Whittier Shutting Down Forum

[UVA2B]

I think the situation is very sad because I do think the people who chose Whittier truly believed that a JD would grant them an education that would break the cycle of poverty they and their families have endured. I hate the for-profit colleges for helping to put more low-income, normally POC, into degree mills with lots of debt and no job options.

While we can say, "Well, they should have known better".. when you are low-income and you have people in your community and family pushing you to attend x university, it's a completely different world than those who are aware of for-profit colleges, read ATL, and have friends and family members who currently are in law school. They're not meant to be lawyers and it'd be great if there was something done better at the college-level to educate people about law school in general.

I sympathize. I do. But it seems more than a little dangerous to basically say that poor people are too incompetent to go online (which is something that can be done at public libraries, etc., so don't come back with the "not everyone has internet" line). Literally any research outside of the school's official website would tell someone that this is a bad idea. Hell, looking at the school's official website and actually reading the employment stats would be enough for anyone who's able to read.

Even worse, I think that a lot of them probably did hear about how bad the school was. We get TTTT applicants/students who drop by these forums on a semi-regular basis. When someone has convinced themselves that they're really smart, talented, and totally cut out for the profession, they literally will not listen to anyone that suggests otherwise. You can find dozens of threads where someone get upset that anyone would dare suggest that people not chase their dreams at John Marshall (or equivalent).

Students who matriculated before the ABA cracked down on disclosure might have a stronger case, but every one of these students turned a blind eye to reality when they chose to enroll. The people running the school are terrible, but that doesn't absolve the students of all responsibility.

You have to have internet to register for the LSAT so I'm not saying that these are people who have absolutely no resources - just that the resources they have (school-wise, parents, whichever) suck. Even my parents - who are educated - really don't know the difference between law schools other than "Huh, it's not HYS so I've never heard of it" and "Stanford has a law school? Why don't you go there?"

If you have the JD = money line of thinking, why would you look at employment statistics? Even at a T-14 admitted students day, there were tons of prospective students asking about employment info or general information that was easily accessible online. I blame it on the barely legitimate law schools' advertising that says that they're #1 in x or who offer incentives like free computers/free summer course/etc.

As for the people defending John Marshall or the equivalent - that's odd. Really odd. I cannot say I get it because I don't. While there is a lot of self-blame they can take on (piled on by loans), I do feel for some of the students and I'm not absolving them of responsibility. I just wish there was more in place to educate people about law school, whether it's people who go to degree mills or those who "like to argue" and thought that they could easily make money/have prestige if they went to a lower-ranked but still respectable school. I realize people can be ignorant about a number of things but to taking advantage of that just seems cruel.

It would be wonderful if LSAC simultaneously became the entry point to law schools and a reality check on the outcomes available at given law schools, but unfortunately that wouldn't serve LSAC or the law schools that use LSAC, so it'll never happen. But if you do any reasonable amount of google searching, you're likely to at least see a link to TLS, which is arguably the best treasure trove of information available anywhere I've found about law schools and outcomes. It's not perfect considering it's essentially crowd-sourcing information, but generally there is someone on TLS who will give a generally accurate forecast of a likely outcome at x school.

There will never be a centralized source of objective reality about the legal profession, and bad advice from people who don't know anything will persist because of confirmation bias and because people in real life want to encourage people to follow their dreams, even if it's at their own peril and will likely lead to their financial demise. It's too entrenched in American culture that "following your dreams" can lead to upward mobility and success, and that is unlikely to ever change.

I agree with everything you just said and just wanted to offer that while society reaching objective reality would be fantastic in theory, it's more likely the economy has to force objective reality on us vice finding it ourselves.

[zot1]

The problem isn't having internet, the problem is having some basic knowledge that allows you to know that you can look for something in the Internet.

For example, when a person is considering Whittier, they likely go online and google Whittier. They see what the school says and they think, this sounds awesome. They don't have the background to google is Whittier a good school? Is a TTT? Is it predatory? Will it help me pass the bar? Will it help me repay my debt?

In some communities/low-socio economic backgrounds, all you know about college/law school is that you pick one, you go to it, and then you get a job after. What's worse is that if you are in a really bad situation, you're desperate enough that you look for things that in fact confirm your biases that law school is the best way to get you out of poverty.

I interned at a place helping a mostly lower-socio economic clientele and you'd be surprised the kind of scams they've gotten themselves into because of their own desperation. Think paying $100 for a vacation to Aruba because I've never taken my kids anywhere and this was a good deal...

Anyway, you may think a lot of these students are spoiled, lazy, dumb, whatever... (I mean, I made a comment about them earlier on too), but it's easy to sit here and judge them when we don't really know anything about their personal lives.

Like someone else mentioned, if you don't have a reason to know there are prep courses for the lsat, you don't think to look for them.

Google search is great but unless you know what terms to look for, the internet isn't as useful.

[renc56]

I think the situation is very sad because I do think the people who chose Whittier truly believed that a JD would grant them an education that would break the cycle of poverty they and their families have endured. I hate the for-profit colleges for helping to put more low-income, normally POC, into degree mills with lots of debt and no job options.

While we can say, "Well, they should have known better".. when you are low-income and you have people in your community and family pushing you to attend x university, it's a completely different world than those who are aware of for-profit colleges, read ATL, and have friends and family members who currently are in law school. They're not meant to be lawyers and it'd be great if there was something done better at the college-level to educate people about law school in general.

I sympathize. I do. But it seems more than a little dangerous to basically say that poor people are too incompetent to go online (which is something that can be done at public libraries, etc., so don't come back with the "not everyone has internet" line). Literally any research outside of the school's official website would tell someone that this is a bad idea. Hell, looking at the school's official website and actually reading the employment stats would be enough for anyone who's able to read.

Even worse, I think that a lot of them probably did hear about how bad the school was. We get TTTT applicants/students who drop by these forums on a semi-regular basis. When someone has convinced themselves that they're really smart, talented, and totally cut out for the profession, they literally will not listen to anyone that suggests otherwise. You can find dozens of threads where someone get upset that anyone would dare suggest that people not chase their dreams at John Marshall (or equivalent).

Students who matriculated before the ABA cracked down on disclosure might have a stronger case, but every one of these students turned a blind eye to reality when they chose to enroll. The people running the school are terrible, but that doesn't absolve the students of all responsibility.

You have to have internet to register for the LSAT so I'm not saying that these are people who have absolutely no resources - just that the resources they have (school-wise, parents, whichever) suck. Even my parents - who are educated - really don't know the difference between law schools other than "Huh, it's not HYS so I've never heard of it" and "Stanford has a law school? Why don't you go there?"

If you have the JD = money line of thinking, why would you look at employment statistics? Even at a T-14 admitted students day, there were tons of prospective students asking about employment info or general information that was easily accessible online. I blame it on the barely legitimate law schools' advertising that says that they're #1 in x or who offer incentives like free computers/free summer course/etc.

As for the people defending John Marshall or the equivalent - that's odd. Really odd. I cannot say I get it because I don't. While there is a lot of self-blame they can take on (piled on by loans), I do feel for some of the students and I'm not absolving them of responsibility. I just wish there was more in place to educate people about law school, whether it's people who go to degree mills or those who "like to argue" and thought that they could easily make money/have prestige if they went to a lower-ranked but still respectable school. I realize people can be ignorant about a number of things but to taking advantage of that just seems cruel.

It would be wonderful if LSAC simultaneously became the entry point to law schools and a reality check on the outcomes available at given law schools, but unfortunately that wouldn't serve LSAC or the law schools that use LSAC, so it'll never happen. But if you do any reasonable amount of google searching, you're likely to at least see a link to TLS, which is arguably the best treasure trove of information available anywhere I've found about law schools and outcomes. It's not perfect considering it's essentially crowd-sourcing information, but generally there is someone on TLS who will give a generally accurate forecast of a likely outcome at x school.

There will never be a centralized source of objective reality about the legal profession, and bad advice from people who don't know anything will persist because of confirmation bias and because people in real life want to encourage people to follow their dreams, even if it's at their own peril and will likely lead to their financial demise. It's too entrenched in American culture that "following your dreams" can lead to upward mobility and success, and that is unlikely to ever change.

I agree with everything you just said and just wanted to offer that while society reaching objective reality would be fantastic in theory, it's more likely the economy has to force objective reality on us vice finding it ourselves.

Oh yeah, I don't see it happening any time soon. For-profit colleges and degree mills are too profitable and they're not illegal.

It'd be nice if LSAC was more useful as a whole..or user-friendly.

[blerggggg]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

[reasonable_man]

I graduated from a similar school (completely different geographical region), back in 2008. When I started law school in 2005, you needed an LSAT score into the mid-150s for even the lowest ABA 4th tier schools. Now, my school routinely enrolls applicants with sub-150 LSAT scores (I think the average might actually be in the high 140s at this point). The kids that graduate are swimming in debt with few serious Job prospects. In my own graduating class, 10 years later, it seems that about a third of us did well for ourselves while the other 2/3s have struggled greatly. 1/3 of your student body thriving is nothing to be proud of and frankly, I'm glad to see that Whittier chose to stop the bleeding. Hopefully, this will pave the way for other similar schools to make the same decision and end the senselessness of enrolling poorly qualified students simply in the name of feeding the machine the student loan dollars it needs to survive.

[Greenteachurro]

The problem isn't having internet, the problem is having some basic knowledge that allows you to know that you can look for something in the Internet.

For example, when a person is considering Whittier, they likely go online and google Whittier. They see what the school says and they think, this sounds awesome. They don't have the background to google is Whittier a good school? Is a TTT? Is it predatory? Will it help me pass the bar? Will it help me repay my debt?

In some communities/low-socio economic backgrounds, all you know about college/law school is that you pick one, you go to it, and then you get a job after. What's worse is that if you are in a really bad situation, you're desperate enough that you look for things that in fact confirm your biases that law school is the best way to get you out of poverty.

I interned at a place helping a mostly lower-socio economic clientele and you'd be surprised the kind of scams they've gotten themselves into because of their own desperation. Think paying $100 for a vacation to Aruba because I've never taken my kids anywhere and this was a good deal...

Anyway, you may think a lot of these students are spoiled, lazy, dumb, whatever... (I mean, I made a comment about them earlier on too), but it's easy to sit here and judge them when we don't really know anything about their personal lives.

Like someone else mentioned, if you don't have a reason to know there are prep courses for the lsat, you don't think to look for them.

Google search is great but unless you know what terms to look for, the internet isn't as useful.

Totally agree. I also think that there was a time where even people going to TTTT's would get jobs, or at least be able to carve out a nice piece of the legal pie to support their families. A lot of people in my family graduated from a TTT and went on to have good jobs with big firms, but that's obviously not the case anymore. A lot of them were pretty upset when I discounted their alma maters based on "prestige", educated people still thought that law school was still the place to go for an easy six figures. I bet if someone didn't take the time to research their school, then saw some TTT anecdotal success and not think much of the school's ranking, they would have some pretty serious blinders to the school's problems.

[uhwrestler]

lol losers

[guynourmin]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

[blerggggg]

But I feel like this rests on the assumption that most 0Ls consult with their pre-law advisor, or that most pre-law advisors go out of their way to educate their students, which we all know doesn't happen.

Even if LSAC directly sends applicants employment data, many would just ignore it. There's a reasoning on this thread that had these applicants known their chances of getting a job post grad that would pay off their debt would be slim, they wouldn't have matriculated. I think this is incorrect. If you are coming from a working/lower class background, you don't think about what could happen after graduation. I'm not saying all Whittier students come from this background, but I would posit that they factor in. You want to escape the position you're in any way possible. So rather than saying "these stupid students should have known better," we should be saying, "these schools that exploit working/lower class applicants' dreams should not have existed in the first place."

If the ABA had set a rigid standard, where law schools had to meet specific performance requirements, then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Predatory schools wouldn't be churning out grads that have six figure debt with little chance of paying off the debt and maybe the market wouldn't be as saturated. Just my 2 cents/speculation.

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

[guynourmin]

But I feel like this rests on the assumption that most 0Ls consult with their pre-law advisor, or that most pre-law advisors go out of their way to educate their students, which we all know doesn't happen.

Even if LSAC directly sends applicants employment data, many would just ignore it. There's a reasoning on this thread that had these applicants known their chances of getting a job post grad that would pay off their debt would be slim, they wouldn't have matriculated. I think this is incorrect. If you are coming from a working/lower class background, you don't think about what could happen after graduation. I'm not saying all Whittier students come from this background, but I would posit that they factor in. You want to escape the position you're in any way possible. So rather than saying "these stupid students should have known better," we should be saying, "these schools that exploit working/lower class applicants' dreams should not have existed in the first place."

If the ABA had set a rigid standard, where law schools had to meet specific performance requirements, then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Predatory schools wouldn't be churning out grads that have six figure debt with little chance of paying off the debt and maybe the market wouldn't be as saturated. Just my 2 cents/speculation.

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I do think little things like I mentioned could help some people with very little effort on anyone's part. Even if it stopped 1% of people from going a quarter of million dollars in debt for a garbage degree that would be great because these are real people's lives.

I also think the dept/ed should be stepping up if the ABA won't. The ABA does us all a service by gathering all the data they do (in the context that most of it isn't avail for the many UGs running the same type of scam). Couldn't the dept/ed just stop giving loans for people to go to these schools?

[Greenteachurro]

But I feel like this rests on the assumption that most 0Ls consult with their pre-law advisor, or that most pre-law advisors go out of their way to educate their students, which we all know doesn't happen.

Even if LSAC directly sends applicants employment data, many would just ignore it. There's a reasoning on this thread that had these applicants known their chances of getting a job post grad that would pay off their debt would be slim, they wouldn't have matriculated. I think this is incorrect. If you are coming from a working/lower class background, you don't think about what could happen after graduation. I'm not saying all Whittier students come from this background, but I would posit that they factor in. You want to escape the position you're in any way possible. So rather than saying "these stupid students should have known better," we should be saying, "these schools that exploit working/lower class applicants' dreams should not have existed in the first place."

If the ABA had set a rigid standard, where law schools had to meet specific performance requirements, then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Predatory schools wouldn't be churning out grads that have six figure debt with little chance of paying off the debt and maybe the market wouldn't be as saturated. Just my 2 cents/speculation.

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I do think little things like I mentioned could help some people with very little effort on anyone's part. Even if it stopped 1% of people from going a quarter of million dollars in debt for a garbage degree that would be great because these are real people's lives.

I also think the dept/ed should be stepping up if the ABA won't. The ABA does us all a service by gathering all the data they do (in the context that most of it isn't avail for the many UGs running the same type of scam). Couldn't the dept/ed just stop giving loans for people to go to these schools?

Pretty sure it'd also be a tough sell to have the aba shut out schools. There's a lot of accusations that these schools can make against regulation of LS. Many of these schools cater a lot to those that come from lower-income backgrounds, and many of these schools claim that they are democratizing the legal education. Additionally, they could argue that school choice would be hindered by regulation, among other arguments. I just feel like that ABA doesn't have the weight to fight back against these types of claims, especially well enough to convince lower-income individuals that they are doing them a favor. Like I think one of the infilaw schools, in defense of themselves, pretty much published a treatise on why schools like their's deserve to stay open. And it included a lot of stuff on inclusion, and the benefits of lower ranked schools in terms of upward mobility. A lot of people buy into that garbage.

A lot of people figure that the degree in of itself is worthwhile, independent of the school that it comes from.

[dabigchina]

Some people simply should not go to law school.

Yeah, but if that video shows you anything it's that "some people" just don't have the self-awareness to realize they're one of them. If you have to redo your 3L year because you couldn't cut it at the worst law school in the country, and still don't see the writing on the wall, there is no hope for you.

That ATL video was wild, but I guess what else do you expect

Wait... someone actually repeated 3L? I thought Dwarf was exaggerating for effect.

[blerggggg]

But I feel like this rests on the assumption that most 0Ls consult with their pre-law advisor, or that most pre-law advisors go out of their way to educate their students, which we all know doesn't happen.

Even if LSAC directly sends applicants employment data, many would just ignore it. There's a reasoning on this thread that had these applicants known their chances of getting a job post grad that would pay off their debt would be slim, they wouldn't have matriculated. I think this is incorrect. If you are coming from a working/lower class background, you don't think about what could happen after graduation. I'm not saying all Whittier students come from this background, but I would posit that they factor in. You want to escape the position you're in any way possible. So rather than saying "these stupid students should have known better," we should be saying, "these schools that exploit working/lower class applicants' dreams should not have existed in the first place."

If the ABA had set a rigid standard, where law schools had to meet specific performance requirements, then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Predatory schools wouldn't be churning out grads that have six figure debt with little chance of paying off the debt and maybe the market wouldn't be as saturated. Just my 2 cents/speculation.

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I do think little things like I mentioned could help some people with very little effort on anyone's part. Even if it stopped 1% of people from going a quarter of million dollars in debt for a garbage degree that would be great because these are real people's lives.

I also think the dept/ed should be stepping up if the ABA won't. The ABA does us all a service by gathering all the data they do (in the context that most of it isn't avail for the many UGs running the same type of scam). Couldn't the dept/ed just stop giving loans for people to go to these schools?

Pretty sure it'd also be a tough sell to have the aba shut out schools. There's a lot of accusations that these schools can make against regulation of LS. Many of these schools cater a lot to those that come from lower-income backgrounds, and many of these schools claim that they are democratizing the legal education. Additionally, they could argue that school choice would be hindered by regulation, among other arguments. I just feel like that ABA doesn't have the weight to fight back against these types of claims, especially well enough to convince lower-income individuals that they are doing them a favor. Like I think one of the infilaw schools, in defense of themselves, pretty much published a treatise on why schools like their's deserve to stay open. And it included a lot of stuff on inclusion, and the benefits of lower ranked schools in terms of upward mobility. A lot of people buy into that garbage.

A lot of people figure that the degree in of itself is worthwhile, independent of the school that it comes from.

That's a fair point, it is definitely a fine line. If our goal is democratize law school while protecting consumer interests, maybe we should be putting the CUNY model on a pedestal and going after these predatory schools that charge 50k per year.

[Greenteachurro]

Some people simply should not go to law school.

Yeah, but if that video shows you anything it's that "some people" just don't have the self-awareness to realize they're one of them. If you have to redo your 3L year because you couldn't cut it at the worst law school in the country, and still don't see the writing on the wall, there is no hope for you.

That ATL video was wild, but I guess what else do you expect

Wait... someone actually repeated 3L? I thought Dwarf was exaggerating for effect.

One of the women in the video said something to the effect of "I retook 3l and got a 3.0, more students should know about this" or something like that. Pretty sure she meant that she took her year over again to boost her GPA

[dabigchina]

Some people simply should not go to law school.

Yeah, but if that video shows you anything it's that "some people" just don't have the self-awareness to realize they're one of them. If you have to redo your 3L year because you couldn't cut it at the worst law school in the country, and still don't see the writing on the wall, there is no hope for you.

That ATL video was wild, but I guess what else do you expect

Wait... someone actually repeated 3L? I thought Dwarf was exaggerating for effect.

One of the women in the video said something to the effect of "I retook 3l and got a 3.0, more students should know about this" or something like that. Pretty sure she meant that she took her year over again to boost her GPA

That's still pretty wild. I hope she didnt have to pay full freight for her 4th year.

[SkinnyFat]

If I understood the repeat 3L/3.0 student's point, I think she was saying she took a particular class (she mentions a professor by name) that could be helpful for bar passage. Cuz she said she was "piggy-backing" off the other student's comment about how the current crop of 3L's had rosier bar/job outlooks than previous classes. Maybe I'm wrong, it was an odd comment. But clearly everyone there was very emotional.

Frankly, it's really hard to listen to, cuz it sounds like someone trying to prevent a breakup, a la "we were just starting to sort out our problems." Kinda heartbreaking. Notwithstanding the larger debate over TTTT's, I think everyone can agree the people who organized this meeting really screwed up.

[Rahviveh]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

[vcap180]

The raw score from my logical reasoning sections alone would have put my LSAT score at Whittier's median

And look at that 25th percentile: I truly don't understand how one scores below a 144 on the LSAT.

[curry1]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

yeah, people need to stop blaming those who attend terrible law schools. Even "smart" people cannot understand basic stats and paternalism is actually justified in this situation dealing with people who can't even break 150 on the LSAT.

[vcap180]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

yeah, people need to stop blaming those who attend terrible law schools. Even "smart" people cannot understand basic stats and paternalism is actually justified in this situation dealing with people who can't even break 150 on the LSAT.

It's not even a matter of statistics, it comes down to basic self-awareness - if you're maxing out at a 146 LSAT score, you need to accept that this career path isn't for you. I feel bad for almost no TTTTTTTTT students.

[lymenheimer]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

yeah, people need to stop blaming those who attend terrible law schools. Even "smart" people cannot understand basic stats and paternalism is actually justified in this situation dealing with people who can't even break 150 on the LSAT.

It's not even a matter of statistics, it comes down to basic self-awareness - if you're maxing out at a 146 LSAT score, you need to accept that this career path isn't for you. I feel bad for almost no TTTTTTTTT students.

Except most of these people probably didnt study for the lsat so the idea of "maxing out" is probably foreign to them as well

[shadowfax]

FYI. GPA has been found to be almost entirely non-predictive of law school performance. This makes absolutely no sense.

LSAT is mildly predictive.

It has been stated on some other threads that LSAT scores and GPA's are not predictive of success. I didn't know that but now I do. Can't they just transfer to t-13 schools? It would be an act of kindness to let them finish up there.

[cavalier1138]

FYI. GPA has been found to be almost entirely non-predictive of law school performance. This makes absolutely no sense.

LSAT is mildly predictive.

It has been stated on some other threads that LSAT scores and GPA's are not predictive of success. I didn't know that but now I do. Can't they just transfer to t-13 schools? It would be an act of kindness to let them finish up there.

Actually, that's not what anyone has said on other threads.

LSAT has a mild correlation to law school performance. GPA has almost none. LSAT and GPA combined have the strongest correlation. The more important point is that LSAT scores have also been shown to have a correlation with bar passage rates, which is why schools accepting students with low scores know that they're just bleeding them dry.

[vcap180]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

yeah, people need to stop blaming those who attend terrible law schools. Even "smart" people cannot understand basic stats and paternalism is actually justified in this situation dealing with people who can't even break 150 on the LSAT.

It's not even a matter of statistics, it comes down to basic self-awareness - if you're maxing out at a 146 LSAT score, you need to accept that this career path isn't for you. I feel bad for almost no TTTTTTTTT students.

Except most of these people probably didnt study for the lsat so the idea of "maxing out" is probably foreign to them as well

And thus they deserve none of my sympathy!!

I look at it like this:
20 LSAT questions are basically testing to see if you're a literate person with a pulse

Another 20 can be pretty easily deduced by virtue of being reasonably educated (like receiving a bachelors degree)

Another 20 can be secured through sheer studying/preparation by anyone who meets the above two requirements.

This means no one should ever receive a raw score of less than like 60, which equates to like a 150.

[cron1834]

"The 3L class this year, I'm sure are going to have great results because I know a lot of them and they're all very intelligent and they know how to write and they've done well."

Woof.

Yeah, this suggests a variation on Stockholm Syndrome. They think their captors have given something valuable and are angry to be let go.