Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Michael Simkovic’s Million Dollar Law Degree Proclamation Gets Flushed


http://abovethelaw.com/2015/08/law-schools-need-to-lie-more-about-the-market/

TTT Math Skills: On August 26, 2015, ATL published a Joe Patrice article entitled “Law Schools Need To Lie More About The Market.” As you can see from this opening, Patrice is not a big fan of Michael Simkovic’s math:

“That’s the stunning conclusion of Professor Michael Simkovic. 

Actually, given the source, that should read: “That’s the not-so-stunning conclusion of Professor Michael Simkovic.”

Simkovic, you may recall, is the author of the ever entertaining “Million Dollar Law Degree” study that posited that attending law school nets a student on average — cue Dr. Evil — ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Less taxes and tuition of course, because why would those matter? Anyway, just months after he went full tilt over a solid empirical study in the New York Times, he’s taken to the pages of Professor Brian Leiter’s blog (obviously) to make the inspiring call for law schools to step up their propaganda efforts to dupe kids out of a couple hundred thousand dollars. 

Earlier this month, I charted the overwhelmingly negative press coverage of law schools and the legal profession over the last 5 years and discussed the disconnect between the news slant and economic reality. To the extent that news coverage dissuaded individuals from attending law school for financial reasons, or caused them to delay attending law school, newspapers will on average have cost each prospective law students tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The total economic harm across all prospective law students could easily be in the low billions of dollars.

Classic Simkovic approach: total up a bunch of bad assumptions into one big bad assumption that ends with “-illion.” Nothing invites panicked overreactions like a word that ends in “-illion”! But apparently the massive layoffs coupled with curtailed new hiring along with the rise of cheaper DIY legal solutions that clients are flocking toward didn’t discourage students from law school, it was “negative reporting.” [Emphasis mine]

Later on, Patrice points out the following:

“Anyway, Simkovic thinks law schools lack a key tool: 

Whereas many industries have trade associations that employ professionals to work with journalists and help them provide more accurate, informed, and fair news coverage, law schools were unprepared to interact with the press in ways that would encourage more responsible and accurate coverage.

That sounds suspiciously like the Fox News commitment to “Fair and Balanced” reporting. By which he means more reporting of tripe like this:

For many college graduates, the $30,000 to $60,000 extra per year that they can typically earn with a law degree will mean the difference between living in a safe and clean neighborhood or one that is dangerous and polluted. The expected boost to earnings can improve the healthfulness of their food, the quality of their healthcare, and the quality of education they can afford to provide for their own children. For most law graduates, the extra earnings will affect when and whether they can afford to retire. One of the best things law schools can do to help the middle class is to educate more of them. 

Holy hyperbole Batman. “The difference between living in a safe and clean neighborhood or one that is dangerous and polluted.” I refuse to believe this was written with a straight face. You know how most law students make the decision to retire these days? When they can’t find a job.” [Emphasis mine] If Simkovic truly believes his own words, then his IQ must be in the low 70s. Then again, we know that he merely wants to entice more lemmings to take the plunge.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/08/quantities-are-limited

Other Coverage: Paul Campos provided an excellent response to Simkovic’s “analysis,” with an LGM entry labeled “Quantities are limited” – which was posted on August 25, 2015. Take a look at this portion:

“Having demonstrated that that, discounted to present value, a law degree from an American law school is worth on average just under one million dollars, Michael Simkovic has turned his attention to a genuine social crisis: the billions of dollars in lost earnings suffered every year by prospective law students, who have made the serious, and eminently preventable, mistake of not enrolling in law school The blame for this multi-billion dollar catastrophe is easy to ascribe: ongoing bad publicity, based on a sensationalist media environment, that promotes TV shows like “Suits,” which I’ve been told is about document reviewers being paid $15 per hour to be basement-dwelling helots for law firms that use them for casual and mind-numbing labor, and Legally Blonde, a film which has been compared The Seventh Seal in regard to the existential dread in which it envelops the viewer.” Campos then uses Simkovic’s logic to comically explain how “law professors” are severely underpaid, seeing that they supposedly, indirectly generate billions in revenue. Check it out, when you have a chance. 

Conclusion: Michael Simkovic has no basis for his assertion that earning a law degree, on average, will result in the JD holder making an additional $1 million over the course of his or her work life. I would use the term “career,” if it applied. However, Biglaw associates typically burn out – or are tossed – within 3-5 years, if they don’t make partner by then. Furthermore, TONS of law grads – each year – end up working in low-paid, unstable jobs. According to Seton Hall's Simkovic, these people took out $120K+ in additional NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, but they are not motivated enough to make good money. 

In the final analysis, this “educator” makes a bunch of false, positive assumptions about the “value” of a law degree to the recipient – while ignoring sound criticism that is based on facts and economic reality. Does anyone believe that a JD from Cooley or Thomas Jefferson Sewer of Law is equivalent to one from Stanford or Yale?! Again, this shows that the law school swine do not care about their students or future graduates. You are simply a mean$ to an end. There is no valid reason for you to personally ruin yourself financially, so that these “scholars” can continue to make $180K per year. You have to look out for your own best interests.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Steven J. Harper, Former Biglaw Partner, Notes That There Are Too Damn Many Law Students and Not Enough Attorney Jobs


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/too-many-law-students-too-few-legal-jobs.html

Scintillating Op-Ed: On August 25, Steven J. Harper ripped into the law school pigs, in a New York Times opinion piece labeled “Too Many Law Students, Too Few Legal Jobs.” He comes out swinging. Take a look at this opening:

“Ten months after graduation, only 60 percent of the law school class of 2014 had found full-time long-term jobs that required them to pass the bar exam.

Even that improvement over the class of 2013 (a 57 percent employment rate) came with three asterisks: Last year, the American bar Association changed the job-reporting rules to give law schools an extra month for the class of 2014 to find jobs; graduates employed in law-school-funded positions count in the employment rate; and the number of jobs that require bar passage fell from 2013 to 2014. 

Amazingly (and perversely), law schools have been able to continue to raise tuition while producing nearly twice as many graduates as the job market has been able to absorb. How is this possible? Why hasn’t the market corrected itself? The answer is that, for a given school, the availability of federal loans for law students has no connection to their poor post-graduation employment outcomes. 

Students now amass law school loans averaging $127,000 for private schools and $88,000 for public ones. Since 2006 alone, law student debt has surged at inflation-adjusted rates of 25 percent for private schools and 34 percent for public schools. 

In May 2014, the A.B.A. created a task force to tackle this problem. According to its recent report, 25 percent of law schools obtain at least 88 percent of their total revenues from tuition. The average for all law schools is 69 percent. So law schools have a powerful incentive to maintain or increase enrollment, even if the employment outcomes are dismal for their graduates, especially at marginal schools. 

The underlying difficulty is that once students pay their tuition bills, law schools have no responsibility for the debt their students have taken on. In other words, law schools whose graduates have the greatest difficulty finding jobs that require bar passage are operating without financial accountability and free of the constraints that characterize a functioning market. The current subsidy system is keeping some schools in business. But the long-term price for students and taxpayers is steep and increasing.” [Emphasis mine]

In sum, the swine have: (a) continued to pump out FAR TOO MANY GRADUATES for the available number of attorney job openings each year, while (b) lowering admi$$ion “standards” further and (c) raising tuition rates to outrageous levels. What “honorable men and women,” huh?!?! They have been able to do so, because of the federal student loan system. Plus, the ABA cockroaches don’t give a damn about the students. 

https://lawmrh.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/too-many-law-students-and-the-still-unrestrained-law-school-scam/

Other Coverage: On the same day, the Irreverant Lawyer posted an entry, which was entitled “Too many law students and the still unrestrained law school scam.” Check out the following portion:

“Harper, a former big law partner, has like Professor Campos, opined extensively on the same topics, including in his 2013 book, The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis and more recently in his law review article, Bankruptcy and Bad Behavior – The Real Moral Hazard: Law Schools Exploiting Market Dysfunction. 

The themes are familiar ones, including the law school market dysfunction and how “Current federal student loan and bankruptcy policies encourage all law school deans to maximize tuition and fill classrooms, regardless of their students’ job prospects upon graduation.” 

And as Harper explains, a “law school moral hazard” has been created where having incentives to do so, persons take more and more risks because someone else will bear the burden of those risks. He says this moral hazard has combined “with prelaw students’ unrealistic expectations about their careers to produce enormous debt for a JD degree that, for many graduates, does not even lead to a JD-required job.” 

Meantime, as Harper and Campos are so good at reminding, for law schools this just means pay no mind as their beat goes on.” [Emphasis mine]

Steven Harper had a career in Biglaw practice. The man has impressive credentials and accomplishments. He doesn’t need to point out the fact that law school is a scam. Yet, he continues to barbecue the rodents to a crisp. It is nice to see men such as him and Paul Campos shine a light on the cockroaches.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school pigs only care about one thing: getting their filthy hooves on big-ass bags of federal student loan dollars! The fact remains that these “educators”/academic thieves DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about their pupils or recent graduates. These young people are a mean$ to an end. By the way, it should have dawned on you during orientation. If these people love the “honorable profession” so much, then why the hell are they not practicing law for a living?!?! 

At this point in time, if you are still considering attending law school – and you have no shot at landing at places such as Yale and Stanford – then you are an ideal candidate for a brain shunt. Each year, ABA-accredited diploma mills KNOWINGLY admit too many students and pump out far too many graduates. Do you want to be another statistic, Stupid? Is it your personal goal to be financially ruined for life, for no good reason?

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Pig Nicholas Allard, Dean of Crooklyn Law School, Sticks His Hoof in His Mouth Yet Again Regarding the Big, Mean Bar Exam


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-08-20/are-lawyers-getting-dumber-

Selfishness on Full Display: On August 20, 2015, BloombergBusiness published a Natalie Kitroeff piece that was simply entitled “Are Lawyers Getting Dumber?” This article is most notable for the fact that Erica Moeser, head of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, wiped her ass with Nicholas Allard’s snout. Take a look for yourself:

“Young people’s aversion to law school is a natural reaction to a saturated job market, says Jim Leipold, the executive director of the National Association for Law Placement, which tracks employment outcomes for recent law grads. “There was definitely an oversupply of law students,” Leipold says. 

On the day the first exams are leaving her fiefdom in July, [Erica] Moeser wants to talk about the LSAT, the law school entrance exam. She pulls out a magazine page. “This is my favorite chart.” One axis shows the change in law students’ LSAT scores at the 25th percentile since 2010, meaning the people who were at the bottom quartile of test takers. Most schools have seen scores at that strata decline. The other axis shows change in enrollment over the same period. Almost every school has lost students, as fewer and fewer young people apply. Some places, Moeser suggests, are dropping their standards dramatically in the interest of stemming that tide. “Feast your eyes on New York,” she says, flipping to a table that has the scatter plot’s data. Her finger lands on Brooklyn Law School, where [Cockroach Nicholas] Allard, her loudest critic, runs the show. In five years the bottom quartile of Allard’s students saw test scores drop 9 points—a steeper decline than at 196 other law schools.” [Emphasis mine]

As has been well-documented, the law school swine have lowered the admi$$ion$ “standards” further, in response to fewer applicants over the past several years. After all, the bitches and hags only care about one thing: federal student loan money! Scroll down to the conclusion:

“When fewer people pass the exam, Allard says, poor and working-class Americans suffer in another way: “Most people in America can’t afford lawyers. Most small businesses can’t afford lawyers. The biggest cause of that is that there are too few lawyers being produced.” The bar exam, he says, “perpetuates the status quo in a way that keeps qualified, motivated people from becoming lawyers and deprives most people of affordable legal services.” 

Paul Campos, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School and author of the 2012 book Don’t Go to Law School (Unless), cannot suppress a laugh when presented with that logic. “There’s a shortage of lawyers in this country the same way that there’s a shortage of Mercedes-Benzes,” he says. “There are many people who want them who don’t have them.” He predicts that pumping out more J.D.s will only lead to more under- or unemployed attorneys. 

That’s part of why Moeser says schools should take their students’ professional prospects into account long before they take the bar. The problem, she insists, isn’t that her test discriminates but that law schools looking to put butts in seats are lowering their standards. In the process, she says, they create false expectations. “You’ve got this underclass in law schools who are really keeping the lights on but not reaping the benefit.” Moeser expects the reckoning to continue. “I would anticipate the scores will drop again, if I had to guess,” she says, her mouth drawing a straight line across her face. “I don’t anticipate a rebound.” [Emphasis mine]

In the final analysis, the “educators” merely want to get as many asses in seats as possible. It's great to see the NCBE chief publicly acknowledge this fact. The academic thieves do not care what happens to those students upon graduation. They know that the American Bar Association criminals will not remove their accreditation – even if bar passage rates continue to drop. However, the jackals are aware that if those numbers decrease any further, than even many lemmings will stop applying to these cesspools and trash pits.

http://jdunderground.com/all/thread.php?threadId=94097

Other Coverage: JDU accountholder “stillajd” posted a thread labeled “Are Lawyers Getting Dumber? Bloomberg Article” – on August 20, 2015. Here are some of the gems:

From “t3success” – on August 20, 2015 at 12:32 pm:

“I just want to throw up reading that crap. These deans are totally unhinged. Just go away. Close your freaking doors and find something else to do with your life besides taking promissory notes for 150k from people who can't even crack 150 on the LSAT. It's a disgrace and it's shameful. 

WHERE IS THE ABA?! THE REGULATORS OF THIS "PROFESSION!!!!" COME ON MAN, SERIOUSLY CUT THIS CRAP OUT. PUT AN END TO IT.” [Emphasis mine]

Check out this epic beat-down from “ibrslave,” on August 20, 2015.

“Wow, wow! Brooklyn dramatically lowers its admission standards and then more of its graduates begin failing the bar. Any objective observer, hell a 6th grader, can understand the cause and effect. But, Dean Allard blames the bar examiners. The icing on the cake, however, is Dean Allard pretending like a $4,000 bar exam is the impediment to poor law grads becoming lawyers. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars has Brooklyn and Dean Allard taken from these same poor students? Dean Allard cannot be serious. 

I fully support the bar examiners for holding their ground against the likes of Dean Allard.” [Emphasis mine]

The pig is getting roasted to a crisp, on that thread. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that Nicholas Allard is a lying sack of excrement who doesn’t give one damn about his students, recent grads, or their financial health. He is simply trying to pass the buck onto someone else, as to why his students are broke-asses and cannot make a living as lawyers.

Conclusion: Avoid the festering dung heap known as Crooklyn Law School. Otherwise, you will likely end up graduating with $150K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, while facing piss poor job prospects. Try repaying such massive student loans on a paltry, annual salary of $40K. Now imagine having children and supporting them, with that debt constantly hanging over your head, Dumbass. You DO NOT NEED to commit financial suicide, in order to support Fat Pig Nicholas Allard and the other cockroaches at Brooklyn Law Sewer. As you can see, the bastard could stand to lose a few pounds.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School Experiences a 52% Drop in Enrollment, Since 2010


http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/08/16/cooley-law-school-enrollment-sinks/31824515/

Excellent news!: On August 16, 2015, the Detroit Free Press re-published a Lansing State Journal article from RJ Wolcott, which was entitled “Cooley Law School enrollment drops 52%.” Take a look at this wonderful opening:

“More than 3,900 students were enrolled at Cooley Law School in 2010. That was the zenith. It’s been downhill since. Cooley’s enrollment for the 2014-15 academic year was 1,880.

That’s a drop of 52%, according to data from Cooley and the American Bar Association. In comparison, Michigan State University College of Law, which is more selective, had about 830 students last year. 

Law school enrollment has been declining nationwide since 2010, ABA data show. At Cooley, it has declined almost three times as fast. During its years of explosive growth, Cooley opened three satellite campuses in Michigan and one near Tampa. 

Last year, administrators at the school, now known as the Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School, closed its Ann Arbor campus and laid off faculty members in an effort to mitigate the losses. 

Records from the ABA show 119 full-time faculty employed at Cooley in the spring of 2014 compared to 49 in the fall. Jim Robb, associate dean of external affairs, said staff reductions were a combination of retirements and layoffs. 

Despite recent struggles, Don LeDuc, president and dean of the school, expects 2015 to be a transition year for Cooley.

He says enrollment is up since December. He anticipates that an increase in students taking the LSAT will soon result in a return to pre-recession enrollment.” [Emphasis mine]

You’re welcome, bitches! It’s great to see that full-time parasites at the TTTThoma$ M. Cooley Law Sewer have been reduced by nearly 59 percent, since the spring of 2014. Cockroach Donald LeDuc is truly delusional, if he believes that his FOURTH TIER PILE OF EXCREMENT will soon experience a return to its peak enrollment in 2010. Then again, the bastard gets over-paid to say such idiotic things. 

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/08/which-law-schools-enrollment-has-dropped-by-more-than-50-percent/

Other Coverage: ATL posted a Staci Zaretsky entry labeled “Which Law School’s Enrollment Has Dropped By More Than 50 Percent?” – on August 17, 2015. Check out the segment below:

“According to Dean Don LeDuc, however, Cooley Law’s drop in enrollment isn’t a big deal. He says the school’s enrollment has gone up since December, and that because more students are taking the LSAT, it’ll translate into a “return to pre-recession enrollment.” Perhaps if more law school deans were as clairvoyant and optimistic as LeDuc, the rest of the nation’s legal educators wouldn’t be in such a precarious predicament. 

