Sunday, September 16, 2018

Law School Applicants Appropriately Numbed to Sticker Shock

As it turns out, law school applicants don't care how much money they're flushing down the toilet, as long as it's one of them golden plungers.
Author Amy Li, a professor in the University of Northern Colorado’s department of leadership, policy and development, found that not only is there no correlation between lower costs and the number of applicants and matriculants at individual schools, but that increased costs correlate to higher enrollment at many private law schools. 
You have to take this research with several caveats, of course.  For one, there's no real control group against which to actually test the hypothesis, which is typically damning to scientific-ish conclusions.  Second, the articles' time range coincides with global economayhem that caused a slight but correctable dip in the rocketing fortunes of budding lawyers.  Third, it's not written a law professor, and this Northern Colorado doesn't even have a law school itself from which the author could draw knowledge, inspiration, and analyses of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009).  Fourth, it's a behavioral economics study where no one's using "real" money.

But I kinda like the conclusion, so I can look past these problems.

What I particularly like is that Professor Li assumes that this pool of maimed indentured servants is rational.
Law students may understand that their employment prospects are the best at elite law schools that charge the most, Li theorized, and thus are willing to pay top dollar. Or law students may feel more comfortable paying for the school they want because they are older and more established than undergraduates, she speculated. Law students may also be savvier than undergraduates about federal loan repayment options such as income-based repayment—which limits monthly payments to a percentage of their income—and public service loan forgiveness, Li wrote.
You could also consider the LSTC official hypothesis which - and this theory that I have, that is mine, that belongs to me, etc. - is that law students simply don't care about marginal increases in digital Monopoly funny-money.  They don't have to worry about repayment until they've been baptized into the legal faith 3-4 years down the road.  Law schools, meanwhile, get the immediate benefit of real, spendable money and everyone wins.

In terms of shameless law school apologia, we can now have a vibrant debate.  On one hand, many people - including the LSTC at times - believe that law applicants are stupidly naive and being exploited by masters of white collar public service debauchery.  On the other hand, there's a very nice strain of alluring, sexy economic scholarship developing that justifies this superficially insane behavior.

The question moving forward is no longer "How many law schools will close?" my dear friends. 

The question is now "Are law students dumb with ignorance or dumb with knowledge?" 

I propose we name our sects.  Sticking with the cleverness of lawyers in general, I would suggest "Ignorists" and "Knowists."  Do law students just not know they're running headlong into helicopter blades or have they calculated the rotation and earnestly believe they'll be sipping gin without a drop of blood on the coat?

We can debate these things at law school symposia instead of shit that actually matters to law practice.  I will gladly volunteer to argue on behalf of the Ignorists.  Just get me a lunch that's nicer than that sandwich-and-an-apple bullshit.  I know the dining car on the Million Dollar Express has fresh prawns, and by gum, the audience knows it, too. 

I can see them salivating the more I louder I hit the pleasure bill. 

Monday, September 10, 2018

Extrapolation of Hyperbolic Study Suggests We Need More Law Schools

It's a truth universally acknowledged that law schools are liberal and that makes lawyers liberal and it's, like, super-unfair to conservatives and Republicans.  And you might think conservativism is the last movement needing a boost given their current pedal-to-the-floor ram-rodding of another whitebread originalist onto the Supreme Court, but read this troubling piece:
The findings seem to indicate that conservative-leaning law professors are facing discrimination at top-tier law schools in ways distinct from their liberal counterparts.
According to Phillips, the inability of law school graduates to “candidly and accurately assess the weaknesses in their own views and the strengths in opposing views” is essentially “professional suicide.”

“Law school graduates who are ill-equipped to make persuasive arguments in front of half of the judiciary are ill-equipped to be lawyers”, says the study.
Those you who are actually "experienced" in practicing "law" may say that 99.9% of the time politics as understood by Joe Public has fuck-all to do with the price of orange juice, but this dude is a non-resident fellow at Stanford and you are almost certainly not.

You see discrimination.  I see opportunity.  What's the harm in grossly increasing law school enrollments to ensure that conservatives and libertarians can have safe spaces on law school campuses?  What would be the harm in building whole new elite law schools in places - San Antonio?  Colorado Springs?  Huntington?  Pensacola?  Fort Wayne? - where future conservative jurists could feel comfortable discussing whether Justice Scalia was brilliant, a genius, or both without seeing the scowl of their intellectual lessers? 

Failing that, how about affirmative action?  Intellectual diversity should be just as valued as phenotypical.  Being black doesn't affect how you'll argue in front of a federal judge.  But staying in a liberal bubble?  That'll give you blind spots, not that you'll ever want for caviar and cognac.

The point of all of this:  if you're sitting and home and debating whether law school is for you, while at the same time thinking maybe climate change is a hoax and that socialism is a dirty word and that you think the police have permanent probable cause to shoot anyone whose shirt is untucked, we want your money, too!

Just because your typical law professor loves Mao, Marx, and Muslims more than the book of Matthew or Mike Pence doesn't mean you shouldn't go to law school. In fact, it's the opposite.  Law schools need you to show up, bond with like minds, and annoy the redoubtable liberals.  All of you will become better lawyers in the process, we'll get rich, and people who don't understand the fucking law will eventually stop writing stupid fucking articles about the thoroughly irrelevant political leanings of law professors.

And since most of you little runts pride yourself on economics, have you seen the ROI on law school tuition?  A mere up-front payment of, like, $250k will yield you a $1 million net benefit over the next forty years.  With those numbers at 7% interest, the only way you lose is if you don't pay a dime for like 20 years. 

Which you will, because you will make bank as a lawyer.  And when you do as a conservative or libertarian, you'll have to beat back Fox News with a stick.  The world will be your oyster, and how much tax you pay on the pearl is dependent strictly on how many of these Young Republicans pledge their lives and a six-figure check to restoring the partisan balance in a place where it doesn't fucking matter.  So sign up, bring a friend, and march onward, young Reaganites.  Robert Bork isn't going to preserve his own legacy.

Saturday, August 25, 2018

An Open Letter to Potential Law Students: The Truth is not the Truth

Hold yer nose and check this presumptuousness:
If you’re in it for the money, the truth is that very few lawyers will see those highly coveted and published $190,000 salaries as first-year associates.
This is just one of many, many quasi-truths in a piece full of them.  Have these cretins learned nothing from our current administration?  Truth is not always truth, bub.

For this particular passage, the twist rests in the initial dependent clause - if you're in it for the money.  Newsflash, here, but no one is in the legal industry for the money.  Truth.  Some of us signed up to carry justice on our backs.  Others were more interested in defending liberty.  Still more wanted to change the world.  But money?  Bitch, please, if we wanted money, we would've gone to MBA school.

Of course, had we gone to MBA school, we wouldn't make nearly as much money as we would going to an ABA-accredited law school, which provides a $2 million premium over homelessness.  And those 190k jobs are easy to nab for the true hustlers.  But no one goes to law school for the money.  We have higher purposes and if the train's voyage involves a few old fashioneds and oral gratification from 8s and 9s here and there, so be it.

The entire "open letter" has this sheen of collected rationality that is grossly undercut by true truth.  For example, the following things are totally false even though they look true:
"[L]awyers suffer from high rates of depression, substance abuse and suicide."
"Technology continues to supplant and replace much of the legal work traditionally performed by newly hired associates."
Yawn.  The world needs good lawyers, and good lawyers don't get no mental illness. Technology can't replace a good legal mind. They'll just replace the lowest quality legal jobs, the ones that lead mediocre lawyers to alcoholism and shooting people.  Yada yada yada.

But, to be fair, the article offers some dead-on accurate statements, some true truths:
"[B]eing a lawyer is still a noble profession"
"Consider night school or a lower-tier law school that offers scholarship options so that you can pay for law school as you go and avoid debt."
"Realize that the decision to attend law school is not a choice between right and wrong: It is a choice between right and right."
God, that feels nice.  I'm going to read it again, do some blow, and give my mistress a call to discuss when the truth is the truth or not.  You? You should go to law school.  I'm drinking at home on a Friday night and you can, too!

Friday, August 17, 2018

The Celebration of Glorious Indentured Servitude

In a feelgood news story, the internet sees a good comrade, celebrates:
After Nicole Medham, an attorney based in New York City, finished paying off her $180,000 student debt, she announced the news in a [tweet]...We asked Medham, who graduated law school in 2010 with $180,000 in loans, to explain her strategy.
The tl/dr version of this Super Dave Ramsey strategy is that she went to Columbia, nabbed BigLaw, and lived at home until her mid-30s.  Going without them daily Starbucks purchases and primo cell phone plans, most law school students can effortlessly replicate this task and, most importantly, avoid the social opprobrium associated with default and shirking one's financial obligations to God and country.  Your Boomer Uncle paid his $15k loan over twenty-seven years; why can't you do the same?

On a broader level, who needs early adulthood, anyway?  Trust me, it kinda sucks.  Wouldn't you much rather have illusory financial independence with those beautiful plump zeroes staring back at you than have the actual personal independence of being a grown-up in the relative prime of life as our forebearers once had to suffer?  Building careers and families and nest eggs at age 24 like a schlub!  What's the point of earning six figures if you can't blow an extra twenty grand every year to make your credit report glisten like your life's report card while ensuring that fingers can still be pointed at student debtors everywhere?

Don't say the billions in student loan debt haven't given us anything but a generational wealth transfer while reinforcing the same inequalities they sought to eradicate. (Piffle!)  They've enhanced the neo-capitalist religion of borrowing an obscene sum of money to work like a dog, eventually paying it back and being left with nothing but a great American sense of accomplishment.  Like building a demolition car or a nuclear bomb.  You may have only a fraction of the savings that you should, may have relatively little for whatever sacrifices have been made, but by gum, it's going to feel amazing and get you all sorts of likes around the internet.

Saturday, August 4, 2018

Number of Law School Applicants Increases; LSTC Goes Straight Dope Mode

The number of people applying to law school for the upcoming academic year shot up 8 percent—the only significant annual increase since 2010. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) reported that 60,401 people applied for admission this fall, up from 55,580 the previous year.
This year’s applicant pool was not only larger, but also more qualified, council data shows. The number of applicants with LSAT scores of 175 to 180—the highest score band—increased 60 percent over the previous year. Applicants with scores of 170 to 174 were up 13 percent, while those with scores of 165 to 169 were up 27 percent.
For fuck's sake.

I gave my penchant for convoluted irony a few days off, so I'm going to put this bluntly; I apologize for offending delicate sensibilities but you all don't listen to rationality and you don't seem to grasp sarcasm: you're all a bunch of fucking stupid nutsacks, and I don't just mean the applicants.

First, the percentage of LSAT scores within a certain band and how it changes year-over-year is functionally meaningless.  It does not mean, ipso facto, more "qualified" people are applying to law school this year than last.  Read the goddamned news and take a fucking stats 101 course.  Stop enabling this shit.

Second, what the fuck are you dim naifs doing?  Cue the broken record.  The nation has too many lawyers.  The cost to become one is too high.  It's a bad investment for like 2/3 of you people.  I say this as someone gainfully employed as a lawyer who enjoys the work much of the time and as one who didn't have a bad undergrad record or LSAT score or anything like that.  Listen up: I wouldn't do it again.  The cost of the product was and is simply too high.  If being a lawyer is that important to you, find a psychiatrist or a new dream.

I say this knowing many people for whom law has been an objective and rousing success by raw economic metrics or objectively positive accomplishments.  I encourage you to develop the critical analysis skills that would be necessary in most legal careers, anyway, assuming they're even a possibility.  Also, look up cognitive biases, like optimism bias and survivorship bias.

I say this because few other first-world industrialized nations waste so much intellectual capital on lawyering as the United States.  We need smart people to do other things with their prime earning and intellectual years.  We don't any more dumb lawyers, either.

I say this nonetheless because I can do basic fucking math.

But what does it matter?  Do kids ever listen to their elders?

I do not say, categorically, to avoid law school.  We need a replenishment on some level of good, common sense attorneys, and often the salt-of-the-Earth lawyers come from relative "toilets" as opposed to the lower-end prestige peddlers.  But at least 40,000 of you fuckers are making a mistake, including many of you who think you scored well on the LSAT or can do anything with a law degree.  Many of the rest of you have profoundly stupid ideas regarding law, justice, Donald J. Trump, or the Antarctic penguin.

One of the difficulties with the "scamblog" movement, and the broader information war with respect to law school applicants, is that the skeptics, pseudo-victims, I suppose, have little incentive to stick around too long or air grievances too loudly.  Once you find a career and get a few years out, whether in the law or not, you "move on" and the fates of a bunch of young carbon-copy idiots hopping on a misleading conveyor belt of mediocrity no longer matter.  Personally, because of how the legal market works, there's no real effect on my own fortunes whether there are 100k law school applicants this year or zero.

Meanwhile, law schools have every incentive to continue dancing to the same old rhythm year-in and year-out; buy high, buy low, buy buy buy.  People like Larry Mitchell or Nick Allard show up, bang on the table, get their pie, and bail, sure, but the institutions of misinformation and exploitation remain as steadfast as the fucking sun, the relative victims not nearly powerful or instantly sympathetic enough to effectuate any real change in a hot-take, plug-and-play, meme society. It's ultimately those institutions who have a nonstop incentive - addiction, sorta - to market the fantasy - more like a mirage - whether that's the schools themselves, the insulated legal establishment, or the toady niche media.

On January 8, 2011, the New York Times published "Is Law School a Losing Game?" - a piece often seen as a breaking point for public consciousness regarding the dubious economics of this scratch-off game.  That was over seven years ago.  Many of the dolts entering law school this fall were sophomores in high school at the time.  This broad and loose campaign no doubt steered many of their peers to other life ventures, maybe well before college, and certainly it took some toll on the lower-end institutions in the long-run.  No eight percent "surge" will bring Indiana Tech back from the grave. But short of having studies that don't exist, we'll never know the exact effect of transparency, either in the volume or quality of deterrence.

But the marginal applicants today... why?  It isn't just a failure of consumer rationality - though I blame the applicants to some extent - but a failure of entire fucking support systems; strict calls of "personal responsibility" are often a denial of the reality that no behavior exists in a vacuum.  Where are the parents and guidance counselors?  Where is the media?  Where are the friends who tell you you're doing something stupid and decidedly uncool - and not like ironically uncool but straight-up dumb?  Where are the policymakers, besides going after fish in a barrel?

You can say the information's out there, but it's not enough when trusted opinion leaders who should know better either don't know better or play dumb, whether with well intent or reckless malice.  Discussing whether the transparency/"scamblog" movement has been a success or a failure misses the point entirely:  "outside" voices never should have been needed in the first place.

Consider, too, that it's actually harder to have an outsider's voice heard today as compared to five years ago.  Traffic here, at OTLSS, and broadly across the non-social media internet has steadily trended downwards, not because of shortcomings in content, but because of modes of delivery (see, e.g., this among many sources).  If your content isn't "fit" to be insta-shared on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., it won't be seen unless someone knows it's there, and the algos used by Google, Twitter, etc., all prioritize the institutional, the recent, and the already shared - even though these blogs are hosted on a Google product. That we've now politicized these modes of information delivery with "fake news" fake and real isn't going to help "outsider" or anonymous voices in gaining traction.

That doesn't mean these ventures are pointless or that the blogs have been ineffective (which I don't believe), but there's a finite amount that lone voices can do in this internet wilderness, nor is there any real motivation to invest in a mode of information delivery that's more friendly to how the internet has changed in the last decade.

What we can do is continue telling the truth, and I implore those of you who are in positions of any influence over potential law applicants that you give them pause and direct them to balanced literature, because Lord knows the institutional actors aren't going to do it and the information game is almost as rigged as it's always been.  It isn't enough that the information is "out there" or that the accreditation folks are going to close down the worst offenders.  We need a broader consciousness and a broader will to communicate directly to the thousands of students still making an economically unfortunate and asocial decision.

Sunday, July 29, 2018

Chicago Finally Has a Public Law School and It's a Damned Good One

Congratulations, America's perennial bronze medal city, you finally have a public law school (not counting the glorious one in Dekalb, which is more of a tourist attraction than a part of the city).  Better late than never, so to speak. 

The University of Illinois-Chicago and the highly ranked John Marshall Law School are merging, benefiting pretty much everyone.
  • Prices will drop precipitously to a spitball estimated $35k in addition to a low cost of living amount.  That's a bargain for lawyers who can expect to make $180k/year upon graduation.
  • UIC will expose John Marshall students to other areas "to give law students a better understanding of how law works with other disciplines," particularly those where UIC is world-renowned.
    Dickerson said she forsees [sic] the law school expanding offerings in three key areas that are strengths for UIC — intellectual property, health sciences and law and public policy.
  • The impeccable national reputation of UIC will dramatically boost the quality of JMLS applicants (“While we were not a financially distressed school; we were seeing reduced applications and credentials,” [JMLS Dean] Dickerson said. “UIC is on the rise and should help expand our application pool.”) just like other famous private-public mergers like WMU-Cooley, now the 2nd-best law school in America.
  • Illinois taxpayers will reap the pleasurable benefits of supporting a 4th public law school, joining residents of states like Ohio and Florida in providing public solutions to the unfortunate lawyer gap, which persists despite all objective evidence to the contrary.  Dire straits or not, kleptocracy or plutocracy aside, investing in legal education is a must.
Enjoy the spoils, you big shouldered steel-and-iron erectors.  While other locations face law school impotence (heya Phoenix, you torrid 6th-rate layover city), Illinois just installed a champagne hot tub on the weakest link in its rock-solid Million Dollar Express, which is thumpin' along, just as Carl Sandburg wrote in 1914 that Chicago was a "Player with Railroads and the Nation's Freight Handler."  Baby, in 2018, the city's carrying capital-B capital-J Big Justice on its intangible golden tracks.  May you be blessed enough to catch some of the sparky shrapnel upon your unworthy face.

Scam on.

Monday, July 16, 2018

Tyranny in Vermont: Give us Tenure or Give us the White Shoe Firm Jobs We'd Otherwise Hold

Vermont wasn't a state yet when we broke free of the then (and now!) dreaded redcoats, but it's hard not to see the freedom vs. dictatorial fascism thing going on in bucolic Royalton right now.

"Tenure," it seems, has been rendered as meaningless as the flaccid rights of British subjects in 1776, capable of revocation solely because the coffers are low and the place might  go bankrupt if it keeps honoring all these debts.
Fourteen out of 19 members of the Vermont Law School faculty lost tenure on July 1 as part of a restructuring effort at the South Royalton institution.
[The walking condemned] were told they could choose to continue teaching another year under a new contract or they could opt for six month contracts with varying teaching requirements and salaries, or they could leave.

[The "lucky" survivors] were required to sign a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement, prohibiting them from speaking to anyone except their spouses. The agreement prohibited faculty from making derogatory remarks about Vermont Law School and its administration.

The American Association of University Professors, based in Washington, D.C., says the school has “depart(ed) grossly” from standards set by the association.
I'd say so.  What's the point of a benefit that can be retracted solely because a going concern is going kaput?  We must protect our professors.  The ABA and other organizations in charge must enforce tenure promises to the fullest extent of their selfish interpretations of the law.  Otherwise, who would they find to teach law schools?  Real practitioners?

I love law schools as much as the next shameless apologist, but you have to protect your talent and guarantee that they get their share of the cookies even if it means fucking the little maggots or closing down the school.

What American needs now is a new Bill of Rights... for law professors.  These people sacrifice a chance at big-firm glory for the passive income stream of a sinecure.  They command our adoration, our respect, and our unwarranted legal guarantees.  I say given them each a contract that secures the right of tenure, not just in empty words that can be revoked by King George wannabe Chapter 11 trustees, but real rights, backed by a guaranty that the school will place them in a partnership position at a major urban law firm or pay the cash equivalent out of its future revenue stream.

All we have seen in the last 5 years is law schools contracting and removing or deterring talented faculty.  And all that's happened in response is that the juiciest young  cherries take their ripeness to business or medical school.  Maybe - just maybe! - there's a correlation.  We must not cut costs with the professorship, but instead view it as an investment.  Spend millions to make thousands, that sort of thing.

Regardless, this act by Vermont is intolerable.  Law professors aren't at will employees.  They're a national treasure. 

As the splendidly named Prof. Peter Teachout observes in the article:
I think there’s a sense that the steps that were taken are lawless.
Thirteen words where three or four would do.  You simply can't get that from some adjunct.

Protect tenure now.  Scam on.

Sunday, July 8, 2018

Combating the Apathy and Enjoying the Express

Justice Kennedy - who *may* be an unrepentant intellectual hack - has announced his retirement and the President - who *may* also be a hack (though decidedly nonintellectual) only capable of being produced at this point in our thrillingly roller coaster history - is apparently announcing Kennedy's nominated replacement on the Supreme Court tomorrow.

As a prospective law student, actual law student, lawyer, or legal blog follower, you should care.  Really, really care.  Like the coral reef is dying care.

Tons is at stake, I tell you.  Tons.  Don't you read the headlines?  Roe is at issue.  So are Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.  Liberty itself, indeed.  Women's rights are imperiled generally speaking. Have you heard a Margaret Atwood quote lately?  When you sip your Sazerac and look out the window of the Million Dollar Express, what do you want to see?  The United States of America, Lady Liberty's tits flopping like batter nozzles at a pancake house?  Or Denmark, France, Russia, India, or Vietnam in all their poverty fiscal and moral?  C'mon, man, don't you want to argue about the fundamental right to take a shit in public and fly a camera drone over an all girls school as our vaunted Founders intended?

Sure, the superficial on-paper amount of pseudo-debt for the bright new lawyer may appear imposing.  Everyday concerns about how to best serve clients and make ends meet and meet one's personal needs, justifying the three years spent in academic safety fantasy land, may rise to the surface, bubbling like the champagne we all drink on a Friday night and at Sunday brunch.

Apathy is tempting.  It's so, so tempting, just to throw one's hands up and say the appointment to the creme de la creme of lawyer jobs being run by a moneyed gaggle of uneducated politicized jackwads is too much to provoke caring.  Just do one's job.  To not be bothered that quasi-qualified judges leapfrog their excellent peers on purple squirrel ideology.  To let them have their fun and just play other lucrative lawyer games, like winning slip 'n' falls or keeping gang-bangin' brokedicks out of jail.

But the Express requires commitment to civic virtue values morals things.  The ABA tells me so.  Pay attention.  Have an opinion.  The future's at stake!  Blah blah blah!  Read the ramblings of god-knows-how-many law professor blogs on Monday and Tuesday.  How are you expected to converse with other dull-faced, sad-suit lawyers at receptions?  What if you meet an impressionable young law student eager to talk shop on The Constitution?  On the road to our shared riches, we all have an obligation to argue passionately for important things and stay abreast of such essential news.  We can't let the relative shit on the windshield get in the way of our leaders' most sacred virtues.  Have you thought about informing the public via newsletter or bus station rant?

Do pro bono work, kids.  You'll feel better and meet your professional obligations, say your betters.  They charge $500/hour.  Heed their wisdom.

I am a little drunk but I love the law, really,, and I await with eager anticipation the next anointment to our circle of legal gods and high value red carpet law school speaking fees with the life apointment and ability to decide what The Constitution means.  But it is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. I have won the victory over myself. I love the law.

Don't you?

Monday, June 25, 2018

Valparaiso: the Murfreesboro Years

Valparaiso has a problem. Despite a university foundation dating to the antebellum years - despite being America's most Lutheran law school - and despite the recent 20% contraction in Indiana special justice training academies, Valpo just can't catch a break.

The libelous wounds of the anti-law school publication assault simply run too deep, hemorrhaging like a ferocious closing on a just but losing cause.  Somehow, few people on the far fringes of a super-saturated legal market want to attend law school in the inverse taint of Indiana.

Solution? Mufreesboro, Tennessee, baby, land of dreams and - now - sweet justice.
Middle Tennessee State University has received a nonbinding letter of intent from Valparaiso Law School, a part of Valparaiso University in northwest Indiana, to transfer to Murfreesboro, the Daily News Journal reported.
Murfreesboro now has a six-figure population.  It's rapidly growing and Rutherford County has no other law schools.  Local businesses like Nissan, State Farm, and Amazon cry out for an influx of 300, 400 new lawyers a year.  As it is, would-be lawyers have to drive (or walk!) 34 miles to Nashville should they want to attend a piece of shit law school.

And yet some of you would rather see them inconvenienced by arduous commuter travel than saturating middle Tennessee with so many lawyers justice becomes freer than a certain minority group in reconstruction.  Murfreesboro just makes sense and if you see someone say otherwise, they're letting reason get in the way of good feeling, which has led exactly no one to success in life.


Of course, lots of places would make an excellent landing spot for Valparaiso.  Oregon State, Central Florida, UTEP, Boise State, Norfolk State.  As the article explains, Middle Tennessee received a "nonbinding letter of intent."  I can't help but think Valpo launched these fuckers like their annual spray of fat-chance admissions pamplets.
Dear Fellow American Acclaimed University:

YOU have been looking for ways to increase your prestige while expanding your donor list and that li'l' special projects' piggy bank.  You've possibly already done a feasibility study that says, "duh, law school!"

WE are a prestigious, top-ranked law school looking for a new home, with a ready-made alumni base and a faculty that could be working at any number of law firms your board of trustees would hire were it sued by students, which it totally won't be, because you're a legit college...or at least you will be one you have a top law school.

Wanna bang?
 It's worked for me on the dating market with rousing success by my own definition.  Why not Valpo?

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Official LSTC Statement on Arizona Summit Losing Accreditation

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout,
But there is no joy in Phoenix—mighty Summit is the unfortunate victim of overwrought and misguided administrative regulations that are hamstringing America's entrepreneurship and now endangering our supply of new lawyers in the southwest I sure hope to Christ you snooty narcissists are happy with the hellscape you've created which seems like the equivalent of torching the tracks after your own moneytrain has left the station the hypocrisy the hypocrisy the hypocrisy!