The Gauntlet is Thrown Down: On August 8, 2016, Bloomberg published a Megan McCardle piece that was entitled “Crack Down on Law Schools That Don’t Pass the Bar.” Check out this wonderful opening:
“The American Bar Association is considering a plan that would endanger the accreditation of any law school where fewer than three-quarters of the students pass the bar within two years.
That is setting up a battle within the organization, pitting critics of two very different problems against each other. Those who are worried about the glut of law graduates who can’t get jobs want to crack down on law schools that have shored up their finances by admitting students who may not be able to pass the bar exam. But those who are worried about a lack of diversity in the profession fear that any crackdown on accreditation could disproportionately hurt schools that strive to bring more minorities into the field.
Law schools have been suffering in recent years. The once-lucrative financial industry that used to use a whole lot of legal services has gotten a lot less lucrative, limiting the ability of armies of law-school grads to charge vast sums for their services.
Meanwhile, computers and international outsourcing have begun to nibble away at a lot of the tedious but necessary work that used to consume the labor of thousands of young lawyers, like reviewing documents for discovery requests.
Companies like LegalZoom, meanwhile, are competing for the business that used to be the bread and butter of many law graduates: simple wills, leases and so forth.
And state-level tort and medical malpractice reforms have somewhat cramped the style of people like John Edwards who got rich off class-action and personal-injury lawsuits.
Thanks to the internet — and a decision by the ABA to force schools to publish data on employment — news of these difficulties spread quickly among prospective students. So while law school has traditionally been a refuge for young workers who were pummeled by a recession, that’s not what happened this time. Instead, the number of applicants plummeted.
This placed law schools in an uncomfortable bind. Schools are optimized to a certain size of class. They have the number of classrooms and tenured professors that they expect to need in order to teach those students. Those things are expensive, and cannot be easily shed. With applications falling, schools had to decide whether to maintain their admissions standards (reducing the size of the incoming class), or maintain their student target (by lowering admissions standards). Unsurprisingly, a whole lot of them chose the latter.” [Emphasis mine]
Hell, drug fiends have a higher standard of decency. At least, those turds are providing their marks with a little something for their money.
Other Coverage: On August 9, 2016, the Law School Truth Center blog featured an entry labeled “Shameful Bloomberg Publishes Scamblogger Message.” Take a look at this excerpt:
“Unquestionably, Bloomberg is a respected media organization. Thus, while I was disheartened to read the title of this piece, I was re-heartened by the symphonic content of the 3rd and 2nd to last paragraphs and figured the above was a misnomer:
Also, everyone who enrolls in law school is a consenting adult. Why should the ABA prevent people from taking a risk that they understand and accept? It’s true that the very same low-income and minority applicants who tend to score lower on the LSAT will also be most hurt if they are hit by high debt and poor job prospects.
There’s something uncomfortably paternalistic about saying that the elites of the ABA accreditation committee need to swoop in and save these applicants from themselves.
Bingo, Ringo. If there’s one thing a butt-rapist likes to hear, it’s the phrase “consenting adult.” When law students get barebacked by a two-headed pine-cone, it’s because they voluntarily chose such activities. What, you want a bunch of metaphorical anal gangbang virgins representing your real estate conglomerate?
Once full disclosure is made of the risks and rewards, which every law school in America does in a quaint theory completely unmoored from the gravity of Planet Realism, it’s absolutely paternalistic to set LSAT cut-offs and bar passage rates. Heck, it’s paternalistic to even have a bar exam. The free market is fully capable of determining good lawyer from bad.
But then we have the devastating conclusion.
As long as the bar exam remains a significant barrier to practicing law, one of the obligations for schools that admit students with low LSAT scores is to prepare a large majority of them to pass the exam. Any school that fails to do so is not serving these students, but preying upon them. The American Bar Association would be right to revoke its accreditation.
Far from the paternalism concerns of the previous paragraphs, the writer now is seeking to hold law schools (non-fiduciary, non-principal third parties) responsible for the individual failures of their customers. Essentially, people of this mindset would completely ignore the actual quality level of instruction in favor of evaluating a multi-million dollar institution based on how a few students do on an inherently biased test.” [Emphasis mine]
The author’s writing style is reminiscent of Stephen Colbert’s faux conservative persona. You should follow that blog, for a comical take on the law school scam.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school pigs do not give one damn about YOU, the student or recent graduate. You are a mere pawn in their game. The swine appeal to young people’s sense of idealism and “public service.” Guess what, bitch: when you owe $164,823.12 in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, you are not in a position to take a job with legal aid that pays $35K per year. Plus, with falling admi$$ion$ “standards” in place at ABA trash pits, MANY of you will not even pass the bar exam. The minute all your student loan checks clear, the cockroaches could not care less about you or your financial health. That is because the bitches and hags are paid up front, in full – while you are left holding the bag, Stupid.