Sunday, May 28, 2017

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

School argues against bond 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 comments:

  1. Those passage rates. Probation. Maybe getting ready to close up shop. And they're still getting people to enroll. Mein got!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Throwaway AttorneyMay 28, 2017 at 4:03 PM

    The future of a TTTT grad summed up in one picture.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Proud University of Cincinnati JDMay 28, 2017 at 8:37 PM

    I'm stuck working tomorrow at my shitty law firm. So before I forgot just wanted to say Fuck all the veterans out there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Compare the life of a bitter toilet law grad to an enlisted member of the military. A teenager that joins the military after high school, will have served 7 years by the time the typical toilet law student graduates at age 25. A typical person who has served 7 years in the military has achieved the rank of E-6. An E-6 with over 6 years of service is paid a salary of $3,097.20 per month. They receive an allowance of $368.29 per month for food. If they are married or have a dependent, and they live in off-post housing, they can receive basic allowance for housing. The housing allowance varies based on the location. But the transient rate for an E-6, with dependents, is $1,046.40. So the total salary of a 25 year old who joined the military after high school, and lives off post with their family, is around $54,142.68. The allowance for food and housing is tax free. That is far more than shit law.

      That servicemember also has no student loan debt. They receive health insurance for themselves and their family. They have a $450,000 life insurance policy. They are 13 years away from earning a pension for life. They receive 30 days of vacation a year. They are off from work on all Federal holidays. They receive substantial bonuses for reenlisting. They have earned the GI bill, and can pass it on to their children after 10 years of service. They are entitled to a VA loan to buy a house. When they go out to eat in uniform, strangers pay for their meals.

      How many shit law grads with they had those benefits?

      Delete
    2. Lovin it. troops are almost a protected class.

      Delete
    3. Proud University of Cincinnati JDMay 29, 2017 at 4:50 PM

      And now you see why I said Fuck 'em. These assholes now get like a $30,000 bonus for deployments. And they're tax free. Each and every fucking time they go out. And most of them are in the green zone. It's a huge waste of money and stupid people in this country (most of whom have never enlisted) worship these assholes. So once again let me be as clear as possible. Fuck the veterans out there. We spend too much money on so called defense as it is. I was in 5th grade when we fought against that military behemoth Grenada. Since then it's been a string of 3rd world shitholes. And we worship these assholes in uniform. It's America's biggest welfare program. But no one calls it that. Fuck the veterans. And the dipshits who worship them. How many national holidays do we have honoring these cocksuckers? We give these assholes free health care for life too. And VA spending is separate from defense spending too so it doesn’t make defense spending look even more fucking ridiculous. I fucking hate veteran worship in this stupid fucking country.

      Delete
    4. What's with the hatred of veterans, Proud?
      First of all, genius, if you want to condemn veterans, wait until Veterans Day(that's in November).
      And rather than go on a point by point rebuttal, let me keep this simple so that your challenged thought process won't be overloaded: joining the military is almost the exact opposite of the scam. You don't have to be connected or attend a T6 school; they'll take anyone-even you.
      So if it's such an easy, cushy life-quit that lousy job you have and JOIN. TODAY. I can guarantee you'll love it-you seem to know so much about it, you'll love being an E-1. It's an incredibly easy life, with bonuses and green zones, and lifetime welfare programs.
      There is on unfortunate drawback-you can't quit, and if you try, they'll put you in jail. But enjoy!
      So either shut up or join today. Your bitterness about your bad life decisions ought to be redirected from veterans to the source of your problems-you.

      Delete
    5. In addition, JD from Cincinnati, the fetish surrounding veterans has little to do with the shit-kickers themselves: it serves mainly to drum up support for US imperialist military adventures. Yankee-doodle dipshits who know less than the average gerbil about history, geography, and politics throw their weight behind "our troops" who supposedly are "defending our freedom" through criminal wars of genocide against Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Zimbabwe, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and on and on.

      Delete
    6. Hey Old Guy, if you know so much about history, perhaps you can tell us when exactly "our troops" fought a "criminal war of genocide" against Libya, Zimbabwe, and "Palestine."

      Delete
    7. Old Guy, while I would partially agree that the "I'm a veteran so I deserve special consideration" thing has been overplayed, at lest among those who have never been near combat, I would note three things:

      1. You once posted a link to a diatribe from a non-trad who had a long career at an insurance company in Hartford and then couldn't get a job at a law firm which he blamed on age discrimination. He couldn't resist repeatedly claiming that he was due a certain amount of deference because he joined the army before Vietnam and was assigned to guard NATO headquarters in Paris which is akin to being a school crossing guard. Why didin't you criticize him?

      2. Could you remind me of when American forces took any part in war in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and when any war of genocide took place in Haiti or the Dominican Republic? How many people were killed? Which ethnic or religious group was singled out for killing?

      3. What wars of genocide are you including in "on and on?"

      The veterans thing has mostly to do with a national sense of guilt over the abuse that was heaped upon men returning from Vietnam. There is reason enough to feel guilt but I do agree that some have carried it to the point of trying to use it to claim that, e.g., they cannot be criticized for committing a felony because they served states side with the National Guard.

      Delete
    8. As I recall, I did criticize the author of that diatribe about age-based discrimination. There was much to be said, but I didn't go into it all point by point.

      Zimbabwe is far from an egregious example of the US's genocidal military adventures; but, yes, the US has been engaged in warfare there since British colonial days, right up to the present (recent instances of sending in mercenaries, for example). The warfare against Zimbabwe has been more financial and political than military.

      As for Haiti, the list of US military interventions is long, going all the way back to 1804, when Haiti became the first free republic in the Western Hemisphere. The US, along with its partner-in-crime France, have always sought to crush Haiti through unending blockades, invasions, occupations, suppressions of anti-imperialist rebellions, and subversions of the government. The Dominican Republic too was regularly invaded and occupied by Gringolandia throughout the twentieth century.

      The greatest example of a US military genocide, of course, is that of the US's so-called territory, where the US's armed forces and popular militias decimated the Indigenous nations from Georgia to the Pacific and also conquered the northern half of Mexico.

      That's just one example of the long list of Yankee genocidal wars. You've also mentioned that of the US's invasion of Vietnam, which extended into Cambodia and Laos. Curious readers might also read about Guatemala, East Timor, Korea, and the Philippines, just for starters.

      The person who called into question the US's seventy-year campaign of genocide in Palestine does not deserve an answer. I'd recommend some basic reading, but obviously there is no point.

      Delete
    9. Sorry Old Guy, but you didn't answer the other posters question.

      Delete
    10. Yes, OG, your response is one of the more impressive instances of circumlocution I've seen outside of politics, of course.

      Delete
  4. I think the comparison of scum pit to the meth-addled whore does a huge disservice. To the prostitute.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just hit up all the rich, successful alums for donations to cover this de minimis charge.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This school is a real shithole. And watch. It'll still attract enough idiots to stay in business. (Thanks federal government.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I recently came across this blog. I won't reveal too much information--my employer looks on the internet for mentions of his firm. I'll just say that I've been a paralegal at a law firm for years. What is stated at the top of this blog is correct. In my experience: one paralegal left the firm, did not go to law school, but is self employed in real estate. He's got a good income which will likely grow, no additional debt, and is his own boss. Another paralegal makes around $65,000 a year. She has no desire to go to law school and why should she? The exceptions mentioned at the top of this blog are correct too. One of my fellow paralegals left and went to the University of Chicago Law school. Another was a paralegal for a few years, and attended John Marshall (Chicago) in the meantime. She still works for the firm, as a attorney. So her situation was one of having employment as an attorney lined up.

    The only new thing I'll add is that law firms will increasingly rely on paralegals, for the simple economic reason that if a firm can get lawyer work done cheaper by a non lawyer, the firm will do so.

    Where I work, for example, attorneys direct paralegals to draft motions and other legal documents. The basic template for these legal documents already exists in our word processing programs. Paralegals interact with clients if the interaction is of a non-advisory nature, for example, getting the client's new mailing address.

    The attorneys basically meet with clients and go to court. And that is restricted to attorneys because of licensing laws.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I met someone who graduated from this school last year (2016). The person was remarkably slow with terrible social manners. I am convinced law schools today just hand over JDs like candy for any mark ready to sign the dotted line on student loans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's put it bluntly: they sell JDs.

      Well, that's not exactly true of many Tier 6 toilets. Some of them expel a large fraction of the class, as much as half, for "academic" reasons, which is to say failing out.

      Delete
    2. Which is absolutely shocking given the caliber of students they admit. The students that fail out probably cannot tie their own shoes.

      Delete
  9. http://www.azsummitlaw.edu/press-releases.html

    Under the commode's Press Releases page, the pigs "forgot" to mention their pathetic-ass bar passage rates - or the fact that they will need to put up a $1.5 million surety bond. A mere oversight on their part, right?!?!

    http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cypress/prelaw_2017winter/#/28

    Then again, that pales in comparison to this school's diversity! Unemployed brown and black JDs from Arizona $ummiTTTT Law Sewer can team up with other broke white law grads - and try to form a union at their local PetSmart. If that happens, expect the swine to post that news item prominently.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I find it puzzling that the ABA has cracked down on Charlotte and Arizona Summit, but has not taken any action against schools that are objectively just as horrendous. Here are the abysmal stats for the Infilaw toilets:

    Arizona Summit
    64% acceptance rate
    75/50/25 GPA: 3.31/2.96/2.55
    75/50/25 LSAT:148/143/140
    41 first year students flunked out last year (14% of the first year class).

    Charlotte
    65% acceptance rate
    75/50/25 GPA: 3.07/2.80/2.48
    75/50/25 LSAT:148/144/141
    130 first year students flunked out last year (37% of the first year class).

    But compare those numbers to two of the worst purportedly non-profit law schools:

    Cooley
    86% acceptance rate
    75/50/25 GPA: 3.20/2.90/2.60
    75/50/25 LSAT: 147/141/138
    60 first year students flunked out last year (10% of the first year class).

    Thomas Jefferson
    83% acceptance rate
    75/50/25 GPA: 3.15/2.89/2.61
    75/50/25 LSAT: 147/143/141
    58 first year students flunked out last year (27% of the first year class).

    I hate to defend Arizona Summit here, but there is no justification to sanction Arizona Summit and ignore Cooley and Thomas Jefferson. Cooley admitted a objectively worse class and Thomas Jefferson flunked out more students. Thomas Jefferson even had a comparable 31% first time bar passage rate.

    It appears that the ABA sanctioned Arizona Summit and Charlotte simply to appease critics. They targeted the for-profit schools that nobody likes. But the ABA is not actually going to enforce standards when it comes to the rest of the toilet law schools. Now that the ABA has given the appearance of enforcing standards, the ABA and the toilet law schools can lobby the states to make the bar exams easier. Just read the law professor blogs. That’s all these pigs do nowadays is whine that the bar exam is terrible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the ABA must have felt the need to attack two or three toilets just to feign concern about the law-school scam, and it wasn't going to go after Cooley ("too big to fail"). So it has picked on the InfiLaw trio. That's surprising only because corporate InfiLaw should have had enough clout at the ABA to protect its own ass.

      Delete
    2. Infilaw had a lot of ABA higher ups on its board. They'd be able to mount a better fight if they wanted to.

      Delete
  11. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/10/law-school-pays-graduates-not-to-take-the-bar-75-fail-anyway

    Back on October 20, 2015, Paul Campos wrote a Lawyers, Guns & Money post entitled "Law school pays graduates not to take the bar; 75% fail anyway." Here is the full text below:

    "Results for the July Arizona bar came out yesterday, confirming that the Infilaw scamsters have, as predicted, hit a new low. Some LGM readers will recall that the night before the exam, Arizona Summit’s dean was calling up some of the school’s new graduates, and offering them $10,000 not to take the test. That seemed to indicate a certain level of concern regarding whether the human-capital enhancing aspects of an Infilaw education had worked their pedagogical magic. That concern has been, shall we say, vindicated:

    Results for the July 2015 Arizona bar examination

    Pass rate for all first time takers: 65.7%

    Pass rate for first time takers from the University of Arizona: 83.6%

    Pass rate for first time takers from Arizona State University: 83.7%

    [ETA]: Pass rate for first time takers from non-Arizona law schools: 74.2%

    Pass rate for all first time takers who didn’t go to Arizona Summit: 79.5%

    Pass rate for Arizona Summit first time takers: 30.6%

    Pass rate for Arizona Summit repeat takers: 19.3%"

    In a just world, this toilet would already have been closed permanently - and turned into a petting zoo. At least, that would have benefited families and others in the neighborhood. Sadly, cretins and special snowflake idiots will continue to enroll in this dung heap. After all, those fools have dreams of becoming successful lawyers. For $ome rea$on, taxpayers are expected to put up the costs for these delusions. What a great deal – for the law school pigs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Turning it into a petting zoo would raise the inmates' level of intelligence.

      Delete

 
Web Analytics