« on: July 23, 2014, 12:12:55 PM »
Won't hurt, probably won't help much.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Groundhog
Many of these schools have high attrition rates and expect a number of students fail, but Cooley would be ecstatic if all their 1L's performed amazingly well on their first year exams and had 0% attrition.
But that's not possible because of the forced curve. Although the details vary by law school, most curves discourage if not outright prevent everyone from receiving the same grade or close to it, which is the only way to avoid academic attrition on a low curve/high GPA grading system.
I never said anything about a minimum fail out rate. I said that they had GPA curves that inevitably lead to dismissals for academic reasons. When you curve at say, 2.0, and then anyone with a 1.5 or below is academically ineligible, it's going to happen.
I hate to use the cliché but Cooley has a >10% attrition rate for both 1L and 2L years according to official ABA data. There are probably plenty of non-ABA schools that are worse, but those statistics are harder to find.
The benefit to dismissing students is because it somewhat helps their bar passage rate and they often use the same low GPA curve high GPA standards to remove scholarships. It's also cheaper to teach 1Ls than to invest in smaller class sizes, journals and clinics that upperclassmen need.
« on: July 09, 2014, 07:03:02 PM »
No, as they are seeking to change a statute of general applicability that will no more affect Hobby Lobby or a specific religion than RFRA itself.
While I'm no constitutional scholar, it's my recollection that bills of attainder would potentially violate other constitutional rights, not statutory rights, like RFRA. It's important to remember that SCOTUS decided Hobby Lobby based on RFRA, not the Constitution.
I actually think attrition is a good thing and despite rumors no school anywhere would impose a mandatory kick out rate. I have heard rumors about a number of schools that are required to kick out 25% of the first class, but that makes no sense why would a school want to kick out paying students? The answer is they don't, but they do have some ethical obligation to dismiss a student they know has no chance of passing the bar.
There are documented cases of schools with GPA curves and academic probation policies that are certain to fail out students each year. A student has expended significant time and money to attend the first year of law school, without mentioning opportunity costs. Those programs should only accept students that have a chance at passing the bar, but they accept more and have mandatory attrition to increase income.
It's a dodge to blame academic attrition on a supposed ethical obligation to discontinue the studies of those who have no chance at passing the bar when the law school should have known before admitting the student that the student had no chance at passing the bar.
« on: June 11, 2014, 10:04:13 PM »
I wonder if Philosophy would do better if it were separate from religion.
« on: April 23, 2013, 09:49:10 PM »
did we ever, um...you know?
To whom was this directed?