Friday, February 24, 2017

Annals in Idiocy: California State Legislator and Dumbass Sabrina Cervantes Wants to Establish a New Public Law School in Glutted Market


http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202779705285/California-Needs-Another-Law-School-State-Legislator-Says?slreturn=20170123231341

A Special Kind of Stupid: On February 22, 2017, the Recorder published a Cheryl Miller piece that was entitled “California Needs Another Law School, State Legislator Says.” Enjoy this trite opening:

“One week after California’s state bar leader declared a “crisis” in legal education due in part to a decline in student applicants, a first-year lawmaker has introduced legislation endorsing the creation of a new law school at UC Riverside. 

Assemblywoman Sabrina Cervantes, D-Corona, said her bill, AB 951, offers the state a chance to study the possible economic benefits of opening a public law school in one of California’s fastest-growing regions. 

Cervantes said her proposal is about “making sure we can get graduates to establish roots in the Inland Empire and start their careers here.” The bill is co-sponsored by Assemblyman Jose Medina, D-Riverside, chairman of the Higher Education Committee. 

The bill contains a single sentence: “It is the intent of the Legislature to later enact legislation that would provide for the establishment and construction of a school of law at the University of California, Riverside.” The proposal does not include cost or timeline projections—details, Cervantes said, that would be worked out later.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, why worry about such trivial details now, right?!?! After all, it’s only taxpayer money! And you can bet your ass that tuition is not a big priority for these dolts either. Later on, the article notes the following important information:

“Former UC Riverside Chancellor Raymond Orbach campaigned for a law school on his campus in the late 1990s and early 2000s only to be rebuffed by UC regents. Campus leaders again included a “first-tier” law school in its long-range plans in 2006. In the years since, Riverside has opened a medical school and a school of public policy—but no law school. 

Regents have not officially ruled out a law school at Riverside. UC Irvine, the most recent public law school to open, is about 35 miles away. The Inland Empire counties of Riverside and San Bernardino are also home to a few private law schools, including the American Bar Association-approved University of La Verne in Ontario. 

“There is a perception that the law school market is saturated, and there’s some validity to that,” La Verne Dean Gilbert Holmes said. “I’m not sure there’s room for another law school.” [Emphasis mine]

Cockroach Gilbert Holmes, that is not perception. It's called reality, bitch. Hell, why not open a law school on every street corner in the area – as if these things were 7-11s or Arco gas stations?! As you can see, the region is already home to the University of California, Irvine Sewer of Law and the Univer$iTTTTy of La Verne Commode of Law! Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature still think that the “professors” or elected puppets give one damn about the students, the health of the “profession,” or potential clients?

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article133493754.html

California State Bar Crisis: On February 18, 2017, the Sacramento Bee featured a story by Dan Walters, under the headline "Law school enrollment, bar exam passage rate dropping in California." Take a look at the following portion:

“[A]nother crisis has popped up – a sharply declining rate of passage in the State Bar’s licensing examination. 

California, unusually among the states, allows students of non-accredited law schools to take the test, but also has a relatively high test score passage requirement. 

Even so, passage rates for first-time test takers had been fairly consistent at around 70 percent until three years ago, when they began to drop sharply – down to 56.1 percent in last July’s version of the twice-yearly testing.

The decline hit graduates of both accredited schools and those lacking American Bar Association accreditation, with the accredited schools dropping from a high of 83.2 percent in 2008 to 62.4 percent last July.

The passage rates are particularly low for non-white students and those from poor families, a state Assembly hearing on the issue this month was told. Meanwhile, the Assembly Judiciary Committee was told, low bar exam passage rates are reducing the supply of lawyers and legal interns to handle the needs of consumers, particularly low-income Californians.

Ed Howard of the Center for Public Interest Law said it means “real consequences for real people.” 

The state’s law schools are seeing a very sharp decrease in applications and enrollment, which means less revenue, and could lose their ABA accreditation if their passage rates are persistently low. 

Their deans are calling on the State Bar to lower the acceptable passage score, arguing that it is higher than those of other states and hasn’t been evaluated for validity in three decades.” [Emphasis mine]

You will notice that the law school pigs are primarily concerned with loss of revenue, i.e. federal student loan dollars. Admitting more waterheads and lowering the bar passage score is their garbage solution. You, the student, are a mere mean$ to an end. Once you graduate, you then become an afterthought. They see you as a used condom.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, this is a moronic proposal. California needs a new law school in the same way that you need to be hit by a truck. Try not to be too stupid, lemmings. If this pile of garbage is built on the backs of state taxpayers, don’t even think of enrolling to, or enrolling in, the cesspool. You would be better off working at PetSmart. Get that through your head, Stupid!

Sunday, February 19, 2017

TTT Smells of Desperation: ABA Commodes at University of North Dakota and Syracuse University Take Drastic Measures


http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/4215118-und-school-law-looks-tuition-increase-puts-pro-bono-clinic-hiatus

UND Flushes Its Pro Bono Clinic: On February 9, 2017, the Grand Forks Herald published an Andrew Hazzard piece that was entitled “UND School of Law looks at tuition increase, puts pro bono clinic on hiatus.” Enjoy this opening:

“The UND School of Law will put its student law clinic on hiatus for at least two years and is beginning to discuss tuition increases because of higher education budget cuts proposed by North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum. 

In a meeting with about 80 law students Thursday afternoon, UND School of Law Dean Kathryn Rand told students the program would need to begin making hard cuts. Those cuts will include no longer operating the law clinic, which provides pro bono legal service primarily in immigration and employment law fields. The clinic allows law students to get some of the hands-on credits they need to earn their juris doctorates.

Rand said the law school also has decided to eliminate the summer term, which she said was well-liked by students but was not cost-effective for the university. 

The law school and other graduate programs also have been asked by UND President Mark Kennedy to eliminate courses with fewer than eight students, Rand said. 

“The president will no longer allow us to continue courses with low-enrollment numbers,” she said.” [Emphasis mine]

Later on, the author noted that staff has been asked to make further concessions and sacrifices in salary. For $ome rea$on, there is no mention of the dean of tenured “professors” offering to take a pay cut. Perhaps this is a mere oversight. 

http://www.syracuse.com/su-news/index.ssf/2017/02/su_college_of_law_to_offer_tuition_grants_to_in-state_students.html

Frigid Northeast Toilet Slashes Tuition: On February 15, 2017, the Syracuse Post Standard featured a story from contributor Katie Shafsky, under the headline “New law school grant will make Syracuse University NY's cheapest private option.” Here is the full text of that article below:

“Syracuse University's College of Law will offer new tuition grants to New York state residents starting with the upcoming school year. 

The Empire State Scholars Grant will offer $20,000 of tuition assistance to all admitted state residents. Qualified students in good standing will receive the grant for all three years of their program. 

The College of Law's tuition cost is $46,460 this year, and the grant will make tuition comparable to law schools in the SUNY system for residents. Currently, tuition at the law school at SUNY Buffalo is $26,997 for in-state residents. 

The grant will also make Syracuse the least-expensive private law school in New York States for in-state residents. 

In an announcement from the university, Dean Craig Boise cited the College of Law's long history of quality education and a strong passing rate on the New York State Bar Exam. SU has an 89.5 percent passing rate for first-time test takers, which is over six percent higher than the average for other state ABA accredited law schools. 

Boise also said that the grant is intended to give residents who want to stay in the state the chance to attend law school without the high costs. 

"With over 5,000 New York state residents applying to law schools each year, this innovative program has the potential to positively impact a great number of students interested in attending Syracuse Law," Boise said in the statement.” [Emphasis mine]

Keep in mind that cretins and poor white trash from Montana and other parts of the country are dumb enough to apply to, and enroll in, New York law schools. This grant will not be available to those waterheads.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+4

Rankings: As you can see, $yracu$e Univer$iTTTy Commode of Law is rated as the 86th greatest, most remarkable and incredible law school in the entire damn country – by US “News” & World Report! Hell, it only shares this distinction with the following five toilets: Chicago-Kent, both Penn State campuses, Arkansas, and the University of Tulsa.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+6

In comparison, the same defunct magazine lists the Univer$iTTTy of NorTTTh DakoTTTa Sewer of Law as the co-144th “best” law school in the United States. In fact, only five other ABA cesspits can stake claim this honor: Campbell “University,” Northern Illinois, Oklahoma City University, Pacific, and the University of TTToledo. How prestigious, huh?!?! If we were talking about wristwatches, this school would be a Timex with a nylon strap.

Conclusion: Avoid both of these piles of excrement at all costs. Syracuse will still be an expensive venture – and the in-state recipients are required to keep solid grade in order to maintain those grants/scholarship discounts. New York is home to 15 ABA law schools, including real ones such as NYU, Columbia, and Cornell. The rest are trash. North Dakota appears to be cutting the fat, due to government leadership. Do the math, simpleton. See if pissing away three years of your life – and incurring significant NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for a chance to make $40K per year is a good idea.

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?!?!

Friday, February 10, 2017

Breaking News: Those From Affluent Backgrounds Receive More Merit Scholarships to Attend Law School


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

What a Deal!: On February 8, 2017, the ABA Journal featured an article from Stephanie Francis Ward, under the headline “Affluent students get law school merit scholarships while others foot the bill.” Check out this opening:

“Law schools have become more generous with merit scholarships, and the money has been flowing to privileged students whose parents are college-educated, according to a report released by the Law School Survey of Student Engagement. 

Individuals whose parents had no college experience were the least likely to receive merit scholarships, according to the study, titled Law School Scholarship Policies: Engines of Inequity. 

Basing merit determinations on LSAT results—90 percent of the respondents with merit awards had LSAT scores above 165—is an instigator, according to Frank H. Wu, a University of California Hastings College of Law professor who wrote the the survey’s foreword. Wu argues that LSAT scores can be a performance predictor but don’t necessarily demonstrate merit. 

“Everyone is on the side of merit. There are no advocates for mediocrity. But so called merit scholarships are less about students’ merit than they are about our own sense of elitism,” he wrote. 

A better way to reward merit, according to Wu, would be to base determinations on law school work. He blames law school rankings for schools’ heavy reliance on LSAT scores, and he describes the current merit scholarship trend as a “’reverse Robin Hood’ revenue model,” where “the poorest students are being forced to subsidize their wealthier peers.” 

“Instead of identifying talented individuals who lack resources—the ‘strivers’ we claim to admire—we are reinforcing economic hierarchy. We are sending the message that those who already have so much deserve so much more,” Wu wrote.” [Emphasis mine]

Frank Wu has changed his tune. Back on April 22, 2009, he authored a foolish USN&WR piece entitled “Why Law School Is for Everyone.” Now, he is echoing Paul Campos, by referring to the “reverse Robin Hood” effect. Sadly, waterheads will continue to apply to, and enroll in, these toilets because they overestimate their own ability – while downplaying those of their counterparts.

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202778852592/Minority-Law-Students-Subsidize-Scholarships-Study-Finds?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=4

Other Coverage: On February 9, 2017, the National Law Journal published a Karen Sloan piece provocatively entitled “Minority Law Students Subsidize Scholarships, Study Finds.” Look at the portion below:

“The study found that 71 percent of the students surveyed received some form of scholarship. Of those, 79 percent were "merit based," while 21 percent were "need based." The distribution of merit-based scholarships was tied closely to the recipient's LSAT score — 90 percent of respondents with LSAT scores of 166 or higher got those scholarships, compared with 16 percent for those with scores of 140 or lower. 

The distribution of merit-based scholarships also varied by race. Sixty-seven percent of white students and 61 percent of Asian students received merit-based scholarships, compared to 52 percent of Latino students and 49 percent of black students. The black and Latino students surveyed also reported lower LSAT scores overall than white and Asian respondents. 

Similarly, students whose parents went to college were more likely to receive merit scholarships than first-generation students whose parents didn't have a high school diploma or didn't finish college. Hence, the students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds on the whole pay more to attend law school than their wealthier classmates. 

Unsurprisingly, black and Latino students were bracing for higher student debt burdens. Among Latinos, 57 percent expected to have more than $100,000 in law school debt, as did 53 percent of black respondents. Meanwhile, just 38 percent of white students anticipated a debt load of $100,000 or more. That figure was 40 percent among Asian students. 

Last year's Law School Survey of Student Engagement highlighted law student debt levels as well as stress. It concluded that high debt correlates to more stress, and minority students were on the high end of both measures.” [Emphasis mine]

If you earned a 150 on the LSAT, do you still want to take the plunge, Dumbass?! Do you wish to subsidize the studies of your fellow students, with higher entrance scores, who are on scholarship? Good luck competing against them for decent legal jobs. Plus, if their parents are elite college graduates – or have money – they will be in a position to make a few calls to influential friends. Can you or your family do the same, moron?!?! No, you can barely afford two-ply toilet paper to wipe your ass with, fool.
Yet, you still want to enroll in an ABA-accredited commode. Perhaps, your brain stem is not fully developed – and you wish to incur outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, so you can save the whales or help fight for “social justice.” This goes double if you are a racial minority!

Conclusion: If you are not RIDICULOUSLY CONNECTED or wealthy – and you attend a cesspool of a law school – then you better be an incredibly attractive female. Doors may open for those JDs. Otherwise, you are pissing away three years of your life, including prime income years. There is no sense in accumulating an additional $130K+ in student loans for a garbage law degree that will qualify you for a job making $38K per year, if you’re lucky. Have someone smarter than you do the math for you, Stupid!

Monday, February 6, 2017

Seton Hall University School of Law Has Experienced a 56 Percent Drop in Number of Applications, Since 2009


http://www.nj.com/education/2017/02/seton_hall_law_school_qa.html

Power Flush: On February 1, 2017, NJ Advance Media published a Kelly Heyboer article entitled “As law school applications fall nationwide, Seton Hall Law faces 'new normal.'” Take a look at this opening:

“It's a tough time to be a law school dean. 

Nationwide, applications to law schools have fallen about 40 percent in what many view as a crisis in legal education. 

The downturn in the economy, a [scarcity] of legal jobs and high law school tuition made many students rethink the idea of spending years training to become a lawyer. Many law schools have had to lay off staff and shrink the size of their incoming classes to stay afloat. 

Kathleen Boozang, a veteran professor at Seton Hall School of Law in Newark,took over as dean of New Jersey's only private law school in 2015 just as the institution was making changes to compensate for declining applications. 

Seton Hall Law still had more applications than available seats. But, school officials decided to shrink the incoming class size so the institution could keep up its standards and admit the same quality of students as before. 

After 18 months on the job, Boozang told NJ Advance Media that Seton Hall Law is bouncing back with new programs and a renewed mission.

The entire law school field has been struggling. Seton Hall Law's applications dropped from 3,666 in 2009 to 1,609 last year. How is the school doing?

We're doing well. But, you're exactly right. Applications have declined nationally 40 to 45 percent since 2008 and I think a little bit more than that in the New York metropolitan area. So, while every law school dean is hoping that things will improve as soon as possible, I don't think I'm counting on the market to ever go back to its heyday. The legal market is changing. It's being impacted by technology and the global economy. But there are also new opportunities as well that Seton Hall Law is trying to take advantage of.” [Emphasis mine]

Cockroach Kathleen Boozang answered that question with the corporatese and spin of a White House press secretary or senator’s staff. You bastards did not “voluntarily decide” to shrink your incoming class sizes. Your toilet saw a HUGE drop in applicants, and you responded accordingly. That is the equvalent of a guy “choosing” to not date gorgeous women who have no interest – at all – in his ass.

http://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/applications-law-school-declined-recent-years/

Other Coverage: On February 3, 2017, NJTV News featured a piece from correspondent Erin Delmore, under the headline “Applications for Law School Have Declined in Recent Years.” Check out this segment:

“Consider it a hangover from the Great Recession: applications to law schools nationwide are down.

“Applications have declined 40 to 45 percent. In the New York metropolitian area, I would say it’s been a little bit more of a decline,” said Seton Hall Law School Dean Kathleen Boozang. Legal professionals say it’s a reflection of client need, which just hasn’t rebounded in recent years. 

“I think generally the demand for legal services is down, which means that the demand for lawyers is down, which means that generally applications are going to be down. And I think that’s just the cycle that we’re in,” said Joseph Boccassini, a managing partner at McCarter & English. 

In 2009, Seton Hall Law School took in 3,666 applications. Last year there were 2,000 fewer. The school responded by shrinking its incoming class size. 

“We made a policy decision to become a smaller law school,” explained Boozang. “We used to be one of the largest law schools in the country and we decided looking into the future that having large JD classes was not the path to take going forward.” 

Boozang says admitting a smaller incoming class allowed the school to keep up its caliber of students. And the trend holds, whether by choice or force. Enrollment at law schools nationwide is down 20 percent over the last seven years. Perhaps not surprising, given the price tag, which can exceed $50,000 a year.” [Emphasis mine]

You’re welcome, bitches! Now, let’s see if you pigs did indeed maintain the “calibur” of students/willing rape victims.

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/setonhall/admissions/

By The Numbers: According to this chart by Law School Transparency, the bitches and hags at $eTTon Haul Univer$iTTy Sewer of Law have actually lowered admi$$ion$ “standards” – just to up keep enrollment. And first year class size still went from 358 in 2010 to 149 in 2016!

For the entering first year class of 2010, 25th percentile LSAT was 155; 50th percentile LSAT stood at 159; and the 75th percentile LSAT score was 161. Corresponding Fall 2016 entering class figures were 153, 156, and 159, respectively. Those are precipitous drops. Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Conclusion: While it may tougher now to be a law school dean, that pales in comparison to the toll on the students and recent graduates who have accumulated $140K+ in additional NON-DISCHARGEABLE – for a garbage law degree. By the way, $eTTon Haul Univer$iTTy Sewer of Law is rated by US “News” & World Report as the co-65th greatest, most remarkable, and amazing law school in the entire damn country. What a prestigious in$TTiTTuTTion, huh?!?! It only shares this honor with six other ABA-accredited commodes. Yes, I’m sure Biglaw firms wet their pants at the chance to hire a significant portion of each graduating class, right?!

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Beyond Pathetic: Food Drive for Charlotte School of Law Students


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article129152714.html

Feed a Hungry Law Student: On January 27, 2017, the Charlotte Observer featured a Michael Gordon piece that was headlined “Charlotte School of Law starts food drive so students get something to eat.” Check out this opening:

“Cut off from millions of dollars in federal loans because of their school’s chronic failings, students at Charlotte School of Law still don’t know how they’ll pay tuition, rent and utilities. 

Now they are apparently running out of food.

In response, one of their professors announced Friday that some faculty and other law school employees have started a food drive to make sure students of the reeling school have enough to eat. Scott Sigman, director of the school’s clinical programs, sent out an email alerting students that the stockpiled food is available in the student commons. 

“I know that times are uncertain right now,” he wrote. “If you are low on funds and in need of food, please take what you need, keeping in mind that others may have needs as well.”

Students have been racked by financial anxiety since shortly before Christmas, when federal officials announced that they had made Charlotte School of Law the first accredited law school ever to lose access to federal student loans. Last year, Charlotte School of Law students received almost $50 million from the program for tuition and living expenses. Last week, the U.S. Department of Education announced it had broken off negotiations with the school to extend some of the loans through the spring semester.

The government agency and the American Bar Association have both accused the for-profit law school of hiding chronic problems with admissions, curriculum and test scores from students. But the cutoff of federal money has left students pondering how they will pay for school and living expenses. There are reports that some students have stopped attending classes because they can’t afford gas for their cars. Observers say more than half the student body has already left the school. 

Some of those who have chosen to remain are struggling to meet basic needs. 

“How can we be prepared for class when we can’t feed ourselves?” said third-year student Margaret Kocaj of Charlotte. “How can we study when we have headaches because we can’t afford to eat? This is our reality now. There are no words.” [Emphasis mine]

There are also no words to adequately describe for your stupidity in choosing to attend a FOR PROFIT, FOURTH TIER TRASH CAN!! Did you think that a law degree from this stench pit would lead to a great career?!?! Who told you that attending such a cesspit would be a good idea – or a smart investment?

http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/01/30/charlotte-law-prof-starts-food-bank-for-schools-students/?slreturn=20170101072239

Other Coverage: On January 30, 2017, the National Law Journal published a Karen Sloan article entitled “Charlotte Law Prof Starts Food Bank For School’s Students.” Read the following segment:

“Robert Barchiesi, a third-year student who is among a group of students suing the school, said the situation leading to the need for a school food pantry and GoFundMe campaign is “truly incredible.” 

“I think it’s a sad situation, when a law school becomes a food pantry for its own students because it failed to meaningfully work with regulators on a solution that could have given students a different option to finish their degree and regain access to federal student aid,” Barchiesi said. 

The Education Department on Dec. 19 announced it would pull federal loans from Charlotte students, citing concerns over accreditation shortfalls and misleading information about the school’s bar pass rates. Since then, negotiations to extend the loans broke down, apparently over the department’s insistence that it remain open only through May. School officials have said they are hoping for a more favorable outcome under the new Trump administration. 

Sigman said the idea for the food pantry came from him and several other faculty members. On Friday afternoon, he sent an email to all students alerting them that free food donated from faculty and staff was available. But he quickly realized that student needs went beyond just food, and he stared the GoFundMe campaign, which aims to raise $250,000 that would be divided evenly among students who agree to use it for living expenses like rent, food, gas, utilities, and medical expenses. As of Monday morning, the campaign had raised more than $5,000. 

“I want to help them,” Sigman wrote on the campaign’s web page. “I can’t imagine how I would have succeeded in law school in the circumstances that [Charlotte School of Law] students face.” [Emphasis mine]

You feel so sorry for your students, but you charge them $42,320 per year in full-time tuition, right?!?! Yes, that makes perfect sense, pig. How much was your cost of attendance, when you attended West Virginia University Commode of Law?

Conclusion: What’s next for these idiotic students? Perhaps a blanket drive or donations for coats and clean underwear from the Salvation Army? Maybe the “professors” will chip in and purchase new socks and gloves for these young men and women who want to become lawyers. In the final analysis, if you pay $42,320 in tuition to attend a FOURTH TIER PILE OF GARBAGE, then why are bitching about utilities, food, and other bills? These are the costs of living, which you would need to pay even if you were not in school. It’s time for the students at CharloTTTTe Sewer of Law to take a good, hard look in the mirror. You made the decision to go to an outrageously expensive toilet, knowing in advance that you would face an uphill struggle to: (a) pass a bar exam; and (b) have a chance at a decent legal career. Make sure to load up on plenty of protein, Dumbass!
 
Web Analytics