Villanova Reported Innacurate Data to the ABA Forum

[Section141]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/villa ... /19836437/

Villanova deserves credit for coming clean about something that a huge number of other schools are probably doing too.

This is a good point. The rankings are compiled using self-reported data....hmmmm. Plus we all know how much those rankings mean anyway, especially outside T14.

As someone with an offer of acceptance, its concerning. Choosing where to spend my hard earned money and invest in my future, etc....doesn't make me feel too great about VLS (unless they offered up more $$$$).

If you are interested in the Philly market and VLS is the only school in the area you got accepted to, asking for more $$ wouldn't hurt.

Also accepted at Temple and only interested in the Philly market. It'll come down to these two for me.

[soullesswonder]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/02/08/is- ... -syndrome/

[CanadianWolf]

The above Wall Street Journal article seems to support speculation that the penalties against Villanova Law School are likely to be quite severe once this on-going investigation is completed.

[CChuff]

The above Wall Street Journal article seems to support speculation that the penalties against Villanova Law School are likely to be quite severe once this on-going investigation is completed.

No it does not. Did you even read it? You just make stuff up. That is why I am sure no one takes you seriously on here. It literally does not even mention potetntial penalties that villanova will be subject to.

[CanadianWolf]

CChuf: You like to resort to personal attacks a lot in this thread. Not only do I disagree with your opinions, I don't understand them because you offer no basis for your "positions". Once again, defending your law school investment is understandable even though unrealistic. Try rereading the WSJ article & you should understand my view. If you think that law schools prefer heavier regulation & more severe scrutiny, then we disagree. If you think that the ABA & USNews are going to close their eyes to Villanova Law School's repeated fraudulent reporting, then we disagree. If you believe that Villanova's "coming clean" will exonerate its unethical behavior, then we disagree. If you think that the ABA & the WSJ are investigating & reporting on Villanova Law School's fraudulent behavior without basis, then we disagree. If you believe that the investigation of Villanova Law School by the ABA is continuing & ongoing without the possibility of sanctions being levied upon Villanova Law School, then we disagree.

[CChuff]

CChuf: You like to resort to personal attacks a lot in this thread. Not only do I disagree with your opinions, I don't understand them because you offer no basis for your "positions". Once again, defending your law school investment is understandable even though unrealistic. Try rereading the WSJ article & you should understand my view. If you think that law schools prefer heavier regulation & more severe scrutiny, then we disagree. If you think that the ABA & USNews are going to close their eyes to Villanova Law School's repeated fraudulent reporting, then we disagree. If you believe that Villanova's "coming clean" will exonerate its unethical behavior, then we disagree. If you think that the ABA & the WSJ are investigating & reporting on Villanova Law School's fraudulent behavior without basis, then we disagree. If you believe that the investigation of Villanova Law School by the ABA is continuing & ongoing without the possibility of sanctions being levied upon Villanova Law School, then we disagree.

Wow, nice try dodging the issue that you are completely fabricating what the WSJ article stated.

You claim that the article indicates heavy penalties against Villanova. But, the article mentions nothing of that sort. You make empty statements, you speculate, and you make stuff up. You have already lost all credibility.

[CChuff]

The above Wall Street Journal article seems to support speculation that the penalties against Villanova Law School are likely to be quite severe once this on-going investigation is completed.

Please show me where the article supports your unfounded speculation that penalties against Villanova are likely to be quite severe.

This is proof that you just make things up and that no one on this thread should take you seriously.

[beach_terror]

Fight fight fight

[stayway]

Fight fight fight

USA v Canada? I got money on USA

[CanadianWolf]

I've got my money on the ABA, the WSJ & USNews.

[Section141]

The above Wall Street Journal article seems to support speculation that the penalties against Villanova Law School are likely to be quite severe once this on-going investigation is completed.

Have to agree with CChuff on this, that article didn't imply any sort of penalties on Nova anywhere. It merely suggested that all schools may be subject to some type of regulation surrounding the reporting of numbers. If anything it suggested that Nova isn't the only school that's done this.

[CanadianWolf]

At least you're beginning to understand. Implications are important.

[beach_terror]

At least you're beginning to understand. Implications are important.

Nice job backing off without explicitly admitting you're wrong, bro.

[stayway]

At least you're beginning to understand. Implications are important.

LOL Scrub

[HeavenWood]

CChuf: You like to resort to personal attacks a lot in this thread. Not only do I disagree with your opinions, I don't understand them because you offer no basis for your "positions". Once again, defending your law school investment is understandable even though unrealistic. Try rereading the WSJ article & you should understand my view. If you think that law schools prefer heavier regulation & more severe scrutiny, then we disagree. If you think that the ABA & USNews are going to close their eyes to Villanova Law School's repeated fraudulent reporting, then we disagree. If you believe that Villanova's "coming clean" will exonerate its unethical behavior, then we disagree. If you think that the ABA & the WSJ are investigating & reporting on Villanova Law School's fraudulent behavior without basis, then we disagree. If you believe that the investigation of Villanova Law School by the ABA is continuing & ongoing without the possibility of sanctions being levied upon Villanova Law School, then we disagree.

I'll ask my Dad (who conducts hiring at a Philly midlaw) what he thinks about all this. I can't imagine this incident will help Villanova's reputation, but I'm skeptical that it will have much (if any) long term consequences in the primary market (SE PA, South Jersey, Northern Delaware). The Philly market is extremely insular and reputations die hard here.

[beach_terror]

I'll ask my Dad (who conducts hiring at a Philly midlaw) what he thinks about all this. I can't imagine this incident will help Villanova's reputation, but I'm skeptical that it will have much (if any) long term consequences in the primary market (SE PA, South Jersey, Northern Delaware). The Philly market is extremely insular and reputations die hard here.

It'll probably affect our reputation somewhat, but only with those firms that weren't crazy about us to begin with. We're known for having a very strong alumni base (hence why we actually have firms looking at 1Ls for SA jobs), so those who have always been supportive of us will likely not waiver.

At my interview yesterday, the interviewer (also Philly midlaw) basically said that she finds it illogical to stop hiring our grads based off of a) something the administration did and b) if they liked the quality of our grads before, this doesn't change that.

[stayway]

.

[CanadianWolf]

I'm not backing off nor do I think that my reading is incorrect. You are all Villanova Law Students--or prospective students--with a lot invested in Villanova Law & its reputation. If you are in your second or third year, transferring is not an option.
Again, if you believe that the ongoing ABA investigation, the Wall Street Journal article & USNews impact mean nothing, then we disagree. Personal attacks & emotional reactions are not going to change the reality of Villanova Law School's self-imposed situation. Repeated fraudulent reporting to the ABA by a member law school is a much more serious matter than you want it to be. Admissions of wrongdoing & cleaning house does not exonerate Villanova Law School from penalties for the multiple acts of fraudulent reporting. Regardless, we'll all know for sure in a few months.

[HopefulFish]

I'll ask my Dad (who conducts hiring at a Philly midlaw) what he thinks about all this. I can't imagine this incident will help Villanova's reputation, but I'm skeptical that it will have much (if any) long term consequences in the primary market (SE PA, South Jersey, Northern Delaware). The Philly market is extremely insular and reputations die hard here.

It'll probably affect our reputation somewhat, but only with those firms that weren't crazy about us to begin with. We're known for having a very strong alumni base (hence why we actually have firms looking at 1Ls for SA jobs), so those who have always been supportive of us will likely not waiver.

At my interview yesterday, the interviewer (also Philly midlaw) basically said that she finds it illogical to stop hiring our grads based off of a) something the administration did and b) if they liked the quality of our grads before, this doesn't change that.

What did you expect the interviewer to say?

[HeavenWood]

I'll ask my Dad (who conducts hiring at a Philly midlaw) what he thinks about all this. I can't imagine this incident will help Villanova's reputation, but I'm skeptical that it will have much (if any) long term consequences in the primary market (SE PA, South Jersey, Northern Delaware). The Philly market is extremely insular and reputations die hard here.

It'll probably affect our reputation somewhat, but only with those firms that weren't crazy about us to begin with. We're known for having a very strong alumni base (hence why we actually have firms looking at 1Ls for SA jobs), so those who have always been supportive of us will likely not waiver.

At my interview yesterday, the interviewer (also Philly midlaw) basically said that she finds it illogical to stop hiring our grads based off of a) something the administration did and b) if they liked the quality of our grads before, this doesn't change that.

What did you expect the interviewer to say?

The interviewer could have avoided the subject, for one.

[Big Shrimpin]

Summing up this thread for all you tl;dr'ers out there:

1. OP begins "discussion" about the misreporting situation at Villanova
2. Villanova students step in, one dood poasts detailed comment defending the school
3. CanadianWolf basically says "dood, it's a super-serious situation and Villanova will probably get dinged"
4. The fun stuff ensues...
4a. CChuff, a poaster from Villanova, has strong/biased/optimistic opinions about the situation and potential outcomes
4b. CanadianWolf repeats self 49834 times (see 3, supra) and has RC fail (see generally, NYT article, supra)
5. Both sides sort of back down/fizzle-out
6. Fin.

150 thread...wishing I could get my 10 minutes back.

[CJG9]

CChuf: You like to resort to personal attacks a lot in this thread. Not only do I disagree with your opinions, I don't understand them because you offer no basis for your "positions". Once again, defending your law school investment is understandable even though unrealistic. Try rereading the WSJ article & you should understand my view. If you think that law schools prefer heavier regulation & more severe scrutiny, then we disagree. If you think that the ABA & USNews are going to close their eyes to Villanova Law School's repeated fraudulent reporting, then we disagree. If you believe that Villanova's "coming clean" will exonerate its unethical behavior, then we disagree. If you think that the ABA & the WSJ are investigating & reporting on Villanova Law School's fraudulent behavior without basis, then we disagree. If you believe that the investigation of Villanova Law School by the ABA is continuing & ongoing without the possibility of sanctions being levied upon Villanova Law School, then we disagree.

I disagree with almost everything you've stated in this post. Let's walk through the post:

1) “…you offer no basis for your "positions".”
> CChuff has stated his source as the VLS administration (See CChuff posts at 10:24 on page 2 and 1:38pm on page 3) and it is logical to assume that his positions are based on those sources.

2) “…defending your law school investment is understandable even though unrealistic.”
> In my opinion, in no way is any VLS student unrealistic in defending their law school investment from the comments on this thread. Many of previous posts stated the opinion that the repercussions of the VLS scandal will be severe, but that is merely opinion. Anyone arguing that the repercussions realistically will not be severe would have reasonable grounds to do so considering VLS’ complete and voluntary disclosure when the school had the option of covering up the scandal. VLS’ ethical response to the discovery of the falsified statistics is commendable. There will absolutely be repercussions, this forum thread is one of them, but they could realistically not qualify as severe. On this point, only time will tell.

3) “Try rereading the WSJ article & you should understand my view.” (Your view being: “The above Wall Street Journal article seems to support speculation that the penalties against Villanova Law School are likely to be quite severe once this on-going investigation is completed” as stated by CanadianWolf in the post at 4:10am on page 5, immediately following the post of the WSJ link.)
> Are you concluding that speculation that penalties against VLS will be severe are supported by the article because Lewis & Clark law school professor Tung Yin’s comment on a law blog stated that “If anything, it seems to me there’s arguably a stronger call for enforcing these sorts of disclosures and accuracy provisions on law schools (and universities in general) than on corporations”?
In my opinion, the rest of the article and Professor Yin’s comments to suggest simply that there should be enforcement of accurate and detailed statistical reporting by law schools. I don’t make the connection that the article is supporting speculation that penalties against VLS, who openly disclosed reporting of falsified statistics on its own initiative, will be severe as a deterrent to other law schools.

4) “If you think that law schools prefer heavier regulation & more severe scrutiny, then we disagree.”
> None of CChuff’s posts suggest that he thinks that law schools prefer heavier regulation & more severe scrutiny so there’s and there is no basis for this comment.
In my opinion, I don’t think that schools would prefer heavier regulation & more severe scrutiny but Congress legislates it, as called for by Professor Yin’s blog post (See Soullesswonder’s post at 11:50pm on page 5), then schools will have to accept it whether they prefer it or not.

5) “If you think that the ABA & USNews are going to close their eyes to Villanova Law School's repeated fraudulent reporting, then we disagree.”
> None of CChuff’s posts suggest the belief that the ABA & USNews are going to close their eyes to VLS’s repeated fraudulent reporting and there is no basis for this comment.

Here are all of the posts that CChuff has posted on this website about the ABA & USNews:

From this Forum:
PAGE 2 – CChuff posts at 9:21am: “While I believe a slight drop in the US News rankings is likely, our NLJ ranking which is top 40 will not be effected by this information…” “US News rankings reacts to information like this, much like many people on this forum…” “Villanova will remain in the top tier (top 50) of the NLJ rankings, which is much more important than the US News rankings, as the NLJ reports placement statistics, and does not consider many of the other less important factors.”
PAGE 3 – CChuff posts at 6:25pm: “…I do not really pay attention to US New rankings.”
PAGE 4 - CChuff posts at 6:32pm: “The administration here has told us that the ABA has said that the scandal will not result in accreditation probation.” [My added comment: This is factually correct, administration has told us (VLS students) that accredication probation will not occur because of the scandal.]

From Forum: Lawschool Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists, Topic: Villanova 2011)
TUES Feb 8th, 2011 at 10:42am – CChuff posts: “…last time I checked, TTT was over 100. We are not nearly over 100. And if you look at the rankings and median LSATs, there are many above and below us with median LSATS around 160…”
WED Feb 9th, 2011 at 6:14am – CChuff posts: “…I agree that US News will probably drop us a few spots, but nothing major. But, Villanova will be just as competitive in the placement rankings, which are much more important than US News. The goal is jobs…”

6) “If you believe that Villanova's "coming clean" will exonerate its unethical behavior, then we disagree.”
> None of CChuff’s posts suggest a belief that VLS’ disclosure will exonerate its unethical behavior. In fact on several occasions, CChuff has stated that there will be repercussions for VLS’ unethical behavior (See CChuff posts at 9:21am and 9:54am on page 2).
CChuff has stated the opinion that the speculated repercussions are being overstated (See CChuff posts at 9:54am on page 2, 6:25pm on page 3, and 6:51pm on page 4)(Also see CChuff posts on Feb. 9th, 2011 at 9:52 in Forum: Lawschool Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists, Topic: Villanova 2011.
CChuff has also stated the opinion that certain severe repercussions will not happen (See CChuff posts at 6:25pm on page 3 and 6:39pm on page 4) (Also see CChuff posts on Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:05 in Forum: Lawschool Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists, Topic: Villanova 2011)

7) “If you think that the ABA & the WSJ are investigating & reporting on Villanova Law School's fraudulent behavior without basis, then we disagree.”
> The facts show that the investigation & reporting on VLS’s fraudulent behavior are based on VLS’s Dean Gotanda voluntary admission that the previous VLS Dean and two members of the administration were intentionally misreporting VLS admissions statistics. CChuff has agreed there is basis for the investigating & reporting in posts on page 2 at 9:21am, and on page 4 at 6:53pm.

8.)“If you believe that the investigation of Villanova Law School by the ABA is continuing & ongoing without the possibility of sanctions being levied upon Villanova Law School, then we disagree.”
> As far as I’ve read, no one has made this claim and this statement is without basis. CChuff has agreed with the opinion that THERE IS the possibility of sanctions for VLS (See CChuff posts at 9:21am and 9:54am on page 2).

[CanadianWolf]

You all really are obsessed with this. If an ongoing ABA investigation, a Wall Street Journal article, impact on USNews' credibility & admissions of multiple years of fraudulent reporting to the ABA by at least 3 Villanova Law School officials is not enough to convince you that bad news is likely, then we just disagree. I do, nevertheless, understand your anxiety about the situation. Nothing is going to be resolved on this discussion board despite your efforts. My opinion remains the same. But my opinion should not be the focus of your concern.

[sundance95]

This is shocking. I mean, I haven't been this flabbergasted since I learned that highway accidents involving SUV's are more likely to be fatal than those with smaller cars. Or maybe when I found out that steroid use is high among pro athletes.

On another note, there are a lot of innacuracies in this thread.
couldn't help it

[HeavenWood]

You all really are obsessed with this. If an ongoing ABA investigation, a Wall Street Journal article, impact on USNews' credibility & admissions of multiple years of fraudulent reporting to the ABA by at least 3 Villanova Law School officials is not enough to convince you that bad news is likely, then we just disagree. I do, nevertheless, understand your anxiety about the situation. Nothing is going to be resolved on this discussion board despite your efforts. My opinion remains the same. But my opinion should not be the focus of your concern.

I don't think you realize how insular Villanova's primary market is. I say this not as a future Villanova student, but as someone from the area who has a decent grasp of its legal hiring practices.