Yes, I know, there's gambling in Casablanca, but come on:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Jasmine Crowe <email@example.com> wrote:Hi [ ],My name is Jasmine Crowe, I work in the office of admissions here in downtown Phoenix, AZ. I see that you were planning to take the LSAT over the weekend, how did it go? Unlike other schools, PhoenixLaw has rolling admissions. This means you can submit your application with personal statement, resume, and two letters of recommendation through LSAC even before you have your score. The Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 applications are now available. Many people wait, but you can take advantage of our rolling admissions by applying now. The application fee is waived.
Again I wish you the best of luck with your law school search, should you have any questions about Phoenix Law or our AAMPLE program I am happy to assist you.
Please email or call me if you have any questions.
My very best,
A visit to the link in Ms. Crowe's signature reveals that the school makes the following claim in the first paragraph of its pitch to prospective students: "PSL’s Bar Exam passage rates are high, and the school places 97% of its graduates into jobs within nine months of graduation."
So PSOL is soliciting applications on the basis of the claim that the school "places [!] 97% of its graduates into jobs within nine months of graduation," and, when asked specifically by one of the subjects of its solicitation how many of these jobs are full-time positions requiring a JD, the director of admissions replies that 94.3% of the most recent class for which nine-month statistics are available (2011) got jobs for which a JD was required or preferred.
Here are the actual numbers:
Percentage of graduates who got full-time jobs requiring bar passage: 38.2%
Percentage of graduates who got jobs (full-time, part-time, long-term, short-term, school-funded) for which bar passage required, or a JD was preferred: 78.6%
Percentage of graduates who were purportedly employed in any capacity whatsoever: 93.8%
So even subject to the most superficial and uncritical examination, the statistics the admissions director quotes bear no relation to the real answer to question she was asked by the person she contacted.
Note that even though Ms. Crowe didn't answer the very simple and direct question she was asked, the reply she gave to the question she substituted was still wildly inaccurate. Note too that she omitted to mention that the 94.3% employed in JD required/preferred job statistic she quoted (which was actually 78.6%) included 22 short-term "jobs," i.e., 16.8% of the class, funded by the school, all but one of which was both part-time and short-term.
Indeed an inquisitive applicant would discover that another 4% of the already fake number quoted by the admissions director included people listing themselves as solo practitioners; that all but five of the 46 people listed as working for law firms were with firms of 2-10 attorneys; that the school "placed" one graduate in a state judicial clerkship and no graduates in federal clerkships; that a total of four graduates got jobs in the public interest sector, including public defenders; and that apparently none of the eight people listed as working in "government" or any the 19 people listed as working in "business and industry" had a real legal job, that is, a full-time position requiring a law degree (This conclusion can be deduced from the fact that only 50 graduates in total had such jobs, which is a smaller number than the total number of people listed as working full-time for "law firms" plus the full-time public interest people. I suppose some of these people could be law clerks and thus possibly not counted as bar passage required, although I very much doubt that anybody with a law firm is having their employment categorized as JD Advantage).
And yes it's true sufficiently wary applicants can now find these things out for themselves via the wonders of the internet, but ripping off the naive and unwary is not a defense to fraud anywhere else in the legal system so it's hard to see the relevance of the former fact to the potential legal liability being incurred by Sterling Partners' booming for-profit venture (Note that while the PSOL 2011 graduating class had 131 members, the entering classes of 2011 and 2012 had 450 and 457 matriculants respectively).
Update: My correspondent sent a follow-up email, pointing out that the numbers the Admissions Recruiter was quoting were false. This was her reply:
The numbers I quote in the post are taken directly from the ABA site, which lists PSOL as having graduated a class of 131 in 2011.Hi [ ],Just to be clear, I am not lying, you are using a site that is not accurate, you should be pulling your information direct from the ABA which is who we report to, not from a blog, that has inaccurate information. We had over 300 graduates, so there data is inaccurate. Best of luck to you in your law school search.