Saturday, September 23, 2017

Fourth Tier Florida Coastal School of Law Grads Had the Worst Pass Rate on Florida June 2017 Bar Exam; Dean Blames Results on Admitting Dumb Applicants

We Take in Dummies: On September 22, 2017, the Jacksonville Daily Record published a Max Marbut article entitled “Florida Coastal School of Law grads struggle to pass Bar exam on first try.” Check out this opening:

“Of the 132 Florida Coastal School of Law graduates who in July took the Florida General Bar Examination for the first time, only 63 passed — that’s 47.7 percent, the lowest first-time pass percentage among the 11 law schools in the state.

The average first-time pass percentage for the July Bar exam was 68.4 percent, with Florida International University College of Law in the No. 1 spot at 87.8 percent.

In the past 10 Bar exams since February 2013, Florida Coastal students have bettered the state average just twice.

So, what’s behind the below-average performance?

Florida Coastal Dean Scott DeVito said how potential law students are tested and the law school’s niche are the main factors to consider when evaluating the statistics. 

“We take students who don’t do well on standardized tests. The LSAT is a standardized test and the Bar exam is a standardized test,” said Florida Coastal Dean Scott DeVito, referring in the first case to the Legal Scholastic Aptitude Test.

A student’s LSAT score is viewed by many law school admissions officials as being more important than grade point average when evaluating whether to admit a student.

DeVito pointed out that the 75th percentile LSAT score at Florida Coastal – the minimum score that would mean admission for 3 out of 4 applicants – is lower than the 25th percentile score (minimum for admission for 1 out of 4 applicants) at the other law schools in the state.

Florida Coastal’s 75th percentile score for students admitted in 2016 was 149. Compare that to 25th percentile scores at Florida International (151), Stetson University (152), the University of Miami (155), the University of Florida (156) and Florida State University (157).” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, taking in people with 141 LSAT scores is something that is beyond your control as dean of this for-profit, fourth tier in$TTTTiTTTTuTTTTion, right?! Do you expect the state board of examiners to dumb down the licensing test – in order to accommodate your subpar students and graduates, Scott DeVito?

Other Coverage: On September 18, 2017, the Florida Times-Union featured a piece from Eileen Kelley, under the headline “Florida Coastal Law School places last in Bar exam passage again.” Read the following excerpt:

“Less than one-half of all Florida Coastal School of Law graduates passed the Florida Bar examination on the first try, the worst numbers of the 11 law schools in the state.

In Florida, the bar is administered twice a year. The results of the July exam were released Monday.

The Jacksonville school’s pass rate of 47.7 percent puts it at the bottom of all Florida-based law schools.

Florida Coastal has the lowest ranking for the last four consecutive tests. Florida International University College of Law ranked highest with a 87.8 percent passage rate.

Though low, the 47.7 percent passage rate for Florida Coastal is a 91 percent improvement from the results of the winter 2017 examination when just one of every four students who took the exam for the first time passed.” [Emphasis mine]

You know that you are operating a diploma mill when a 47.7% pass rate on the July Bar Exam represents an improvement almost by a factor of two, from the previous administration of the test. What will the school put on its website and recruiting materials? Perhaps, “Florida Coastal: where you have almost a 50/50 shot at passing the Florida Bar Exam.” Sadly, the mentally deficient would continue to apply to this dump.

LST Report Info: Courtesy of the folks at Law School Transparency, here are the stats for the class who entered in Fall 2013, i.e. the same cohort who took this bar exam:

25th percentile LSAT: 141
50th percentile LSAT: 144
75th percentile LSAT: 148
25th percentile UGPA: 2.69
50th percentile UGPA: 2.97
75th percentile UGPA: 3.26

Look at those figures for a moment. What would make you think that such students would be able to kick ass on the bar exam, without some incredible increase in work ethic or brainpower?

