We spend lots of time in law school discussing ethics and avoiding pitfalls in the practice of the law or the appearance of impropriety. But what about moral pitfalls of charging students an arm, a leg and a first born child for law school--and then reaping the benefits of the same via paycheck from Access Group? Seems like a moral dilemma to me. Who are your loyalties to?
A tipster alerted me to the make-up of the Board of Directors of Access Group and it reads like a who's who of the law school scam artists:
Hannah R. Arterian
Dean and Professor of Law
Syracuse University School of Law
Janice C. Eberly
(Board Vice Chair)
John L. and Helen Kellogg
Distinguished Professor of Finance
Kellogg School of Management
Northwestern University
E. Lynn Hampton, CPA
President and Chief Executive Officer
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
Joseph D. Harbaugh
Professor and Former Dean
Shepard Broad Law Center
Nova Southeastern University
Rondy E. Jennings
Managing Director, Public Sector and Infrastructure
Goldman Sachs & Co.
W.H. Knight, Jr.
Professor of Law
Seattle University School of Law
Leo P. Martinez
Professor of Law
University of California
Hastings College of the Law
Richard A. Matasar
(Board Chair)
Dean and President
New York Law School
Pauline A. Schneider
Partner
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Kent D. Syverud
Dean and Ethan A.H. Shepley University Professor
Washington University School of Law
Susan E. Woodward
Founder and President
Sand Hill Econometrics
I'm sorry, but what qualifies these bastards to serve on the Board of a financial institution??? Don't you have to know finance? I can only think that they are serving on the Board because they can herd the sheep towards Access Group. I wonder who else is in on this? At my school, the financial loan office were like drug dealers, pushing Access down our throats. At the time, I was not aware there were other options.... Hmmmm. I don't see my old Dean on here, but he may have served on the Board back then.
Anyone have any insight on why this isn't considered a problem or a conflict of interest?
The tipster followed up by sending me pics of these fat cats. If you see one crossing the street.... well.... do what you think is appropriate.
 |
| Joseph D. Harbaugh |
 |
| Leo P. Martinez |
 |
| Richard A. Matasar |
 |
| Kent D. Syverud |
 |
| W.H. Knight, Jr. |
 |
| Hannah R. Arterian |
Posts
See a problem? Then fuckin' file a complaint with the ABA and the DoEd. Why? Because the ABA hides behind the fact that no one ever complains, therefore they don't know, therefore they can't act.
ReplyDeleteHere is a TLS post from "observationalist," a guy from Law School Transparency:
"...Of course, nothing is preventing people right now from filing an official complaint with the ABA Section of Legal Ed against a particular school. The problem is that nobody has bothered. There are basically two ways a law school can be investigated: either someone files a complaint which initiates a fact-finding and potentially full-out investigation, or a Site Evaluation Team reports an alleged violation of one or more standards during their site visits (which usually only happen once every five years). One can certainly argue that the ABA Section of Legal Ed hasn't been doing its job by delegating investigations to Site Evaluation Teams, but the fact remains that not a single complaint has been filed alleging violation of Standard 509, going back for at least five years. We fully encourage the filing of complaints where people believe their school has violated Standard 509, as it will help keep the regulators true to their mandate and can lead to an investigation, sanctions, and accreditation probation."
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=157641
See the "The problem is that nobody has bothered."
Come on, scambloggers! You can easily start a campaign where you file complaints about nearly every school for a gazillion ethics violations. Just get together and organize something.
@ Anon. 10:41 PM:
ReplyDeleteI'll support that. I'd actually support just picking one of these mutants to be made an example of. Almost more effective as a strategy than attracting media attention to the issue, no?
Angel,
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting these pigs' info on this blog. These are POLITICAL appointments. None of these bitches understands finances. (Then again, economics/finance, law, and religion all equal politics.)
The fact is that these dogs are going to do whatever it takes to keep the gravy train rolling. These rats would rather die than practice "the noble profession" of law.
Anon @ 10:41
ReplyDeleteSo if it's that easy, and if it's such a great idea to file a complaint with an organization that just got slapped for violating standards but still got to continue being the accrediting body, then here's a dumb question:
What the hell is stopping you from doing it? Why do "scambloggers" have to do everything?
Filing a complaint with the ABA is like pissing in the wind. They have no interest in enforcement, accountability or ethics.
I am Anon @ 10:41.
ReplyDeleteFirst question: Why don't I file a complaint?
Because I am not a law student, never have been one, and never will be one, therefore I can't file a complaint. If I could, I would.
I check TLS and the scamblogger sites to inform myself because once upon the time I considered law school. I am in my early 30s and, like many others, I became bored with my daily routine and work, so I decided to look into law school. I figured I could become a patent attorney in the biomedical sciences (I have a PhD in Genetics).
While researching this idea, I came across TLS and the scambloggers. I later decided to keep my 100K a year job as a Biostatistician. I certainly don't need the risk that law school entails, and I am not as desperate and dejected as liberal arts majors. Unlike them, I have very good career prospects and in-demand skills.
Second question: Why do "scambloggers" have to do everything?
You don't have to do everything. We are here to help you, to back your stories, and to provide support. But through you "scamblogs," you guys have the power to promote and/or accelerate change. Ranting about how the ABA and law schools raped you has certainly informed others, but now that we have been informed, what's next? I just think that a few other activities other than ranting might help your cause.
The intent of my first post was just to inform you what a Law School Transparency member wrote on TLS about why the ABA does not do anything. The ABA says that no one ever complains. It's their excuse to not do anything, and it is a very good one. How can it be that no one has officially complained? It's not very hard; just write a short letter and mail it.
Finally, as you pointed out, the ABA is "an organization that just got slapped for violating standards." Don't just feel bad about that, use it as an opportunity. Write to the DoEd and tell them your story, why the ABA sucks, and, more importantly, ask them to enforce the the findings of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. According to the report of the Committee the ABA needs: "to consider student-loan default rates in assessing programs; to solicit and consider public comments; and to set a standard for job placement by its member institutions." These findings are a gift from heaven because, if enforced, they would go a long way towards solving the law school scam.
As a taxpayer, I did write a letter to the DoEd telling them that I was dismayed by these findings and that no higher education institutions should receive Federal student loans under such circumstances (No reply yet). But I realize that I am just a drop in the bucket; you and the other scambloggers, on the other hand, have a decent following and can use it to promote much needed changes. I always assumed that was your main goal.
I wouldn't slow down if these fucking fraudsters were crossing the street. Just sent me a letter declaring me in default when I wasn't.
ReplyDeleteVeronica, I don't know who you are, but fuck you and all your friends.
The purpose of my blog is to get the word out. The rest is up to you. I think that I've been successful in calling attention to the "issue" along with all the other scam bloggers. I don't think I need to organize shit. Take it upon yourself to use this information how you see fit. Perhaps, if you are a dummy and considering law school--the ones listed above should be struck off the list. Perhaps if you go to one of the schools listed above, you should speak to your dean or professor about the conflict. And if you're none of the above--you can contact Access to tell them you're onto them, or the bar associations that licensed these bastards and file an ethical violation. Or contact the worthless ABA and file a complaint. Take the information and run with it!
ReplyDeleteGet down on your knees and beseech the God: "Where do I fit in?"
ReplyDeletehttp://www2.goldmansachs.com/careers/index.html
"Arbeit Macht Frei"
People, such as the Deand depicted above, can do corrupt things if they are in need, and hard pressed for money, or are just plain greedy.
ReplyDeleteHence the act of signing up for a position with a bank hat is clearly a conflict of interest.
I hope he investigations will continue, and that the tipsters will keep the communication line open.
Student Lending originated as a means of providing a higher education to those that could not afford it.
But Student Lending has been sorely corrupted.
So now we are back at square 1. Just as it was some 30 years ago:
If you cannot pay cash for a Higher Education.
Do not go.
Truth be told, Janice C. Eberly From the Kellogg School of Management probably deserves to have their picture included with those lawyers and her school highlighted as well. As she's a professor and a member of the Board of Directors for Access group. Though I *think* that Kellogg is a first tier business school; I cannot help but imagine that she is running a similar type of scam, but from the business school side of the house
ReplyDeleteI want to know what the benefit is. If there's no reportable income, why do these people serve as directors and why are there so many education insiders on the board as opposed to people who actually run companies?
ReplyDeleteThe 9/11 truth is out on the internet.
ReplyDeleteThis is the truth: The WTC was destroyed by 3 underground thermo-nuclear explosions. They were detonated by the US government who used this as an excuse to lead the US and its allies into invading Afghanistan and Iraq. All these wars and deaths were based on a lie.
Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Will you help to tell the truth to the world?
www.mathaba.net/news/?x=625926
www.911-truth.net/
Be sure to watch the 26 part video there.
#4 is on the built-in nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC
www.911-truth.net/911_WTC_nuclear_demolition_Dimitri_Khalezov_part04.mp4
#14 in on Building 7, which collapsed even though no plane hit it.
www.911-truth.net/911_WTC_nuclear_demolition_Dimitri_Khalezov_part14.mp4
#24/25 is on the chronic radiation sickness of the WTC responders)
www.911-truth.net/911_WTC_nuclear_demolition_Dimitri_Khalezov_part24.mp4
www.911-truth.net/911_WTC_nuclear_demolition_Dimitri_Khalezov_part25.mp4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNh1Isb20tw&feature=player_embedded
careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2011/05/911-comparing-building-implosions.html
Sorry. I have to do the dishes.
ReplyDelete