Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
 71 
 on: July 09, 2014, 08:18:01 PM 
Started by CA Law Dean - Last post by Groundhog
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.

 72 
 on: July 09, 2014, 08:10:29 PM 
Started by NewlyMinted - Last post by Groundhog
Where who says? In the text of the law?

To which MBE question are you referring?

 73 
 on: July 09, 2014, 07:57:28 PM 
Started by CA Law Dean - Last post by Citylaw
Groundhoug what schools have a minimum fail out rate?

I know there are plenty that are rumored to such as Golden Gate; Cooley; Florida Coastal; etc, but I actually read their student handbooks and there is nothing that requires anyone to fail out in their curve and again I cannot see why any school would want to fail out students they believe are capable of passing the bar.

Law schools are a business and if a qualified student is paying tuition what benefit is there to dismissing them?

 74 
 on: July 09, 2014, 07:53:04 PM 
Started by ShonMI - Last post by Citylaw
In response to ShonMi yes going to law school, because you like to argue or think it is like the movies is not a good reason to attend law school.

Doing anything because you see it on T.V. is likely to lead to disappointment. I work with police officers all the time and a substantial part of their time is writing reports and getting ridiculous phone calls not full on swat team raids like the movies make it out to be.

The law is no different than any other profession it has it's pros and cons, but I think law school unlike other professions makes people think all they have to do is get a degree and then people will fight over them, but that is far from the case if you graduate and pass the bar you are minimally competent to practice law. Being minimally competent in any profession does not result in $100,000 salaries and a cush office, you have to earn it.

 75 
 on: July 09, 2014, 07:36:02 PM 
Started by CA Law Dean - Last post by NewlyMinted
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.
wouldn't that require shutting down pretty much every online law school?

 76 
 on: July 09, 2014, 07:34:33 PM 
Started by NewlyMinted - Last post by NewlyMinted
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.

On the MBE any question where they say they are targeting one person or one group and you do not mark it as attainder, you get it wrong

 77 
 on: July 09, 2014, 07:03:02 PM 
Started by NewlyMinted - Last post by Groundhog
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.

 78 
 on: July 09, 2014, 06:56:43 PM 
Started by CA Law Dean - Last post by Groundhog
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.

 79 
 on: July 09, 2014, 06:20:45 PM 
Started by NewlyMinted - Last post by NewlyMinted
http://news.yahoo.com/dems-strike-back-hobby-lobby-case-not-bosss-182210871--abc-news-politics.html

They OPENLY say it is to target a specific group (hobby lobby) sounds like a bill o attainder to me if it were an MBE question

 80 
 on: July 09, 2014, 05:03:34 PM 
Started by CA Law Dean - Last post by NewlyMinted
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.

I think part of the problem today is everyone is to nice and nobody wants to dismiss an poor performing student. These poor performers in law school unsurprisingly often do not pass the bar or squeak by the bar, but are just not employable as attorneys. I am sure anyone of us that attended law school can think of a few classmates that you would not trust to feed your cat your let alone represent you in an important legal matter.

Here is an interesting article posted by Maintain FL on the subject http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/02/what-has-happened-to-law-school-attrition.html.
Doesn't change my point

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10