In an interview with RJ Wolcott of the Lansing State Journal, LeDuc went on to blame other law schools for causing Cooley Law’s enormous enrollment drop: “One of the things that schools will do is they’ll start taking students that they wouldn’t have taken in good times. [They] reach down further into applicant pool. Well, when they do that they’re taking our students, and we’re adversely affected by that.” Pardon me, but just how deep does Dean LeDuc think other law schools are digging into the applicant pool? 

Since 2011, Cooley Law’s median LSAT score had fallen from 146 to 145 and plunged from 143 to 141 at the 25th percentile. No matter how desperate they are to put paying asses into seats, not too many law schools are willing to take a chance on applicants with less-than-ideal stats like that — not if they’d like their U.S. News ranks to remain stable. 

Not only has Cooley Law’s enrollment dropped, but it’s also seen a stark drop in applications. Per the Lansing State Journal, Cooley received 4,032 applications in 2011, and 1,161 students accepted admission offers and enrolled. Last year, the school received only 1,481 applications, and just 445 students ended up matriculating. We know lawyers are supposedly bad at math, but anyone can see that those numbers are horrendous.” [Emphasis mine]

That is quite an admission from Pig LeDuc, i.e. "Better schools are starting to admit more mentally deficient potential students, and that hurts us because we rely on waterheads to fill our classrooms."  The swine acknowledged that his notorious trash pit accepts the dumbest applicants of pretty much any ABA toilet – even though the rodents ranked themselves as the 2nd best law school in the entire damn country, as recently as 2011. Of course, anyone with an IQ above 60 recognized that this was a pathetic attempt by Donald LeDuc and Thomas Brennan.

Apparently, MANY potential Cooley students have realized that they are better off personally and financially, by remaining in their dead end jobs. At least then, they will not end up pissing away three years of their lives – and incurring an additional $120K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, in the process.

Conclusion: When you think of filthy cesspools and putrid waste, the first image that comes to mind is TTTThoma$ M. Cooley Law Sewer. This school is the epitome of raw sewage in legal “academia.” It is also the prime example of an ABA-accredited diploma mill that does not give one damn about its students or recent graduates. Hell, if they could, these “educators”/bitches and hags would enroll skid row bums and crash test dummies into their TTTT program.  It is great to see that people are avoiding this FOURTH TIER TRASH PIT, in droves.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

NALP Cockroaches Chirp About Improved Employment “Placement” Rate, While Noting the JD Class of 2014 Secured Fewer Jobs Than the Prior Cohort


http://www.nalp.org/2014_selected_pr

Selected Findings: On July 31, 2015, the bitches and hags at NALP issued a press release labeled “Employment Rate for New Law School Graduates Rises by More Than Two Percentage Points - But Overall Number of Jobs Falls as the Size of the Graduating Class Shrinks.” How concise, huh?! Take a look at this opening:

“According to "Selected Findings from the Employment Report and Salary Survey for the Class of 2014" released today by NALP, for the first time since 2007 and the onset of the Great Recession, the employment rate for law school graduates has risen, from just 84.5% for the Class of 2013 to 86.7% for the Class of 2014, a jump of 2.2 percentage points.

This good news comes, however, with a few caveats. First, and most importantly, the employment rate measured for the Class of 2014 is not directly comparable with the employment rates for the classes that preceded it because beginning with the Class of 2014, following a similar decision made by the American Bar Association, employment status information was collected as of March 15, approximately ten months after a typical May graduation, rather than February 15, as had been the case since 1996. (Prior to that, employment data had been collected six months after graduation.) 

The other important piece of the jobs picture for the Class of 2014 is that the class was substantially smaller than the class that preceded it. (Indeed, according to the ABA it was nearly 3,000 graduates smaller than the Class of 2013, which will likely stand as the largest class to ever pass through the American legal education pipeline, at least for the foreseeable future.) And, importantly, that smaller class found fewer jobs than the class before it. The overall number of jobs secured by law school graduates had grown in each of the three preceding years, with the Class of 2010 holding the low post-recession watermark for the actual number of jobs found. For the Class of 2014, the overall number of jobs secured was three percent fewer than the Class of 2013, but because the size of the graduating class itself was more than six percent smaller than the previous class, the overall employment rate went up.” [Emphasis mine]

For those of you still considering law school, I will point out the following, since you find yourself in the lower end IQ crowd: the employment “placement” went up slightly by 2.2% but the number of jobs landed by 2014 law grads decreased by about 3 percent. Do you still want to take this big-ass gamble?!?! Perhaps, I need to draw you idiots a diagram with Crayola on posterboard. 

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NationalSummaryChart2014Class.pdf

Class of 2014 National Summary Report: If you prefer graphs or visuals, check out NALP’s National Summary Report for the JD Class of 2014. Last year, a total of 42,524 men and women earned their law degree from an ABA-accredited diploma mill. Employment status was known for 42,139 of these grads. They competed for 27,928 jobs where bar passage was required. What type of “profession” allows its member $chool$ to pump out 1.52 graduates for each opening?!?!

Keep in mind that law school pigs count all types of employment – i.e. full-time, part-time, long term, short term, legal, and non-law – when calculating the “placement” rate. With that knowledge, a total of 5,609 JDs fell into the following four categories, after 10 months: pursuing a degree full time; start date deferred past 3/15/2015; not employed and seeking; and unemployed but not looking for work. This brings the employment rate to 86.7 percent, i.e. (42,139-5,609)/42,139. After all, if you are pursuing another academic “credential,” it shows that law school did not pay off for you.

Scroll down to page two of this PDF. Under Size of Firm, you will notice that this group landed 18,587 private firm positions – including law clerk, paralegal and administrator. This figure takes the following into account: 816 desperate-ass solo practitioners, 7,670 grads in offices of 1-10 lawyers, and 1,870 typically making peanuts in firms of 11-25 attorneys. By the way, only 5,043 members of the JD Class of 2014 landed positions in offices with more than 250 lawyers – and this is consistent with recent years.

This represents a paltry 11.9% of all grads from this cohort, i.e. (5,043/42,524)*100. Still like your odds, waterhead?!?! In fact, this is skewed. If you enter law school, you do not have a roughly 1 in 9 chance of landing Biglaw – a job that may justify staggering amounts of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt and three years of mind-numbing “education.” That is because those offers are largely made to graduates of the top 5-10 law schools.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/grad-debt-rankings

Average Law Student Indebtedness: US “News” & World Report provides a list of the average amount of student debt incurred by suckers who specifically took out loans to attend an ABA-accredited commode or trash can. These figures pertain to the Class of 2014, i.e. the same group of idiots covered by the NALP pages above. Do you think it would be a good idea to graduate from TTTThoma$ Jeffer$on Law Sewer, for an additional $172,445?! Perhaps, you believe that you are so amazing that YOU can walk away from Fourth Tier Florida Coastal Sewer of Law – with $162,785 in extra debt – and still emerge a rousing success. Hell, these figures don’t even take undergrad loans, or accruing interest during enrollment, into account.

Conclusion: While several subsequent JD classes will be smaller, and this should improve job prospects slightly for law grads from each cohort, the positions available are certainly not worth incurring an additional $120K-$180K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. Also, the term “employment placement” is a joke, as it pertains to law school. As those of us who have been through the experience can attest, “career development” hags DO NOT help find you find jobs. 

Typically, these rodents excel in providing you with Power Point presentations and handouts on subjects such as “Sprucing Up Your Resume” and “Letting Your Personality Shine Through on Cover Letters and Writing Samples.” Furthermore, these dolts devote their time to assisting those in the top 10% of the class land decent employment, i.e. these cockroaches help those who need it the least. Yes, that is a great use of resources, right?!?! Don’t be a dumbass and throw your future away, simply because fewer graduates translates into supposed better odds at landing legal work. Again, taking on massive amounts of student loans – for a chance to land a $40K annual toiletlaw job – is not a good investment or life choice.

Friday, August 7, 2015

ABA Cockroaches Gives Final Approval on Rutgers Law School Merger


http://news.rutgers.edu/news-release/american-bar-association-approves-merger-creating-rutgers-law-school/20150727#.VcRIrvlVikq

The TT Announcement: On July 31, 2015, Rutger$ Univer$ity issued a press release labeled “American Bar Association Approves Merger Creating Rutgers Law School.” Look at this excrementitious opening:

“The Council of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar approved today the merger of Rutgers’ law schools into one unified Rutgers Law School with two distinct locations in Camden and Newark, during its annual meeting. In June, the ABA’s Accreditation Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposed merger as did the Rutgers Board of Governors in April.

"We are elated with the ABA’s decision to approve the new Rutgers Law School,” says Acting Co-Dean John Oberdiek. “We believe strongly that our ambitious model allows for increased opportunities for all Rutgers Law students to advance their career searches and to learn from a wider selection of world-class faculty.”

Keenly attuned to the evolving demands of the legal profession and to the need for legal scholarship and education to address the public good, the new Rutgers Law School offers a comprehensive curriculum, propelled by one of the nation’s largest faculties with wide-ranging expertise. The expansive course offerings are made possible through cutting-edge immersive technology currently in place that connects the two locations and brings great legal scholars and students together in real time. 

According to Co-Dean and 1983 alumnus Ronald K. Chen, Rutgers Law has a proven tradition of educating diverse new generations of legal professionals for public and private practice. “Rutgers has long provided exceptional and affordable legal educations to its students, but now as a Big Ten law school and a leader in legal education in the Northeast, we are positioned to make an impact on the national legal landscape” says Chen. “Not only will Rutgers Law School continue to further the missions of Rutgers University-Newark, Rutgers University-Camden and the entire Rutgers system, it will serve New Jersey as its public law school.” [Emphasis mine]

Did you see anything of substance in that portion above?! Academic swine excel at screwing over students and taxpayers, and they also engage in meaningless platitudes and verbal diarrhea. By the way, “co-dean” sounds idiotic. This is further compounded by the fact that cockroaches Oberdiek and Chen are acting co-deans of this cesspool. Their mothers must be immensely proud. 

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2015/08/03/aba-rutgers-plan-merge-law-school-camden-newark.html

Other Coverage: The Philadelphia Business Journal published a Jeff Blumenthal article on this development, on August 3, 2015. That story was entitled “ABA approves Rutgers plan to merge law schools.” Check out the following excerpt:

“Rutgers University’s plan to merge its two law schools into one unified institution, yet still maintain its two campuses in Camden and Newark, N.J., has received approval from the American Bar Association. 

The ABA’s section on legal education and admission to the bar voted on the plan Monday during its annual meeting. In June, the ABA’s Accreditation Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposed merger as did the Rutgers Board of Governors in April. 

The integrated Rutgers Law School will begin using a single application in the fall of 2015 for the 2016 entering class.

Rutgers will use its immersive distance education technology to support expanded course offerings and bring a sense of common identity and students separated by 90 miles. The university introduced the programming technology last spring. 

The school also has created one Rutgers University Law Review and combined the two school’s respective law journals.

Merging the two law schools is actually a reunification.

They were first separated into two Rutgers entities, with their own accreditation, faculty and curriculums in 1967. Law school leadership first suggested bringing the two schools back together in 2011, but the move was put on hold as Gov. Chris Christie's proposal to fold Rutgers University-Camden into Rowan University. Once that idea ran its course, Rutgers President Robert Barchi announced in 2013 the plan for the unification of the law schools. 

Two co-deans will lead the merged Rutgers Law School. Rutgers said the co-deans will maintain their individual lines of authority, reporting to the chancellors in Camden and Newark.” [Emphasis mine]

For $ome rea$on, the board of governor$ decided that this supposedly single/combined toilet will still require two deans, i.e. typically the highest-paid cockroaches at an ABA institution. That actually makes perfect sense – when you realize that the “educators” do not give a damn about the students.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, this is not a surprise. The rodents at these two state law schools were planning to merge for quite a while. Plus, the ABA criminals will approve damn near any proposal from member commodes. Hell, if “law professors” and deans at each trash pit wanted to toss one student out of a window each semester, I’m sure the bitches and hags at the American Bar Association would give their approval. Of course, they would make sure that it did not occur until after the student loan check cleared.

Monday, August 3, 2015

TTTT Smells of Desperation: Arizona Summit Law School’s Unlock Potential Program


http://abovethelaw.com/2015/07/law-school-dean-allegedly-begged-graduates-not-to-take-the-bar-exam-on-the-day-before-the-test/

Flush Twice and Open a Window: On July 28, 2015, ATL featured a Staci Zaretsky entry labeled “Law School Dean Allegedly Begged Graduates Not To Take The Bar Exam – On The Day Before The Test.” Take a look at the following portion:

“Back in June, we spoke at length about what happens when bar exam time rolls around at law schools where passage rates for first-time takers have been notoriously low. At the time, we wondered: “[W]hat if there were a way to ensure that students who were struggling academically would stay far, far away from the bar exam, thus enhancing your law school’s chances of posting less embarrassing passage statistics?”

Pleadings in Lorona v. Arizona Summit Law School suggest that while there is a way to keep law school graduates away from the bar exam, not everyone is happy about it. In that suit, plaintiff Paula Lorona, an alumnus and former assistant director of financial aid at Arizona Summit Law, alleges that out of fear of losing accreditation, deans at all three of InfiLaw’s schools — Arizona Summit, Charlotte, and Florida Coastal — began offering $5,000 payoffs to students who were unlikely to pass the bar exam. 

Dean Shirley Mays of Arizona Summit Law later defended those payoffs as stipends that were part of the school’s Unlock Potential (U.P.) program, which “extends the bar preparation from the usual 10-week program to more of a four-month program.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, Pig Shirley Mays has great confidence in her commode’s ability to train future lawyers. The article correctly refers to the $5,000 offers as payoffs. By the way, that amount is a tiny fraction of the average student debt load one accumulates at this ABA-accredited stink pits. Later on, the author then noted the following:

“Hardly improved pass rates aside, it looks like Dean Mays wanted to “enhance” other graduates’ “bar pass opportunity,” because yesterday, the day before the July 2015 administration of the bar exam, she was busy calling Arizona Summit Law alumni at the eleventh hour and trying to convince them to defer their taking of the test. 

If a law school has that little faith in its graduates’ abilities, doesn’t that speak more to the quality of the education received (or lack thereof) than the graduates’ test-taking abilities? 

There’s nothing like a last-second call from the dean of your law school telling you that you’re about to fail the bar exam to boost your confidence.” [Emphasis mine] 

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202729108185/Arizona-Summit-Defends-Encouraging-Grads-to-Delay-Bar-Exam?slreturn=20150703072010

TTTT Tactics in Action: Back on June 11, 2015, the National Law Journal published a Karen Sloan piece which was entitled “Arizona Summit Defends Encouraging Grads to Delay Bar Exam.” Take a look at this opening:

“The dean of Arizona Summit Law School this week defended paying stipends to graduates who delay sitting for the bar examination to extend their test preparation. 

The stipends are part of the Unlock Potential (U.P.) program, which dean Shirley Mays called a "creative and innovative" way to help students who simply wouldn’t be ready to sit for the exam otherwise.

The program came under fire in a lawsuit that claims it's really designed to prop up sagging bar rates that threaten Arizona Summit’s American Bar Association accreditation.

Mays insisted the program is justified. The school, located in Phoenix, admits a large number of part-time and nontraditional students, including first-generation college graduates, working parents and people caring for elderly parents as the school’s student body skews older, she said. Many of those students need to balance study time against family demands or other circumstances, she said.

Part-time students comprised more than 20 percent of Arizona Summit’s most recent incoming class, and minorities more than 47 percent, according to the ABA.” [Emphasis mine]

It’s always nice to see thieves and cockroaches justify their filthy actions and boorish behavior. Based on your admi$$ion practices of accepting waterheads and morons, it is clear that you pigs enroll PLENTY of students who will not be ready to sit for the bar exam – even with three years of law school under their belts! The article then continued:

“The program “extends the bar preparation from the usual 10-week program to more of a four-month program,” she said. “It has classes where the students take mock exams and practice questions. They also work on barriers to their success—we identify things that might prevent them from being successful on the test. We help them brainstorm ways to help them address those concerns.” 

Paula Lorona, a 2015 graduate and former Arizona Summit financial administrator, alleged in a federal wrongful-termination lawsuit that administrators pressured her to put off taking the February 2015 bar exam because they feared she would fail. She opted for a BarBri course instead of the school’s customized bar prep course and passed the February exam. 

“Lorona’s school-assigned bar coach told Lorona that the school is concerned that it may lose accreditation and access to Title IV federal funding due to drastically low performance numbers,” her complaint reads.” [Emphasis mine]

What honorable conduct, right?!?! Yes, this school must be accepting top applicants!  Who wouldn't want to enroll in this dung heap?!

Conclusion: Comedian Bill Hicks used the following brilliant joke: “I love the pope. I love seeing him in his pope-mobile, his three feet of bullet proof plexi-glass. That’s faith in action, folks!” The same principle applies to the law school pigs at Arizona $ummiTTTT Law Sewer. Again, this shows that “law professors” and administrators DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about students or recent graduates. They are simply involved in “legal education” in order to make high salaries for pathetic amounts of “work” – at the expense of debt-strapped grads and the federal taxpayer.
 
Web Analytics