Conclusion: In the final analysis, Florida Coa$TTTTal $chool of Law is only in this thing for the money. The "professors" and deans could care less about where their former students end up, as long as the federal loan checks clear. Remember, these supposed "legal scholars" get paid up front, in full. You, the student, are a mere mean$ to an end. Full-time tuition and fees amount to $46,068 - for the 2017-2018 academic year. For $ome rea$on, the school lists this on a per semester basis.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

One Quarter of ABA-Accredited Diploma Mills Plan to Use GRE Scores for Admissions, Per Kaplan Survey

TTT News: On September 18, 2017, Kathryn Rubino posted an ATL entry labeled “25 Percent Of Law Schools Say They Plan To Choose The GRE.” Read this opening:

“Being able to take the GRE in lieu of the LSAT and still get into law school is a relatively new concept. It wasn’t too long ago that Arizona made shockwaves in legal education by announcing the LSAT — seen as a rite of passage by many lawyers — was no longer required to go to their school, and students could take the GRE instead. Now that idea has germinated, and, well — it is getting more popular. 

In a survey done by Kaplan Test Prep of admissions officials from 128 law schools, a full 25 percent say accepting the GRE is an admission policy they plan on implementing. That’s a huge shift — in a similar survey last year, only 14 percent of law schools said they were thinking of accepting the GRE. The schools that say they are unsure remained constant year-to-year at 30 percent, and those that say they will not accept the GRE fell from 56 percent to 45 percent. That means the 11 percent increase in schools now onboard with the exam came from the group of schools that had said they were against the move last year.

So — why they big change? Well, to paraphrase South Park — Harvard did it.

That’s right, amid some controversy, earlier this year Harvard announced they would now accept the GRE. As one might imagine, when such a prominent school made the move, it opened the floodgates for others to follow. This summer, two other elite law schools, Northwestern and Georgetown, announced they were accepting the GRE. It’s officially open season on the LSAT.

According to Kaplan’s survey, the “me too!” logic is in full effect for those eyeing the move to the GRE, with respondents saying:

I’m thinking that it’s going to become the norm. It’s one of those situations where you’re going to be left behind.


We plan to do it in part because Harvard is doing it. When they do things, people tend to fall in line, thinking it’s right.

But that route is not without peril. The ABA’s current rule allows law schools to accept an alternative to the LSAT if said alternative is proven “valid and reliable.” Only catch? They still haven’t weighed in on the validity studies done for the GRE to meet their standard. That fact was weighing on the minds of admissions professionals Kaplan surveyed: 

Many people here don’t hold the same opinion about the validity of the GRE. We would also like to know the ABA’s disposition. Validity studies cost money and with law schools strapped for cash, that’s not easy.” [Emphasis mine]

Of course, the pigs are willing to accept the GRE as an alternate to the LSAT. It is offered more frequently, and it is typically taken by idiots seeking PhDs in Anthropology or a Master’s degree in French Literature. By the way, it is adorable that skeptics think that each ABA diploma factory will have to bear the costs of a validity study. If Harvard – or Georgetown – comes up with “confirmation” that the GRE is a valid and reliable entrance exam, then it will be accepted by the dolts at the American Bar Association. Just think of industry standards that are adopted in other areas of commerce.

Other Coverage: On September 18, 2017, the ABA Journal featured a Stephanie Francis Ward piece entitled “More law schools plan to accept GRE scores, but there’s still hesitation, survey finds.” Review the following portion:

“In its 2017 survey of law school admissions offices, Kaplan Test Prep found that there’s a sharp increase in those planning to accept Graduate Records Examination scores from applicants.

According to answers to a survey of 128 law schools released Monday, 25 percent indicated that they plan to implement the GRE in admissions. In 2016, only 14 percent of the schools surveyed planned to add the GRE as an admissions test option along with the Law School Admissions Test.

Several law schools, including the University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law, Harvard Law School, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and Georgetown Law School–the largest in the nation–currently accept or are planning to accept GRE scores in admissions. 

The standard regarding entrance tests for ABA-accredited law schools is under consideration by the council of the organization’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. The proposed revision to Standard 503 calls for the council to establish a process that determines reliability and validity of other tests besides the LSAT. That’s a change from the current version, which directs law schools using alternate admissions tests to demonstrate that the exams are valid and reliable. The council is expected to discuss the issue in November, according to a memo from Barry Currier, the the ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education.” [Emphasis mine]

As you can see, a mere council of the ABA’s $ecTTTion of Legal EducaTTTion and Admi$$ion$ to the Bar – comprised of lazy academics – can revise Standard 503. This means that individual cesspools will not have to shell out funds to show that the GRE is a valid alternative to the LSAT.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the ABA council will come up with a rationale “showing” that the GRE is a wonderful and amazing entrance exam. Hell, they’ll probably declare that it is superior to the LSAT. When this occurs, expect the Biglaw types and “legal scholars” at that racketeer influenced and corrupt organization to rubber stamp this TTT decision by proclamation/voice vote. Why not just require prospective law students to write a short essay, stating the reasons why they want to practice law?

Thursday, September 14, 2017

California “Law Professors” Want the State to Lower the Bar Exam Passage Scores

Social Justice Warrior/"Professor": On September 11, 2017, Stephen Diamond wrote a blog post labeled “Does the California State Bar have a race problem?” Take a look at this portion:

“A recent meeting of the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) suggests to me that the California Bar may have a problem with race. That is, its leaders do not understand or are not willing to accept that they are putting up a barrier to minorities who wish to practice law. The evidence of this potential problem is found in the tape of the hearing which you can view here as well as a report prepared by the Bar Association’s staff on the bar exam. 

The CBE chair, Karen Goodman, who readily admits (Min. 48:00) that she is from “Elk Grove” (a small town south of Sacramento that is, ironically, quite racially diverse) and so may not understand the data presented to her, questions whether lowering the “cut score” (the minimum number of points needed to pass) on the bar exam would help improve access to justice. 

Yet, the data presented to the CBE she chairs indicates clearly that lowering the cut score even a modest amount (and still at a level well above that of New York state) would significantly increase the number of minority lawyers in the state. And this would be true in a state bar that remains overwhelmingly white and male and older, despite significant demographic shifts in the state over the last few decades.

The Bar staff report concluded: “…applicants of color pass the [current] bar exam at rates that are disproportionate to those of their white counterparts.This impact, when combined with disproportionately lower numbers of people of color in the pipeline to higher education and law school, has resulted in a pool of licensed attorneys in California that does not reflect the population of the state.” [Emphasis mine]

Apparently, racking up $186,211.94 in non-dischargeable debt is not a large barrier for these minority graduates. Later on, Fake SJW Diamond wrote the following:

“Thus, while we do not know why the cut score is so much higher than needed to meet the primary mandate of the CBE (protection of the public), we do know that by setting it at 144 the Bar has put up a wall over which minority law school graduates have difficulty climbing with the inevitable outcome: a disparate impact on those hopeful new law school graduates. 

(This is likely why the Bar staff recommended three options: leaving the score the same, lowering it slightly to 141 or lowering it further to 139, a point which would still be 6 points higher than New York. Despite the troglodyte nature of the CBE deliberations, the Board of Trustees voted 6-5 to send all three staff options to the Supreme Court, which remains free to accept or reject those, as it has ultimate authority now over the cut score.) 

Goodman and others on the Committee also seem to be ignorant of the actual improving employment data for lawyers in California over the past several years.” [Emphasis mine]

Does anyone with a functioning brain actually believe that this “law professor” cares about the barriers to minorities, in obtaining a law license? Also, where is Diamond's proof that California lawyers are now facing better job prospects? The state has a palpable glut of attorneys - and the cost of living there is ridiculous. For $ome rea$on, Diamond didn’t list outrageous student debt on non-connected JDs as a disparate impact.

Prior Coverage: On August 1, 2017, the ABA Journal published a Stephanie Francis Ward piece entitled “Proposal to lower California bar exam cut score considered.” Read this opening:

“A proposal to set a new interim California bar exam cut score at 1414 from the current 1440 is being considered by the State Bar of California. The proposal is one possibility to come out of standard setting study (PDF) the state bar commissioned. 

The study also proposes making no change to the current cut score, according to a state bar press release.

Traditionally, the cut score was set by the bar exam committee, but in July the California Supreme Court amended the rule, giving it the authority to set the passing score. In February, the court directed the state bar—an administrative arm of the judiciary—to do a series of comprehensive bar exam studies, including cut score review. 

At a committee meeting on Monday in Los Angeles, several law school deans, including Gilbert Holmes of the University of La Verne College of Law, spoke in favor of lowering the cut score.

“People love to say they passed the bar the first time in California. It’s meaningful because it’s graded so hard,” Holmes said in a Courthouse News Service report. “But is that really important?” 

Earlier this year, Holmes was among 20 California law school deans who wrote a letter (PDF) to the California high court, asking for a lower cut score, the Recorder reported at the time… 

Only 43 percent of the applicants who took the July 2016 California bar exam passed, according to the Associated Press. Also, only five of the state’s 21 ABA-accredited law schools had a pass rate of at least 75 percent, the Recorder reported at the time.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, I’m sure that those deans wrote that letter out of the goodness of their hearts – and not out of blatant $elf-intere$t. These supposed “legal scholars” keep lowering their admissions criteria, and now they want the state to reduce their passing score.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, these “educators” simply want to foist more debt-strapped, marginally competent attorneys onto the general public. This the “honorable profession” in action. They know that many idiots will glady take on $160K in non-dischargeable loans, in exchange for a law license. I expect the politicians in black robes to lower the licensing score in the state. If that happens, then this would help keep several California ABA commodes in business longer.

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Questions Regarding the Law School Return on Investment

A Wise Investment?: On August 21, 2017, the National Jurist published a guest post from Martin Pritikin, under the header “Return on Investment: The Core Challenge for Legal Education and the Legal Profession.” Take a look at this opening:

“The legal community is facing a myriad of serious challenges ― historically low law school enrollments and bar passage rates, exploding tuition costs and associated student debt and a stagnant job market ― that, if not addressed, will put it in peril.

One seemingly attractive solution would be for a quarter of law schools to just close their doors. This would reduce competition for existing law jobs and reduce pressure on remaining schools to enroll less-qualified students to keep the lights on. 

But this would only exacerbate the national crisis in access to justice. Tens of millions of Americans need lawyers but cannot afford the prevailing rates that lawyers charge, or live in areas where there are too few lawyers to adequately serve them. It is not enough to say the country needs fewer lawyers. It needs more of them ― if they can offer modest-means clients reasonable rates and still service their educational debt. 

This is not just bleeding-heart talk. If recent law graduates’ only option is to compete with more seasoned attorneys for the clients that can afford to pay $200+ per hour, they’re going to continue to struggle. By offering reduced rates and tapping into a market of people who would otherwise likely forego legal services altogether, recent graduates will not simply be fighting for a bigger slice of the pie; they’ll be expanding the pie.

The big problem is return on educational investment, as those who would most logically serve the middle market can ill afford to do so. Annual tuition is about $50,000 at top-tier private law schools, where many graduates land $180,000 starting salaries. But the tuition is roughly the same at so-called “fourth-tier” law schools, where those lucky enough to secure employment typically make between $60,000 and $80,000. There’s a name for this economic model: it’s called broken.

