Search the Lounge


« Some Duets | Main | CFP: 2019 Annual Meeting of the ASCL »

April 28, 2019


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


Any law school that has been on probation during past fifteen years for poor academic performance that has now, after an extremely brief period of compliance, slipped back into abysmal failure must be shuttered. A record of repeated failure, punctuated by brief compliance, suggests an incompetent faculty and administration.

A law school that fails so abjectly that charges tuition rates that approach those of the very best law schools just adds insult to the injury it inflicts on its students. (In addition, dismal job prospects and a degree that most of the community considers devalued.)

When will the ABA single out repeat offenders and recognize the truth?


The South Dakota legislature may need to pick up their checkbook if they want to retain an accredited law school in their jurisdiction. Providing only $6,200 per student isn't producing the academic support, recruiting power, or financial stability that the ABA has previously asked USD to show.


These rapacious bad actors will do ANYTHING to survive.

The ABA needs to scrutinize how a bad actor -- i.e., a failing faculty that can't recognize its own shortcomings -- gamed a prior probation to escape scrutiny.

The production of a short term improvement is suspect when, as soon as the heat is off, the results slip back to where they were -- or worse.

Why can't the ABA distinguish between first-time and repeat offenders?

Where is the common sense?

Will it accept some sort of short-term improvement accompanied by sincere promises to do better (again)????

At some, point, the regulators must regulate. In the case of a repeat offender, with a demonstrably failed faculty/administration, how many more students must be sacrificed to "professional courtesy" and profit?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad