TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron, Dean
Pepperdine University School of Law

Friday, December 23, 2016

Students, Faculty React To Department Of Education's Decision To Cut Off Federal Student Loans For Charlotte Law School

FCFollowing up on my previous posts:

Charlotte Business Journal, Charlotte Law Students Make Demands Via Petition:

On Wednesday, nearly 100 students had signed an online petition aimed at administrators that lists four specific demands. ...

  1. Grades for students be submitted before or on Jan. 1 so that students who wish to transfer will be able to do so.
  2. All students on track to graduate in May 2017 be allowed to finish without private or non-governmental loans
  3. All normal expenses incurred by continuing students for the Spring 2017 semester be provided for jointly/separately by Charlotte School of Law, Infilaw, and or, Sterling Capital.
  4. Restructuring of leadership within for-profit’s administration, beginning with individuals who have “consistently had the final word regarding matters that have in recent years fell under the microscope of the ABA and the Department of Education.”

Above the Law, Charlotte Law School Faculty Rebels Against For-Profit Infilaw, Stands By Students In Time Of Need:

Charlotte Law professors are going to war for their students. ...

The administration’s goal to protect students who have been wronged — not by Charlotte Law’s alleged malfeasance, of course, but by the Department of Education — flies in the face of what we’ve been told by students who attend the school. We’ve heard that members of the law school administration have blocked all student access to the seventh floor of the building where their offices are located, and haven’t been answering calls.

Charlotte Law faculty members, on the other hand, are standing by their students, and are ready to go to war for them. A source at the law school told us that faculty members are now “rebelling against [their] Infilaw overlords,” and sent out a strongly worded letter via email to all students and alumni of the school.

Students, we share in your feelings of sadness, anger, and disappointment. At this juncture, we are insisting that Infilaw recognize that decisions about admissions and curriculum must be made by the faculty. These decisions are the subject of our current situation and were made without the benefit of those best able to protect the students’ interests.

Despite the institutional failures listed in the letter from the DOE on December 19, 2016, we assure you that your faculty remains committed to delivering quality legal education. We are unified in our desire to the best by our students and alumni as we face the challenges ahead.

Matt Leichter, Does Charlotte Law School Offer a Test of the Bennett Hypothesis?:

Here’s how much federal loan money CLS has disbursed each year since it was founded and its revenue from full-time students paying full tuition.

Leichter 1

I doubt CLS is as bloated as an elite law school is, but it will soon cost a lot less to attend if it wants to stay in business. Unfortunately, I suspect liberals will see CLS’s downfall as a victory over predatory for-profit colleges rather than evidence that federal loans help law schools more than students. Still, it’s a victory. Maybe Infilaw will get the message that many nonprofit law schools should’ve years ago.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/12/students-faculty-react-to-department-of-educations-decision-to-cut-off-federal-student-loans-for-cha.html

Legal Education | Permalink

Comments

I think law school should be increased or some law courses should be added so that students know some basic law and order about their country or they could use to protect themselves

Posted by: Amanda Ruano | Dec 23, 2016 5:26:15 AM

"I suspect liberals will see CLS’s downfall as a victory over predatory for-profit colleges rather than evidence that federal loans help law schools more than students."
It can be both, Mr. Leichter....This liberal sees it as a victory over predatory "educational" institutions and as further evidence of the difficult-to-refute argument that free flowing federal student loans have caused significant harm, both in terms of educational quality and cost, to post-secondary education by creating bloated administrations at nearly ALL institutions of higher learning. The unnecessary political jab doesn't add anything to an otherwise convincing argument that the student loan free-for-all is most beneficial to administration and not students.

Posted by: AwesomeName | Dec 23, 2016 7:51:39 AM

" free flowing federal student loans have caused significant harm, both in terms of educational quality and cost, to post-secondary education by creating bloated administrations at nearly ALL institutions of higher learning. "

Only in graduate schools, Awesome Name. Undergrad students have lifetime (not annual) federal student lending caps of $31k for dependent students and $57.5k for independent students - limits that were last increased in 2008. In point of fact, dependent students can only borrow $7,500 per year, and not that much until their third year of college. So they are not the sole cause for the $70,000 per year pricetags one begins to see at places like NYU and Chicago.

For that matter, law schools in the GradPLUS era have not really increased tuition at a faster rate than in the 15-20 years before GradPLUS loans came along, when the bulk of debt taken on was private, non-FFEL loans.

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Dec 23, 2016 11:11:21 AM