http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/law-school-deans-ask-for-extension-on-exploitation/
Bam!: On January 18, 2017, Kyle McEntee posted an ass-kicking ATL entry labeled “Law School Deans Ask For Extension on Exploitation.” He came out swinging. Take a look at this opening:
“More than 90 law school deans have asked their accreditor to halt new standards that would hold schools accountable for very low bar passage rates.
Last October, the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education & Admissions to the Bar approved two new standards to stop exploitative admissions and retention practices. At a time when demand for law school decreased significantly, a minority of law schools began admitting swaths of students who, after three or more years of legal education, were not adequately equipped to pass the bar exam.
Why would a law school choose to do this? To keep tuition dollars flowing.
The bar exam carnage began in 2014, reflecting admissions choices in 2011 that would only worsen each year. Bar passage rates fell substantially in 2015 and 2016, with no signs of improvement because law schools still need the revenue to remain open and face only minimal pressure from the current ABA accreditation standards.
The two new standards are simple. Within two years, 75 percent of a school’s graduates who took the bar exam would have to pass it. (Note: 99.9 percent of graduates who pass the bar do so by their fourth attempt.) Moreover, a school could not fail more than 20 percent of its entering students without a great reason. Together, these standards would require schools to acknowledge and confront the impact of their admission and retention of students.
When the Council approved the new standards, it did so overwhelmingly via voice vote. More serious than the debate to approve was the debate about whether a 75 percent minimum bar passage rate was high enough. As I have outlined previously here on Above the Law, the current bar passage standard is nearly impossible to fail because it is riddled with loopholes. For example, a school’s own poor performance can help the school stay within compliance of the current standard. Moreover, it’s a near mathematical certainty that schools in 14 states cannot fail the current standard.
At this point, one final hurdle remains for the two new standards. At the ABA mid-year meeting, the ABA House of Delegates must vote to acquiesce to the new standards or to send them back to the Council for further consideration. (If sent back, the Council can re-approve the standards.) The letter from these law school deans asks that the Council withdraw the new standards from consideration. If the Council declines, the letter then asks the House of Delegates to send the standards back to the Council.
‘[W]e urge postponement for one year for additional consideration and study. This issue is simply too important to be rushed unnecessarily.’
Of course, the matter has not been rushed. The Council and its committees considered this exact bar passage standard several years ago before it was quietly quashed.” [Emphasis mine]
The fact that these bitches and hags want to postpone this simplified – and easy to achieve – rule tells you all you need to know about their values and their “character.” They have no guiding principles – other than to financially ruin young people, so the “educators” can get fat.
https://www.lawschooltransparency.com/documents/2017-01-13_AALS_Steering_Committe_Letter.pdf
The Pigs’ Letter: LST re-published the January 13, 2017 excrement from the A$$ociaTTTion of American Law $chools. Here is the selfish pigs’ argument below:
“We write as a group of [cockroaches] of ABA-accredited law schools to urge the Council of the ABA Section on Legal Education & Admissions to the Bar to withdraw for the time being the proposed change to ABA Standard 316, the standard proposing a stronger and simpler requirement for bar passage to maintain accreditation. Failing that, we urge the ABA House of Delegates at its February meeting in Miami to recommit this proposal to the Council for further scrutiny. More specifically, we urge postponement for one year for additional consideration and study. This issue is simply too important to be rushed unnecessarily.
We believe this Council action requires further consideration and scrutiny in light of significant issues raised by member deans and by legal education organizations, and, more recently, by the results of the July 2016 administration of the California bar examination.
The California bar results, if they become the “new normal” for graduates of ABAaccredited law schools in California, could potentially imperil the accreditation of a very large number of law schools–law schools whose history and profile have demonstrated over many decades an ability to educate and graduate successful law students by any reasonable measure.
We hasten to add that the signatory deans express no consensus view on the current Standard 316 proposal. A number of deans have expressed public support for this proposal. Other deans have expressed deep concern. For example, a June 29, 2016 letter signed by many deans of the law schools that are part of historically Black colleges and universities expressed concern about the impact of this new standard on opportunities for students of color. Moreover, serious issues have been raised about the different scores required by different states to pass each bar exam and the different pass rates across jurisdictions.
Despite the diversity of opinion on this difficult issue, all the deans who have signed this letter believe that there should be an opportunity for further reflection, and perhaps more careful study and analysis, before a new standard is adopted, especially because this standard could well have serious, albeit unintended, consequences on the welfare of many law schools and students.” [Emphasis mine]
If you want the bar results to not be in the toilet, then stop admitting and enrolling waterheads. Is that too hard for you to understand, greedy bastards?!?! By the way, your diversity "stance" is tired - and it is a mere diversion.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, law school is run for the benefit of underworked, overpaid faculty and administrators – not the students! This is CRYSTAL clear, and only a cretin would argue otherwise. The students are essentially required to incur outrageous sums of additional NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for the benefit of lazy-ass “scholars.” ABA-accredited commodes have lowered their “standards” to the point where waterheads with a 2.8 UGPA and 141 LSAT can gain admi$$ion to their vaunTTTTed programs. These students are not intelligent enough to pass a bar exam, and this has been confirmed by the last several years of lower passage rates. Something had to be done, so the ABA weasels passed a weak new standard. And now, the selfish deans want to postpone the new rules. Yes, they really care about the students and recent graduates, right?!?!