Consider this: of the 205 law schools accredited by the American Bar Association, 199 are exempt from Department of Education requirements to report graduates’ debt-to-earnings ratios. Why? Because they operate as not-for-profits. As reported by the ABA Journal on January 11, 2017, of the six for-profit schools that recently reported their data for the first time, two failed outright and three others were found to be in the “zone,” that is, at risk of failing. Yet, based on available data, if the not-for-profits were subject to the same debt-to-earnings test, it appears at least half of them ― 100 schools ― would have failed as well.” [Emphasis mine]

But these grossly overpaid and under-worked “legal scholars” are performing a “public service” for the students, right? Still want to sign on the dotted line, Lemming? By the way, Pritikin’s estimate of $60K-$80K in annual salary from fourth tier commodes is greatly exaggerated. Those grads who end up in small law are lucky to make $48K per year.

Prior Coverage: Back on August 18, 2016, CNBC featured a Kathleen Elkins piece that was entitled “Goldman Sachs CEO: ‘The most you get out of law school is the debt.’” Read the following portion:

“A traditional law degree can cost over $100,000 and three years of your life.

Is it worth it? 

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who attended Harvard Law and practiced law for five years before getting into finance, seems to think not.

“Of course, you get a lot out of law school — you learn a lot — but the most you get out of law school is debt,” Blankfein recently told a group of Goldman interns.

There are numbers to back his claim. “Law school student debt has ballooned, rising from about $95,000 among borrowers at the average school in 2010 to about $112,000 in 2014,” Noam Schieber of the New York Times reported. Part of this trend is due to the increasing cost of tuition, which is now over $40,000 a year on average for private institutions.

Additionally, there are fewer jobs available for lawyers, meaning more grads may not even be able to put their expensive degree to use.

“While demand for other white-collar jobs has grown substantially since the start of the recession, law firms and corporations are finding they can make do with far fewer in-house lawyers than before, squeezing those just starting their careers,” Schieber explained.

Part of the reason law firms are facing smaller headcounts is because of “growing efficiencies created by technology and business systems and increased competition from nontraditional legal services providers,” James G. Leipold, the executive director of the National Association for Law Placement, told the Times.” [Emphasis mine]

In other words, now is a bad time to pursue a “legal education.” Ask yourself how many frshly-minted JDs from Pace, Loyola Los Angeles, and UC Irvine are making $80K per year. The answer is few to none. Then look up the average law school debt for students at those institutions.

Conclusion: Simply put, incurring an additional $145K+ in non-dischargeable debt, for a chance to enter a glutted “profession” is beyond stupid. If you do not attend a truly elite law school, then you are taking on a terrible financial risk. Try repaying back ridiculous sums of student loans on a paltry $43K annual salary. You do not need to ruin your life, in order to help “law professors” maintain their vacation homes and expensive car payments. Also, take into account opportunity costs associated with attending law school, i.e. you will be giving up three years of income. Even if you work at a dead-end job making $30K a year, that is a serious loss of money. For $ome rea$on, the "professors" forget to mention that part.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Valparaiso University Law School Raises Admissions Criteria, and Welcomes 28 First Year Students for Fall 2017

The News: On August 18, 2017, the Indiana Lawyer published a Marilyn Odendahl piece entitled “Valparaiso Law incoming class significantly smaller but posts higher LSATs and GPAs.” Take a look at this segment:

“As classes begin again, Valparaiso University Law School is standing apart from other Indiana law schools as it welcomes an incoming 1L class of just 28 students, 73 percent smaller than the class that entered last year.

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and Indiana University Maurer School of Law are also matriculating fewer 1L students but the declines are not as dramatic as at Valparaiso. IU McKinney’s Class of 2020 is 4 percent smaller at 244 and IU Maurer’s is 8 percent smaller at 164.

Only Notre Dame Law School has posted an increase. The Catholic institution is reporting an incoming 1L class of 199 students, 6 percent bigger than the class that started in the fall of 2016.

Although class sizes at Valparaiso have been declining, this year’s drop is by far the steepest. Going back to 2013, the northwest Indiana law school matriculated a 1L class of 208. In the subsequent years, the size fell from 174 in 2014 to 130 in 2015 to 103 last year, according to the American Bar Association’s Standard 509 Reports.

The smaller class at Valparaiso has come with some of the highest LSAT scores and grade point averages of any recent 1L group. Students just starting their legal studies this semester have a median LSAT of 151 and a median GPA of 3.23.

Classes that entered Valparaiso between 2013 and 2016 all had median LSAT scores in the 140s. The lowest median LSAT score of 143 came from the 1Ls of 2013 and the highest of 147 was brought by the 1Ls of 2016. GPAs also ranged from 2.93 posted by the 2015 incoming class to 3.10 from the 2014 incoming class.

“I feel very optimistic,” Dean Andrea Lyon said. “I feel like our programming is working and we’re starting to have national rankings. I feel optimistic about the school.”

The incoming class is a bright spot for the northwest Indiana law school which has weathered some turbulent time recently. In 2016, Valparaiso downsized its faculty and was censured by the American Bar Association.

Valparaiso’s Class of 2020 is also diverse. Of the students, 39 percent are female and 25 percent are underrepresented minorities. In addition, 61 percent are first-generation college students and 21 percent are non-traditional students.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, I’m sure that these “educators” are thrilled about their tiny class of new lemmings. How many first year sections will Valparai$o Law feature this Fall? The fact remains that a median LSAT score of 151 does not come close to being impressive. That such an increase can be celebrated by an ABA-accredited diploma factory is further proof that the admi$$ion $tandard$ are pathetically low.

Diversity will not help these students land decent legal jobs. The same goes for non-traditional pupils. Age discrimination is rampant in this field. Law firms want to hire young people, i.e. those around age 25. In this field, a 30 year old applicant is considered damaged goods.

Other Coverage: On August 25, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “Law Schools Welcomes Its Tiniest Class Ever.” Here is the full text of that article:

“Many law schools have “voluntarily” reduced their class sizes since prospective law students discovered that they didn’t want to be in debt and unable to find a job that could service their loans, but one school recently decided to reduce its class size in the hopes of welcoming brighter students — perhaps in an effort to increase the number of graduates who are able the pass the bar exam.

Which school was it, and by how much has its class size been reduced? Here’s our stat of the week, courtesy of the Indiana Lawyer:

As classes begin again, Valparaiso University Law School is standing apart from other Indiana law school as it welcomes an incoming 1L class of just 28 students, 73 percent smaller than the class that entered last year. … 

The smaller class at Valparaiso has come with some of the highest LSAT scores and grade point averages of any recent 1L group. Students just starting their legal studies this semester have a median LSAT of 151 and a median GPA of 3.23.

Classes that entered Valparaiso between 2013 and 2016 all had median LSAT scores in the 140s. The lowest median LSAT score of 143 came from the 1Ls of 2013 and the highest of 147 was brought by the 1Ls of 2016. GPAs also ranged from 2.93 posted by the 2015 incoming class to 3.10 from the 2014 incoming class.

Congratulations to Valpo Law on raising its expectations.” [Emphasis mine]

Usually, Zaretsky does a decent job of reporting on law school updates. Yet, she failed to mention that this commode was censured by the American Bar Association, in 2016. That might be relevant as to why this school “voluntarily” reduced its first year class size.

Conclusion: As you can see, Valparai$o Univer$iTTTTy Law $chool is listed in the FOURTH TIER of ratings, courtesy of US “News” & World Report. In their parlance, they are included in the section labeled “Rank Not Published.” Yet, full-time tuition and fees at this cesspit amount to $41,522 – for the 2017-2018 academic year. That is one hell of a cost for weak employment prospects. The school raised admi$$ion$ criteria – and the best they could do was get 28 first year students this Fall. Once the ABA censure blows over, you can count on Valpo returning to admitting more marks with 143 LSAT scores.

Friday, September 1, 2017

Former Charlotte School of Law Professor Accuses the School of Ripping Off Taxpayers

Accusations From Former Professor: On August 28, 2017, the Charlotte Observer published a Michael Gordon piece entitled “Charlotte School of Law bilked $285 million from taxpayers, former faculty member says.” Read the following portion:

“A lawsuit filed by a former professor of Charlotte School of Law accuses the failed school and its corporate owner of defrauding taxpayers out of $285 million by admitting hundreds of unqualified students, then manipulating records to keep them enrolled so the school could collect their government-backed tuition.

Barbara Bernier says the for-profit school, which closed last week, conspired with its owner, the InfiLaw System, to inflate enrollment and maximize profits. She says Charlotte Law lowered admissions and retention standards while misrepresenting both the state bar exam scores of their graduates and their success in finding jobs, according to a 2016 complaint that became public for the first time this month.

“The goal of the school has never been focused on education,” said Coleman Watson, Bernier’s Orlando, Fla.-based attorney. “The shareholder tended to be more important than the student body, and that’s why she came forward.”

Contacted by the Observer, Charlotte Law spokeswoman Victoria Taylor issued a statement that the school “will defend itself vigorously against the allegations in the complaint. Beyond that, we do not intend to comment on pending litigation.” [Emphasis mine]

What a stellar “institution of higher learning,” huh? Makes you wonder why they never coined themselves “the Harvard of North Carolina.” The school had weak admi$$ion$ criteria. Seems the main ones were gullibility and a pulse.

For $ome rea$on, the American Bar Association never investigated this member school. I suppose as long as the accreditation fees are collected, they don’t give a damn. After all, there are literally dozens of ABA schools in operation that are an embarrassment to the concept of higher education, let alone professional school. Yet, they remain in business – on the public’s dime, of course.

Other Coverage: On August 29, 2017, Charlotte TV station WSOC, channel 9, ran a Paul Boyd story headlined “Former Charlotte School of Law student recalls predatory admissions process.” Here is the opening:

“The troubles surrounding the now-closed Charlotte School of Law are mounting, including allegations about the school's predatory admissions process.

Former student Talece Hunter has a college degree and a master's degree. She applied to Charlotte School of Law in 2015 and thought it was unusual there was no application process.

Hunter said she experienced aggressive predatory sales tactics after expressing interest in the law school.

"If you didn't call them or did not email them, they were leaving you voicemails two and three times a day," Hunter said.

She also said some her classmates were also less than qualified to be there, which is an allegation made in newly unsealed lawsuit that alleges the law school defrauded taxpayers of at least $285 million.

The lawsuit was filed by former Charlotte School of Law professor Barbara Bernier under whistleblower laws.

Bernier claims she has inside knowledge that hundreds of unqualified students were admitted to the school. She also alleges that student records were manipulated and that enrollment was inflated in an effort to increase profits through government-backed tuitions.

"Many candidates for admission (were) academically unqualified, and would be improbable candidates for admission in most other law schools," the lawsuit read.”

The suit that was filed in Florida District Court alleges Charlotte School of Law "repeatedly identified minority students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities as a major source of students and a revenue stream."

It also claims there was a period of time when an acceptable grade point average was "1.50." The lawsuit was originally filed in 2016 but remained sealed while federal investigators looked into the case.” [Emphasis mine]

That 1.50 GPA seems incredibly low, even by TTTTT standards. I understand that ABA-accredited dung heaps aggressively recruit students, but they also don’t force you to apply, pay fees, take the LSAT, enroll, sit in class, and stay in school. However, the school knows that this country is littered with dim bulbs who will jump at the chance for a “legal education.” And they know that the federal government will still issue student loans to those idiots.

Conclusion: CharloTTTTTe $chool of Law is no longer in operation, but it did reap a financial windfall for over a decade. More accurately, the shareholders of Sterling Partners took in the loot – with the “educators” and administrators doing real well for themselves too, in the process. The students were a mere mean$ to an end, i.e. big-ass bags of federal cash in the form of educational loans. Who cares if the debt is non-dischargeable for the pupils? They are just props anyway, so the schools can have a reason to exist. Amazingly, college graduates continue to apply to, and enroll in, such weak law schools. By the way, this diploma mill is under federal investigation. When will someone open the P.T. Barnum College of Law?

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Charlotte School of Law Gets Around to Notifying Its Students of Closure

CharloTTTTTe SOL Will Officially Close: On August 23, 2017, the Charlotte Business Journal published a piece from staff write Jennifer Thomas, under the headline “CONFIRMED: Charlotte Law winding down operations, uptown campus to close.” Check out this opening:

“Charlotte School of Law’s days are numbered in uptown.

The embattled for-profit law school is in the process of notifying students, faculty and staff that it is winding down operations.

“Unfortunately, we have to. I don’t think we can avoid that at this point. This is not because we want to, it’s because we have to,”Dean Paul Meggett told the Charlotte Business Journal exclusively.

An exact time table for that to occur has not been finalized, but the fall semester won’t start Monday as scheduled, he adds.

“We’ve got to get our arms around a lot of different things, and we’re really just getting started.”

Charlotte Law’s focus remains on helping the roughly 100 students still enrolled at the law school find a path forward — many of whom still want to continue their education in Charlotte, Meggett says.

He has been dean for two months now, after spending a number of years on the faculty.

Meggett says he continues to field phone calls and emails from law deans across the country who are sympathetic to the school and the students' plight. Efforts are ongoing to match students with those opportunities.

“It’s just without a license we have to tread very lightly. We’re absolutely going to comply with N.C. law, but we want to make sure we are still able to help our students as best we can in this,” he says.

Roughly 20 faculty and staff will be displaced when the school officially closes.

That news comes less than a year after the American Bar Association placed Charlotte Law on probation — though its accreditation still remains in place through Feb. 3, 2018.” [Emphasis mine]

Sadly, many of the existing students at this fifth tier diploma mill will continue their “legal studies” at other in$titution$ happy to take their borrowed money. Then again, what do you expect from those who earned a 145 on the LSAT?

Other Coverage: On August 23, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “Charlotte Law Finally Gets Around To Telling Students The School Is Closing.” Read this portion:

“A little more than one week ago, word began to spread that the Charlotte School of Law would be closing its doors, “effective immediately.” This disappointing news came not from the law school itself, but from the president of its alumni association. Since that time, there has been no official announcement from the school about its closure — until today.

This morning, Interim Dean Paul Meggett notified students and alumni via email that the school “no longer has a path forward,” and would officially begin winding down its operations. Take a look at what the dean’s parting words were:


Paul Meggett

Today, 10:00 AM

Dear CharlotteLaw Community:

We regret to announce that after months of extraordinary effort, Charlotte School of Law no longer has a path forward. On August 11, 2017, the school’s license to offer programs of study in North Carolina expired. Despite negative, often misleading headlines, we vigorously pursued ways to keep the school open and protect the interests of our students, faculty, staff, and alumni. We are heartbroken that we were unable to achieve the desired outcome. This closure has disrupted the lives of everyone in the CharlotteLaw community, particularly impacting our students’ dreams of achieving their educational and career goals. We are continuing to work diligently to help our remaining students to complete their legal education…

We are proud to have been Charlotte’s law school.


The Leadership Team of Charlotte School of Law” [Emphasis mine]

Cool approach there. Good luck on the Bad Timing Awards. This email only came eight days after everyone was aware that your for-profit diploma factory was going to close up shop.

Conclusion: In the end, Paul Meggett is not to blame for this late notice. I’m sure that the "leadership team" at InfiLaw and Sterling Partners LLC prohibited the school’s administrators from contacting the students about this TTTTT closure. Hopefully, the affected students will be able to have their loans discharged. However, I expect that most of them will complete their degrees at another ABA-accredited toilet. After all, what’s $170K+ in non-dischargeable debt – for a “dream” of becoming a lawyer?
Web Analytics