Search the Lounge

Categories

« This Made Me Smile Today | Main | Politics and the Constitution Call for Papers »

December 23, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

anon

Wait,are you saying Infilaw committed MURDER?

terry malloy

If Infilaw was finding diamonds in the rough, I'm sure their glossy advertisements would trumpet that fact loud enough for every marginal LSAT taker to hear.

The silence is deafening.

If housecats had access to federal loans, infilaw would provide them a decent legal education as well.

Just keep that loan money flowing to the bottom line. Monetize.

anon

Housecats need opportunity too.

But opportunity is the only argument that Infilaw truly has. Their arguments will always boil down to:

-Decrying elitism in law school.

-Because racism.

-Finding rare exceptions - the 139 LSAT who is working in BigLaw. There will always be compelling individual stories and I'm sure Infilaw schools have many on Admissions pages.

-Embrace of the free market while ignoring student loan subsidies.

-Creative bar-pass stat accounting. ("overall pass rates over x years"

confused by your post

Look at Charlotte's latest 509 Report. Those numbers are unconscionable.

If Infilaw's Charlotte school was actually able to take a critical look at and identify low LSAT applicants who are likely to succeed academically and to offer better academic support programs to see that these students actually thrive while in school, then how does Dean Conison explain:

1. Charlotte's 3 year cumulative attrition rate which exceeds 40% (1st year attrition 32.1% -Oh the Humanity!);

2. Charlotte's yanking more than 50% of the scholarships it offers to entice students to attend (# entered with: 307, # eliminated: 178); and

3. Charlotte's practice of accepting an astoundingly high % of its applicants (# of apps: 2,472, # of offers: 1,853)?

All but the most biased observers would conclude from these numbers and the overwhelming weight of the evidence that Charlotte School of Law's methods for identifying low LSAT applicants who are likely to succeed and its academic support programs for those students once they enroll are ABJECT FAILURES at best. At worst, they are something much darker.

There are many sides to the debate about what should be done to address the crisis in legal education. However, almost all stakeholders agree that what Infilaw is doing is objectively bad. People just seem afraid to speak out about it. Raising awareness is the first step to a solution.

David Frakt

Here is my non-expert assessment of what LSAT scores mean. There could be a point or two variation depending on how hard the bar exam is in the state where the school is located

156+ High Aptitude/Minimal Risk
153-5 Solid Aptitude/Low Risk
150-152 (44-52%) Reasonable Apt/Modest Risk
147-149 (33-40%) Modest Apt/High Risk
145-146 (26-30%) Marginal Apt/Very High Risk
144 and below (<23%) Poor Apt/Extreme Risk

I should probably add a couple more categories for InfilLaw and the other schools that have ventured into the previously uncharted sub 142 category:
141 and below (<15%) Negligible Aptitude/ Unconscionably High Risk
138 and below (<10%) Extremely Low Aptitude/Unconscionably High Risk

More questions for Dean Conison: Since no ABA schools currently publish statistics which break down how low LSAT performers are doing in law school and on the bar, then how does Charlotte Law and InfiLaw know that their low LSAT students are doing better than at competitor schools? How are you "validating" your magic formula for identifying hidden law school aptitude?

You indicate that LSAT scores are not a matter of prestige for Charlotte (obviously). But for the overwhelming majority of those in the legal profession, especially those that are in a position to hire recent law school graduates, the quality of the admitted student class, as reflected in their LSAT scores, is a significant factor in their perception of the general quality of the school and likely quality of the graduates of that school. Another significant factor in the perception of the school's overall quality is the bar pass rate. Therefore, by admitting students with weaker predictors than any other law school in the country, you have not only ensured that the school will continue to have an extremely low bar passage rate, but you have completely destroyed the perception of your law school within the profession, ensuring that the few students who actually make it through to graduation and pass the bar will have an extraordinarily difficulty time finding employment. This trend is already is reflected in your school's abysmal employment numbers, which are undoubtedly just going to get worse, as the school's reputation continues to tank. (2013 numbers: 153 of 350 graduates employed in a position requiring bar passage, or 43% - 17 of the 153 were employed by the school, with 9 of 17 in short term positions. 2012 numbers: 123 of 234 in positions requiring a law license, 53%; 2011: 59 of 97 in real attorney jobs, 61%) Given these undeniable truths, how can it be in anyone's best interests, other than those employed by, or shareholders of InfiLaw, to engage in your current admission practices? And even if such practices might benefit the employees and shareholders of InfiLaw in the short term, if you bar pass rate and employment numbers continue to plummet, what makes you think that you will not lose accreditation? Or that students will continue to come? Are you so cozy with the ABA because of your prior position as Chair of the Accreditation Committee of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar that you think Charlotte School of Law is untouchable?

anon

David Frakt

Here is a Christmas present for you ...

You are now, officially, a "hysterical scam blogger" who "has no facts to support your claims" (because you have so credibly and persuasively cut thru the nonsensical spin so commonly advanced by defenders of the status quo in legal education and laid out facts in a manner that requires either factual rebuttal or the points must be deemed conceded).

For your next post, the infamous Anon (note the cap) would like to see you tackle the completely worthless S & M report, so vehemently touted here in the FL as "proof" that a "JD is worth a million dollars." That paper - so carefully nuanced as to say basically nothing even remotely approaching the significance some have attributed to it - has been so misread and misused by the "anti scam" reactionaries that a carefully crafted response awaits!

Barry

"Finding rare exceptions - the 139 LSAT who is working in BigLaw. There will always be compelling individual stories and I'm sure Infilaw schools have many on Admissions pages. "

The thing is that if Infilaw were doing this (for example, taking applicants with poor LSAT's but excellent GPA's from obscure but rigorous ), they'd have good results.

They don't have good results.

In the end, they are boasting of a secret method superior to others, which produces the sort of results which would be expected if they did not have any superior methods, but were simply bottom-feeding.

terry malloy

Dean Conison, Infilaw spends significant resources trying to mitigate the damage admitting unqualified students does to your credentials through all sorts of special remedial programs, which are no doubt costly.

I would have to believe that a for profit enterprise, even more so than a traditional academic institution, measures the results of this significant resource expenditure.

The only reasonable inference from your silence is that the student outcomes measured by David Frakt's metrics are not favorable to your sales pitch.

Please feel free to rebut this inference with data.

fackförbund

Excellent entry! It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained!

anon

Terry

Absolutely. Dean Conison, by engaging here, now MUST answer the Frakt challenge:

"So, here is my challenge to Dean Conison: Will you provide data to back up your claim that Charlotte has “validated predictors of success”? And what is Charlotte’s definition of success? Will you tell us what percentage of 136-138s, 139-141s, 142-144, and 145-147 LSATs are academically attrited, what percentage graduate, what percentage pass the bar on their first attempt, and what the “ultimate bar pass rate” is for these cohorts?"

The only tweak: I would put the Frakt challenge for each of the past five years.

Barry

I think that we'll wait a loooong time before he tries to answer this (a much shorter time for him to attempt to BS his way out of this, of course).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bloggers Emereti

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad