Search the Lounge


« Tulane Law School Forrester Fellowship and VAP Announcements | Main | Boring Headlines »

January 06, 2017


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


What a shame. This piece of garbage needs to close ASAP.


There will be a learning curve here. THe effective shuttering of unethically and incompetently administered law schools, finally at long last, will be made more efficient by these fits and starts. The regulators need to learn the best practices.

Once this process is honed, it will be time to turn to the many bottom feeders that have skirted the rules - even defied ABA probation -- with impunity. Finally, perhaps, at long last, the regulators will take action where action has been so sorely needed for so long.

The hapless and basically worthless notion of "ABA accreditation" has been allowed to shield festering student loan mills, which are so destructive to the vast majority of young people they dupe and mercilessly fleece for their own gain. These mills - run by quasi attorneys who have been educated at top flight law schools and have no sense of shame or consciences - have been able to spin their way out of any enforcement by the ABA of its own rules for far too long.


I think this means we'll be seeing a long slow death instead of a quick one.

First, it doesn't address the student loan issue. The DOE was never "closing" CSL but was instead denying students ability to take out fed loans. Nothing on that yet in this email. How will students pay for attending this open school? Only a week to answer that question.

Email also doesn't address: what is going on with transfers? what is going on with Florida Coastal transfers? I'm guessing many of the best students that can transfer will transfer - what does that do to future bar pass rates? What does this all do to Fall 2017 class? Also I imagine faculty (and staff) are working on exit strategies right now and hiring good people will get much harder.

I think Infilaw probably wants to pull the plug right now but can't because of connections to the other two law schools (Phoenix and Coastal). Charlotte is going to stumble forward for at least another few years.


Another few years, anon@9:18? Doubt there will be an incoming class. The current 3Ls will graduate, 1 and 2Ls who can will transfer, the rest will just drop out, which they would have likely done anyway and that will b that.....


Doesn't Csl have to stay open for 2l that don't transfer?

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

This is beautiful, believe me.


It would be marvelous to force the school to stay open for twenty or so students! Keep the overhead and all that going for years to serve a handful of students, who likely won't be able to pay without the loans in any event!

However, the fact that the consortium is attempting to cannibalize itself is unacceptable. Capitalists will see this quasi closure (by effect if not direct action) as an opportunity to cherry pick the better performing students from the decaying carcass (thus improving the prospects at other members of the consortium) and let the others be damned.

This is a somewhat unique situation in terms of ownership, but, one can foresee bottom feeders consolidating in just this way. Again, this is a learning curve and regulators, take note. The greed of law school academicians (who have fed on the federal loan gravy train for years) and administrators (ditto) knows no bounds. They quite literally lack a moral compass, they are devoid of remorse or any sense of responsibility to those they have fleeced and injured, and they will do anything to keep feeding on young people persuaded to part with a hundred thousand or more dollars to pursue a degree that will not likely lead to employment as an attorney.

If the law school academic complex had any sense of responsibility, it would have planned for this scenario. One way to respond would be to admit the better performing students at the sanctioned bottom feeder to better performing law schools. Nah ... again, the conscienceless, greedy and sheltered members of the law school academy act ONLY out of self interest, ALWAYS, and this action might be seen by the stodgy, more comfortable members of the legal academy as beneath them.

When you hear any law school professor or administrator preaching about how much he cares about diversity, student welfare and knowledge generation, watch out, folks! This sort of hyping and puffing and outright {fill in the blank here] is on a par with "Best Time Ever to Enroll!" ...

BTW, whatever happened to those ever so obnoxiously confident prognosticators? Are they here to tell us how their predications have come true? What will they say to those who believed them?


Excellent post, Anon @ 4:37. I never understood why for profits like the Infilaw group were vilified more than the nonprofits. They are one and the same. The universities with profit making law schools are no different from the guys at Infilaw. The elitist, greedy profs and deans at non profit law schools are probably even more obnoxious than those at the Infilaw schools, who clearly know they are nothing more than employees.

Very, very few law profs care about the welfare of their students, and I have dealt with many. They want the six figure income and low workload to go on forever. Some truly think they could go to Big-law should the academic gig end, but most are realistic. They are unemployable beyond legal ed. So if there are suckers out there who are willing to gamble that they will succeed after law school, why deny them? That is pretty much their attitude.

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

Leo at 6:50:

In most respects, I concur with your post. I don't like what has happened to my profession. Exhibit #1. Those billboards across Chicago posted along the expressways admonishing folks to "Don't Pay that Ticket" and offering traffic ticket defense for $49.00. I do not agree with your statement that "most professors don't care about their students." I am still in touch with my professors from nearly 30 years ago and one professor from a 4th Tier School (not my school, me from a T-2) helped me get my first job.


I find the reference to generic "regulators" a little weird. They may not be referring to the DoE at all, merely implying it for some shady reason.



Apparently, and amazingly, the concept of "regulators" enforcing "regulations" appears to you to be "shady."

Great demonstration! One suspects that, in other contexts, there would be howls of outrage if anyone characterized "regulators" enforcing "regulations" as "shady" (e.g., climate change).

In this case, the ABA and DOE share a role: one is starting to perform, the other is pretending to do so.


"Apparently, and amazingly, the concept of "regulators" enforcing "regulations" appears to you to be "shady""

Nooo...I'm saying the language of the press release is shady, not the regulators regulating. I am suggesting the school might be trying to mislead people for some reason, based on that language.



TO the extent that you were referring to the use of the term "regulators" in the Charlotte press release, I understand the suspicions, but, I don't see any reason to believe that the reference was to any entities other than those with the power to "regulate" the behavior of the law school. We should have "regulators" and, unfortunately, the ABA doesn't count; the reference must have been to the DOE.

The ABA is a tool of the bottom feeders and a self interested law school complex that has no regard for standards, not an accreditation agency. As such, perhaps it should not be deemed a "regulator" - more of a "facilitator of exploitation by creating faux standards" or an "enabler of poorly performing diploma mills that feed off the conduit stream provided by loose federal government loans and naïve students who are all too easily misled by crass come ons, e.g. 'Now is the Best TIme to Enroll' and ridiculously biased 'studies' that are claimed to 'prove' that a law degree is 'worth a million dollars' in extra income."

The DOE, hopefully, will be taking into account the degree to which poorly performing institutions have actively misled students, or painted a rosy scenario without regard to the facts, when enforcing minimum standards for regulatory compliance to receive federal loan certification.


What I do not understand is why the DOE rules for gainful employment do not apply to law schools. At the undergraduate school level, students have to be able to pay their debt (i.e., expected wages have to more than cover expected loan payments). If the school cannot meet the standards, they lose the right for students to get federal loans. Is there someone who knows that? Because until the DOE applies that, they are shirking their job.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad