Warning

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Warning

Postby CanadianWolf » Sat May 19, 2012 9:41 pm

Not based on the content of your first post in this thread. Read & highlight the first three (3) sentences under the heading "Salary" in Colorado's statement.

Perhaps Virginia engages in this practice ? Didn't UVa fail to inform prospective students that its 9 month employment data was inflated by temporary jobs at UVa law school ?

P.S. Sundance: Seems like you anger is misdirected. Why are you upset that a poster shared this information ?

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Warning

Postby 071816 » Sat May 19, 2012 9:44 pm

sundance, can u let us know why u mad?

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Warning

Postby sundance95 » Sat May 19, 2012 9:46 pm

goldenflash19 wrote:Colorado's reporting has nothing to do with the fact that what Prof. Campos is saying about Rutgers' email is true.

Fair enough, but Prof. Campos has gone beyond merely criticizing Rutgers' promotional practices, and has invited TLS users to report the Rutgers dean to his state bar for violating Rule 8.4. I think it's fair to ask whether he would make the same request if his own school were implicated.

As I've said above, I think the fact that Prof. Campos criticizes the email with information available on Rutger's own website makes any claim that the email is a legally actionable fraud or misrepresentation absurd.

Paul Campos
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am

Re: Warning

Postby Paul Campos » Sat May 19, 2012 9:52 pm

sundance95 wrote:
goldenflash19 wrote:Colorado's reporting has nothing to do with the fact that what Prof. Campos is saying about Rutgers' email is true.

Fair enough, but Prof. Campos has gone beyond merely criticizing Rutgers' promotional practices, and has invited TLS users to report the Rutgers dean to his state bar for violating Rule 8.4. I think it's fair to ask whether he would make the same request if his own school were implicated.

As I've said above, I think the fact that Prof. Campos criticizes the email with information available on Rutger's own website makes any claim that the email is a legally actionable fraud or misrepresentation absurd.



This is incorrect. Disclosing information in one context does not insulate someone from liability for misrepresenting it in another.
Last edited by Paul Campos on Sat May 19, 2012 9:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Warning

Postby sundance95 » Sat May 19, 2012 9:52 pm

Paul Campos wrote:No, to the best of my knowledge CU doesn't send unsolicited emails to people who've taken the GMAT highlighting (fake) "average" salary data. If an administrator at CU did that then I would absolutely support reporting that person to the bar for engaging in misrepresentation. . . .

The legal relevance of the fact that these emails are being sent to people who haven't even signed up to take the LSAT, let alone actually applied to law school, is that the gravity of this kind of misrepresentation turns on the extent to which the person making the representation knows or should know that it is likely to mislead the recipients. The recipients in this case are especially vulnerable to falling for these sorts of statistical distortions, because there's no reason to think they've acquainted themselves with the sorts of sleazy practices law schools have engaged in when it comes to employment and salary data.

P.S. AFAIK no other law school uses the GMAT as a substitute for the LSAT for people applying to its JD program. Northwestern allows the GMAT to substitute for the LSAT for its joint JD-MBA program.

Thank you for responding, and for correcting me re NW's GMAT usage. You argue the distinction is the status of the recipients as LSAT/GMAT takers. Thus if CU, or Rutgers, or any school, were to send average salary statistics without further detail to LSAT test takers, that would not be misrepresentation?

SenorGuapo
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 2:01 am

Re: Warning

Postby SenorGuapo » Sat May 19, 2012 10:13 pm

Paul Campos wrote:
From: admissions@camlaw.rutgers.edu
Date: May 17, 2012 5:40:21 PM CDT
To:
Subject: Rutgers School of Law - Camden
Rutgers School of Law
Dear __________,

Our average starting salary for a 2011 graduate who enters private practice is in excess of $74,000.

Sincerely,
Camille Andrews
Associate Dean of Enrollment


The problem here is that this is patently false. Rutgers doesn't know what the average starting salary for a 2011 graduate who enters PP is. There is no arguing your way around this. It's manifestly untrue.

Edit:

An analogy...

I am operating an investment fund and I advertise that the average return on investment is 35% a year. I base my advertisement on my past investors (well the 22% of them who have responded back to my survey) and what they have self-reported was their return. Am I operating within the law? Ethically?

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 3997
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 1981 12:25 am

Re: Warning

Postby Corsair » Sat May 19, 2012 10:17 pm

..

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Warning

Postby dresden doll » Sat May 19, 2012 10:20 pm

SenorGuapo wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:
From: admissions@camlaw.rutgers.edu
Date: May 17, 2012 5:40:21 PM CDT
To:
Subject: Rutgers School of Law - Camden
Rutgers School of Law
Dear __________,

Our average starting salary for a 2011 graduate who enters private practice is in excess of $74,000.

Sincerely,
Camille Andrews
Associate Dean of Enrollment


The problem here is that this is patently false. Rutgers doesn't know what the average starting salary for a 2011 graduate who enters PP is. There is no arguing your way around this. It's manifestly untrue.


+1.

83947368
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:16 pm

Re: Warning

Postby 83947368 » Sat May 19, 2012 10:25 pm

.
Last edited by 83947368 on Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Warning

Postby sundance95 » Sat May 19, 2012 10:27 pm

Paul Campos wrote:
sundance95 wrote:
goldenflash19 wrote:Colorado's reporting has nothing to do with the fact that what Prof. Campos is saying about Rutgers' email is true.

Fair enough, but Prof. Campos has gone beyond merely criticizing Rutgers' promotional practices, and has invited TLS users to report the Rutgers dean to his state bar for violating Rule 8.4. I think it's fair to ask whether he would make the same request if his own school were implicated.

As I've said above, I think the fact that Prof. Campos criticizes the email with information available on Rutger's own website makes any claim that the email is a legally actionable fraud or misrepresentation absurd.



You have no idea what you're talking about. Disclosing information in one context does not insulate someone from liability from misrepresenting it in another.

/shrug. In theory. But since the email is not literally false, one would have to prove by a preponderance that one actually applied and accepted admission based on the email, which directed students to apply via the website where the disclosures are located.

I'll grant that I spoke too strongly; there may be an actionable claim here, but not one that has a likely chance of success, as the doppelganger mentioned above.

Corsair wrote:
Excellent117 wrote:The thing is that Rutgers isn't actually lying, which makes it so difficult to change their behavior. They are just selectively sharing their statistics and being very careful with their words.


Doesn't need to be false.

Quoting from some case law (since Rutgers is in NJ, I'll rely only on the 3rd Circuit)

"To establish a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must prove: 1) that the defendant has made false or misleading statements as to his own product" (emphasis added)


In contrast to claims of literal falsity, "where the advertisements are not literally false, plaintiff bears the burden of proving actual deception by a preponderance of the evidence. Hence, it cannot obtain relief by arguing how consumers could react; it must show how consumers actually do react." Sandoz Pharm. Corp. v. Richardson-Vicks, Inc., 902 F.2d 222, 228-29 (3d Cir. 1990).


For those asking 'y so mad bro?'; I do support the efforts of Prof. Campos, LST, and others in publicizing the transparency issue. But at the same time, the outcry over transparency shouldn't swallow personal responsibility. The email here was a puff email promoting the school in question. The relevant employment information is easily obtainable through Rutgers-Camden's website. Is it really so much to ask of prospective applicants to read the effing websites of the schools they wish to apply to?

And although I support Prof. Campos' efforts at bringing this issue to light, I found his invitation to report the Rutgers dean to the state bar to be rather pitchfork-and-torchy. If one is going to go after individuals rather than the structural issues that have created the TTT problem (lack of ABA standards/enforcement & unrestricted access to student loans) then one should go after all the individuals involved in similar activity. Thus I wanted to know why Prof. Campos thought posting the Rutgers dean's bar license was appropriate. Prof. Campos has indicated (at least I understand him to be saying) that the fact that the email was sent to GMAT takers was what made posting the dean's bar information appropriate. You can agree or disagree with him, but I don't think pressing the professor on why he felt that the invitation to report the Rutgers dean was okay was unfair of me.
Last edited by sundance95 on Sat May 19, 2012 10:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Largo219
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:50 am

Re: Warning

Postby Largo219 » Sat May 19, 2012 10:28 pm

The overlying problem here is that most people no longer have any common sense, don't take any accountability for their decisions, and don't do their research on anything before pulling the trigger (buying a car, buying a house, going on vacation, attending school, etc.) Society doesn't need more rules designed to protect stupid people from themselves. If someone wants to go into $200k debt by attending a law school they didn't research, far be it from me to stop them.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Warning

Postby dingbat » Sat May 19, 2012 10:35 pm

While I have utmost respect for what professor campos has been doing, I think that asking people to report the dean to the state bar association crossed the line.
If he felt so strongly about it, he should report the dean himself.

Asking others to report, when he himself is not willing to do so, is, in my opinion, reprehensible and I am wondering if he might now be in violation of any particular character/fitness requirements, for which he should be reported.
This is treading in thin ice.

(note: I have no desire or intent to report professor Campos)
Perhaps we should invite dean Andrews to join the debate?

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15457
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Warning

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sat May 19, 2012 10:38 pm

Largo219 wrote:The overlying problem here is that most people no longer have any common sense, don't take any accountability for their decisions, and don't do their research on anything before pulling the trigger (buying a car, buying a house, going on vacation, attending school, etc.) Society doesn't need more rules designed to protect stupid people from themselves. If someone wants to go into $200k debt by attending a law school they didn't research, far be it from me to stop them.


That doesn't work when the government is guaranteeing the debt. If people want to take 200K in private loans to go to a TTT then yes it's not up to us to stop them.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Warning

Postby RedBirds2011 » Sat May 19, 2012 11:11 pm

Largo219 wrote:The overlying problem here is that most people no longer have any common sense, don't take any accountability for their decisions, and don't do their research on anything before pulling the trigger (buying a car, buying a house, going on vacation, attending school, etc.) Society doesn't need more rules designed to protect stupid people from themselves. If someone wants to go into $200k debt by attending a law school they didn't research, far be it from me to stop them.


Lol Good god dude. You do realize this "mistake" is funded by taxpayers right?

Largo219
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:50 am

Re: Warning

Postby Largo219 » Sun May 20, 2012 1:13 am

RedBirds2011 wrote:
Largo219 wrote:The overlying problem here is that most people no longer have any common sense, don't take any accountability for their decisions, and don't do their research on anything before pulling the trigger (buying a car, buying a house, going on vacation, attending school, etc.) Society doesn't need more rules designed to protect stupid people from themselves. If someone wants to go into $200k debt by attending a law school they didn't research, far be it from me to stop them.


Lol Good god dude. You do realize this "mistake" is funded by taxpayers right?


So stop handing out ridiculous amounts of government funding. If you want to get to the bottom of why higher education costs are rising so fast, it is because the school administrations know that there is a nearly limitless amount of government funding out there for students to utilize in order to attend their institution. "We need to spend money on education" is a politician's favorite phrase.

FinallyGoing
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: Warning

Postby FinallyGoing » Sun May 20, 2012 1:14 am

Adm.Doppleganger wrote:
SenorGuapo wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:
From: admissions@camlaw.rutgers.edu
Date: May 17, 2012 5:40:21 PM CDT
To:
Subject: Rutgers School of Law - Camden
Rutgers School of Law
Dear __________,

Our average starting salary for a 2011 graduate who enters private practice is in excess of $74,000.

Sincerely,
Camille Andrews
Associate Dean of Enrollment


The problem here is that this is patently false. Rutgers doesn't know what the average starting salary for a 2011 graduate who enters PP is. There is no arguing your way around this. It's manifestly untrue.




All they had to say to make it true was...


Which means its not true as it stands which means you're sitting here defending lies. GJDM!

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Warning

Postby RedBirds2011 » Sun May 20, 2012 11:02 am

Largo219 wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:
Largo219 wrote:The overlying problem here is that most people no longer have any common sense, don't take any accountability for their decisions, and don't do their research on anything before pulling the trigger (buying a car, buying a house, going on vacation, attending school, etc.) Society doesn't need more rules designed to protect stupid people from themselves. If someone wants to go into $200k debt by attending a law school they didn't research, far be it from me to stop them.


Lol Good god dude. You do realize this "mistake" is funded by taxpayers right?


So stop handing out ridiculous amounts of government funding. If you want to get to the bottom of why higher education costs are rising so fast, it is because the school administrations know that there is a nearly limitless amount of government funding out there for students to utilize in order to attend their institution. "We need to spend money on education" is a politician's favorite phrase.


Everyone on this forum already knows the issue of government guaranteed loans. So you admit that your previous comment of saying let them do what they want who cares was a stupid irrelevant comment in this context then?

JamesChapman23
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: Warning

Postby JamesChapman23 » Sun May 20, 2012 11:24 am

I love when idiot 1Ls like sundance95, go to a law school for one year, learn 1800s basic contract caselaw and then come back pretending they have become experts in consumer protection law.

You don't know shit, sundance. Find a new hobby beyond pretending to be an attorney. The faux technical language impresses nobody but your grandma.

Professor Campos is a legal expert and well-known professor- you are a liberal artist 1L knownothing.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Warning

Postby sundance95 » Sun May 20, 2012 11:39 am

JamesChapman23 wrote:I love when idiot 1Ls like sundance95, go to a law school for one year, learn 1800s basic contract caselaw and then come back pretending they have become experts in consumer protection law.

You don't know shit, sundance. Find a new hobby beyond pretending to be an attorney. The faux technical language impresses nobody but your grandma.

Professor Campos is a legal expert and well-known professor- you are a liberal artist 1L knownothing.

Didn't claim to be an expert in consumer protection law, and not sure where I used technical language. Corsair posted those cases earlier ITT.

However, I did and do question the idea that a misrepresentation suit would succeed. Another practicing attorney poaster had a similar opinion earlier ITT. But feel free to blindly accept the opinions of your 'betters' as gospel truth without critically examining them, if that works for you.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Warning

Postby RedBirds2011 » Sun May 20, 2012 11:56 am

RedBirds2011 wrote:
Largo219 wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:
Largo219 wrote:The overlying problem here is that most people no longer have any common sense, don't take any accountability for their decisions, and don't do their research on anything before pulling the trigger (buying a car, buying a house, going on vacation, attending school, etc.) Society doesn't need more rules designed to protect stupid people from themselves. If someone wants to go into $200k debt by attending a law school they didn't research, far be it from me to stop them.


Lol Good god dude. You do realize this "mistake" is funded by taxpayers right?


So stop handing out ridiculous amounts of government funding. If you want to get to the bottom of why higher education costs are rising so fast, it is because the school administrations know that there is a nearly limitless amount of government funding out there for students to utilize in order to attend their institution. "We need to spend money on education" is a politician's favorite phrase.


Everyone on this forum already knows the issue of government guaranteed loans. So you admit that your previous comment of saying let them do what they want who cares was a stupid irrelevant comment in this context then?


And another reason it is relevant to care is that the skyrocketing tuition of not just law but ALL schools is that it is ironically actually making it less and less financially feasible for people to go. Unless everyone should just work in food service the rest of their lives, I don't see it as a "who cares" type of trend.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Warning

Postby jenesaislaw » Sun May 20, 2012 12:51 pm

Reposted from LST: LST Calls for Dean’s Resignation and ABA Investigation

Last week we became aware of an ongoing recruiting campaign by Rutgers – Camden School of Law (LinkRemoved) that targets students who were not considering law school. As a part of this campaign, Camille Andrews, Associate Dean of Enrollment, sent students an email with bold statements about the employment outcomes achieved by the class of 2011. When compared to the school’s self-published employment data (LinkRemoved), we see Dean Andrew’s statements range from misleading to plainly false. Because the statements made in this email are demonstrably deceptive and are in clear violation of ABA Standard 509, Dean Andrews should resign immediately from her administrative appointment.

There are two important layers to this story. First, Dean Andrews made unfair statements about the employment outcomes of Camden graduates. These statements exaggerate the successful outcomes of Camden graduates and attempt to influence student behavior. The realities of Camden's placement are far different from what Dean Andrews discloses. (More on this below.)

Second, Camden has extended a special offer for people who haven't followed the normal application process and haven't expressed an interest in law school or legal practice. (The email recipients had taken the GMAT, not the LSAT.) The Camden Special allows the students to avoid delay and enroll this August. By portraying Camden as some down-economy safe haven that leads to status and riches, Dean Andrews is attempting to enroll the exact students who ought not to attend law school: people who have not had time to carefully weigh the pros and cons of this significant investment.

In addition to ensuring that Dean Andrews resigns, Camden must also take swift, corrective action in all cases where prospective students received emails containing these or similar false, misleading, or incomplete statements. We also call on the American Bar Association to conduct a full investigation and bring appropriate sanctions against the school for violations of the ABA Standards, especially Standard 509(a) and Interpretation 509-4. Not only is Camden an institute of higher learning, but it also serves as a gateway to the legal profession. The degree of recklessness displayed by Dean Andrews, and the Camden administration for permitting a representative to deceive potential students, cannot be tolerated. It's the latest example of a law school having no accountability for is recruiting practices. These practices must stop.

What follows is an analysis of each unfair statement made by Dean Andrews. We can do this analysis because Camden has made the relevant employment data publicly available, though their accessibility does not excuse false, misleading, and incomplete statements that the administration should know leave readers with incorrect impressions. Each statement is itself a black eye for Rutgers -- Camden School of Law, but it's the cumulative effect of all of the statements and all of law school bad behavior that makes resignation, corrective action, and sanctions imperative.

Analysis of Statements by Dean Andrews for Rutgers – Camden School of Law

Image

“[O]f those employed nine months after graduation, 90% were employed in the legal field”

This is problematic on two levels. First, it excludes non-employed graduates from the calculation to provide a false sense of success. There were 242 graduates in Camden’s 2011 graduating class. Of these, 199 were employed. Camden uses 199 as the denominator with no indication that it has excluded 17.8% of the class from the calculation. The advertised "90% of employed" actually only represents 74% of the whole class.

Second, "in the legal field" implies "as a lawyer," yet Camden groups non-lawyers with lawyers to create the "in the legal field" category. Specifically, Camden has combined two distinct categories: jobs that require bar admission (154 grads) and jobs where the J.D. was an advantage (25 grads). The advertised "90% of employed" actually works out to 63.6% of the class in lawyer jobs, with another 10.6% in jobs where the J.D. was an advantage.

The “J.D. Advantage” category that Camden uses to boost its "in the legal field" rate includes jobs as paralegals, law school admissions officers, and a host of jobs not credibly considered "in the legal field." A graduate falls into this category when the employer sought an individual with a J.D. (and perhaps even required a J.D.), or for which the J.D. provided a demonstrable advantage in obtaining or performing the job, but the job itself does not require bar passage, an active law license, or involve practicing law.

“[O]f those employed nine months after graduation . . . 90% were in full time positions.”

This likewise excludes non-employed graduates without indicating that 17.8% of the class has been excluded. Once again, 90% of employed actually means only 74% of the whole class.

“Our average starting salary for a 2011 graduate who enters private practice is in excess of $74,000, with many top students accepting positions with firms paying in excess of $130,000.”

There are a number of distinct problems with this statement. First, Camden does not accurately state what the average reflects. The average is “for a 2011 graduate who enters private practice and reported a salary” not “for a 2011 graduate who enters private practice.” This leaves a false impression about what Camden knows.

Second, Camden does not disclose the salary response rate. The private practice salary response rate (46.6%) indicates that private practice salaries don’t tell the whole story. The letter also does not state that only 24% of the class was in private practice. This means the “average starting salary” actually reflects the average salary for just 11.2% of the class. None of this was communicated to the recipients of Dean Andrews’ email.

Third, Camden uses the average salary figure without any statistical context. NALP, LST, and many other academics have belabored for many years about how average salaries tend to mislead more than inform. This is because reported salaries fall into a bimodal distribution. For the class of 2010 (across all law schools), there is one peak from $40,000 to $65,000, accounting for nearly half of reported salaries, and another distinct peak at $160,000. This bimodal distribution means that very few graduates make the mean salary of $84,111.

Based on the salary data Camden produces on its website, we see a similar distribution to the national picture across private practice salaries. There were 27 salaries provided; between 8 and 12 were above the $74,000 average by at least 30%; the rest were below the average, with 14 or more at least 20% below the average.

Fourth, Camden claims that many of its top students have accepted positions with firms paying “in excess of $130,000.” To be sure, “many” is ambiguous. It might reasonably mean 40% of the class, or even perhaps 20%. With the “top” qualifier, it might not even strain credibility to claim that 10% of the class constitutes “many” top students. Based on the published data, Camden knows that at most five graduates reported a salary of $130,000, or 2.1% of the entire class. After analyzing the salary data in detail, we think just one graduate did. Whether it is one or five, “many” is far from accurate.

That said, we do know that eight graduates (or 3.3%) made at least $100,000. We also know that Camden grossly exaggerated the salary outcomes of its graduates right after exalting placement success and right before pointing out how its alumni are among the very richest of all lawyers. Of course, this is the same school that reported to U.S. News that its 2011 graduates had an average of only $27,423 in debt, even though the estimated total debt was well into the six figures for a New Jersey resident graduating in 2011 receiving no tuition discount. Fewer than a third (31.7%) of students received tuition discounts, with just 4.3% of students received more than a 50% discount on tuition.

“Rutgers is also ranked high in the nation at placing its students in prestigious federal and state clerkships.”

Like Camden, we only have the class of 2010 data to use to compare clerkship placement rankings. With federal clerkships, Camden does okay, tied for 33rd (LinkRemoved). In terms of percentage of students placed in federal clerkships, it’s as close to 16th place as it is to last (188th). Suffice it to say that this exaggeration caps off a legion of false, misleading, and incomplete information used to induce applicants who didn’t even take the LSAT.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Warning

Postby timbs4339 » Sun May 20, 2012 1:08 pm

A misrepresentation lawsuit would not succeed because most judges (who are successful lawyers in most regards) could never seriously entertain the notion that law schools would have engaged in conduct similar to beauty, culinary, or for-profit unis and shady seminar companies. It just doesn't even register. The NYLS suit failed at the MTD stage because of this, despite the huge consumer protection implications of extended the sophisticated consumer doctrine to college grads.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: Warning

Postby flem » Mon May 21, 2012 8:57 am

A shitty school engages in deceptive advertising of salary and employment stats? FUCKING NEWS TO ME!

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Warning

Postby Nova » Mon May 21, 2012 10:41 am

flem wrote:A shitty school engages in deceptive advertising of salary and employment stats? FUCKING NEWS TO ME!


Stop the presses!!

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Warning

Postby RedBirds2011 » Mon May 21, 2012 1:00 pm

flem wrote:A shitty school engages in deceptive advertising of salary and employment stats? FUCKING NEWS TO ME!


They do this? What? What is this about deceptive advertising by schools? Lol




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests