What's the chances for appealing a academic dismissal? Forum

[CHFuller]

Your wife's coworker experienced this but you didn't know it was a possibility?

What do you mean, sir? My wife only thought of it when we got words from my son that he received the at-risk email from his school. My son is doing his own part in getting in touch with his school and figuring out possible steps himself, too. We met one of his teacher during an open house mid-spring, and she mentioned my kid's good with analyzing the law, but did weaker recalling the details of the laws themselves (the law elements).

Cavalier, the wife and I are in the middle of a 15-day vacation from work, so we got some time left to look into our kid's situation as well. Sorry if it seems I've been posting a lot...it's definitely an unpleasant situation to be in as a parent. We've already had my kid send his appeal email yesterday, so we're just waiting on that now.

[cavalier1138]

We met one of his teacher during an open house mid-spring, and she mentioned my kid's good with analyzing the law, but did weaker recalling the details of the laws themselves (the law elements).

Ok, not to belabor the point, but this is a huge red flag. A parent talking to their kid's college professors is weird. A parent talking to their kid's law school professors indicates that you guys really need to back off. Are you planning on having regular check-ins with his first boss too?

Again, you seem to be blithely ignoring any post that points out how dismal job prospects are for graduates from schools like this, so I can only assume that your wife is actually planning on hiring him after school or that you turn a blind eye to anything which would imply your son isn't going to be a rousing success in life. I find that moderately more concerning than the helicopter parenting, but only because when you're hovering over your son's shoulder like this, you should at the very least be trying to guide him towards good choices.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I generally agree with prior posters that your son should reevaluate whether law school is right for him at least for right now, because, and with all due respect, if he's having such trouble now at a lower ranked school he's likely going to have trouble with the bar exam, landing a job, etc. On the other hand, though, it seems fishy that a school would admit students and then have what sounds like a grade cut off it uses to kick students out. Since grades in law school are on a curve, does this mean their kicking students out is a routine practice for some part of a class every first year? If so, were they upfront with this when he was applying? Was it a readily perceivable practice? I'm not giving you legal advice or trying to because I don't know much about educational law but just generally I'm wondering how it could be legal for a school to entice and accept students into its class--students who it can probably tell won't do well on the bar given their correlative lsat/gpa during admissions--take their money during 1L year, and then kick them out in the cold to maintain their bar rates and other similar factors it probably uses to entice and admit the next batch of students it plans to kick out, especially if this practice wasn't readily understood by applicants.

This is absolutely common at low-ranked schools. Schools that accept students with very low scores are known to have harsh curves and regularly fail out a noticeable percentage of students at the end of 1L (and other years I think). There's nothing illegal about it - it's the school setting what it believes are appropriate academic standards, which the courts give schools almost unbounded discretion to do. It sucks for the students who get kicked out, of course, but lots of things about law school suck. As cavalier points out, the statistics for this are available.

[Npret]

Your wife's coworker experienced this but you didn't know it was a possibility?

What do you mean, sir? My wife only thought of it when we got words from my son that he received the at-risk email from his school. My son is doing his own part in getting in touch with his school and figuring out possible steps himself, too. We met one of his teacher during an open house mid-spring, and she mentioned my kid's good with analyzing the law, but did weaker recalling the details of the laws themselves (the law elements).

Cavalier, the wife and I are in the middle of a 15-day vacation from work, so we got some time left to look into our kid's situation as well. Sorry if it seems I've been posting a lot...it's definitely an unpleasant situation to be in as a parent. We've already had my kid send his appeal email yesterday, so we're just waiting on that now.

I only meant that it seems you were aware this could happen because you know that it happened to others.
I hope it all works out for you and your son. I know you are acting out of concern.

[it's allgood]

Sounds a bit trollish to me. It sounds like a 13 year old wrote this. It is odd referring to an adult son as a kid several times.

It's not odd at all for a parent to refer to their son as a kid.

OP, I also agree that your son would benefit from some time off working. I also don't think memorization is really the issue in most law school exams, unless the school is one that accepts a large percentage of applicants and then weeds them out through a harsh curve (which is usually a school with poor employment prospects). I say that only to suggest he may need to consider further what went wrong with his performance so far.

Also, I mean this very respectfully, but I feel like it's your son who needs to be asking these questions and figuring out his options.

A once or twice reference to an adult son as a kid may not be odd. But several times? It seems like this parent actually still treats their adult son like they are a kid and said kid has not yet grown up to be a responsible adult. This may be why the kids is not "asking these questions and figuring out his options" for himself. Isn't that standard adult behavior? Perhaps that is why there is this conundrum to begin with.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

I generally agree with prior posters that your son should reevaluate whether law school is right for him at least for right now, because, and with all due respect, if he's having such trouble now at a lower ranked school he's likely going to have trouble with the bar exam, landing a job, etc. On the other hand, though, it seems fishy that a school would admit students and then have what sounds like a grade cut off it uses to kick students out. Since grades in law school are on a curve, does this mean their kicking students out is a routine practice for some part of a class every first year? If so, were they upfront with this when he was applying? Was it a readily perceivable practice? I'm not giving you legal advice or trying to because I don't know much about educational law but just generally I'm wondering how it could be legal for a school to entice and accept students into its class--students who it can probably tell won't do well on the bar given their correlative lsat/gpa during admissions--take their money during 1L year, and then kick them out in the cold to maintain their bar rates and other similar factors it probably uses to entice and admit the next batch of students it plans to kick out, especially if this practice wasn't readily understood by applicants.

This is absolutely common at low-ranked schools. Schools that accept students with very low scores are known to have harsh curves and regularly fail out a noticeable percentage of students at the end of 1L (and other years I think). There's nothing illegal about it - it's the school setting what it believes are appropriate academic standards, which the courts give schools almost unbounded discretion to do. It sucks for the students who get kicked out, of course, but lots of things about law school suck. As cavalier points out, the statistics for this are available.

I honestly wasn't aware of this. I knew there were attrition stats but thought they represented students voluntarily leaving, like transferring or dropping out. And it made sense that they were higher at lower ranked schools given the desire to transfer to higher ranked schools or drop out if prospects seem gloom. I didn't associate it with being forced out. I can understand wanting to keep a level of academic standards. But that's also possible by denying admission instead of admitting, taking their money and then kicking them out, especially if the correlation between LSAT/GPA during admission tells them with good probability which students are gonna get, what I perceive it to be in the ordinary sense of the word, scammed. But I don't know the law on this or exactly how it plays out. Just a bit disturbed now.

[cavalier1138]

I honestly wasn't aware of this. I knew there were attrition stats but thought they represented students voluntarily leaving, like transferring or dropping out. And it made sense that they were higher at lower ranked schools given the desire to transfer to higher ranked schools or drop out if prospects seem gloom. I didn't associate it with being forced out. I can understand wanting to keep a level of academic standards. But that's also possible by denying admission instead of admitting, taking their money and then kicking them out, especially if the correlation between LSAT/GPA during admission tells them with good probability which students are gonna get, what I perceive it to be in the ordinary sense of the word, scammed. But I don't know the law on this or exactly how it plays out. Just a bit disturbed now.

The attrition stats on 509 forms are broken down into categories. Any students in the "Academic" column did not leave voluntarily.

[Sprout]

I generally agree with prior posters that your son should reevaluate whether law school is right for him at least for right now, because, and with all due respect, if he's having such trouble now at a lower ranked school he's likely going to have trouble with the bar exam, landing a job, etc. On the other hand, though, it seems fishy that a school would admit students and then have what sounds like a grade cut off it uses to kick students out. Since grades in law school are on a curve, does this mean their kicking students out is a routine practice for some part of a class every first year? If so, were they upfront with this when he was applying? Was it a readily perceivable practice? I'm not giving you legal advice or trying to because I don't know much about educational law but just generally I'm wondering how it could be legal for a school to entice and accept students into its class--students who it can probably tell won't do well on the bar given their correlative lsat/gpa during admissions--take their money during 1L year, and then kick them out in the cold to maintain their bar rates and other similar factors it probably uses to entice and admit the next batch of students it plans to kick out, especially if this practice wasn't readily understood by applicants.

This is absolutely common at low-ranked schools. Schools that accept students with very low scores are known to have harsh curves and regularly fail out a noticeable percentage of students at the end of 1L (and other years I think). There's nothing illegal about it - it's the school setting what it believes are appropriate academic standards, which the courts give schools almost unbounded discretion to do. It sucks for the students who get kicked out, of course, but lots of things about law school suck. As cavalier points out, the statistics for this are available.

I honestly wasn't aware of this. I knew there were attrition stats but thought they represented students voluntarily leaving, like transferring or dropping out. And it made sense that they were higher at lower ranked schools given the desire to transfer to higher ranked schools or drop out if prospects seem gloom. I didn't associate it with being forced out. I can understand wanting to keep a level of academic standards. But that's also possible by denying admission instead of admitting, taking their money and then kicking them out, especially if the correlation between LSAT/GPA during admission tells them with good probability which students are gonna get, what I perceive it to be in the ordinary sense of the word, scammed. But I don't know the law on this or exactly how it plays out. Just a bit disturbed now.

It should be a crime. It's not. So many shitty law schools routinely do this. Imo it's exploitation, but as was previously pointed out, the info is out there... you just have to dig a bit.

OP - good luck. It really sounds like your son should be working, or transfer, or something. This is really not a good situation.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

I honestly wasn't aware of this. I knew there were attrition stats but thought they represented students voluntarily leaving, like transferring or dropping out. And it made sense that they were higher at lower ranked schools given the desire to transfer to higher ranked schools or drop out if prospects seem gloom. I didn't associate it with being forced out. I can understand wanting to keep a level of academic standards. But that's also possible by denying admission instead of admitting, taking their money and then kicking them out, especially if the correlation between LSAT/GPA during admission tells them with good probability which students are gonna get, what I perceive it to be in the ordinary sense of the word, scammed. But I don't know the law on this or exactly how it plays out. Just a bit disturbed now.

The attrition stats on 509 forms are broken down into categories. Any students in the "Academic" column did not leave voluntarily.

Ahh. Got it. Thanks!

[A. Nony Mouse]

I generally agree with prior posters that your son should reevaluate whether law school is right for him at least for right now, because, and with all due respect, if he's having such trouble now at a lower ranked school he's likely going to have trouble with the bar exam, landing a job, etc. On the other hand, though, it seems fishy that a school would admit students and then have what sounds like a grade cut off it uses to kick students out. Since grades in law school are on a curve, does this mean their kicking students out is a routine practice for some part of a class every first year? If so, were they upfront with this when he was applying? Was it a readily perceivable practice? I'm not giving you legal advice or trying to because I don't know much about educational law but just generally I'm wondering how it could be legal for a school to entice and accept students into its class--students who it can probably tell won't do well on the bar given their correlative lsat/gpa during admissions--take their money during 1L year, and then kick them out in the cold to maintain their bar rates and other similar factors it probably uses to entice and admit the next batch of students it plans to kick out, especially if this practice wasn't readily understood by applicants.

This is absolutely common at low-ranked schools. Schools that accept students with very low scores are known to have harsh curves and regularly fail out a noticeable percentage of students at the end of 1L (and other years I think). There's nothing illegal about it - it's the school setting what it believes are appropriate academic standards, which the courts give schools almost unbounded discretion to do. It sucks for the students who get kicked out, of course, but lots of things about law school suck. As cavalier points out, the statistics for this are available.

I honestly wasn't aware of this. I knew there were attrition stats but thought they represented students voluntarily leaving, like transferring or dropping out. And it made sense that they were higher at lower ranked schools given the desire to transfer to higher ranked schools or drop out if prospects seem gloom. I didn't associate it with being forced out. I can understand wanting to keep a level of academic standards. But that's also possible by denying admission instead of admitting, taking their money and then kicking them out, especially if the correlation between LSAT/GPA during admission tells them with good probability which students are gonna get, what I perceive it to be in the ordinary sense of the word, scammed. But I don't know the law on this or exactly how it plays out. Just a bit disturbed now.

But if they deny admission they don't get any money!

I mean, it is kind of scammy (though students do need to be aware of their school's practices before they enroll), it's just not illegal. The positive spin on it is that it gives students with poor scores the opportunity to prove they can actually succeed in law school (given the limitations of LSAT/GPA as measures of people's legal ability). Unfortunately given the current state of the profession even students who excel at the really bottom schools may not have very good legal opportunities available to them, and the schools are usually WAY too expensive, but in theory giving access to a wide range of people has some value. (Also if you do badly 1L getting kicked out before you spend 2 more years' tuition could be seen as merciful, I guess.)

[A. Nony Mouse]

Sounds a bit trollish to me. It sounds like a 13 year old wrote this. It is odd referring to an adult son as a kid several times.

It's not odd at all for a parent to refer to their son as a kid.

OP, I also agree that your son would benefit from some time off working. I also don't think memorization is really the issue in most law school exams, unless the school is one that accepts a large percentage of applicants and then weeds them out through a harsh curve (which is usually a school with poor employment prospects). I say that only to suggest he may need to consider further what went wrong with his performance so far.

Also, I mean this very respectfully, but I feel like it's your son who needs to be asking these questions and figuring out his options.

A once or twice reference to an adult son as a kid may not be odd. But several times? It seems like this parent actually still treats their adult son like they are a kid and said kid has not yet grown up to be a responsible adult. This may be why the kids is not "asking these questions and figuring out his options" for himself. Isn't that standard adult behavior? Perhaps that is why there is this conundrum to begin with.

There may be some correlation, but I think you're overthinking this. He will still be his dad's kid when he's 40. "My kid" is not quite the same as "the kid" - it's just another way of saying "son."

[cavalier1138]

There may be some correlation, but I think you're overthinking this. He will still be his dad's kid when he's 40. "My kid" is not quite the same as "the kid" - it's just another way of saying "son."

To be fair, the OP is also doing a bunch of other questionable stuff that doesn't square with treating their child like an adult.

Speaking of which, you were a professor. Were you even allowed to tell parents about their kid's performance in class? I only had to deal with it once or twice, and I stonewalled the parents both times. But I forget what the legal line in the sand is.

[IExistedOnceBefore]

There may be some correlation, but I think you're overthinking this. He will still be his dad's kid when he's 40. "My kid" is not quite the same as "the kid" - it's just another way of saying "son."

To be fair, the OP is also doing a bunch of other questionable stuff that doesn't square with treating their child like an adult.

Speaking of which, you were a professor. Were you even allowed to tell parents about their kid's performance in class? I only had to deal with it once or twice, and I stonewalled the parents both times. But I forget what the legal line in the sand is.

Not Nony but I would think it goes dangerously close to being in violation of FERPA.

Also I wasn't aware schools were doing parent teacher conferences now OP. That's a giant red flag as well. You've gotten good advice here but you aren't listening to it. Also you've posted on another site under "allegedly" your sons account. If that's true you need to back off. Let me try and summarize.

1. Your son screwed up and you helped him do it.
2. Even if the appeal is favorable the chances of him graduating and passing the bar and securing legal employment are a hair above 0.
3. He needs to get a job and live life without mom and dad to catch him when he fails or he's never going to figure his shit out.

You've yet to answer. How much is being paid for this foolish endeavor? And whose paying?

[CHFuller]

There may be some correlation, but I think you're overthinking this. He will still be his dad's kid when he's 40. "My kid" is not quite the same as "the kid" - it's just another way of saying "son."

To be fair, the OP is also doing a bunch of other questionable stuff that doesn't square with treating their child like an adult.

Speaking of which, you were a professor. Were you even allowed to tell parents about their kid's performance in class? I only had to deal with it once or twice, and I stonewalled the parents both times. But I forget what the legal line in the sand is.

Not Nony but I would think it goes dangerously close to being in violation of FERPA.

Also I wasn't aware schools were doing parent teacher conferences now OP. That's a giant red flag as well. You've gotten good advice here but you aren't listening to it. Also you've posted on another site under "allegedly" your sons account. If that's true you need to back off. Let me try and summarize.

1. Your son screwed up and you helped him do it.
2. Even if the appeal is favorable the chances of him graduating and passing the bar and securing legal employment are a hair above 0.
3. He needs to get a job and live life without mom and dad to catch him when he fails or he's never going to figure his shit out.

You've yet to answer. How much is being paid for this foolish endeavor? And whose paying?

Plenty of good insights here, for sure. His school did an spring open house and we happened to see one of his teacher there, the professor did say they can't disclose much information on my kid, but mentioned he needed to work on recall skills and his writing is good. Sorry if it seems I wasn't listening here, but I am...it's just a stressful time for us. The money is on us, we're paying, but he had a scholarship due to his undergrad GPA so we've only paid $20,000 for the year. And yes, he's making plan on what to do if he doesn't get his appeal approved, he submitted a job application this morning near where he's staying for law school.

Thank to everyone's replies on the subject.

[A. Nony Mouse]

There may be some correlation, but I think you're overthinking this. He will still be his dad's kid when he's 40. "My kid" is not quite the same as "the kid" - it's just another way of saying "son."

To be fair, the OP is also doing a bunch of other questionable stuff that doesn't square with treating their child like an adult.

Speaking of which, you were a professor. Were you even allowed to tell parents about their kid's performance in class? I only had to deal with it once or twice, and I stonewalled the parents both times. But I forget what the legal line in the sand is.

Oh, I agree, but I don't think the term "kid" is the hill to die on.

And honestly I'm not sure what the legal line is, but in practice there are ways around it. I taught mostly at institutions with students lacking helicopter parents (lots of non-trads and 1st gen), and mostly didn't have to deal with this. The one place where there were OODLES of helicopter parents got around this by having all students sign a FERPA waiver saying that the college could discuss their academic records with their parents. (I don't think that anyone had to sign but pretty much everyone did because their parents were paying/they expected their parents to know everything about their lives. Also it was a private college.) One of my colleagues had a parent show up for an academic advising meeting with the student and during it the student asked the parent for permission to go to the bathroom.

[IExistedOnceBefore]

There may be some correlation, but I think you're overthinking this. He will still be his dad's kid when he's 40. "My kid" is not quite the same as "the kid" - it's just another way of saying "son."

To be fair, the OP is also doing a bunch of other questionable stuff that doesn't square with treating their child like an adult.

Speaking of which, you were a professor. Were you even allowed to tell parents about their kid's performance in class? I only had to deal with it once or twice, and I stonewalled the parents both times. But I forget what the legal line in the sand is.

Not Nony but I would think it goes dangerously close to being in violation of FERPA.

Also I wasn't aware schools were doing parent teacher conferences now OP. That's a giant red flag as well. You've gotten good advice here but you aren't listening to it. Also you've posted on another site under "allegedly" your sons account. If that's true you need to back off. Let me try and summarize.

1. Your son screwed up and you helped him do it.
2. Even if the appeal is favorable the chances of him graduating and passing the bar and securing legal employment are a hair above 0.
3. He needs to get a job and live life without mom and dad to catch him when he fails or he's never going to figure his shit out.

You've yet to answer. How much is being paid for this foolish endeavor? And whose paying?

Plenty of good insights here, for sure. His school did an spring open house and we happened to see one of his teacher there, the professor did say they can't disclose much information on my kid, but mentioned he needed to work on recall skills and his writing is good. Sorry if it seems I wasn't listening here, but I am...it's just a stressful time for us. The money is on us, we're paying, but he had a scholarship due to his undergrad GPA so we've only paid $20,000 for the year. And yes, he's making plan on what to do if he doesn't get his appeal approved, he submitted a job application this morning near where he's staying for law school.

Thank to everyone's replies on the subject.

Even if his appeal is approved he should not return to law school. If for some reason he decides to. Don't pay for it. His chances of getting a job, in California of all places, are exceedingly low. He would need to be top of his class to even have a snowballs chance in hell.

Why did he go to law school. What are his career goals. What did he think would happen. Did he have to take the baby bar?

[CHFuller]

Even if his appeal is approved he should not return to law school. If for some reason he decides to. Don't pay for it. His chances of getting a job, in California of all places, are exceedingly low. He would need to be top of his class to even have a snowballs chance in hell.

Why did he go to law school. What are his career goals. What did he think would happen. Did he have to take the baby bar?

He said he always wanted to be an attorney and help people out legal-wise, he read up on a lot of law/legal books when he was a child because of it (he wrote a lot about his opinions on court cases and the laws on forums and blogs when he was 12-16, he's really into it I suppose). Baby bar? No, I don't think he did. CA doesn't require 1L to take the practice bar if he goes to an ABA school.

Sorry, I saw I had notifications on this forum turned on so I got a ding every time a reply came on. Not meaning to look like I'm monitoring.

[IExistedOnceBefore]

Even if his appeal is approved he should not return to law school. If for some reason he decides to. Don't pay for it. His chances of getting a job, in California of all places, are exceedingly low. He would need to be top of his class to even have a snowballs chance in hell.

Why did he go to law school. What are his career goals. What did he think would happen. Did he have to take the baby bar?

He said he always wanted to be an attorney and help people out legal-wise, he read up on a lot of law/legal books when he was a child because of it (he wrote a lot about his opinions on court cases and the laws on forums and blogs when he was 12-16, he's really into it I suppose). Baby bar? No, I don't think he did. CA doesn't require 1L to take the practice bar if he goes to an ABA school.

Sorry, I saw I had notifications on this forum turned on so I got a ding every time a reply came on. Not meaning to look like I'm monitoring.

"Being an attorney" is a good start but not a focused career goal.

Mods please edit this or message me if what I'm about to say is not allowed. I can't remember rules.

OP. You have doxxed "your son" (yourself) on two separate forums. You have bigger issues to worry about than this. If you by some reason do manage the appeal and get approved to stay and then somehow graduate and miraculously pass the bar, character and fitness is going to take issue with the fact that you advertise yourself as a Yale graduated practicing attorney (who graduated from law school when they graduated from undergrad. Impressive) all over social media.

I truly empathize that you're in a sticky situation, but the best way to get out is to leave school, get a job, and then revisit it later if you still have a burning desire to be an attorney.

[cavalier1138]

Even if his appeal is approved he should not return to law school. If for some reason he decides to. Don't pay for it. His chances of getting a job, in California of all places, are exceedingly low. He would need to be top of his class to even have a snowballs chance in hell.

Why did he go to law school. What are his career goals. What did he think would happen. Did he have to take the baby bar?

He said he always wanted to be an attorney and help people out legal-wise, he read up on a lot of law/legal books when he was a child because of it (he wrote a lot about his opinions on court cases and the laws on forums and blogs when he was 12-16, he's really into it I suppose). Baby bar? No, I don't think he did. CA doesn't require 1L to take the practice bar if he goes to an ABA school.

Sorry, I saw I had notifications on this forum turned on so I got a ding every time a reply came on. Not meaning to look like I'm monitoring.

Well, if he really wants to be an attorney, why would he attend a school where he has a 50% (educated guess) chance of not getting a legal job after graduation?

Edit: Can we get a link to the thread in the other forum? This sounds promising.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Even if his appeal is approved he should not return to law school. If for some reason he decides to. Don't pay for it. His chances of getting a job, in California of all places, are exceedingly low. He would need to be top of his class to even have a snowballs chance in hell.

Why did he go to law school. What are his career goals. What did he think would happen. Did he have to take the baby bar?

He said he always wanted to be an attorney and help people out legal-wise, he read up on a lot of law/legal books when he was a child because of it (he wrote a lot about his opinions on court cases and the laws on forums and blogs when he was 12-16, he's really into it I suppose). Baby bar? No, I don't think he did. CA doesn't require 1L to take the practice bar if he goes to an ABA school.

Sorry, I saw I had notifications on this forum turned on so I got a ding every time a reply came on. Not meaning to look like I'm monitoring.

"Being an attorney" is a good start but not a focused career goal.

Mods please edit this or message me if what I'm about to say is not allowed. I can't remember rules.

OP. You have doxxed "your son" (yourself) on two separate forums. You have bigger issues to worry about than this. If you by some reason do manage the appeal and get approved to stay and then somehow graduate and miraculously pass the bar, character and fitness is going to take issue with the fact that you advertise yourself as a Yale graduated practicing attorney (who graduated from law school when they graduated from undergrad. Impressive) all over social media.

I truly empathize that you're in a sticky situation, but the best way to get out is to leave school, get a job, and then revisit it later if you still have a burning desire to be an attorney.

Wait, what?

[rpupkin]

Wait, what?

[IExistedOnceBefore]

Wait, what?

"Parent" posted on a well known website for wasting time whose mascot is a little alien under the "Law School" section under his "Sons" account because they share accounts apparently? I mean no one is buying that there.

"Son" is fast and lose with his anonymity on this "shared" account and personal details. Several users caught him there.

Social media also isn't on lock down. And I'm bored.

[rpupkin]

Wait, what?

"Parent" posted on a well known website for wasting one whose mascot is a little alien under the "Law School" section under his "Sons" account because they share accounts apparently? I mean no one is buying that there.

"Son" is fast and lose with his anonymity on this "shared" account and personal details. Several users caught him there.

Social media also isn't on lock down. And I'm bored.

Well thanks for clearing that up.

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about?

[IExistedOnceBefore]

Wait, what?

"Parent" posted on a well known website for wasting one whose mascot is a little alien under the "Law School" section under his "Sons" account because they share accounts apparently? I mean no one is buying that there.

"Son" is fast and lose with his anonymity on this "shared" account and personal details. Several users caught him there.

Social media also isn't on lock down. And I'm bored.

Well thanks for clearing that up.

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about?

He posted this exact same scenario on his main Reddit account that completely outs who he is because he posted a ton in his undergrad Reddit and his Reddit name is his twitter handle.

Claimed that it's a family Reddit account everyone shares?

[UVA2B]

I'm becoming increasingly curious why you, as a father that presumably wants what is best for your son, would be going to such lengths to ensure he continues down a path that will likely lead to disappointment if/when he fails to become an attorney. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the dynamics of your family, but if you want what is best for your son (and your finances since you're paying for it), why would you not encourage your son to take a step back from the study of law since it hasn't gone well for him so he can reevaluate his life and his career? Not only did he start off his career at an institution unlikely to get him a job as an attorney, but he didn't do well at that institution to make the possibility of ever becoming an attorney even less likely. Don't chase bad decisions with worse ones. Things aren't going to magically improve by soldiering on, even if the dismissal is overturned (although it sounds like he hasn't yet been dismissed but is just in danger of dismissal, but I could've missed that point).