can. Brute force computational and analytical power can get the job done. The IBM programmers would not have had a prayer playing against Kasparov in a real chess game, yet they relied on volumes of data to give their machine the chance to win.

    Advanced computer programs can now write music, operate cars and military weapons, and IBM’s Watson is now capable of answering questions posed in natural language. The next phase appears to be developing artificial general intelligence. Good luck to millions of workers when the bastards make real inroads into AGI. Do you think – for one goddamn second – that companies, investors, boards of directors, venture capitalist pigs, HR heads, and business owners are going to choose to pay for insurance, sick leave, office space, payroll, when they can rely on supercomputers to perform large volumes of work for a fraction of the cost of a human workforce?!?! You have already seen the effect of software programs, predictive coding, LPOs, etc. on legal work, as these developments have lessened the need for lawyers.

    https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/twenty-years-deep-blue-vs-kasparov-how-chess-match-started-big-data-revolution-ck-202934

    ReplyDelete
  14. You just might see more toilets close. Go on any of the law professor blogs like the Faculty Lounge or Tax Prof Blog, these people are totally divorced from reality. A few years ago, I remember that Pig Leiter claiming that scam bloggers were comparable to the tea bag movement. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The scam blog movement merely points to objective facts regarding cost, the low bar passage rates due to schools admitting anyone with a pulse, and the abysmal employment prospects. Prospective law students saw the objective facts and turned away from law schools in droves. Law professors live in an echo chamber, in which they claim without evidence that their unemployed grads eventually get jobs making an extra million dollars over a lifetime, they partially cite BLS statistics to claim the legal market had another “banner year” while ignoring the negative data provided by the BLS, and they decry pay cuts or restrictions on travel expenses because they gave up million dollar per year careers in big law.

    Over on Tax Prof Blog, a commenter going by 40YearLawProf summed up what they see as the problem today with law schools:

    “In the past 30 years the search criteria for law professor candidates changed 180* from top graduates from top schools who had 4 to 8 years of LAW practice on their resumes to PhD's who have no work experience (who is hiring Humanities PhDs?) in any field but who have managed to graduate in the upper half of their class at an upper half law school... When I left Big Law, I traded wealth for influence. Good trade. The PhD-JD's follow a different track. They have no interest in Contracts, Civil Procedure, Business Associations, Evidence, Taxation, or other legal subjects. Occasionally they would "deign" to teach one but their hearts are not in lawyering. They are still interested in their PhD subjects now clothed in a lawyer suit and marketed to law reviews who need material. So law schools have two dozen ‘Law and ...’ courses and produce graduates who can't pass the state bar exam on the first try...”

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/05/why-are-law-professors-so-unhappy.html#comments

    Look at this pig’s logic. This pig completely ignores the drastic decline in admission standards in recent years, a significant development in legal education. This pig places the blame for abysmal bar exam results on the people who threaten their job – the recent trend of hiring PhD-JDs. I’ve read better arguments in Donald Trump tweets.

    Of course, like every other law school pig, this law professor had to make reference to giving up the wealth of big law, because earning over $200k a year as a law professor is a pittance.

    The pigs don’t want to change. They want to blame everyone but themselves and continue working 6 hours a day for a six figure salary. They don’t seem to grasp the perilous situation they are in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. —— In the past 30 years the search criteria for law professor candidates changed 180* from top graduates from top schools who had 4 to 8 years of LAW practice on their resumes to PhD's who have no work experience (who is hiring Humanities PhDs?) in any field but who have managed to graduate in the upper half of their class at an upper half law school.

      It's worse than that. Coming from a law school in the so-called top half isn't good enough by a long shot. Law schools want people from Yale or Harvard; Columbia will do, and sometimes Michigan, but not the U of Alabama or Carbozo. Even Vanderbilt and UCLA, from the top of Tier 4, would be undesirable, except perhaps at an InfiLaw-grade toilet.

      And top half of the class? I doubt whether the law-school scam dips far below the top 15%, unless the diploma says Harvard or Yale.

      Note also that in better times (still far from glorious) the law schools wanted professors with "4 to 8 years of LAW practice". That has to do, once again, with age. People past their early 30s were not wanted. Today the age limit is even lower, around 30. Old Guy would never be considered, except perhaps as an adjunct paid $3000 for a semester, with no office, no e-mail, no telephone, no stationery, no library card, and of course no acknowledgement whatsoever from tenured "colleagues".

      Many law profe$$ors are openly contemptuous of practice. Showing any interest in practice is a sure way to foreclose a hackademic career. The aspiring professor's publications had damn well better not include anything of use to bench or bar; no, let them opine uselessly, stale and unread, about hip-hop or one's favorite low-grade Hollywood films.

      Delete
  15. Rarely is there any talk in this blog about what is good for the American public. The legal profession poorly serves the American public at large. They only take cases that they can easily win. Cases against big pharma are rare. The majority of lawyers serve the ruling classes and those with money in the bank. At this point, i think we ought to address these topics in this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing stops you from submitting an article.

      Delete
    2. 34th, your post strongly suggests that you have never engaged in the private practice of law. If you have, how many money-losers did you take on on principle and how many times did you sue "Big Pharma?"

      Delete
    3. Er, lawyers (I am assuming you are referring to PI) only take cases they can easily win because litigation costs a great deal of money and if you work on a contingency fee basis, the cases you win are what actually pays the bills. Do you think people can just be crusaders for justice without getting paid? Lawyers (I guess you are not referring to public defenders) serve "those with money in the bank" because lawyers have bills to pay.

      Delete
    4. I never said I did practice law. You made my whole point. The profession in this country doesn't serve the public well. Do you practice law? If you do I wonder how you did in reading comprehension on the lsat.

      Delete
    5. The term I used was "strongly suggests" that you have never practiced law, I did not say that you did. Perhaps you need to look at your reading comprehension. Did your parents send you to public school? I'd say my comprehension was spot-on.

      Beyond that, 5:07 pretty much sums it up. If you ever do practice law, in the short time before you go broke for the sake of your principles, you will start hearing from people who can't pay their rent but expect you to work on credit, have a sure-fire-winner case against the cops for police brutality while the prospective client was blotto drunk, etc. Good luck making payroll. In my state not making payroll is a crime.

      Delete
    6. All this proves that no one including the legal profession are protecting the interests of the public when it comes to faulty pharmaceuticals etc. It is all about who has the deepest pockets.

      Delete
    7. Why aren't you doing it? Talk is cheap, action costs money.

      Delete
    8. Mr. Anonymous, do you think the law profession should continue to be looked down on in this country? Why can't it be improved? In the UK to be a barrister is a respected profession. Are they respected here? It has become a joke. I am not a lawyer but I am spreading my ideas. I never suggested that a solo should take on the big corporations. But there are big firms out there who can afford to. What is wrong with a bit of fairness and actual justice? Would you be happy if one of your relatives was injured by a defective pill or surgical instrument while in the care of a Doctor?

      Delete
  16. That Laverne law dump has GOT to be on its last legs.

    Only 7 out of 51 grads with actual law jobs and 24 not working10 mths after graduation!?! I don't think even special snowflake, 135 lsat lemmings will dip their toes in that tar pit much longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All this can be yours for the low price of $56k per year. And 91% of our students pay full fare! Call today at 800 TOILETS and apply over the telephone.

      Delete
    2. Wow. No wonder these pigs don't disclose student loan debt data!

      Delete
  17. Hey Nando,

    Drake is now offering 50% off scholarships to students from select HBCUs, in order to get more asses in seats. No word on whether those are conditional scholarships. During the 2015-2016 Academic Year, 21 out of 44 lemmings at Drake had their conditional scholarship reduced or eliminated. Last year, only 543 people even applied to that toilet. The school accepted 61% of those students. They only managed to get 107 lemmings to matriculate. Drake is simply following the same marketing strategy that the tobacco companies pursued. When consumers turn away from your dangerous product, then it’s time to aggressively market to minorities!

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/drake_university_and_3_hbcus_announce_law_school_and_pharmacy_scholarship_p

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drake now charges $40k per year. Even half off is no bargain to attend a school that barely makes Tier 4. Stay the hell away.

      I agree that this is just a desperate ploy to take advantage of Black people. Honky and gringo strongholds such as Iowa and Vermont have seen their invariably toilety law schools scramble to curry favor with distant Black colleges, in the name of "diversity". As 2:36 pointed out, however, this interest in Black people coincides with sharp declines in enrollment of toileteers. By going after Black people, these toilet schools hope to avoid becoming the next Whittier or Indiana Tech.

      Delete
  18. The age of open admissions has arrived.

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2017/01/now-that-some-law-schools-are-really-closing-what-will-make-other-universities-pull-the-trigger.html

    On January 18, 2017, PrawfsBlawg featured an Eric Chiapoinelli entry labeled “Now that some law schools are really closing, what will make other universities pull the trigger?” Read the following:

    “After years of speculation, law schools are actually closing and that is big news. Most saliently, Indiana Tech announced that its law school will close at the end of this academic year at a loss of $20 million, a story the National Law Journal named as one of its top five stories of the year on legal education. Charlotte School of Law's continued existence is in significant doubt because it can no longer participate in federal student aid programs. Hamline University closed its law school with more stealth, but no less certainty, by giving or selling it to William Mitchell College of Law, a cross-town competitor.

    It is tempting to extrapolate from these schools and predict that universities will be most likely to close law schools that (a) are start-ups, (b) have low admissions criteria coupled with poor bar passage, (c) are not the most prestigious school in a crowded regional market, or (d) are losing considerable amounts of money. But the experience of dentistry, where 12% of schools closed -- equivalent to 24 law schools -- suggests that these factors will not be the crucial ones in predicting which law schools are at risk of closing.

    In both dentistry and law, a tectonic shift and contraction in the profession led to a collapse in the admissions market and a crisis in the professional schools. That crisis caused several universities to close their dental schools.

    But only one of the seven dental schools to close was a start-up. Oral Roberts University's dental school had been in operation for only five years when the board made the decision to close the school. None of the schools had admissions policies that were significantly more lax than schools that remained in operation. None of the schools had a significantly worse track record in regard to students' performance on the national dental licensing exams than other schools, although the performance of dental graduates overall fell considerably during the crisis in dental education.

    Rather than being at generic institutions, most of the closed dental schools were located within prestigious universities. Northwestern, Georgetown, Emory, and Washington University all closed their dental schools, as did Fairleigh Dickinson and Loyola University in Chicago. Perhaps paradoxically, one of the reasons cited for closing Washington University's dental school was that it was the high-end dental school in its region.

    Most of the seven shuttered schools were losing money, but not all of them. More critically in terms of predicting closure, the great majority of dental schools nationally lost money, yet only seven were closed. In fact, two of those, Oral Roberts and Fairleigh Dickinson, were closed in large part because of financial trouble within the university, not the dental school.”

    https://www.depts.ttu.edu/law/faculty/e_chiappinelli.php

    As you can see, this chump teaches at the TTTexa$ TTTech Univer$iTTTy Sewer of Law. The comparison to the scaling back of the numbers of U.S. dental schools is apt. It seems the independent trash pits such as Crooklyn and TJ$L are involved in the scam for the long haul. Conversely, ABA dung heaps attached to universities and colleges with a good reputation are in greater peril, to some extent. After all, the administration and researchers are not too keen on shelling out money to prop up former cash cows – especially when “law professors” only teach 2-3 classes per semester and are grossly overcompensated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two or three classes per semester? Where? A typical law profe$$or teaches one course in one semester and two in the other, for a total of three in the entire year. For their jobs to be any cushier, they'd have to be carried in on a litter by slaves clad in turbans and loincloths.

      Delete
  20. I am laughing, thinking about all the law professors who will lose their jobs, now that some of these schools are closing down. Most of them vastly deserve it, all the way.

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics