Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Indiana Tech vs. the Scamblogs

I find your lack of ethics and professionalism...disturbing.

The self-aggrandizement is strong in this one, and we are not fooled.

I spoke about this before.  To be fair, it's easy to pick on Indiana Tech, just as it's easy to pick on Cooley (home of the "objectively untrue" employment stats, McDonald v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, 6th Cir.).  This is not about the fact that Indiana Tech is unaccredited, although that is an issue.  That can be easily fixed, what with the ABA all but rubber-stamping any school that wants to get into the business.

What cannot be easily fixed is graduating JDs with few to no prospects.  This is about irresponsible shilling.  This is about enticing people to do something they ought not to do, yet smiling and waving as they take a trip over the cliff.

 First of all, Risk:

"...I think we just thought there would be more people willing to take that chance. In this climate, applications are down overall and people are probably not into taking that much of a risk...I think the fact that there are 30 or more students willing to take a chance on this type of education even before we are accredited suggests we have a product that has some interest."

Well, I certainly want to pay tons of money for a highly-risky proposition, don't you?  Yes, that's right, all thirty of you, step right up, ladies and gents!  Spin the roulette wheel!  Come on, 32 Red!  You miss every swing you don't take!  Only $100k+ to play!  Are you man or woman enough to have the "guts" to make it in law school? 

Ignore the fact that this decision will follow you FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, many with non-dischargable debt...honey, I'm still free, take a chance on me!

 Second of all, Career-changers:

"NLJ: If your median age is 33, I assume you’re getting quite a few career-changers.

Alexander: Career-changers and people from northeast Indiana or northwest Ohio who always wanted to go to law school but were looking for the right opportunity nearby. We fulfill that niche for them."

Non-trads....please...I beg of you....don't ruin your lives.  Look at my handle.  There are plenty of disillusioned non-trads out there who were "too old" when they graduated at 34+; their stories are not difficult to find.  Maybe these thirty-somethings are independently wealthy and have money to burn or have fantastic connections, but somehow I doubt it.  Don't go to law school at all; I don't care which school strikes your fancy.

Third of all, hypocrisy:

"...you have to have a thick skin. There are people in the blogosphere who are vicious with their comments. It allows them to be anonymous and it shows the darker side of our profession. I use them as Exhibit A for the need for more professionalism and ethics training.  There’s no doubt that it’s hurtful to read things that suggest the faculty members are just trying to steal student’s money and that the school has no soul."

No, Mr. Alexander, this is not about professionalism and ethics training.  This has to do with the economic concept of "moral hazard".   As for "ethics", the ABA thought it was "ethical" to outsource doc review, obtained via formal discovery, to overseas non-U.S.-licensed reviewer-mills for peanuts at BigLaw's request.  Would that we were all spared the discussion of these so-called lawyerly "ethics".

Back to Moral Hazard - Indiana needs another law school like Texas needs another law school like New York needs another law school like Illinois needs another law school like California needs another law school (that was sarcasm, ScamDeans, don't get any bright ideas).  Period.  Indiana Tech's own "research" stands behind the opening of this institution.  It is Indiana Tech that is shilling students from California to Africa with visions of Indiana sugar plums while consigning them to a lifetime of debt servitude.  This is about empire-building aspirations, not your students.  Indiana Tech students get stuck with the consequences while Indiana Tech cashes the checks. 

Also, Mr. Alexander, you are putting yourself out there and trying to drum up sales.  Why then, are we besmirched with "oh, those darn anonymous unprofessional bloggers" as if no one is allowed to disagree with your enterprise?  Further, there would be no free speech on this topic without anonymity, as well-positioned individuals such as yourself well know and have exploited in the past - God bless the internet.  Non-anonymity is not some mystical Red Badge of Courage.  Perhaps if Indiana Tech would take the log out of its own eye first, regarding ruining people's lives for fun and profit, THEN one could cast aspersions upon the mean, uncouth scambloggers - who are law school graduates living out the grim consequences of their own choices, I might add.

Oh well.  This isn't the first time Mr. Alexander has had his feelings hurt after getting called out for ScamDean-ery.  Maybe it's because he advocates for an inherently bad idea that wounds other people for individual gain, like other ScamDeans.  As if 200 some-odd law schools were not making the problem worse already, so hey, let's get a piece of the action!  Who needs a thick skin when you can get away from it all at the SEALS conference?

Friends, don't go to law school.  This isn't about what they can do for you.  It's about THEM and their pocketbooks.  Never forget it.


  1. Law firms don't want to hire someone who is 30 years old. They won't even consider one who is 34 or 36, when they are graduating from law school. This is especially the case when they earned their degree from a festering dung heap such as Indiana TTTTTech Law Sewer.

    1. Exactomundo Nandinetta. This school is a disgrace. Nontrads are passed over for all jobs and the firms hire the young grads who are not already failures in life. (Just failures in the making.)

      Nontrads get jobs by knowing someone important (family member owns firm, family member is bigshot politician or businessman). Nontrads are not hired for their skills, but their connections. The fact that this school is nontrad central is a disaster waiting to happen. Who will want these dregs?

    2. Here's the thing that is lost on many, many non-traditionals. They think their life skills must be a benefit and they will be welcomed into a new profession as a career changer.

      This is obviously a generalization, but older people do tend to empathise better, can see the bigger picture, are better able to read people, have better judgment, etc. No slam on younger people; it's just the benefit of having more life experience.
      When I was going to law school at the advanced age of 32-35, I initially thought my age and experience would be an absolute boon to employers and that they would be clawing at me.


      Life experience does not mean squat to legal employers.

      I'll repeat it because it's important.

      Life experience does not mean squat to legal employers.

      With very few exceptions, legal employers do not want anyone older than, say, 30. This applies most strongly to law firms, but also to in-house corporations.

      Here's why Nontrads. Said hiring managers reason that (a) you might have priorities other than work, and will not be capable of hitting your billables, (b) you are less capable of learning new things as you get older (i.e., you are a fully formed tool), (c) managers may be uncomfortable bossing around someone older than themselves who may question authority, (d) older workers get tired more easily, and may not want to pull that all-nighter.

      And guess what: there's really no recourse for you if you feel you were discriminated against in hiring, so don't even think you can sue the law firm that hired the 26 year old with identical credentials, because you can't.

      There are exceptions. If you are a 30-35 year old PhD in electrical engineering and want to make a run of patent law I saw, sure, go for it. If you have 15 years as a cop and want to become a prosecutor and know half the people in the DA's office, sure, go for it.
      But basically, unless you have a highly desirable skill set OR excellent connections OR can afford to blow $100+K and waste your old career, DO NOT GO.

      I know what happens to a lot of people 7 or 8 years out of college. You start thinking that you're maybe a bit unfulfilled at work, that you're not using your full potential, that you want to take your career in a new direction or to the next level, and that a law degree will get you there. Maybe you see people around you getting MBAs and you say to yourself; "Im too smart to get an MBA. I should get a law degree. That will really make me stand out and it's versatile, so if plan A doesn't work out, I can always do plan B."

      I sympathise. But before you do something as irrevocable as throw your future away, ask yourself if there's another way to get to where you want to get, not one involving going to law school. It reallly, really is a much more dangerous trap for non-trads than for a 22 year-old. Times' wing-ed chariot is a lot further across the sky guys. You cannot afford to do this.

    3. 7:27 gets comment of the year, in my book. So much so, I'm going to copy it again:

      "I know what happens to a lot of people 7 or 8 years out of college. You start thinking that you're maybe a bit unfulfilled at work, that you're not using your full potential, that you want to take your career in a new direction or to the next level, and that a law degree will get you there. Maybe you see people around you getting MBAs and you say to yourself; "Im too smart to get an MBA. I should get a law degree. That will really make me stand out and it's versatile, so if plan A doesn't work out, I can always do plan B."

      I sympathise. But before you do something as irrevocable as throw your future away, ask yourself if there's another way to get to where you want to get, not one involving going to law school. It reallly, really is a much more dangerous trap for non-trads than for a 22 year-old. Times' wing-ed chariot is a lot further across the sky guys. You cannot afford to do this."

    4. Age discrimination is an inherently difficult action for which to be compensated because, while not everyone is young, everyone was young at some point.

    5. "I'm too smart to get an MBA...."

      And the correct response is not to go your nearby TTT, and God forbid Indiana Tech, but to go to a genuine (Top 14) academic institution. If you can't do that, then you're not too smart to get an MBA.

    6. You will not necessarily do better from a T14 if you are older. Very hard to get a job if you are in your mid 30s or older when you graduate. Even the T3 or T6 do not guarantee a job to older non-trads.

      You also need to plan for a very shortened legal career if you are in your mid 30s or older when you graduate.

      It is also very hard for any lawyer - tradional or non-traditional to work as a lawyer when he or she is in his 50s or older unless the lawyer has have his/her own practice, a career government job that lets older lawyers stay or has been promoted to a management position in house. Few over 50 lawyers fit any of these categories and many end up jobless - as struggling solos or if they are lucky eat-what-you kill counsels at tiny firms, likely without even an office unless they pay for the office themselves.

    7. The late 20s/early 30s "I'm wasting my life" faux-crisis is very real. It's what happens when the economy continues to shrink and glass ceilings become more apparent at an early age.

    8. America is a very much youth-centric culture. A firm where most of the employees are young and good looking projects a vibrant, go-getter attitude which clients generally respect and admire.

    9. I'm the one who posted at 07:47. I have seen the early mid-life crisis so many times it's become a joke. Such is the advantage of age. God knows there are few advantages to having lived longer, but this is one of them.

      I just hope people listen to the message. I hope they realize that law school is just a scam for the vast, vast bulk of applicants.

  2. How true.

    I hadn't even thought of the non-trad aspect of this pretty but deceptive, debt-driven enterprise. That makes the stench and decay just that much more abhorrent....Cheating desperate mid-career parents? Just more of our famous "ethics" here at Indiana Tech.

    And major guffaws at that picture. If Dean Peter weren't so weak and pathetic, he'd make a good dark-side character.

  3. Most law schools are a risky bet. Some students win, many lose.

    Indiana Tech Law School is pretty much a guaranteed loss.

    Grads of my "Tier 1" trap school with a well-known name brand a strong alumni base are having trouble finding paying work. I can't even imagine what it will be like for grads of this upstart law school in 3 years. No school reputation, no alumni base, and a flooded market.

    1. Oh, this school has a reputation. Quite a reputation, indeed. Just not one that any school would want.

  4. I actually doubt that the ABA will accredit this place. Yes, I know the ABA has a disgraceful history of accrediting practically everything, but it may pause before risking what is left of its credibility on a national laughingstock that could only entice 33 students after months of intense recruiting in Indiana and elsewhere, and in spite of its obvious open-enrollment admissions standards.

    And the Indiana Tech honchos have their doubts as well--check out this prudent disclaimer on the Indiana Tech Law website:

    "The Law School makes no representation to any applicant that it will be approved by the American Bar Association prior to the graduation of any matriculating student."


    1. Yeah dybbinator, there's not even a "but we expect to be accredited based on our extensive cooperation with the ABA during the planning stages of the school, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that our students graduate with accredited degrees."

      Instead, all these students are getting is a "fuck you, students are bearing all the risk in this game".

      Once again, it's like the students' futures are an afterthought. Every time this prick opens his mouth or puts something up on the website, it makes things worse!!

  5. They can't make that sort of representation without opening themselves up to liability if they are not accredited. Its kind of like the disclaimer on every financial statement.

    1. But they can at least provide info about what they're planning on doing to gain accreditation, rather than just blowing everyone off with a "yeah not accredited so take it or leave it bitches" statement.

      Take UC Irvine Law as an example. Look at their accreditation page:


      It details everything.

      Then compare that to shITLS's page.

  6. The Business Insider for July 30, 2013 ran an article entitled "America has Far Too Many Lawyers, and the Bubble is Growing."

    You ain't seen nothing yet, folks.

    When Indiana U, Bloomington, has but 30 students, and many of them are seriously questioning whether they should continue, then you can tell me about the wonders of the market.

    The patient's not losing weight fast enough to survive.

  7. Indiana Tech is basically the law school equivalent of someone showing up at White Star headquarters with a map of icebergs and a detailed diagramming of the engineering flaws of the RMS Titanic and being quickly shown the door for offending the executives and being a negative nancy.

  8. watching this LS train derail is pretty fascinating. just like the subprime bubble. except the subprime bubble was more pervasive and quicker.

  9. To combine comments 6.08 and 7.24, the whole law school bubble may be running out of steam, but like the good ship Titanic pure momentum will keep the whole affair rolling towards disaster.

    Although you think people would have cottoned on after Indiana Tech that opening a new law school is no longer the license to print money that it may have once been. I guess some people haven't gotten the memo though. Look at this article from The Faculty Lounge:


    "The University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law invites applications for 4-5 full time faculty members....The College of Law is a new public law school that will enroll its inaugural class in Fall 2014."

    Dear lord, why? Included is a 5 point goal for the college which mostly looks like academic gobbledigook to me. Point 3 is interesting though "creating opportunity for our students by keeping tuition and debt low". I bet they still charge $30k p/a, but turn around and say "but at least we don't charge $40k!".

  10. These guys are so cut off from the actual profession, even from the real world, that they don't understand this simple fact:

    Law schools are not supposed to be "risks."

    Law is supposed to be the boring, safe choice. It's what all the smart middle and upper middle class kids who think they want an above average salary and some respect do. There's no benefit to being the first person to walk out of Indy Tech with a degree- it's not like being the third guy to buy into Facebook.

    Rather than reduce class sizes and tuition in order to make law the safe, boring choice again, deans are asking students to take a chance on pilot programs, new curricula, and practice ready programs. Nobody is going to buy your product if you have to admit that the fundamental premise is wrong. It's like trying to sell scented toilet paper that doesn't actually wipe your ass.

    1. Perfect. Just perfect.

    2. I agree, this comment is very good and incisive. Why is law school still so popular? Some people go because they think they will make a fortune, others because they have some romantic "dream" of the practice of law shaped by film and TV. The great majority go though because it is perceived as safe.

      The greed of law schools in flooding the market and raising their prices sky high means it is not longer safe. Just the opposite in fact. Once the general public realizes this - and they are close - then law schools are going to be in real trouble.

  11. I can see how Peter Alexander achieved his current station in life. He possesses many of the essential attributes of the most successful con artists. These include 1) the superficial politeness designed to earn the trust of the unwary; 2) the ability to dump at a moment's notice a boatload of content-free buzzwords to give the unwary confidence in his expertise and to conceal the fact that he has nothing of value to say; 3) the faux outrage at the tone of his critics, permitting the avoidance of addressing the substance of their arguments and casting himself in the role of the victim to the unwary's sense of fairness and sympathy.

    I'm sure there are others as well that I am overlooking. I'm sure that Alexander's attacks on Campos and the scam blogs were not aimed at convincing those with an open mind, but preventing any of his small flock from straying.