Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Did disgraced Charlotte School of Law supply the missing causal link between misleading law school representations and reasonable reliance by students?



A few months ago, Chidi Ogene, President of Infilaw’s disgraced bottom-of-the-barrel Charlotte School of Law (CSL), tweeted in favor of public disclosure of body and dash cam footage from a local law enforcement lethal force incident. I agree with the substance of the tweet, but I am also kind of stunned by the hypocrisy of CSL's chief executive issuing a call for transparency.

Indeed, in its very zeal for non-transparency, CSL has unintentionally made a contribution to the scamblog cause of greater magnitude than even its own likely self-destruction. In appealing an ABA disclosure order, the school commissioned a market study that connected its own misleading statements regarding the quality of its educational product with reasonable reliance on the part of its intended audience of prospective and enrolled students.

A no-brainer, one might think, that a prudent but relatively unworldly young person fresh out of undergrad might be vulnerable to focused and carefully crafted deception by a sophisticated institutional scammer. However, almost all of the class action fraud lawsuits that were filed against law schools a few years back were summarily dismissed because courts ruled that the plaintiffs could not meet their burden of demonstrating the element of reasonable reliance. See e.g. MacDonald v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, 724 F.3d 654, 665 (6th Cir. 2013) (“We agree with the district court that this statistic [provided on Cooley’s website that the average starting salary of Cooley grads was $54,796] is objectively untrue [but]. . . [d]espite the statement's untruth, the graduates cannot demonstrate that their reliance on this statement was reasonable”).

CSL commissioned the study in mid-2016, on appeal from an order by the ABA to reveal on its website that it was noncompliant with general ABA admissions standards. CSL’s apparent purpose in commissioning the study was to persuade the ABA that disclosure would be overly burdensome.

Instead, what the CSL study ultimately accomplished was to provide the Department of Education (DOE) with proof positive that the school had made statements that were “substantially misleading” (an administrative standard that incorporates reasonable reliance, thus quite similar to fraud). In finding CSL ineligible to participate in federal student loan programs, the DOE cited to CSL's own study: 
"[T]he positioning of CSL’s description of its curriculum as “rigorous” directly beneath the discussion of compliance with the ABA standards. . . has the likelihood or tendency to leave students and prospective students with the false impression that CSL was compliant with that very requirement by the ABA.
* * *  
CSL’s assertion that knowledge of noncompliance would be material to student admissions and retention decisions was not conjecture. . . . CSL commissioned (and provided to the ABA) a market study that tested the impact of disclosure on CSL applicants. The study analyzed the views of individuals with LSAT scores above 142 who had applied to one or more of the InfiLaw schools. These individuals were asked to assess the impact on the likelihood of their respective enrollment at a particular law school if acceptance materials from that school included a statement that the school failed to meet accreditation standards dealing with admissions, educational programs, and bar passage. The study concluded that approximately 3 in 4 applicants (or 74%) stated that they would be “much less likely to enroll” after reading such a statement – establishing that reasonable students were highly likely to rely on the disclosure of information regarding the accreditation failures that CSL sought to keep from public view.”  (emphasis added). 
The CSL study calls into question the summary dismissal of the law school fraud lawsuits. If reasonable reliance exists as to a law school’s misleading representations regarding its compliance with general ABA admissions standards, why not as to its misleading representations regarding the seemingly more important matters of graduate job placement and salaries? 

Looking forward, we have recent and troubling evidence that law schools may still be routinely publishing substantially misleading graduate employment data on their websites. In 2016, 10 randomly-selected law schools were subjected to an ABA employment survey audit. Five of these schools, or fully 50% of the audited institutions, failed to meet the minimum standard set forth in the ABA’s audit protocol that no more than 5% of employment files can be incomplete, inaccurate or misleading. Furthermore, two schools appeared to have created supporting documentation after being asked to submit files, i.e. they provided manufactured data to the ABA. 

The ABA requires law schools to publish the employment survey results on their websites (See ABA Standard 509(b)). That same ABA Standard requires that all information published by a law school must be complete and accurate.

Shouldn’t the ABA require the five schools that failed to comply with the ABA’s minimum requirements for ensuring the accuracy of reported employment data to inform prospective students of their noncompliance? You know, instead of providing these violators with confidentiality, as ABA managing director Barry Currier shamefully has done? And whether the ABA takes action or not, shouldn’t the DOE investigate whether these five schools, in publishing alleged employment data without informing prospective students that their data failed to meet the national accreditor's mandatory minimum standards for completeness and accuracy, have engaged in substantial misrepresentation?  

41 comments:

  1. Yes, but these college graduates - many from fifth rate colleges and with garbage majors - are "informed consumers."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More to your point, Nando, the supreme irony here is that Chidi is Nigerian. Were he back in the old country scamming educated, experienced full-grown adult Americans out of millions by claiming he was a Prince who had to get money moved into or out of such and such a place and will let you in on the action for the use of some account numbers of yours there would be demands for his head, and no one would let him even try a "sophisticated consumer" defense. But let him sit here in the good old U. S. of A. and peddle less preposterous sounding lies, while cloaked in the ABA's seal of approval, to poorly educated, inexperienced youth and it's all victim's fault for believing the story.

      Delete
    2. Nigeria has 180 million people, only a tiny handful of whom are involved in the scams that you describe.

      Delete
    3. Old Guy, your point is 100% accurate and 100% irrelevant to the discussion. Any idiot should be able to figure out those "give me your account numbers and get rich quick" e-mails are a scam designed to separate you from your money, but if a victim were able to get some jurisdictional hook into such a scamster "you should have seen it was a scam" would be no defense. That, however, is what judges are letting these TTTTs get away with. Infilaw schools and similarly situated non-profit dumps do not for one second believe that any more than a tiny fraction of their graduates have any hope of getting out from under $200K in debt. That is why they pitch clever half-truths.

      Delete
    4. My point was that Ogene's Nigerian heritage is irrelevant to the discussion and should not have been mentioned.

      You are right about the scam schools. But their unscrupulous practices don't justify the lawsuits that have been brought against them. Judges should not rule against toilet schools just because toilet schools are beyond contempt. I'm not satisfied that any judge has let any toilet school get away with anything. See, for instance, my discussion below of MacDonald, which in my opinion was correctly decided.

      Delete
    5. The term "supreme irony" was used, not "they're all like that." But of course things like irony, satire and senses of humor do not exist n the fantasyland of political correctness.

      Delete
  2. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 3, 2017 at 9:40 AM

    If one were to pull open any vintage 40s-60s Popular Mechanics or Popular Science magazines, you would find among the basement toilets that flush up bulldozer operators, Victor C. Newman adds, Blackstone Law College and LaSalle Extension University. Both promised fabulous careers enabling the purchase of Oldsmobile 98s and brick suburban ranch homes near Montgomery Wards shopping malls. No different than these contemporary law schools. There is always some hustler trading on good names. IE fake Rolex's....etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. —— The CSL study calls into question the summary dismissal of the law school fraud lawsuits. If reasonable reliance exists as to a law school’s misleading representations regarding its compliance with general ABA admissions standards, why not as to its misleading representations regarding the seemingly more important matters of graduate job placement and salaries?

    I respectfully disagree. Charlotte's study found that students with scores over 142 claimed that they would be much less likely to enroll if their offer of admission included a statement about Charlotte's non-compliance.

    There are four potentially significant differences here:

    1) Charlotte's study, being commissioned by Charlotte, is suspect. It may well be self-serving propaganda.

    2) Students' behavior may not match their claims. It's one thing to report during a survey that one would, hypothetically, be unlikely to enroll if notified of the school's non-compliance; it's quite another to turn down that hot little offer of admission, particularly if the statement of non-compliance is buried among other information that one might not read.

    3) The survey invoked a disclosure made with a personal offer of admission. There's a big difference between information put before each admitted student and information merely made available to prospective applicants. It's not clear that the various disappointed graduates who have sued their Cooleyite almae matres even saw the data on jobs and salaries, still less that they reasonably relied on those data—and that's why I approve of the dismissals of those suits.

    4) There might be important differences between the behavior of people at Charlotte with scores over 142 and the plaintiffs in those lawsuits. I doubt it, but do bear in mind that the plaintiffs had to prove their own reasonable reliance; it wasn't enough to establish that most similarly situated students would or might have relied on those data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All potentially viable distinctions. However, I agree with the DOE that the study is broadly relevant to the effect of disclosure on student behavior.

      1 & 2) The fact that CSL used the study to appeal the ABA disclosure order make its findings relevant to the school's knowledge or belief. Would an admitted or prospective law student really care about a law school's statement of noncompliance with this or that ABA standard? CSL certainly seems to have held that belief and acted on it.

      The DOE took action, in part, because CSL made statements on its website that left prospective students with a false impression that the school was in compliance with general ABA standards on sound admissions standards. And yet students care far more about job placement and salaries than they do about sound admissions practices-- it is the main reason why many went to law school in the first place. So I think it would be a far greater attention-grabber if a school were to inform prospective students, even indirectly, that it was promulgating misleading or unreliable info on job placement.

      3 (first and second sentences)) The DOE did not accept that there was a big difference. True, CSL's study concerned the effect of a disclosure made with an offer of admission. But, again, the way CSL used the study was to attempt to persuade the ABA to cancel an order instructing the school to disclose noncompliance on its website to prospective applicants.

      3 (third sentence) & 4) Agree with "unclear," which is why I think the fraud lawsuits should have made it past summary dismissal stage. Recall that courts ruled that the plaintiffs would be unable to prove reasonable reliance as a matter of law and thus dismissed the suits on the pleadings alone. Thus, the plaintiffs were not even afforded an opportunity to prove reasonable reliance to the trier of fact.

      Delete
    2. Students should care about unsound admissions practices, which cast doubt on their own suitability for law school. But few lemmings would draw the connection from the general (my law school's admissions practices are unsound) to the specific (maybe I am among those who should not have been admitted).

      As you said, however, students will care much more about deceptive or dishonest information on employment. Nonetheless, lemmings keep enrolling even as schools report high unemployment and low salaries. Either they're not seeing the information or they're discounting it.

      We'd probably have to look at those lawsuits one by one. MacDonald was indeed dismissed on the pleadings alone, as the plaintiffs (in the opinion of the court, which I share) were wrong in law, so there were no factual questions to try. The court repeatedly explained that it was taking all of the plaintiffs' factual allegations to be true for the purposes of the defendant's motion, and still the plaintiffs couldn't succeed. I agree, for the reasons that I have explained below.

      Delete
  4. The Florida Coastal lawsuit was dismissed because the graduates should have known that it would be difficult to find employment after graduating from a low ranked law school. The judge said that the school had some of the lowest admission standards in the nation, and that "this would have been a red flag to a reasonable consumer in plaintiffs' position, and should have caused the reasonable consumer to, at a minimum, seek out more nuanced information to allow for a meaningful comparison of law schools, including the types of employment graduates obtained.”

    I bet the big law attorneys that InfiLaw hires to defend Charlotte Law school will make a similar argument (I also guarantee not one of the attorneys on the case will be a grad of an InfiLaw school). They will argue that the median GPA and median LSAT scores of Charlotte's recent classes were so low, along with the bar passage rates, that the "sophisticated consumers" should have recognized that the school was not in compliance with ABA standards.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Florida Coastal lawsuit was dismissed because the graduates should have known that it would be difficult to find employment after graduating from a low ranked law school. The judge said that the school had some of the lowest admission standards in the nation, and that "this would have been a red flag to a reasonable consumer in plaintiffs' position, and should have caused the reasonable consumer to, at a minimum, seek out more nuanced information to allow for a meaningful comparison of law schools, including the types of employment graduates obtained.”

    I bet the big law attorneys that InfiLaw hires to defend Charlotte Law school will make a similar argument (I also guarantee not one of the attorneys on the case will be a grad of an InfiLaw school). They will argue that the median GPA and median LSAT scores of Charlotte's recent classes were so low, along with the bar passage rates, that the "sophisticated consumers" should have recognized that the school was not in compliance with ABA standards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's disingenuous to claim 22 year olds who have no real financial experience can understand misleading and fraudulent claims by not only the schools but pressure from parents, government and teachers, the very authorities that they are told to trust and obey.

      In fact, generally speaking, unless and even when one is trained for decades in finance, they still generally take counsel from professionals and seek data to work through in order to avoid making missteps. Perhaps all students prior to taking student loans should be required to consult with a financial professional and attorney, whom both must sign off before federal student loans are disbursed.

      In which case, very few law schools and most higher education undergrads would be able to pass that bar. Considering said professionals would worry of malpractice claims if they approved such a bad loan.

      Delete
    2. In MacDonald, cited above, the plaintiffs claimed to have relied on a report by Cooley to the effect that 76% of graduates were employed nine months after graduation. According to the court, they "claimed that, to a reasonable consumer, this statistic meant that the jobs reported were full-time, permanent positions for which a law degree was required or preferred"; yet Cooley's data reportedly included other positions, notably those unrelated to law. The court rejected their contention as unreasonable. I agree. The reports said that 76% were employed, not that 76% were employed on a full-time, permanent basis in the legal profession. Indeed, they suggested that large numbers were not so employed: many were in business or some other field; a few had clerkships (not permanent).

      In addition, the court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that reliance on a reported average starting salary of $55k for "all graduates" was reasonable. The court agreed that that reported figure was untrue, since Cooley didn't even have data (accurate or otherwise) for "all graduates". But the report said as much, and even gave both the number of graduates and the number that responded to the survey. It is therefore unreasonable to rely on the figure for "all graduates" as applying to "all graduates" rather than to the group (a large majority, incidentally) that answered the survey. I agree.

      Note that the court doesn't address the plaintiffs' claim that they did rely on those data. I find it hard to believe that they even seriously considered those data when they signed up for six-figure debt in order to attend Cooley. The data paint a horrible picture: one student in four was not employed in any capacity nine months after graduation, and the average salary wouldn't support the payments on the plaintiffs' debt. Anyone relying on those data would have to reach the conclusion that attending Cooley in order to work in the legal profession makes no financial sense.

      The plaintiffs could have claimed, perhaps successfully, that Cooley had taken unfair advantage of the mentally incompetent.

      Delete
    3. Building on what 12:59 wrote above, I say that anyone with a bachelor's degree, or even a high-school diploma, should know better than to sign up for a quarter of a million dollars' worth of debt on a lark. Unfortunately, bachelor's degrees these days really don't mean much.

      It would be interesting to ask each applicant to explain in writing precisely how she planned to pay for law school. As usual, the rich kids would find this exercise easy: "My trust fund will send a check". From anyone else, however, a convincing answer would entail a calculation of the total cost, sensible estimates of the amounts that the student would pay from savings or income during law school, the amount of debt at graduation, the probable average rate of interest, the estimated monthly payments, the estimated income upon graduation (forecast for the life of the loan), the amount of net income available for payments... The conclusion, for most students, would be "I cannot expect to be able to pay for law school".

      Of course, few law students could conduct that sort of analysis. (I had to do something considerably more sophisticated during my first month as a lawyer, and my supervisor—a lawyer with more than forty years' experience—praised my analysis as the best that he had seen.) I say that they shouldn't be allowed to borrow money if they cannot explain how they will pay it back, and that they shouldn't be in law school if they cannot think through such simple issues as the inadvisability of taking on six figures of non-dischargeable debt to attend a law school where many people fail out, a quarter of the class gets no job at all, and the median salary is reportedly around $50k (and most likely a good deal lower).

      So the answer, as I see it, lies in keeping such dolts out of law school and refusing to lend them that much money.

      Delete
  6. The average 4T lemming 0L doesn't even know what an ABA 509 report is. Of the 5-10% who may have a vague idea of what it is, perhaps a handful actually calculate their expected salary to debt ratio to see whether attending will be a good financial decision (these probably almost invariably decide not to attend).

    If the average 4T lemming was intelligent enough to do a modicum of research and apply the results to their situation, these bottom feeding schools would be out of business tomorrow. That said, I do feel for those who were suckered into attending before this data was required to be released.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I favor maximum debt-and-job-outcomes disclosure and recognize that it benefits not only the students, but also taxpayers who fund student debt. Well, not all the students.
    The random, clueless liberal artist with less than 2.8 UGPA and 144 LSAT is probably too busy parading his TTTT law school acceptance letter around and showing how smart he is, and too busy thinking about "models and bottles" and the lifestyle of TV and movie lawyers to even think of doing simple debt-and-placement-outcomes research on the school in question.
    Such lack of due diligence immediately sets this applicant out as a naïve lemming who should not be admitted to law school at all! Someone should affirmatively question any law school application from such a person. Especially a Non-Trad, who is not connected to the current scene on campus and perhaps not gotten the memo college students have had for years, that law school is not a path to riches. He may not even know the bottom fell out of the entry-level legal jobs market eight years ago.
    The critical piece of evidence of his naïvete, besides the TTTT law school applicant's age and his low academic credentials, is that he even applied to a low-ranked school. The absolute proof comes when the applicant doesn't even try to negotiate down the price - just accepts sticker out of hand, and dutifully signs up for a mountain of debt. This applicant has by just a few actions shown all the world -- and his law school -- that he should not be a lawyer people will depend on to look out for their interests, because he demonstrates he cannot look out for his own self, even if the looking-out is relatively non-technical and easy to accomplish!
    Law schools should not be allowed to admit people whose naivete shouts out from their applications. These people need "big brother" type protection, sad to say but true. All the disclosure in the world will not help them!
    If the ABA will not regulate "how low they can go" then the Department of Education should step in and do that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This looks like a fine article, but I simply can't get past "lance the boil of mistrust" without weeping and genuflecting at superb literary talent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't trust me, you're a purulent nuisance deserving to be stabbed.

      Delete
    2. Yes, there is an unmet need for more dermatology metaphors. So many have been afflicted with the pimples of doubt, the carbuncles of confusion, and the acne of nonaccountability. That is why we need the drainage of disclosure.

      Delete
    3. If you incyst . . . but I wouldn't get abscessed with it.

      Delete
    4. Looks like the crisis at Charlotte SoL is coming to a head, to be honest.

      Delete
    5. The callus behavior of the administration may drive the students to take rash measures.

      Delete
  9. Harlotte is "working on a transfer plan" with Horrida Coastal, another toilet in the InfiLaw chain:

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article124292714.html

    Allegedly this scheme "would protect our students and ensure that they can complete their program of education". But it oh-so-coincidentally would keep those students' borrowed money flowing into InfiLaw's coffers.

    The "transfer plan" amounts to a confession that Harlotte is closing down.

    Some students will be holding a demonstration tomorrow in front of Harlotte's rented administrative offices. Readers in the vicinity of Charlotte, North Carolina, may wish to attend—and perhaps interview some students, collect photographs, and write an article. We'll consider publishing a report, either signed or unsigned, on this Web site.

    "Dissembling [H]arlot[te], thou art false in all, and art confederate with a damned pack" (Comedy of Errors, IV.4).

    ReplyDelete
  10. As of this afternoon, Charlotte Law School still mentions the availability of federal loans on its website. This is in direct violation of ABA Standard 509 a (All information that a law school reports, publicizes, or distributes shall be complete, accurate and not misleading to a reasonable law school student or applicant. A law school shall use due diligence in obtaining and verifying such information.)

    Since Charlotte is on probation, this blatant violation of the ABA standard should result in the immediate loss of accreditation. In the alternative, as an act of good faith, the top administrators should immediately resign. Enough is enough.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It looks like ED is giving them some more time.
    JANUARY 4, 2017 · 9:06 AM
    http://www.charlottelaw.edu/blog/general-charlotte-school-of-law-information/charlotte-school-of-law-csl-student-communication-update/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pity. Since the announcement doesn't mention the length of the extension, I assume that it's just a few days. That may not be unfair, since the decision to cut off student loans to Harlotte came just before Christmas.

      Note also that Harlotte is preparing for an exodus. Watch Horrida Coastal offer a discount to Harlotte's students in order to entice them to stay within the InfiLaw scam chain.

      Delete
  12. The news out of Charlotte slowly trickles onto the internet.

    1. This appears to be the latest news, following Wednesday's meeting between student leaders and CSL's administration.
    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article124503289.html

    ATL also has it:
    http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/law-school-without-access-to-loans-needs-at-least-500-students-who-cant-pay-to-hold-classes-this-spring/

    2. Kyle McEntee of LST has called for transparency regarding the question of whether classes will (ever) resume. He posted at: http://www.lawschoolcafe.org/ and also at ATL.
    http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/charlotte-school-of-law-should-be-more-transparent-immediately/
    The post links to a letter to CSL from McEntee and David Frakt.

    If there are any CSL students reading this, I would recommend you make contact with LST and keep them informed of everything you hear from CSL about your options BEFORE you make any decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Class action-suit against Harlotte:

    http://www.abajournal.com/files/Barchiesi.pdf

    Something of interest:

    —— 55. While attending CSL [Harlotte], [plaintiff] Barchiesi grew concerned by CSL's admissions practices, and the academic abilities of some of the students who had matriculated there.

    In other words, Barchiesi realized that they were admitting idiots by the boatload.

    Barchiesi proceeds to claim that he considered leaving but decided to stay because of "multiple considerations, including Defendants' continued representations regarding CSL's accreditation and compliance with ABA Standards". So he knew that the class was full of idiots, but he decided to stay. What could he possibly have hoped to gain by staying at a known toilet?

    The class action allegedly seeks more than $5 million.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another unsuccessful lawsuit against a toilet, namely InfiLaw scam school Arizona Summit:

    http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/Lorona_v_Arizona_Summit_Law_School_LLC.pdf

    The plaintiff, who failed out but unaccountably was admitted again and graduated, alleged that Arizona Scum Pit had duped her by omitting the students in the "AAMPLE" scheme (a sort of trial run for people too dumb even for regular admission) from the data on LSAT scores and GPAs. See this:

    —— 53. The percentage of [Alternative Admission Model Program for Legal Education] applicants who were admitted to [the Law School] increased from 11% in 2005 to 80% in Spring 2011.

    —— 57. Reporting enrollment and success statistics based on 20% or less of the student population is grossly misleading to incoming and existing students.

    Paragraph 57 caught my eye, as it seemed unlikely that only 20% or fewer of the students got in through regular admission. The court, however, suggests that the plaintiff assumed that the admission of 80% of AAMPLE applicants implied that 80% of the admitted students came from AAMPLE. That's an embarrassing logical error. The fact that 100% of people named Old Guy are lawyers does not imply that 100% of lawyers are named Old Guy.

    Discovery revealed that the data hardly differed when the students from AAMPLE were included, so the plaintiff lost.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Dear Students,
    This is an incredibly difficult time for everyone at Charlotte School of Law (Charlotte). To the extent possible, the law school community, including those of us at Coastal Law, are doing what we can to help Charlotte’s students.
    At present, there exists a misconception that Coastal Law is going to effectively allow any Charlotte Law student to transfer to Coastal.
    Let me be clear. That is not true.
    We at Coastal Law have worked very hard to improve our bar pass and career placement rates. To do so, we have steadily raised our admission credentials over the last three years and will continue to do so. Current circumstances indicate that we must stay this course and possibly accelerate it. These changes have come at great cost as we have decreased the size of our student body, faculty, and staff to do so. We will not undermine their sacrifices.
    We met with the faculty on Tuesday, January 3rd (this was the first day we could be assured a quorum) to discuss how best to help Charlotte students while holding firm to our commitment to continue to strengthen Coastal’s academic position.
    Staying the course
    The faculty and the administration affirmed that we will continue to apply the same kinds of standards we apply to potential admits to transfer students. In essence, we will only allow students to transfer to Coastal if the student’s academic credentials (including LSAT, undergraduate GPA, and law school GPA) demonstrate that the student has a high probability of passing the bar. As we have stated previously, we are setting our admissions standards so that our first-time bar passage rate will place us in the top third of law schools in Florida. We will apply a similar standard to all students seeking to transfer to Coastal Law.
    In terms of change to our policies, after receiving written clarification from the ABA, we determined that the limit we had set on the number of credits for which we could give credit was not mandated by the ABA Standards. So the faculty agreed to increase the number of credits that a student from any law school could transfer to Coastal. While this change was motivated by our desire to help students at Charlotte, it applies equally to any student applying to transfer to Coastal.
    The faculty also voted that only classes for which a student received a grade of B minus or better would be given transfer credit.
    It is these adjustments that are the focus of hope for some Charlotte students and criticism by others.
    While I understand the hope aspect of this, I do not understand the criticism. You see the criticism came before the changes were even discussed and without knowledge of what they are.
    A concern that has been raised by faculty, students, and staff is that too many Charlotte students will apply to transfer here. I do not believe this will be the case.
    It is my hope that Charlotte will be able to find a solution with the Department of Education that will enable students to complete their degree at Charlotte.
    In addition, we recognize how difficult it would be for someone at Charlotte to apply to Coastal, be accepted, relocate to Jacksonville all in a week and a half, which likely will decrease applications.
    While we will accept any transfer application, we will only accept students who meet our criteria for admission to the law school—a central feature of such criteria is that the student’s academic credentials demonstrate that they are highly likely to succeed in law school and pass the bar. This will limit the students who will be able to transfer to Coastal Law."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We at Coastal Law have worked very hard to improve our bar pass and career placement rates. To do so, we have steadily raised our admission credentials over the last three years"

      Coastal's 2013 LSAT breakdown: 141/144/148
      Coastal's 2016 LSAT breakdown: 141/144/149

      Too funny. It seems that there is no honor amongst the Infilaw thieves.

      Delete
    2. Glad someone else noticed this. This is the Pot calling the Kettle black. Startclass has Charlotte at (unreal..) 195 while Fla. Coastal is even *lower* at 198.

      What that letter means, basically, is that: "We'll take you - but because of our low grading curve, you'll probably lose some courses after the transfer and have to repeat coursework. You will pay even more into the Infilaw coffers to finish your JD degree [worthless as it is from a 19x school]."

      It's just.. bleed, bleed, bleed.

      Anyone in this situation: Closed school discharge. Run - do not walk - away as fast as you can.

      Delete
  16. It is now after business hours on Friday, yet the Charlotte School of Law has not announced on its Web site whether classes will start on Monday morning, as scheduled. Earlier this week it did announce that it needed commitments from 500 students in order to open again, and that it was trying to arrange for sister scam school Florida Coastal to take any Charlotte student who is ass enough to want to transfer within the InfiLaw chain. Getting 500 students would be no mean feat, since each student would have to line up financing within a few days, without access to public funds—and private lenders would be chary of lending $30k or more to toileteers for the purpose of studying at a scam school that is cagey about its plans to resume operations.

    Just exactly what are Charlotte's students supposed to do? I suppose that they should show up for class on Monday, knowing full well that their toilet school is unlikely to open. The administration of Harlotte, and for that matter of InfiLaw, won't show them the simple courtesy of even a day's notice of the school's intentions to open or remain closed.

    Anyone reading these words should think twice about applying to any InfiLaw school—and running the risk of such rude and irresponsible treatment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like classes start on 17th. Intercession that was supposed to start on 9th is cancelled. More time for students to transfer quit or sue I guess

      Delete
    2. Once in a great while life thrusts upon people an opportunity to undertake an act of exceptional nobility. Let's hope that the CLS lemmings who have wised up will stay home next week and run the thing off the rails, affording their classmates a get out of jail free card on their ill-advised student loans.

      Anyone who heads for Florida Coastal is beyond saving.

      Delete
  17. Some anagrams... just passin' the time.

    Infilaw:
    "Win? FAIL!"


    Charlotte Law:
    "A wallet torch", and
    "Hot Rectal Law".


    ReplyDelete
  18. Dybuk/Old Guy/Duped, did you see that Florida Coastal and CSOL failed the gainful employment rules?

    http://www.chronicle.com/article/Here-Are-the-Programs-That/238851

    (Apologiesfor double posting to TTR.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. This looks like the latest . . . still nothing on CSL's website yet.
    http://www.abajournal.com

    ReplyDelete