Over the last 36 hours, Dean Jay Conison has informed the majority of the Charlotte Law School Faculty, perhaps two-thirds or more, that they are being fired. Yesterday, Department of Education Under Secretary Ted Mitchell sent an e-mail to students informing them that negotiations with Charlotte School of Law had fallen through. Charlotte had repeatedly informed students that an agreement in principle had been reached and a final deal with the DOE was imminent. Mitchell's e-mail confirmed that an agreement had been reached but informed the students:
Since reaching that agreement with CSL, the department has been working to memorialize the agreement in writing while encouraging CSL to be fully transparent about student options under the agreement. . . CSL, however, has since rejected what it had previously accepted and has informed the department that it will not be accepting the conditions set.
Today Dean Conison sent an extraordinary announcement to the students attempting to explain why the long-awaited deal with the Department of Education had fallen through. Dean Conison directly contradicted the DOE's characterization of the events in an e-mail reproduced here in full:
From: Jay Conison
Date: January 19, 2017 at 11:53:20 AM EST
Subject: Update
Dear Students, Faculty, Staff, and Alumni of the Charlotte School of Law:
In the face of an extraordinary message from the political leadership of the Department of Education, we are writing to assure our students that the School will be open for classes this Monday, January 23 for the start of the Spring 2017 semester. We are continuing to work aggressively to protect our students’ rights. As we said in our earlier statement, we are not holding our students’ education hostage to these negotiations.
As you know, on December 19, 2016, the Department of Education decided to abruptly, and without proper cause, justification or the barest semblance of due process, end the Charlotte School of Law’s participation in the Title IV student aid programs. We believe that the Department’s action, specifically substituting its judgment for that of the American Bar Association, which continues to accredit the School, is contrary to federal law and the Department’s own regulations.
Since December 19, we have been working to protect the interest of our students. In particular, we have been negotiating with the Department to secure the payment of federal loan funds already awarded to many of our students for their education and find a path forward that affords protection and flexibility to all of our students affected by the Department’s reckless action.
Until now, we have avoided public discussion of the details of those negotiations in the hope of facilitating an agreement. However, the extraordinary statement that the Department sent directly to our students yesterday no longer makes that possible.
Perhaps the Department’s message represents the understanding of some Department officials. However, it does not accurately describe our negotiations, and it does not convey the way in which the Department’s position would deprive our students of the ability to continue their legal education.
Students who received a Fall 2016 Direct Loan disbursement and are entitled to a second disbursement this Spring will be credited with the anticipated loan proceeds for their tuition and fees. We intend to vigorously pursue our students’ rights to receive their additional loan disbursements with the new leadership of the Department and to ensure all of our students have the opportunity to complete their program.
It is very important to correct several points in the Department’s statement that grossly mischaracterize our negotiations. We must also explain the potential impact of the Department’s planned actions on students of the Charlotte School of Law.
The bottom line for the current leadership in the Department is that the School must immediately close. Students graduating in May would receive their Charlotte School of Law J.D. However, every other student would find himself or herself out of school at the end of May.
3Ls scheduled to graduate in August or December and 2Ls with one year to the completion of their programs would face very, very limited options. The Department’s intended treatment of our students is not acceptable. The Department refers to a loan discharge as a benefit for these students, but getting a loan discharge does not give students back their two or three years of hard work. And students would have to give up their hard work since —and this is not mentioned in the Department’s statement—to obtain a discharge a student would have to agree not to use the credits earned at CSL to transfer to another school.
The Department claims that the School of Law accepted this plan, and then reneged. That is absolutely not true.
After intense discussions, we accepted a two–page plan provided by the Department’s Office of Federal Student Assistance. Thisplan called for the School to enter into a teach-out with another institution and subsequently “close.” That is typical for a teach-out. But it was only when we received a seven-page proposed agreement from a different unit of the Department that we learned—as we explained above—that the Department’s intention was to allow our students to be taught out only until May, 2017. After that, the teach-out would end, and with it the legal education of most of our students.
As soon as we understood the Department’s position, we vigorously objected. We told the Department personnel with whom we were negotiating that we would not agree to deny our students the opportunity to complete their program.
We also very clearly informed the Department that its proposed path would not be permitted by the North Carolina agency that licenses non-public institutions of higher education seeking to operate in the state. In fact, that agency has informed our local counsel in no uncertain terms that the form of teach-out the Department proposed, with Florida Coastal School of Law directly conducting post-secondary activity in North Carolina in place of the Charlotte School of Law, would not be allowed. The planned teach-out—regardless of duration—could take place only if we remained an active institution, delivering curriculum and awarding degrees under its license and in compliance with agency rules and standards under North Carolina law, albeit under the supervision of the teach-out school, Florida Coastal School of Law.
We repeatedly reminded Department officials of this critical state law requirement. But instead of respecting the authority of the State of North Carolina to oversee post-secondary education within its jurisdiction, and instead of accepting the plan that was originally put forward by its own Office of Federal Student Assistance, the current Department leadership insisted on pushing on with its goal of precipitously closing the Charlotte School of Law, without regard for the harm that would cause our students.
Throughout these negotiations, we have sought to ensure that our students would have the best opportunity to complete their program and earn a J.D. from the School. It is regrettable that the Department of Education leadership, in the very last days of its tenure, has chosen to jeopardize the future of all of our students.
We are very proud of our students. Our graduates pass the bar, get good jobs, serve their communities, help diversify the legal profession and repay their federal student loans. That is why we will be open for the Spring 2017 semester on Monday, and why are working to ensure that our students have the opportunity and the resources they need to continue and to complete their legal education. And that is why we will continue to fight aggressively for the interests of every one of our students when the new Administration takes responsibility for the Department on Monday, January 23rd.
President Chidi Ogene and Dean Jay Conison
In further developments, Charlotte has finally released a class schedule, which included a substantially pared-down list of course offerings. Dean Conison fired several clinical faculty members as well, so the clinical offerings have been reduced, and there is no plan in place to address the needs of the many clients that the now shuttered clinics were actively representing.
Dean Conison did not respond to a request from Law School Transparency to provide information about the number of students that he expects to register. Large numbers of students have reportedly transferred to other law schools, but many students who could have transferred chose to remain based on the repeated promises of Dean Conison and President Ogene that they were going to work something out which would enable them to receive federal loan disbursements for the spring. Many of these students now feel betrayed once again by the school.
Although Charlotte is preparing a teach-out plan to submit to the ABA, and appears on the brink of closure, sources within the school indicate that Infilaw has not yet given up on the school. Their current plan is to substantially cut costs and try to ride things out this semester, while appealing to the incoming Trump administration, which Infilaw expects to be more friendly to the for-profit education industry, to reinstate their eligibility for federal loans, since the school remains ABA-accredited. Meanwhile, the school, which has had four straight years of progressively more disastrous bar results (despite offering significant payments to weaker graduates to defer taking the bar), is bracing for their worst bar results yet this July, as the historically weak part-time entering class of 2013 and full-time entering class of 2014 prepare to graduate this summer. Incidentally, among those fired by the Dean in the last 36 hours are three of the school's bar coaches.
Last week, Charlotte Faculty held a vote of no-confidence in the leadership team of Dean Conison and President Ogene. Apparently, the students were not the only ones who were unaware of the trouble the school was in with the ABA. The Administration reportedly concealed the extent of the problems from the faculty, and did not seek timely faculty input in how to address the ABA's concerns.
As always, I will keep you posted on further developments as I become aware of them.
I am shocked at the behavior of those running this school. Surely, some of this is criminal.
I am not certain if this behavior is criminal, but hopefully the private equity owner of Charleston will lose in civil suits. I do not see why they could not reach a compromise with the DOE/ABA that allowed loans for one more semester, and then allowed Charleston to issue degrees not only to students who finished, but for the next few years for students who did a visiting term or year elsewhere and met graduation requirements. By allowing one more semester, students would have time to transfer or arrange for a visiting year. I guess Infilaw was just too greedy.
"Their current plan is to substantially cut costs and try to ride things out this semester, while appealing to the incoming Trump administration, which Infilaw expects to be more friendly to the for-profit education industry…"
Infilaw's and Charlotte's approach seems to not paint a flattering picture of Trump or his administration. "Hey, that guy knows a good scam when he sees one, amirite? He'll certainly be on our side – I mean, look at Trump University, for crissakes…"
Seems like an odd position to take, but hey, when you're desperate, you're desperate, I guess.
There's a serious ethics issue with abandoning clinic clients. I sincerely hope the school has a plan to handle continued client representation.
dupednontraditional – I know some other non-profit law schools that are pretty much a scam.
I wonder if CSOL will be able to weather the storm and get access to federal student loans restored by the post-Obama Dept. of Ed.
Correct, anymouse. The nonprofits are very lucky that an Infilaw school is the first fall. Gives them cover.
In terms of faculty being in the dark, the ABA needs some rule requiring administrations to share this type of information with faculty.
I feel sorry for the faculty — I doubt many (if any) of them will find other schools that are willing to hire them.
As debated on another thread on the same subject, absolving the faculty of responsibility will only exacerbate this problem at other failing law schools.
Some law schools are so poorly attended that the faculty are nearly outnumbering the students (perhaps not literally, but close).
Instead of teaching one or two courses per semester, and taking the ample breaks (both during and between semesters, including the summer) to loaf (most of these profs produce either no scholarship or scholarship that reflects scant effort), these professors could have been working with students on nearly a one to one basis.
Instead, they rode and ride the federal loan gravy train (I'm speaking generally here), mostly working part time while their student suffer the consequences of their sloth.
WHy are so many so quick to entirely excuse them? Are you prepared to believe the faculty at the bottom feeders are so dense as to "not know" what was going on at their schools? How many times will the community accept this nonsense? Now? Anyone with even a passing familiarity with reality here knows exactly what is going on here: and to say otherwise is pure bull feathers.
They knew, and they know.
anon @5:23 … A few questions: (1) how on earth do you know ANYTHING about what the faculty at Charlotte knew? Be specific. (2) How on earth do you know the work habits of the faculty at Charlotte? Be specific. (3) What is the factual basis for your statement that the faculty at Charlotte only worked "part time"? Be specific. (4) How do you know that the faculty at Charlotte did not work with students one-on-one to help them? Be specific. (5) Specifically, what scholarship produced by Charlotte faculty "reflects scant effort"? Be specific. (6) To the extent that you are also referring to other law school faculties in your comments, please answer with specific details as to each school about which you are speaking.
If you cannot answer these questions with specific facts and first hand knowledge, please … SHUT. THE. F***. UP.
Hey Lawyer. Sounds like a nerve got pinched.
1. Read Frakt's posts. It's all public information, sir.
2. Law schools in general follow recognizable patterns, and a six unit per semester teaching package is well within the norm. My comment specifically was directed to all bottom feeders, not just the one mentioned. You are too angry to read the comment, I understand. No problem here. Rant away.
3. Read the comment. If you wish to tell me that this law faculty worked at least 50 weeks per year, and about 50 hours per week (the norm for professionals of this level) then YOU be specific.
4. This law school is a success? Could the faculty have improved their students' performance? You must not be a regular reader of the FL. Some profs have been posting lengthy blog posts about the effectiveness of intervention and working with students.
5. I really don't have much of a handle on the scholarship produced by this faculty; again, my comment was "generally speaking." Because you seem to be tearing your hair out about all this, tell us about some the great scholarship produced by this faculty, and, when you do, be sure to address the typical metrics: how many of the faculty have published, the citations rates, the impact scores, etc. You don't have a case here, Lawyer, but, I'd love to hear you try to make it.
6. You seem to be in "propounding interrogatories" mode. In that regard, you can be assured that you have no standing. Moreover, your interrogatory is overly broad and oppressive. Make a motion to compel to your imaginary court. Even in your dream world (where you scream obscenities at anonymous commenters on the internet), it will be denied.
Profanities in response? Please, lay it on! Your arguments are just that more persuasive by reason this "argument."
anon, your response proved my point precisely. Thanks.
As much as it might be hard to believe, anon, the world isnt black and white. Just because the school is a for-profit, who takes advantage of students with poor predictors, does not automatically make everyone there Satan. Some faculty might have known some things, but if it isnt already crystal clear, Infilaw tries as hard as possible to hide-the-ball from everyone as much as possible. I'd also like to know what precisely is wrong with going there in good faith, to do the best job possible, even if you hate the jerks who run the place? Oh. I'm sorry. That doesnt fit your "Charlotte bad, everyone bad" simplicity. Grow up.
Anon
I couldn't agree more that generalizations are often by definition unfair.
So too is the generalization that faculties at failing, bottom feeders were "kept in the dark" by evil operators like Inflaw, e.g., "In terms of faculty being in the dark, the ABA needs some rule requiring administrations to share this type of information with faculty."
The failing nature of a law school isn't a secret.
You ask: "I'd also like to know what precisely is wrong with going there in good faith, to do the best job possible, even if you hate the jerks who run the place?"
Well, aside from Lawyer above, who has spent his venom, what is the argument that faculties at failing law schools work full time, and intervene to work with students to improve performance?
A law school semester is typically 14 weeks. A typical package is two three unit courses per semester, for two semesters. That's six hours of class time, 28 weeks per year. Of course, office hours, committee meetings, grading and other activities are common.
However, for the vast majority of law faculties, the main justification for this part time job is scholarship. (A full time job, for example, for a law firm, typically will require about 2000 billables per year, or 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, and, a "billable" hours does not account for every hour in the office; 2000 billables also requires firm meetings, etc., i.e., hours in the office that are not billed; and let's see the average salary comparisons!).
The fact is that bottom feeders are not known for faculties that produce copious amounts of high quality legal scholarship. If someone wants to argue that they do, have at it. (A list of law review articles the most recent of which is ten years old, or, an article every three years or so just proves the point. What was this person doing for the 25 weeks off every year no scholarship was produced? Tutoring failing students? In the office, working hard? Please.)
Folks are working part time at law schools that are exploiting the young and vulnerable have no grounds to get on their high horses and cuss at anyone who points out the truth. The fact that these folks often go around bragging and boasting about their concern for "social justice" and "public interest" and that just makes it all the worse.
There is more that they could and should have done. Period. They knew EXACTLY what was happening. (Faculty at failing bottom feeders know exactly what is happening: all they have had to do was read David's posts here in the FL over the past few years.) Powerless to help? Please. Roll up your sleeves and work full time. Nah. In the main, these paragons of virtue aren't willing and again, if there are exceptions, so be it.
You may think it is unfair to paint all faculty at all bottom feeders with the same brush. Fair enough. So don't just absolve them, ok?
An interesting question is whether Jay Conison will get a chance to be a law school dean again after his decanal performances at Valparaiso and Charlotte. His Infilaw bio paints him as a hero at Valparaiso. Regardless of how much blame or fault commenters here assign to him for those two schools' dismal educational records (in the case of Valpo, at least of late), will law school dean search committees view him as damaged goods or as a victim of circumstance?
So once again, you prove someone else's point. You say "You may think it is unfair to paint all faculty at all bottom feeders with the same brush. Fair enough. So don't just absolve them, ok?" Binary thinking at its very best. Good or bad, evil or absolved.
To point out that they are all not evil is not to absolve all of them either. Of course, if I did say that, it would be worthy of criticism. But of course I didnt. The world has more shades of grey.
Doug, IMHO, there will be fewer law schools down the road than now. There will be no desire to take a chance on someone if they are not regarded positively. OTOH, teetering law schools may want someone experienced with DOE/ABA issues, but I suspect they will hire someone like Conison as a consultant, not a dean. JMO.
Leo – actually Indiana Tech Law School was the first to go.
http://law.indianatech.edu/general/indiana-tech-law-school-close-june-2017/
Dear Readers –
Please let's not turn this into a forum to anonymously mock and belittle other law professors, just because they are employed by less prestigious schools. And let's not disparage the work ethic of people you do not know or the work product of professors that you have not read. Many professors chose to pursue law teaching because it offered the potential of a more reasonable work-life balance, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It does not make them lazy. Hard work is not measured only in hours. If a law professor diligently prepares for class, conscientiously grades papers, provides the required service to the school and the profession, puts in the effort to keep up on developments in his or her field, and produces scholarship which is accepted for publication, then that law professor is definitely performing a full-time job, albeit one with greater flexibility and independence than many other professional jobs. Not every professor can be a superstar but there are plenty of respected serious scholars at low prestige law schools.
As for the professors at Charlotte Law School, let us show them some compassion. They are fellow members of the legal profession and the academy, people just like you, who have just lost their livelihoods in an unprecedented manner, with little or no time to plan or save. These are fellow human beings with families, and mortgages, about to be thrust into a legal job market where recent experience as a law professor is not particularly valued by employers. It is doubtful that Infilaw will offer them more than a pittance in severance, so they could be facing a real financial crisis in the immediate future.
And we should keep in mind that Charlotte will assuredly not be the last law school to fail. Even many well-respected schools are under great financial strain, and more consolidations and closures are likely.
David
Your defense, while laudably empathizing with the human consequences for the faculty, does not even to begin to address their complicity. You are defending the faculty (without any evidence) by asking us to recognize that they are in financial distress (without any mention of the years of compensation they received while their students suffered). Ok, fine. No one should be glad about their pain on termination. And, for one, my comments have not expressed any such glee.
Instead, I have argued that those who say the faculty had no idea that their law school was failing because big bad Inflaw kept all the terrible truths from them are making a ridiculous claim (and you, especially, should agree, as you have been sounding the alarm for years).
Further, I have argued that the faculty of any law school should be held at least in part responsible for the failure of the school. It is not always and solely the fault of "management." Some bottom feeders do better than others. Faculty likely could have and should tried harder to help in cases of abject failure. You may think the burden of proof of this is on anyone raising the question: I don't.
You say: "If a law professor diligently prepares for class, conscientiously grades papers, provides the required service to the school and the profession, puts in the effort to keep up on developments in his or her field, and produces scholarship which is accepted for publication, then that law professor is definitely performing a full-time job, albeit one with greater flexibility and independence than many other professional jobs."
What a low bar! And, if you actually researched the matter, in any given year, how many law professors would even meet this low standard? Perhaps this is ok at schools where students are not fleeced. And, in the comments on another thread, I acknowledged that the cushy life style (I have yet to hear anyone refute the actual numbers, which are telling) of the law professor cannot be the subject of outrage if the students are gaining the value promised. No one is picking on bottom tier law schools because they are bottom tier law schools.
But, the faculties at bottom feeding, federal loan sucking, ruthless and greedy law schools where students are failing the bar and unable to obtain employment as attorneys in grossly unacceptable numbers should not be allowed to forego any accountability. You appear to think otherwise, but you have offered nothing to show that the faculty at any law school could actually be unaware of such facts. And, you have offered absolutely no evidence of any kind to show that any law school faculty worked anything close to what most people in this country understand to be a "full time" job. There is something called "common sense" here, David.
And, what about the students? While you express all this support for law faculties (whom you hope to lead?) do you also feel for the students? Can you seriously contend that a law school faculty at a law school – any law school – failing so abjectly could have been "in the dark" about the circumstances and actually likely did everything in their power to help their students? If so, please, tell us, on what basis? Don't you think that the bare minimum you have described is woefully inadequate when lives are being literally devastated by greedy law school operators, and by those who live off the profits of those operations? Why are you so determined to excuse every such faculty?
THe fact that there are so many law schools now teetering on the brink should be all the more reason to STOP PRETENDING LAW FACULTIES ARE IGNORANT AND POWERLESS.
You paint with exactly the broad brush that Anon rejects so passionately above. ANon is perfectly happy to generalize in favor of law school faculties ("I'd also like to know what precisely is wrong with going there in good faith, to do the best job possible, even if you hate the jerks who run the place?" as if this describes any law school faculty accurately). Anon won't object to your generalizations, because you, like Anon, are willing to defend law professors, instead of holding them just as accountable as they should be. Maybe that's a little, maybe that's a lot.
But your blanket absolution is not very persuasive, David.
Anon –
It is not within my power to grant absolution. But in terms of attributing blame for failing law schools, I believe the problem is 90% or more a problem of admissions. Law professors can only work with the students they are provided. There is nothing that a law professor can do to make a student with a 138 LSAT and a 2.5 UGPA pass the bar. Similarly, there is little that a professor can do to help a recent grad find employment when there are so many better students from better law
schools competing for the same jobs. Many of the schools that you deride had perfectly respectable bar passage rates when they admitted better students and had much better job outcomes when the economy was better. The quality of legal education that they offer has not gotten any worse, but the students are much less capable. Most law professors have little say in admissions. It was up to the school's leadership to make the tough decisions to maintain admissions standards when applications started dropping, even though this would likely have meant significant cuts to faculty. Many law schools did not do this. Because of the way the bar pass standard was structured and because the ABA did not start to enforce the admissions standard until last year, all of these law schools got away with it. While some of us did see this train wreck coming, there was little that an individual faculty member could have done to prevent it.
David, you are of course correct. The solution lies with ABA or DOE action. It finally looks like they are moving.
How can the faculty be blamed if people admitted to the school had indicators that they were highly unlikely to succeed and ultimately pass the bar and that is exactly what happened? Were the profs supposed to be miracle workers?
Doubt any amount of one on one teaching could have helped many of those students. They just did not have what it takes. That is no crime, no sin. Heck, I could never be a nuclear physicist, no matter how hard I tried and wanted it.
Of course the profs knew the quality of the students being admitted. That data is public knowledge. They knew the bar pass and employment stats for the same reason.
At a non profit school, faculty could ultimately force a Dean admitting subpar students out. I have worked at such a school and witnessed this years ago. Infilaw is a different situation.
David
Not sure the reason this comment was removed.
Thanks for your comment above. We’ve moved 10 yards upfield. (“I believe the problem is 90% or more a problem of admissions.”) Let’s see if we can move a bit further.
First, let’s clarify what we are debating. You say I am “deriding” all law schools (or all “bottom tier” law schools” and “mocking” their faculties. Not so. As I’ve stated three or four times in this thread, it is objectively failing law schools that have engaged in rapacious business practices to which I’ve directed my comments.
Second, my two points are these: Law faculties have been aware of the failures about which we are speaking (bar pass and job placement rates) for too long to claim that “management” withheld the information necessary to discern these quite obvious facts, and b.) law faculties at failing law schools must bear some responsibility for these failures.
You don’t seem to really dispute point one, so, I won’t address it any further. They knew, they know.
So, let’s move to point two: accountability. Your main point resembles the slogans we hear in public education: “there are no failing schools, only failing students.” Teachers, in the view of some, are never to blame, even a little bit, for the failure of their students.
The accountability issue is two-fold: accountability for bar pass rates and accountability for job placement.
With respect to bar pass rates, your point boils down to this: “There is nothing that a law professor can do to make a student with a 138 LSAT and a 2.5 UGPA pass the bar.” With all due respect, this is a shallow and factually inaccurate statement. Aside from the arguments we’ve seen here in the FL about more effective teaching methods, and the validity of the LSAT, we know that graduates of bottom tier law schools with similar admission standards do show different pass rates on the bar. And, I’ve begged you to look at the history of law schools recently (within the past 10 or so years) put on ABA probation for bar pass rate inadequacies: track the improvement, and then the slip back and do the case studies. I suspect you will learn that LSAT scores didn’t tell the whole story.
I’ve argued that part time professors could work harder to help at risk students. You say “Hard work is not measured only in hours.” But David, that is the way we measure “part time” versus “full time” work. I think you have failed entirely to recognize that extra elbow grease on the part of law faculties can make a difference. Simply blaming the students, and using such a blunt measure, seems, again, shallow and faculty wrong. Poorly performing law faculties can and do make the difference between a bar pass and a bar fail. The fact you can’t concede this is telling.
With respect to job placement, again, you plead there is nothing a poor law professor can do. “There is little that a professor can do to help a recent grad find employment when there are so many better students from better law schools competing for the same jobs.” Again, this is a blanket generalization that may be true in part, but is mostly false. You say law professors should “provide … the required service to … the profession, [and] put … in the effort to keep up on developments in his or her field.”
That’s right. How many do? Most law professors look down their noses at practitioners and balk at hiring anyone with more than a couple of years of BigLaw practice experience. They shun the legal community, and have nothing whatsoever with any service of any type to the “profession.”
I have argued in these pages for many years for requirements of such service, on a pro bono basis. Instead of loafing all summer long with personal pursuits, law professors should be rolling up their sleeves and pitching in to help their communities. Integration of law faculties with the professional community, and hiring more practitioners who are not green, over privileged and sheltered superstar standardized test takers with an elite prep school background, but rather great lawyers who understand the law in action, would do wonders to revitalize legal education, especially at the bottom tier law schools where connections and networking are most important. And, there is much, much more.
Yes, David, there is plenty law faculties can and should do at failing law schools, and simply arguing that there is nothing, literally nothing, that they can do to affect the effectiveness of legal education and job placement is doing a real disservice to your otherwise laudable efforts.
My comment was removed and I see no reason why when comparing law professors at top tier law schools vs. bottom tier law schools. I've mentioned that if bottom tier law schools admit what they call 'risky' students, then the schools and their faculty need to work harder in order to prepare these students, instead many of them sit back, treasure their only 1 drafted final exam and never give out many practice exams. They go crazy when their exams are leaked because they will spend hours drafting a new one. That is called lazy.
When comparing top tier law schools, we often see many of them provide quality education and resources. Often many of them have database of previous exams by faculty, past written outlines so that students can study more efficiently by learning the black letter laws and have adequate time to do more exams and problem solving to tackle their critical thinking methods. Thus, not only these students excel academically but they are exposed to as many resources as possible. Contrary to top law schools, bottom tier law schools do not supply students with past exams, they let students study on their own without adequate resources, they advise them to draft their own outlines, and the list goes on and on.
If you're admitting risky students, even though the term risky isn't appropriate, then provide them with all the adequate resources and see how they will perform. Instead, the number one incentive for these law schools is and will be money, not the students and their lives.
I've also cited the important of alumni, if you care for your students, students will care in return and give more to the school once they graduate. That is why we see top law schools embrace their alumni, they know the value from job perspective, reputation and so on. Bottom tier law schools on the contrary all they care about is $$, they fail to built a strong alumni and in return that will also affect employment rate.
A point, perhaps that is obvious, is that top tier schools feed grads into BigLaw; bottom tier schools, in the main, don't.
Yet, the faculties at bottom tier schools attempt to model their credentials to match those at the top tier schools. They seek that Yale grad with no practice experience just as much as the T14 do. Not to say they succeed in this; but often, their egos are compelling them to think of themselves as just as credentialed and talented and special as the faculties at top tier schools.
The mistake here is that the sort of "value" that these credentials represent is precisely NOT the value that will get the grads of bottom tier schools employment.
Faculties are very involved in faculty hiring. Instead of anticipating the employment crisis that began going on a decade ago now, and hiring professors attuned to the needs of the market, they stayed the course and pretended that they too could hire at the AALS FRC individuals that would make a T14 school proud. IN fact, there is some boasting along these lines above in this thread.
Even now, the faculties at many failing law schools protest that they know nothing about getting their grads employment, and this is because they know nothing about getting their grads employment. THey lack the depth of experience in practice and the common sense of the market that exists EVERYWHERE but in BigLaw. They know only what they know, and that, sadly, isn't enough.
What is more sad is that they aren't willing to admit that they don't know what they don't know, and hire some folks who do. Bottom tier law schools need to hire experienced practitioners who have actually operated in this market (the entire US but for the little sliver of BigLaw) to teach their grads how to pass the bar and practice, not wannabe T14 grads teaching at bottom rung law schools who would like to pretend that they are teaching at Yale.
Jack at 8:44,
You are in fine company. My comment was removed too. I guess this thread is G rated. Didn't appreciate my Camaro and human relations metaphor.
David Frakt:
Have you ever fired a client – I have, and it was expensive for me personally, but it was what I needed to do, ethically. When you say that professors at bottom feeding schools are legal professionals, the same point comes to mind – those a CSL cannot have been unaware of what it was doing short of wilful ignorance. Why did they not fire the client….
While I agree with the point that Law Faculty are not strictly "to blame," the pearl-clutching and feigned-ignorance is also disingenuous.
Where do funds come from? (1) Students and (2) Benefactors. It's not like law schools are manufacturing car parts on the side, or generating software, or anything else to diversify their income streams. Money only comes from two main sources.
At a majority of schools, I can't imagine the endowments are gushing like a 1920s oil rig. Therefore, one's livelihood is very-directly tied to how many students are willing to sign up for non-dischargeable loans at around $40k per year, not counting living expenses and other costs. If one takes a minute to look around, not many people are able to crack that nut, and few outside the ranks of the elite are able to make a go of it. Going to class everyday, knowing that many of your students are going through the gristmill…that takes some compartmentalization.
This is not akin to people choosing a Hyundai over a BMW, yet saying tut-tut, there is "nothing wrong" with people "choosing" a Hyundai because "hey, it's a car, folks will be fine." Or choosing Tide over All in the laundry detergent wars, and some employees at Sun Products get let go due to aggregate market forces. This system directly impacts people's lives as a one-two punch, and the lives of their children should they choose to have any.
dupednontraditional,
Liked your automotive metaphor. Everybody knows why one purchased that Hyundai Excel with plastic wheel covers to begin with. They couldn't afford anything nicer. So to, for these unranked diploma mills. Students couldn't get into a real, ranked law school and it has nothing to do with money.
Just a few years ago, admission into an ABA accredited law school was like owning a Cadillac. Prestige, the standard of the world. Today, a Cadillac is a chromed up Sonata. The Cadillac brand faded because of fleet leases, badge engineering and crappy outcomes (products/bad bar pass rates). One sees Cadillacs in Walmart parking lots driven by 40 something grandmothers with cigarettes dangling from their lips while paramour runs inside to pick up shot gun shells and Bud Lite.
duped makes some good points. Whereas years ago, professors might be able to claim lack of knowledge of the job market, that is just not true now. I am also disturbed by the Deans, including those at top tier schools, requesting that the ABA delay its rules on bar passage rates, as they relate to accreditation. What possible motivation could they have? To ensure more teaching jobs for their graduates, at lower tier schools?