Yes, I know, there's gambling in Casablanca, but come on:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Jasmine Crowe <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
I hope for Law Prof's sake that the emails he quotes are real and were not faked by a troll.ReplyDelete
They were sent to me, and they were real.Delete
Because Sterling Partners School of Law is going to sue Law Prof over what he's written here? That's an amusing prospect.Delete
Leaving aside the fact that there exists no reason to think a law school admissions office wouldn't lie in this brazen manner, the last thing these guys want to do is shine any light on what they're doing. There's zero chance they're dumb enough to initiate a lawsuit whereby their admissions office's correspondences to prospective marks is subject to discovery.
@C, isn't that exactly what Cooley did when it sued Kurzon Strauss?Delete
I had similar conversations with Jasmine in 2009 and 2010. Not much has changed, but now I know that most of those stats are pure BS. Bit late, but alas.Delete
Dis-illusioned 3L, in top 10%, but with no employment prospects.
That Jasmine Crowe of Phoenix School of Law also ought to be removed from her position on the grounds that she cannot construct a grammatical English sentence.ReplyDelete
Or use punctuation marks. But apparently an ten-year-old's skill at writing English isn't a requirement for working at the Fee Nicks Skule o' Flaw.Delete
After seeing Ms. Crowe's latest response in the "Update" section above, and having some familiarity with fourth-graders' English composition skills, I believe you are doing an injustice to ten-year-olds.Delete
10 year-olds in 4th grade were held back, yes?Delete
In that case the comparison is spot-on.
Yeah, she is a dunderhead. Her's is not a JD-advantage position by any means. :) As she admitted she would never go to law school. The biggest requirement is babysitting the new admits on the mailing list and on facebook, so they do not go somewhere else.Delete
I'm curious to know how "Jasmine" obtained information about the person to whom she sent the trolling e-mail: his/her name, address,and the fact that he/she was taking the LSAT.ReplyDelete
LSAC shares this data with schools. No mystery there.Delete
I got messages like this, including a waiver of the application fee, from every goddamn law school in the US other than Harvard, Yale, and Stanford.Delete
Sweet. I need application waivers for Columbia, NYU and Chicago. Tell us how u got those waivers.Delete
I got them by scoring well on the LSAT. Those law schools and just about all others sent waivers unsolicited, solely because of my LSAT score.Delete
But note that this Phoenix place waived its fee for this person before her LSAT score had even been calculated—indeed, conceivably before she even took the LSAT (she might have failed to show up). Presumably everyone who registered for the LSAT was eligible for the fee waiver from this fifth-tier toilet.Delete
God be damned!
GPA, undergrad and major are available so there may have been some level of selection.Delete
I don't know why courts allow law schools to get away with this. No one else can, and no one should.ReplyDelete
Didn't the ABA pass something not too long ago where, if law schools give false statistics, they are supposed to be fined? Wouldn't action like this be a prime candidate for PSOL to be fined?ReplyDelete
You appear to have confused meaningless legislative noise with someone actually getting off their butt and enforcing standards.Delete
How about we launch "Project Crowd-check the C*cksuckers- Project Triple C" - have licensed lawyers that frequent this board submit standardized inquiries to the schools for placement data.Delete
False/misleading data returned could then be *formally* referred to the ABA *on the record* for discipline.
We would announce the launch of the program publicly and *loudly* - letting the schools know that they are now, finally, under serious independent oversight.
As a crowdsourced effort, individual efforts should not be *too* burdernsome.
Here is what I think we might need:
1) A website to launch/monitor the project
2) A standardized inquiry document (or a set of near standardized documents so as to make sure the schools do not only answer *us* honestly)
3) A form on the project website where written/email responses could be uploaded and specific data entered.
4) A portion of the website dedicated to official communications with the ABA.
5) Multiple press releases announcing the launch of the project.
It would be nice if we could run the program under the auspices/on the website of an existing organization - such as Law School Transparency.
Does anyone *here* know anyone *there* that could be approached?
Why not follow up with Jasmine regarding the inaccuracy of her 94.3% statement? I'd be curious to know how she spins that.ReplyDelete
Jasmine Crowe has less shame than Honey Boo Boo's mother.ReplyDelete
Jasmine Crowe, with the Phoenix School of Law, said her goal at this year's Law Day was to recruit and inspire more blacks to pursue the legal profession.ReplyDelete
Oh, yes. Blacks are an underexploited market. Now that fewer white people are applying, these tinpot law schools are having to pose as progressives eager for racial diversity—when all along they've been favoring "legacies" (children of graduates), rich people, and well-connected people, who are disproportionately white.Delete
It's a scam. Neither Black people nor anyone else should fall for it.
Jasmine is an idealist. She believes she is doing the right thing. She can't help herself I suppose. She certainly wouldn't believe that her school is scamming anyone, because she is a good lemming believing that going to law school is good for you. As she is black I doubt she would scam others willingly. I am sure she things she is helping them. This makes her a perfect recruiter and an ideal tool of the scam artist higher up the corporate chain. She believes the shit she spouts, so she is very dangerous to those not in the know as she will likely make them go to PSL, if she at all can.Delete
"As she is black I doubt she would scam others willingly."Delete
Puh-leezze. Scammers come in all shapes/sizes/etc.
These ABA-accredited schools are true bastions of integrity, right?!?!ReplyDelete
I had in mind a different eight-letter word that also starts with bast-.Delete
bastille, my thoughts exactly!Delete
If I were this prospective applicant, I would attempt to involve the state attorney general of Arizona in this matter.ReplyDelete
What you have above appears ripe for a department of consumer affairs complaint.
Yes. Lodge a complaint.Delete
This is, however, ARIZONA, with its crackpot governor and equally crazy other law enforcement officials.Delete
I wouldn't hold out too much hope there.
"ARIZONA, with its crackpot governor"Delete
Nice to see the elected officials of rapidly collapsing Los Angeles frequent this board.
How is Weimar Thunderdome going?
Feel free to answer honestly - there is no press around...well, no non-MSM press...
Arizona law establishment likes the school. Several professors are former judges. The current Arizona solicitor general was a law professor at PSL after being a judge, so it isn't likely that any part of Arizona government is going to go after the school any time soon.Delete
Heck the Arizona Supreme Court just held a session at the school just two weeks ago.
Agreed, launch a complaint. They obviously didn't have any regard for you when they outright lied to you. Let's stop these fucks.Delete
But according to HIS HONOR JUDGE WHATEVER, that statistic is so obviously false that it can't possibly be relied upon by a reasonable consumer.ReplyDelete
Yes, absolutely *everyone who is anyone* knows that law schools are lying c*cksuckers.Delete
This is what passes for contemporary jurisprudence.
Shysters like "Jasmine" make me sick. Kind of reminds me of the NY Post photographer who snapped the picture of that guy before he got plowed over by that subway train. Disgusting human beings with no morality.ReplyDelete
How can this be honest?ReplyDelete
Here's a document at their Web site that shows their LSAT scores (median of 151, which is around the fiftieth percentile):ReplyDelete
Note that the document is called a "Consumer_Guide". When I got my first degree (twenty-odd years ago), students were not regarded as consumers. Today, however, that characterization is accurate.
From the Web site of that "InfiLaw" commercial racket:ReplyDelete
InfiLaw's "mission is to establish student-centered, ABA accredited [sic] law schools in underserved markets that graduate students with the skills of a second-year associate and achieve true diversity programs aimed at student academic and careers success."
Second-year associate? What? How exactly is this consortium of for-profit fifth-tier law schools that cater to the bottom of the applicant barrel going to turn out graduates with the skills of a second-year associate?
Something else from that Web site:Delete
"InfiLaw is backed by Sterling Partners, a leading private equity firm with over 25 years of experience partnering with companies to build market-leading businesses and generate superior returns. With approximately $4 billion of assets under management, Sterling invests growth capital in industries with positive, long-term trends and provides ongoing support to management through a dedicated team of industry veterans, operators, strategy experts and human capital professionals."
In other words, law students are just another cash cow that "market-leading businesses" can milk for "superior returns". Cash cow, or lambs to the slaughter?
Well, it is a for profit school...Delete
Private Equity adding value. Too bad Romney wasn't elected.Delete
and achieve true diversity programs aimed at student academic and careers success.Delete
This is even worse. WTF are "diversity programs aimed at student...careers success"?
"Well, it is a for profit school..."Delete
They are *all* for-profit schools...
...the only difference is who gets the filthy lucre and what it is "labelled".
Your six-figure law school debt ain't going to feed starving, blind orphans in Outer Suckistan just because some duplicitous sh*ts in the administration/professoriate work for a "non-profit" entity.
The only difference is that the proceeds of your financing raping don't go to owners/shareholders - they go to Administrators and Professors.
Really feel better?
A quick Google search about Jasmine Crowe reveals all sorts of interesting information.ReplyDelete
Is this the same person? http://www.jasminecrowe.com/
She is listed as "Admissions Recruiter" at the Phoenix University Law site. Is she getting a commission for this?
Doubt it, but she is a true believer. That makes her even more dangerous.Delete
If you thought "placing" 93% of the class of 2011's 131 graduates in Arizona was a feat, just wait till 2015 when those 500 graduates hit the market.ReplyDelete
Also, the recruiter is likely paid commission, which, based on my viewing of the PBS special on for-profit education, is standard operating procedure.
A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Closing. Always be closing, always be closing.
Between the December 2012 and May 2013 graduates there will be more than 300 of us and I know that the stats will be brutal. In other words no need to wait till 2015. :)Delete
"So even subject to the most superficial and uncritical examination, the statistics the admissions director quotes bear no relation to the real answer" (from LP's OP - emphasis is added)ReplyDelete
Actually, you can see from PSL's website that her job is "admissions recruiter", not admissions director.
Why is this relevant?
Well, in this case we see admissions personnel not only acting like used car salesman, she is a used car salesman. (i.e., I don't hold admissions recruiters in high regard)
^^^^^^^ Well, apparently she's responsible for herself. Runs her own marketing agency, of which recruiting appears to be a part.Delete
My guess is that PSOL has her engaged on an independent contractor basis, which may lessen PSOL's liability for her (don't know/haven't studied AZ law in this regard).
No law school worth attending has recruiters. A law school that has to go whoring after applicants is obviously a dump.Delete
Hey, she just bought herself a Brand New Car And Is In Soooo In Love With It!Delete
Commissions for the PSOL recruiting biz must be pretty good!
The most ironic part of this entire article may be that Phoenix law's actual employment stats are excellent in comparison to comparable TTTTT schools. I'm not trolling; a 6.2% unemployment rate (no matter how many part-time jobs for graduates the school is "creating") shows that at least some effort is being put in to place their graduates. That's more than I can say about my TT school.ReplyDelete
Ah, yet more navel-gazing. How important and unique we all are!ReplyDelete
In reality, in the real world outside this blog, this school is but a fraction of the 2.5 million - yes, 2.5 MILLION and rising - number of students enrolled in for-profit institutions across the US, all of whom are suffering a similar fate to you. Huge student debt, useless degrees, no hope of employment, all for the sake of enriching investors...
But aren't we all such special snowflakes, all so uniquely hurt by this nationwide scam? We have our own special blog!
Even conceding that law school is a scam in general (which I am reluctant to do in such a blanket manner as the average commenter on this blog, but I'm getting there), it's never, ever, ever, ever been much of a secret that all for-profit higher education entities are outright scams. Never. You can claim all you like that the employment stats here are false - which they clearly are to any reasonable person in this case - but there's no way on earth you can ignore the fact that you're clearly and openly being ripped off by attending a for-profit school.
You're missing the big picture on this particular post. Who cares if the employment stats are fake? The entire for-profit school is fake by default, and that has never been hidden by anybody. It's like claiming that you thought eating a pound of butter was healthy because the nutritional information on the side was incorrect and misrepresented the percentage of fat. You're missing the point that it's still a lump of butter, and the unhealthiness has been known for a long time, despite what this particular packet of butter stated.
Let me be clear. My comment isn't about the employment stats. Yes, they're wrong. My comment is that nobody has ever realistically seen for-profit education as anything but a cynical, low-quality waste of time and money.
Let's get back to a discussion of real law schools. We already knew that Phoenix was a truly bad decision before this news broke. This email chain should not be the thing that makes you realize: "Oh dear, these people are mighty deceptive!"
I'm inclined to agree. Although you really have to wonder about the profile of the average student that enrolls in one of these schools.Delete
I'm truly surprised. I was expecting any responses to my post to be the usual mix of "Hello Brian!", something like "Obvious Troll stating the obvious!", and half a dozen people telling me that I have no idea what I'm talking about because I didn't immediately print out a copy of this post and stick it inside the back cover of the family Bible, another irrefutable addition to the Gospel of Paul C.
Any further revelations to be made? Can we count on Paul to tell us that smoking kills, two decades after everybody already knew?
How about we get back to deconstructing the hidden corners of the law school scam instead of arriving at the "for-profit schools are scams" party two decades too late?
"Let's get back to a discussion of real law schools. We already knew that Phoenix was a truly bad decision before this news broke. This email chain should not be the thing that makes you realize: "Oh dear, these people are mighty deceptive!"."Delete
But is this the email chain that is the thing that makes you realize, once and for all, that the ABA is simply not minding the store?
And if it's not minding the store for these for profit schools that are not "real" law schools, that the ABA nevertheless accredits, are they minding the store for those "real" law schools?
Was it minding the store while UIUC lied for years about student admissions stats?
Was it minding the store while Camden lied for years about student debt? While Camille lies about placement stats?
PSOL is a law school accredited by the American Bar Association.
Any shenanigans by ABA accredited law schools are worth pointing out.
Now, you may have a point if LP starts posting blogs on all those California unaccredited schools...
"print out a copy of this post and stick it inside the back cover of the family Bible, another irrefutable addition to the Gospel of Paul C."Delete
Why do you focus so on the minority (and it is a minority) of posters here who just plain doglappingly worship Campos?
Is it jealousy?
Otherwise, I don't get it.
Predictable in tone and missing-the-pointness.Delete
As I clearly mentioned in my post, the employment stats are irrelevent here; that's not what this post was about. Don't try to change the thread to suit your need for an afternoon fight on the internet. Campos' post was about a for-profit university ripping off students, not about the ABA not minding the store.
I merely pointed out that "we know!"
But yes, you're right. Your analysis of the info is actually far better than LawProf's. These emails were wasted in this post, and should have been used to address something more pertinent to the law school scam such as the ABA failing to crack down at all on this kind of shameless salesmanship.
See 11:13 for an example...
11:13 doesn't seem like an example of anything, other than a fairly simple (but too-wordy) question.Delete
But even if it were an example of the type, that's what I'm saying. You act like 100 posters a day come on here with their stupid "Campos is a GOD!!!" meme. But it's a small percentage. The rest of the posters (anonymous or named-but-incognito for the most part) seem pretty willing to argue various points presented.
So again, what bugs you about the lapdogs? That there are any? Go to pretty much any blog that allows comments and you'll see them. They are an irritant simply made for ignoring.
"Don't try to change the thread to suit your need for an afternoon fight on the internet. "Delete
Wow, that's rich. Pot/kettle/game/set/match buh-bye.
@11:40, and @11:48:Delete
For proof that I am right, just look at every response to my post! None address the merits of my post, but rather either attack me, question my motives, or miss the point!
Not one actually bothers to address the substance of what I wrote!
Oh, so sorry. Here ya go.Delete
Don't eat a pound of butter.
Oh, so sorry, here's another:Delete
Anyone who writes a comment entirely punctuated with exclamation points needs to put down the crayolas for a while, take a Xanax (or two) and engage in some navel-gazing.
Two more posts to back up my point!!!!!Delete
Just can't help yourself, can you?????? I know it's frustrating when you lose on the internet, but you just gotta let it go!!!!!!!
The non-profit/for-profit distinction is meaningful only to determine if the profits are accruing to shareholders or the members of a partnership, which is essentially what law schools, especially stand alone law school, are.Delete
There is little different between the job placement and the recruitment tactics of non-profit schools like Cooley, NESL, TJSL, JMLS, and for-profits like Phoenix?
LOL at 12:17:Delete
This!!! poster!!! reminds!!! me!!! of!!! the!!! Monty!!! Python!!! skit!!! of!!!
"!!! The!!! hmmm!!! Men!!! hmmm!!! Who!!! hmmm!!! Hum!!! hmmm!!! between!!! hmmm!! Words!!! hmmm!!!"
10:34. Butter isn't harmful. And just as you didn't know that, I assume that many people attending for-profit schools don't know that they are scams.Delete
To be fair, he did say 'eating a pound of butter', not just eating butter. Í think a whole pound at a time is inadvisable.Delete
10:34 and apparently 11:32 and 11:55, you appear to be a sad, sad, small man.Delete
Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.
Something tells us you're going to need it.
So no one should care about all the money the people attending this school are spending, because they should have known better?Delete
I'm sure you feel the same way about women who have been date-raped. They should have known better than to take their eye off their drink for a second.
Can't anything be done about this?ReplyDelete
Hey Boss, you wanna I should go whack her kneecaps?Delete
(You'll have to imagine the accent. Paul's HTML tags are soooo limited here)
10:34 AM--I agree with the gist of your comment, but not your specific example. There is no evidence that butter, or saturated fat in general, causes obesity, heart disease, diabetes, or any other modern disease. There are correlational studies that show an association, but there are other correlational studies that show an inverse association, and at any rate correlation does not demonstrate causation.ReplyDelete
People don't eat much butter any more anyway--most of it has been replaced by cheaper frankenfats (e.g. vegetable oils, whether hydrogenated or not)--and these modern diseases have increased as butter consumption has plummeted. The real culprits are the aforementioned fake fats, along with massive increases in sugar consumption.
Sorry for an OT rant, but this blog is all about not accepting conventional wisdom on its face.
Hey, take that back!Delete
"Sorry for an OT rant, but this blog is all about not accepting conventional wisdom on its face."Delete
Butter is fine. Trans fats kill. But many people don't know this - instead they accept the conventional wisdom that saturated fat is unhealthy. Just like many accept the conventional wisdom that higher education is literally priceless.
I like bacon, I does.Delete
The entire law school recruiting model is driven by the Clintonian "is".ReplyDelete
If everyone will recall, ex-President (and lawyer) Clinton evaded inquiry and misled the nation - in large measure through his tortured use of "it depends upon what your meaning of is, is".
Such sh*tbag sophistry is the stock in trade of the modern law school recruiter.
Unless *every* applicant inquiry is *precisely* and *exactly* phrased (as though life were an endless hostile cross-examination) law school recruiters will predictably give utterly misleading answers that serve only their own debauched self-interest.
When you are dealing with law schools - you are dealing with untrustworthy scum.
One practical answer (other than skipping the utterly degraded law as a career) - we could develop and publish a small set of what essentially would be standardized questions for applicants to submit to the schools, regarding career outcomes.
Such standardized documents would request the useful information in a precise manner, require the signature/attestation of an institutional representative, and specifically lay out the penalties for fraud/deception.
The documents could be submitted individually - by applicants - or collectively, by an organization such as Law School Transparency.
What I am getting at is something along the lines of an affidavit.
But doesn't the ABA already do this?
If only we could trust in either the integrity or consistency of the ABA, as well.
*This* is what the "honorable" profession of the law - and most especially its seedbed, the law schools - has reduced civil society to.
"If everyone will recall, ex-President (and lawyer) Clinton evaded inquiry"Delete
Correction for you - former President and formerlawyer Clinton.
It was a law professor in Georgia who got President Clinton dis-barred.
Comment on the "update" reply from Ms. Jazzy Crowe:ReplyDelete
Where is she getting her info? Did they graduate 300 in 2012, and so what's happened is she's confused and (mis)reporting some preliminary jobs data for that class?
That could explain the 300 number. It'll never explain the 90+ percent at "JD/Advantage" claim, though.
A previous poster referred to this school as "fifth tier". Please be aware since there are only 200 ABA acredited law schools there are only four tiers of suckitude and not five. However since the ABA is about to approve a couple more law schools. (Indiana Tech!) we will shortly have our fifth tier, to which this law school and Cooley can shortly be demoted. Ah,doesn't this make everyone feel better?ReplyDelete
Just trolling through
I'm the one who called it fifth-tier. I've suggested before that the fourth tier represents all but the top two dozen or so. But I'm willing to set up a fifth tier starting around 70 or 80 and running to the end.Delete
This Phoenix toilet is a good candidate for sixth tier.
"I've suggested before that the fourth tier represents all but the top two dozen or so"Delete
So which schools are encompassed by each of tiers 2, 3?
Tier 1: Harvard, Yale, StanfordDelete
Tier 2: the next half-dozen or so
Tier 3: maybe the next dozen
Jasmine's further response is an abomination. Defensive and ungrammatical, it contains an obvious misspelling.ReplyDelete
This woman should not be representing the County dog pound, much less......OK PSOL is not very far at all from the County dog pound. Come to think of it, at least the pound is doing something constructive about a bad situation, not making it worse.
"We had over 300 graduates, so there data is inaccurate."Delete
Here's what Campos should do (assuming his corresponding 0L doesn't mind?):ReplyDelete
Write a little email with a (brief) summary of PSOL's actual stats, and include Ms. Crowe's comments, and ask one simple question:
"What do you think should be done about this?"
Email addressed to Scott Thompson, Shirley Mays, and Dianne Bosse (respectively President PSOL, Dean PSOL, and Chair, ABA Committee on LS Accreditation).
Actually, the 0L is already "outed" just by this blog post today. No reason for LP to go back and ask her permission to send the email.Delete
Scott Thompson is the president of Infinilaw, which owns Phoenix Law along with Charlotte and Florida Coastal. Much bigger animal that above post suggests. His biggest qualification is that he played football in college. Seems to be his biggest accomplishment when you talk to him.Delete
You 2:30 - tain't my fault that the website of PSOL lists him as their school president.Delete
Not that being president of 3 schittlawschools (vs. 1) really makes of one a "much bigger aminal" than otherwise...
Not the only misinformation on that website. :) Many things on it are wrong, and even more are missing entirely. Wish I had known that earlier. Would have gone elsewhere, or not gone to law school at all. Bit late now though.Delete
In any case he is in charge of the scam, while Jasmine is merely a footsoldier that hasn't realized she is shilling for the scam just yet.
This school charges almost $40k a year! On its website it states, "...and the school places 97% of its graduates into jobs within nine months of graduation." Of course, it just says jobs, not legal jobs.ReplyDelete
that's 15k less than Cornell.Delete
The difference is that Cornell may be worth attending, whereas this Phoenix thing is a toilet at any price.Delete
@ 10:43 AM: I'm sorry, did you have some point to make?ReplyDelete
It would be interesting to find some 0L recent LSAT taker to send the same question to PSOL's sister schools Charlotte and FL Coastal and see if the response is similarly, uh, misinformed.ReplyDelete
12:06 and Professor CamposReplyDelete
We're going to have a fifth tier of law schools, and the U.S. Government and taxpayers are going to subsidize it and there's nothing, you, or anyone else is going to do about it!
*Evil Mad Scientist Laugh* Now back to my secret lab at GW Law Cchool so I can breathe life into an even more frankinstein version of IBR, just in time for X-Mas!
If taxpayers knew that they were subsidizing law schools amid a multi-decade oversupply problem, they'd be pissed.ReplyDelete
No we wouldn't. As long as we can watch Monday Night Football, Bill O'Reilly (alt: Rachel Maddow for the MSNBC set), etc. we are fine.Delete
It's seriously in one ear and out the other with the average American.
The one good thing that may come from the "fiscal cliff" nonsense out there is that we finally are starting to recognize that buy now, pay later government is not a long term strategy. If you want services, you must pay for them with tax revenues. If you want low taxes, it comes at the expense of the services that you enjoy.Delete
But the voters want lots of services and a great safety net with no cost -- or no current cost.
Buy now, pay later. It's as American as apple pie.
I'm an average American boomer and I'm pissed. I've written my Senators, Congressman, President multiple times, complained about the law school and higher education scams. Written about the for-profit school ripoff. I've had written conversations regarding the scam to numerous law Deans. I also talk to any potential law student to warn them of the pitfalls of attending law school and direct them to this an other sites. I think the word is getting out, maybe slowly, but it's getting out. I also like to post this shit on Facebook, but since my son is a practicing attorney, I don't want to allow it to get too personal. I feel very badly about those that attend and can't find jobs. I also try to write to many of the fools (scammers) that are highlighted in this blog.Delete
For 12:48 -ReplyDelete
Where does the ABA get most of its money from?ReplyDelete
Does anyone know of a project to send Open Records requests to all public law school admissions or other administrative offices? Specifically in relation to emails or documents that mention "jobs" "statistics" "placement" "admissions", etc. for years 2008 to current or so? Obviously some limiting language would have to be inserted so they couldn't deny due to the genericness and size of the request, but this seems like an obvious next step.ReplyDelete
This is a good idea.Delete
There are a *lot* of legal processes that if crowdsourced, could expose law school rot across the country.
I think the major problem to date is that the economic rewards for these group efforts are not thought to be there and/or the efforts are thought to be lengthy and with a very low probability of success.
But we're not talking full fledged lawsuits here - we're talking about legal actions to force the most complete possible disclosure of *all available information*.
Since so many law schools are public, there are a number of "good governance" statutes out there laying dormant and unused.
Hell, wouldn't it be theoretically possible to try and get a declaratory judgment against deceptive marketing practices against *public* law schools?
I also wonder if there aren't atty fee statutes also available that would make compensation available for law school disclosures that judges found to be in the public interest.
Anybody have a background in atty fee statutes as they regard disclosure litigation against public entities?
One silver lining in all of this -- that Phoenix Law disclosure page is pretty good. It gives the total costs, scholarship retention, and reasonably detailed placement information. Of course, they hide the really bad debt and salary numbers by just reporting medians, but still not bad.ReplyDelete
When I see stuff like that, I think actual progress is being made.
"Does anyone *here* know anyone *there* that could be approached?"ReplyDelete
Contact info is on the lawschooltransparency.com website. I am sure they would appreciate any help you might offer; the website is run by three attorneys that have regular jobs.
Slightly off-topic, but here's a nice quote from the Famu Law Day article linked above:ReplyDelete
"After passing the Bar, I'll be able to get a great job practicing law and reap the rewards of my hard work," Merilien said. "Lawyers get executive positions later in their careers and this attracted me to the idea of pursuing law within the entertainment industry."
great job ... executive positions ... entertainment industry
This one quote hits almost all of the high points.
Here's another quote:Delete
"This under representation of blacks in the profession makes it harder for minorities to find help in litigious situations, Crowe said."
This is despicable pandering to racial persecution conspiracies. Of course there still is all kinds of massive racism in America, but this quote is just nonsense.
The great majority of white lawyers will be perfectly happy to help black clients - if they can pay. And if they can't pay, then they're not going to get any more help from black lawyers either.
She's just using Black people. She needs them to sign up so that she can get her commi$$ions.Delete
There should be proportionately more Black people in the legal profession than there are. But that doesn't mean that Black people have trouble getting "help in litigious situations" (which are rare anyway), still less that law school is a good option for a Black (or non-Black) person today. And the law school for which she is shilling is not a good option for anyone.
If you want to prey upon a racialized population, select someone like Jasmine Crowe as your agent. They've figured it out at the Phoenix School of Law and at the Indiana Institute of Technology.
Off topic, sort of, but too good not to highlight: if one attends Phoenix Law, one will have chance to study with Professor Ilya Iussa, whose latest contribution to the life of the mind and the edification of her students does the following:ReplyDelete
"This article reflects upon my interactions with law students as their professor during the course of my recent pregnancy and posits that certain perceptions held by my students related to my teaching effectiveness and my ability to be fair arose from their gendered expectations and associations with my pregnant body. This article identifies three consequences springing from students’ unfulfilled gendered expectations and their negative associations with the body of the pregnant professor: (1) negative student course evaluations and possible contrapower harassment, (2) potential adverse impact on promotion and tenure decisions, and (3) interference with the pregnant professor’s choices related to family and work-life decisions. This article also argues that remedial actions—such as tolerance education and trainings—should be implemented in the law school setting to combat the deleterious effects of such negative associations."
More here on pregnant professor possible prejudice: http://works.bepress.com/ilya_iussa/1/.
I would gladly give loaned money to read such an article. If the provided link offers it for free, I refuse to click on said link. I will send a check in the mail and pray for a hard copy to reach me come Christmas time. Putting this "treatise on relation to uteri" in my own stocking will provide a Christmas morn' to remember.Delete
OK, we can see what happened: Special snowflake Iussa got a mountain of negative evaluations, in part because she wouldn't do her job (my family and my life trump everything else), and now she's afraid of not getting tenure.Delete
I don't deny the existence of bias against women (or, more generally, non-men) and pregnancy, but this abstract looks like self-indulgent whining.
Click on that "Download" button to the right of her weepy text.Delete
Given her reputation hardly related to pregnancy, but she is hardly the worst. Several others should go first, but I doubt they will.Delete
Where are the pregnancy photos? C'mon, all the best celebs are doing it. Gotta provide some "baby bump" photos!Delete
Other than that - her "scholarship" is some 50 pages of (a) not uninteresting but otherwise picayune historical background on maternity leaves over the years; and (b) illogical conclusory crap based on her own anecdotes that bears no relation to the word "scholarship".
Jesus, this is the self-obsessed "scholarship" she gets paid to produce? The main conclusion of which is - apparently based on comments from two students - that her students gave her a bad rating because they are misogynistic morons? The even more saddening thing about this paper is that it appears to be part of a body of such scholarship rather than a single example - read the paper and you'll see articles mentioned with titles like "How Metacognitive Deficiencies Of Law Students Lead To Biased Rating Of Law Professors", and "Should Student Evaluations Be Anonymous" (judging by this quote from that article: "According to Donaghue, a troubling development about the modern university is “the almost fully adopted notion of the student as customer.”" the answer is "no").Delete
So basically, take the students money, and if they give you a bad rating, it's probably because they're misogynists with an unjustified sense of entitlement.
You know Joan Crawford still had pretty nice legs by 1967.ReplyDelete
She was born in 1905.
I'm watching an old movie with her called "Berserk"
Scotland Yard looks into spiking, buzzsawing and knifing at ringmaster Monica's traveling circus.
Much more interesting than the LS scam.
Hey JD Painter. Any n ews?Delete
Evidently it isn't much more interesting because you're reading this site rather than watching the movie. But I get your point.Delete
What's up dude? Long time, no see. How's the mental health now that you're more distant from this echo chamber of pity and misery? Getting a less introspective perspective and finally seeing life as something bigger than student loans?
Speak your news.
Lets talk like real lawyers. Please fuck off.
Agreed. Go fuck yourself you pathetic piece of shit Painter. Either join the big boys' discussion or leave. We'll make sure that your immature, irrelevant, inane and stupid bullshit is no longer tolerated on this board. If you can't handle that responsibility, please go back to your own leetle blog and pull your pud while you're at it. That being said, I wish you would leave for good loser.ReplyDelete
"We'll make sure that your immature, irrelevant, inane ...is no longer tolerated on this board. "Delete
Look, I don't enjoy his posts any more than the next person.
But unless your handle happens to be "LawProf" here - which it doesn't appear to be - then you don't own content.
Prof. Campos, please ban JD Painter. He adds nothing to the discussion and speaks drivel that detracts from your message. I think at some point most of us, including you, were concerned for John Koch. He has been given excellent advice which he has eschewed. He has threatened to commit suicide as a cry for attention. Morons like him will not commit suicide. I sincerely believe he is a troll for the law school industry sent as a mole so that he can sabotage the movement, after all, he is a fuck up who attended law school almost 20 years ago and never made an effort to repay his student loans. Am I surprised at his loan balance? Not really, considering he hasn't paid a dime in interest since 1996.ReplyDelete
75k/ year administrator at a law school doesn't know the difference between THERE and THEIR. As Hayek once pointed out, SHIT FLOATS.ReplyDelete
Shit does float. This is one of the major laws of life. That is why law professors are making six figures and never can get their exams marked before the deadline.ReplyDelete
Nevertheless, lets obtain a permission to euthanize Painter. He is annoying piece of shit that floats across the universe.
Moi? I'm not a painter; ain't got no JD either. But I agree in general, at some point one has to recognize that the force of the status quo and the jenga puzzle of self-interest prevents any fundamental change; no one is coming to do anything right by past, present or future students. Then you decide whether you can live with what's happened or you can't. If you can't, be decisive. If you can, distance yourself from the injustice or it will constructively accomplish what you've refused to accomplish yourself: the taking of your life.Delete
How much do lawyers earn? What skills do I need to make a successful career as a lawyer? What are some specializations that I can pursue? Find out here.ReplyDelete
Career as a Lawyer
Get your marketing garbage off this site.Delete
I think it I refreshing that PSL has a recruiter. Perhaps she has perfect hooters in which case all is forgiven. Much more honest than Yale's recruiting tactics which involve sending out invitations to apply which they intend to reject just to keep their selection rate low. Kind of like a sleazy nightclub paying people to stand in line outside in the snow to make the ones who are "selected" feel good about being in a dump of a club, paying $8 for a beer, and putting up with a horrible band.ReplyDelete
I am a paralegal and the sad part is we get alot of ASU grads sending us resumes. Once, in awhile, we get a resume from Phoenix School of Law and laugh about that pathetic school. Most of the resumes we receive show that their current job position is pro bono work. I will repeat myself- they are working for FREE to help the illegals. Forget about Phoenix School of Law, the ASU law students can't even find work. Law school is the biggest scam. In second thought, I want to start a law school and make billions off of fools and hire people like Jazy Fizzle.ReplyDelete
you're in point of fact a just right webmaster. The site loading velocity is amazing. It sort of feels that you are doing any distinctive trick. Furthermore, The contents are masterpiece. you have done a wonderful job on this topic!ReplyDelete
Look into my blog post :: www.vgdg.com
This is just too good so had to post.......ReplyDelete
Mug Shot of Jasmine Janine Crowe (DOB 18-Feb-1983) from 9-May-2012: Booking ID# P866530 with the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff's Office
Charged with 19 counts of:
*THEFT-OBTAIN BY MISREPRESENT
*FALSE STMT TO OBTAIN BENEFITS
Mug shots are very similar to photos of these women also named Jasmine Crowe:
*And my personal favorite "Spotlight on Greatness: Jasmine Crowe"
http://soulrevisions-blackhistory.blogspot.com/2013/02/jasmine-crow.html (from the author: "'Spotlight on Greatness' is an opportunity for me to highlight some dynamic black men and women who are creating their own history.")
December 7th, 2012: "Count(s) 17: WAIVER OF TRIAL: The Defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived all pertinent constitutional and appellate rights and entered a plea of guilty";
Other 18 counts dismissed, presumably as part of the plea agreement with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to avoid trial costs for the State:
From the Jasmine Crowe Agency website (www.jasminecrowe.com) on 22-Feb-2013:
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. ~President Barack Obama"
My last email from Jasmine Crowe at Phoenix School of Law was on Dec 6th, 2012, the day before the guilty verdict. Perhaps her change in employment actually did come after waiting for the people at PSL to discover her background.....