Florida Coastal School of Law

[wrmusgro]

I checked the ABA site on law schools http://www.abanet.org/legaled/approvedlawschools/year.html

Pretty interesting, there aren't many schools approved over the past 30 years that are tier 1 or 2.  I guess that means that the older a school is the higher rated it is.

The for-profit concept is going to change the law profession.  Florida Coastal will soon have 2 more affiliated schools - Phoenix and Charlotte.  I can't argue Chico's point that there is a prejudice against for-profit schools, because there really isn't any data to support that position one way or the other.  But I can point out that the fact that Florida Coastal's success is because they provide a quality service in a geographic area where there is a need.

Devil Dawg - the put the Cheetos down comment effin rules! 

That's a good link man. I didn't really realize how new some schools were. George Mason is only 25 years old! Yisheva is only 27! And another thing that I thought was funny was that Mercer was actually ABA approved before UGA. Interesting website. And yeah....I HATE posters like Chico. What a tool that guy is. I bet he has about 3 or 4 different logins and all he does is go around and hate on people on this board. Kinda like a loserish versoin of the Player Haters from the Dave Chappell show.

[chico]

Thank you Mr Devil Dawg for your wonderful contribution to our academic discussion. Your comments on my taste in female beauty is appreciated. 

Let's see what you had to offer to our discussion:

"Yeah, posters like Chico are one of the reasons why I hardly ever post on this board anymore."

In other words, someone has the facts and is beating you from your ill-conceived notions, and you don't like it. You can't take criticism, and you can't respond, so I better conform to your provincial understanding.

"why did you apply to Fanklin Pierce?"

I applied to Franklin Pierce as a SAFETY school. As I have said, schools like that are good if you have no other choice. I won't be attending it because they didn't offer much in the way of Scholarship compared to others. In any case, Franklin Pierce, Vermont, are in a different league from the for-profit Florida Coastal. I have already outlined the problems with profiteering schools earlier in this thread. Of course, regretably you did not address any of my points, so I assume you expect us to accept your ad hominem vulgarity as divine truth.

"And also, its kind of pointless to post articles that are THREE YEARS OLD to prove your point."

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. . . Those who know no history remain a slave to current fashion. It IS still relevant. It happened in 2002, so hey, lets just ignore it! No way ANYTHING that happens in the past will affect you right? Because you are SPECIAL! You don't need to know anything but what's happening right now in your own little hometown. The fact is stand alone schools have much more leeway in doing whatever they please, like barry did, than a University's law school, which must protect its reputation better.

The fact is you are taking a big risk with schools like Barry, Cooley, and Florida Coastal.


"Stop being a Jacka$$, put the cheetos down and get a f_cking life"

Please spare us the immature, 5-th grade insults. I dont even eat mass produced, plastic wrapped, artificial preservative-filled junk food like that. Just so the other readers know, let me translate your above insults, so they can understand what you really mean:

'Stop opposing my personal beliefs with your logical arguments, backed by evidence, stop reading more than I do it makes me feel stupid, stop using published articles to support your position unless they are from today's edition of my local paper (or MTV), and please do something other than argue with me because I can't use logic'.

I dont think I'm better than other people because I got into 1st tier schools. When did I say this? In fact I didn't say ANYTHING of the sort. The fact you think I did implies you may have an inferiority complex, and you simply imagined I did. Of course I didn't get into harvard (Yale's program is better anyway. . .  joke).  What that does have to do with criticising for-profit, 4th tier schools, and how they are run? Of course it has nothing to do with it, you simply can't comprehend what a rational discussion about for-profit schools is, so you had to use your very small brain and your very large ego to make childish insults.

This thread was a civilized, mature debate about FCLS and for-profit schooling until you added your unwanted, unsolicited, immature discourse. Apparently you think "females under 250 pounds" are subhuman therefore inferior to you. Not that it matters, I don't care if they are plump, I dont bring a scale with me to weigh them, and a night out at the redneck bar you frequent is not my idea of "getting a life"

I do not "hate on people". That of course isn't even a phrase in the English language. That you equate legitimate criticism of social trends as "hate on people" shows a distinct lack of logic and and inability to participate in an understanding of academic discussion.

* * *

UCSF:

I have been to the Bay Area, UCSF and San Francisco. Yes, UCSF is not a full undergraduate university, because the UC system deliberately put only professional schools in the City of San Francisco, due to the limited space and enormously high cost of living (As well as the fact there already is USF, and other schools in the city limits)

However even UCSF is not just a teaching hospital. It is a complex on Parnassus Ave in San Fran, which is both a medical school/teaching hospital, with numerous and seperate buildings containing labs, classrooms, and several student cafeterias. There are thousands of med and interdisciplinary students there. It is not just a hospital.

So let us not quibble. UC-Hastings is publically owned by the state, and part of the state UC system. It's UC membership, regardless of whether UC opens an undergrad in SF, gives it academic and financial support that a school like FL Coastal or Cooley will NEVER have. Is NOT in the same position as any truly stand-alone law school, not even a reputable one like Vermont.

Again, San Francisco is an unusual city that is very limited in space, as it is hemmed in between the Pacific and the Bay (Jacksonville, on the other hand, is the largest city in the US, and sprawls on endlessly). That is the main reason why Hastings and UCSF are without an undergrad campus. It is how the UC system decided to develop its educational facilities taking into account the needs of the entire state. There just isn't a need for another giant undergraduate/graduate UC university across the Bay Bridge from Berkeley, when Berkeley is only a short drive away.

Pretending that UC Hastings is as independent as FL Coastal is absurd. As far as FL Coastal opening up one in Phoenix, that doesn't by itself prove me wrong. If anything it may be a bad sign. Why are their funding problems in higher education but somehow FL Coastal is swimming in profit? It may be because FL Coastal is so wonderful an educational experience, or it may be because they are successfully finding desperate people and taking their tuition before they fail out or cannot pass the bar, because many of these people were not meant to be practicing lawyers. Thus there is plenty of money for FL Coastal, while UF Law was actually desperate for money and short a few professors a few years ago due to low tuition rates.

So I stand by my original contention: University sponsored, non-profit education is more reliable and less risky for students than a for-profit, stand-alone professional school like Florida Coastal. I hope someone here has read my words and was encouraged to go to a traditional law school instead of the Coastal/Barry/Cooley group.


p.s. About the "age" factor in ranking. It is partially a factor, but not the cause. Age doesn't make your school better  by itself. UNLV is only a few years old and already in the top 100. The idea that there is widespread prejudice against Cooley, Florida coastal, barry, nova, regent, and that is why they are poorly ranked (or not ranked at all) is absurd.

[jeflord]

Chico,

I totally know where you are coming from on this, and while I don't agree with much of what you suggest, I can see why you'd feel that way.

The thing to keep in mind is that schools affiliated with a university are going to be the norm, and most people will feel more comfortable there because of the traditional not-for-profit/state sponsored model associated with a university.

The argument really is this - will for-profit law schools be successful, and if they are, will it work to change the traditional model and rankings?  I think that they will definitely be successful so long as they achieve decent bar passage rates and locate schools geographically in areas where there is a demonstrated need.  Should people be warned off from these institutions - nope.  They should be aware that it is a for-profit school, unaffiliated with a university.  They should also be aware that the school has a high bar passage rate and decent employment numbers.  They also seem to have a plan for the future.

They should make up their own minds based on research.  That is why I like to post on threads about Florida Coastal.  1.  Because I'm going there in the Fall.  2.  I liked it, and apparently about 1000 other people like it.  1000 people can't be completely wrong.  Just keep an open mind about it and lets see where the school is in 10 years.  If current trends continue, all arguments aside, the school will have earned every penny of profit.

[stressed]

Interesting debate. It seems that the actual argument centers around the pool of attending students and their relative merits, or ability to practice law. Because FL Coastal needs to make a profit, they have lower standards. I would like to point out that: 1) Chico assumes that the school's motives are solely to make money.... I do believe the motives are probably a little more respectable. The school obviously needs to make a profit, but that doesn't mean that part of the motive is not to provide legal training to some whom would not have the opportunity otherwise. Surely, there are bound to be some students who fall into this category who turn out to be magnificent lawyers. Furthermore, one goal of the law is to obtain equality and to empower the underrepresented. Alternate opportunities for a legal education contribute to these goals. Affirmative action does the same thing, but in a different way. 2)Let us not forget that much of a schools reputation in the professional world is based on the quality of its graduates, and not on those who fail out. Yes, USNews accounts for LSAT, etc., etc., but once we move this far down in the rankings, the USNews profile is arguably negligible. If FL Coastal does, in fact, fail out a large percentage of the entering class (which would cut profits), then those who were "never qualified to practice in the first place" do not become a reflection of FL COastal anyway. 3) If, however, a large percentage of these unqualified students are NOT failed out, and FL Coastal retains a 75% bar passage rate, then this speaks quite highly of their curriculum, no? Just my two cents. I think that if you just want a law degree, then FL Coastal will probably do just fine. However, you obviously wouldnt count on the schools reputation to land you a job, just like you wouldnt count on the reputation of any third tier school to land you a job. You will need to rely more on your class rank and your networking skills, etc.

[bradzwest]

Oh my friend...you are a piece of work!

Who said Hastings and Florida Coastal are the same?  You said freestanding...it is.  Although I loved your theory of SF real estate and the formation of the UC system.  You must be all the rage at the cocktail parties and with the ladies!  Are you published?

I didn't have a problem with your original argument, but you need to admit there are always exceptions...even if it is just a footnote in your pointless rants.

"why did you apply to Fanklin Pierce?"

-if you are gonna proofread everyone's posts and ridicule their opinions based on grammar, use spellcheck for your own.

 Is just physically seperated, like Seton Hall Law is from South Orange, from the nearest UC university, which is: UC San Francisco! (http://www.ucsf.edu/)  

SEPARATED

As for UCSF-  You couldn't find one student at the medical center or the law school at Hastings who would say they are academically linked.  One does not trade off the reputation of the other EVER.  

Hopefully the tone of your e-mails is just internet courage.  Throwing tons of unrelated facts and over generalizations at people in such a condescending manner hurts your thesis.  Otherwise I like the manifesto...

I won't continue a back and forth over your closely held personal opinion, the internet is a scary place!  Last time I saw this amount of text over nothing...guy started mailing bombs packed with nails to people!  Hey...he was a UC guy...Berkeley.  Someone most have asked him if Hastings and UCSF were part of the University of California at San Francisco, and he just snapped!  When Governor Arnold finds out a new UC was "discovered" on his watch he's gonna take credit for it.  

[rick8481]

Florida Coastal is a profit oriented enterprise which offers students who cannot achieve high LSAT scores a chance to practice law.

The end.

[chico]

Forgive me, the above poster had a great ending to this thread, but I must respond to ad hominem attack:

Nobody said Hastings and Florida coastal are the same. You are creating the straw man logical fallacy, and I don't have time to explain where your logic is wrong. You need to not think you know that much more than actually you do. And as far as freestanding, you are deliberately confusing the word. Hastings is part of the UC system, so it is not academically freestanding. It one of a system of universities, and it is protected and funded by the state. Completely different than private, totally independent FL Coastal.

Don't you get it? UC hastings is not its own planet, it is one of many moons around the UC-System. It is ruled by the Board of Regents just like the other UC schools. It is not independent in the same respect.

"Although I loved your theory of SF real estate and the formation of the UC system.  You must be all the rage at the cocktail parties and with the ladies!  Are you published?"

Your comments are irrelevant and lack wit. You have avoided the issue as did the other illiterate who scribbled some nonsense above yours. The San Francisco land limitation, the proximity to Berekely, all obviously lead to the high probability of my 'theory". It's common sense. The UC has limited resources and is highly unlikely to open a giant university in a tiny city across from its top-rated Berkeley campus when there is an entire state to consider. Also, the UC system's plans are well discussed and published in the California major newspapers, LA Times, San Fran Chronicle. Do you read any of these? Have you even heard of them?

"you need to admit there are always exceptions...even if it is just a footnote in your pointless"

I do not need to admit there are always exceptions. It is assumed by all civilized, intelligent people with at least some education. The obvious does not need to be stated. I have to assume the readers on this forum are somewhat literate, and all but about 2 posters on this thread are in fact of normal intelligence. Only you and the other heckler seem to have trouble with the obvious. There are 300 million people in the United States, and literally thousands of schools, universities, and colleges. Of course there are exceptions.

My postings here are answering the original question, and responding to those who questioned my first response. It is called "discussion". I realize you may not understand what this is, as you prefer monosyllabic gruntings to discourse.


"why did you apply to Fanklin[sic] Pierce?" "if you are gonna proofread everyone's posts and ridicule their opinions based on grammar, use spellcheck for your own."

If you had actually read my postings instead of prejudging it based on whatever unknown biases you have against an argument you disagree with, you would see that "Fanklin" was from the post of the previous illiterate "Devil Dog", I spelled it correctly.

And in any case, pointing out typing errors has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You can type. . . but you cannot use logic, or any sort of manners.


"As for UCSF-  You couldn't find one student at the medical center or the law school at Hastings who would say they are academically linked"

You completely missed my point. Luckily everyone else seems to understand my arguments, even should they not agree. It's just you that can't accept that others might disagree with you. I've already addressed what you can't understand, above in my last post.


"Throwing tons of unrelated facts and over generalizations. . ."

All facts I gave were related. I backed my "generalizations" with specific evidence, primary sources, eyewitness knowledge. Do you not undestand that to generalize is part of understanding the world, and a necessity to argue logically? Example: Young people are healthier than old people. There are youngsters who are sick, and old people running the triathalon. But obviously, it is generally true.

Do you not comprehend that?

I forgive you for being ignorant and illiterate, but for your massive, giant ego that has done nothing for this thread, nothing for the discussion at hand, I must find you guilty and I hold you in utter contempt. You and the other halfwit are like ignorance mixed with arrogance.

Back to the ideas at hand, I agree with the following and will not post any further in this thread:

"Florida Coastal is a profit oriented enterprise which offers students who cannot achieve high LSAT scores a chance to practice law.

The end."

[bradzwest]

Forgive me, the above poster had a great ending to this thread, but I must respond to ad hominem attack:

Nobody said Hastings and Florida coastal are the same. You are creating the straw man logical fallacy, and I don't have time to explain where your logic is wrong. You need to not think you know that much more than actually you do. And as far as freestanding, you are deliberately confusing the word. Hastings is part of the UC system, so it is not academically freestanding. It one of a system of universities, and it is protected and funded by the state. Completely different than private, totally independent FL Coastal.

Don't you get it? UC hastings is not its own planet, it is one of many moons around the UC-System. It is ruled by the Board of Regents just like the other UC schools. It is not independent in the same respect.

"Although I loved your theory of SF real estate and the formation of the UC system.  You must be all the rage at the cocktail parties and with the ladies!  Are you published?"

Your comments are irrelevant and lack wit. You have avoided the issue as did the other illiterate who scribbled some nonsense above yours. The San Francisco land limitation, the proximity to Berekely, all obviously lead to the high probability of my 'theory". It's common sense. The UC has limited resources and is highly unlikely to open a giant university in a tiny city across from its top-rated Berkeley campus when there is an entire state to consider. Also, the UC system's plans are well discussed and published in the California major newspapers, LA Times, San Fran Chronicle. Do you read any of these? Have you even heard of them?

"you need to admit there are always exceptions...even if it is just a footnote in your pointless"

I do not need to admit there are always exceptions. It is assumed by all civilized, intelligent people with at least some education. The obvious does not need to be stated. I have to assume the readers on this forum are somewhat literate, and all but about 2 posters on this thread are in fact of normal intelligence. Only you and the other heckler seem to have trouble with the obvious. There are 300 million people in the United States, and literally thousands of schools, universities, and colleges. Of course there are exceptions.

My postings here are answering the original question, and responding to those who questioned my first response. It is called "discussion". I realize you may not understand what this is, as you prefer monosyllabic gruntings to discourse.


"why did you apply to Fanklin[sic] Pierce?" "if you are gonna proofread everyone's posts and ridicule their opinions based on grammar, use spellcheck for your own."

If you had actually read my postings instead of prejudging it based on whatever unknown biases you have against an argument you disagree with, you would see that "Fanklin" was from the post of the previous illiterate "Devil Dog", I spelled it correctly.

And in any case, pointing out typing errors has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You can type. . . but you cannot use logic, or any sort of manners.


"As for UCSF-  You couldn't find one student at the medical center or the law school at Hastings who would say they are academically linked"

You completely missed my point. Luckily everyone else seems to understand my arguments, even should they not agree. It's just you that can't accept that others might disagree with you. I've already addressed what you can't understand, above in my last post.


"Throwing tons of unrelated facts and over generalizations. . ."

All facts I gave were related. I backed my "generalizations" with specific evidence, primary sources, eyewitness knowledge. Do you not undestand that to generalize is part of understanding the world, and a necessity to argue logically? Example: Young people are healthier than old people. There are youngsters who are sick, and old people running the triathalon. But obviously, it is generally true.

Do you not comprehend that?

I forgive you for being ignorant and illiterate, but for your massive, giant ego that has done nothing for this thread, nothing for the discussion at hand, I must find you guilty and I hold you in utter contempt. You and the other halfwit are like ignorance mixed with arrogance.

Back to the ideas at hand, I agree with the following and will not post any further in this thread:

"Florida Coastal is a profit oriented enterprise which offers students who cannot achieve high LSAT scores a chance to practice law.

The end."

You're funny!  You really are serious huh?  Even if your argument had any shred of value...your irrational train of thought betrays you.  I could identify several glaring reading comprehension difficulties you are having, but lets face it when push comes to shove...you are just a little bully and a name caller.   I didn't even have to turn the rock all the way over, the real you just scurried out! 

I apologize... I promised to go away and now will.  Your psychotic responses/rants are...like a car crash!  People like you are the reason I'm careful never to cut anyone off in traffic, never know how nuts that guy in the other car can be!

No need for a five page thread response, I bow to your infinite knowledge of the irrelevant...

[stressed]

"As for UCSF-  You couldn't find one student at the medical center or the law school at Hastings who would say they are academically linked"

You completely missed my point. Luckily everyone else seems to understand my arguments, even should they not agree. It's just you that can't accept that others might disagree with you. I've already addressed what you can't understand, above in my last post.


"Throwing tons of unrelated facts and over generalizations. . ."

All facts I gave were related. I backed my "generalizations" with specific evidence, primary sources, eyewitness knowledge. Do you not undestand that to generalize is part of understanding the world, and a necessity to argue logically? Example: Young people are healthier than old people. There are youngsters who are sick, and old people running the triathalon. But obviously, it is generally true.

Do you not comprehend that?

I forgive you for being ignorant and illiterate, but for your massive, giant ego that has done nothing for this thread, nothing for the discussion at hand, I must find you guilty and I hold you in utter contempt. You and the other halfwit are like ignorance mixed with arrogance.

i][/b]

What I think is interesting is that you call me names (ad hominem as you so like to point out), but you did not address one issue I raised. Furthermore, there really was no need to resort to such childishness, as I wasnt arguing with you, merely raising a few points. Now, I realize how much fun it is to comb through others' posts and show off your LSAT knowledge, but please at least refrain from making the same mistakes you so proudly point out in others' posts. Even a relatively intelligent chimp could avoid such errors. Furthermore, I would advise you drop the condescending attitude when you got a 164 on the LSAT. It makes you look foolish.

I dont disagree with everything you say, and I think you raise some strong points. However, when you are talking 4thTschools, one is not trading on the rep of the school anyway, so most of your drivel is nonsense. Do you honestly believe that anyone is going to look at a resume and say "well this person went to this TTT and this one went to this TTT that is attached to a University, so we should take them"!!?!?!? If you actually think so,perhaps you should consider a different career. "Eyewitness knowledge"?? What the hell are you talking about? While it's true that any business has to offer a good service to make a profit, there are ethical considerations that must be answered in regards to profiteering in higher education.

"While it's true that any business has to offer a good service to make a profit, there are ethical considerations that must be answered in regards to profiteering in higher education. Students are both consumers AND products of the same institution. .  thus the conflict. " All law students are the consumers and products, chico. Better schools rely heavily on alumni donations and endowment, as well as those paying full tuition.

"It isn't elitist to want your university to put education before profits. "  If you thought about it at all, you would realize that many universities survive because they are heavily research oriented, and this often detracts from the level of education they provide. Professors are hired for their research skills rather than their teaching merits. I had a professor of theoretical calculus who spoke very little english. Is education really first here?
 
"For-profit schools are lookd down on by those who are better read. It is a potential problem, academics by definition are not supposed to be in the "real world" 100%.--which I mean pratical information as opposed to theory. It is not supposed to be a trade school, which is what many of the 4th tier (but not all) have become, just like other professions now have them, like the infamous "Psych.D." program. A true legal education should not be a trade school, but discuss theory first, and then build with skills. "
Ok- first off, you seem to imply that you are one of those who is better read, and that this somehow lends credence to what you say. This fallacious argument would be an Appeal to Authority on your part, but I wont harp on it. Discuss theory first, and then build with skills.... hmmm.... any law school T1 to T4 will discuss theory first. It is true that some will have a more practical approach than others, but it doesnt mean that the approach is without merit. Take, for instance, Northeastern's very successful co-op approach. Needless to say, this is one of the more practical, hands on programs, but it is well respected and highly regarded.

On a personal note, you strike me as someone who really isnt very intelligent, but who thinks they are. I wish we were attending the same school because you are going to get crushed, and it will be funny. Your fragile ego is going to wither and die. It is astounding to me that you can be so arrogant and spew such nonsense at the same time. Your correct points (of which there are few) are lost in the shadow of your ignorance. I mean, my god, you even contradict yourself so blatantly that I wonder if you think about what you write, or if, in your haste to hear yourself, you just purge whatever thought gets into that little head of yours. Case in point: "What is the motivation for a profiteering law school? Get as much money as possible. The standards are always lower and there is a hidden factor to keep unqualified people in school to leech out more tuition fees from them. " And then this later in your endless tirade of dimwitted posts: " Coastal, and this is the worst, no doubt like many other trade-school like law schools, fails out or pushes out a good number of its students (after taking their money, and not giving refunds). Coastal also has a strong incentive to get people to pay full tuition, AND then, if they look as if they are unlikely to pass the bar, weed them out during those three years." It's called failing out, you fool. Every law school fails some students. It is also rather common for lower ranked schools to set certain thresholds below which a percentage of the student body does not pass. And, for your information, no school gives refunds if you flunk, as you, no doubt will find out (apparently to your dismay).
It is not wise to act like such a defensive jerk in a forum where there are many people just as smart as, if not smarter, than you. I'm sure you have heard this before because you clearly are not all that bright. I have no doubt, though, that you will ignorantly go forth, fueling your ego by patting yourself on the back, and looking around pensively, wondering why everyone is snickering behind their hands. When you start to wonder, remember this: It is, undoubtedly, you that is the brunt of the joke. By the way, I didnt even get a 164 on my WORST day. Good luck, youre going to need it.

[Trinitygunner]

Hastings.. . . no not really. Is just physically seperated, like Seton Hall Law is from South Orange, from the nearest UC university, which is: UC San Francisco! (http://www.ucsf.edu/)

And I can understand why since San Francisco has VERY limited land, and even if there was no UCSF, hastings would still be part of the UC system, and therefore actually a satellite campus. Berkeley is across the bay a BART ride away, San Jose State is close, as well as others. . .  It's a completely different situation than say, Vermont, Franklin Pierce, Cooley, Coastal, et al .. .being completely on their own.

Wrong.... there is no UC San Francisco.  UCSF is a med center and that's it.  Find an undergrad and or campus then talk out you A$$.  As for Hastings being a "satellite campus" for Cal... What's Boalt?  If you can't handle being proved wrong troll somewhere else.  HTH

If you have any relevant knowledge of the SF Bay Area you'd already know this stuff...

I do have knowledge of the bay area, i was there for five years. You are both right--UCSF is both a med center and a school. they offer only medical-related graduate degrees. You can get a phd in sociology, biology, etc. Now, about Hastings--it is affiliated with the university of california. It is under the jurisdiction of the UC REgents--the same regents who run UC-Berkeley, Davis, UCLA, etc. So, while it's not a satellite campus for Cal-Berkeley, it is a satellite campus for university of california. Frankly, i believe Hastings full name is: University of California, Hastings College of Law. So, in essence UC hastings (which is usually how it's referred to in california), is affiliated with a university.