CSOL Delegation Trip Report

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 63 | Comments: 0 | Views: 264
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

  INTRODUCTION

On July 30, 2013, representatives from InfiLaw Systems, Inc., along with members of the Board of Directors of the Charleston School of Law held an open Town Hall meeting for all students and alumni regarding the announcement on July 25, 2013 that the Charleston School of Law had entered into a Management Services Agreement with InfiLaw Management Solutions. After the Town Hall, InfiLaw CEO Rick Inatome, in response to student requests, agreed to finance the travel arrangements and send a small delegation of students from the Charleston School of Law to both Florida Coastal School of Law and Charlotte School of Law in order to allow the students the opportunity to experience first-hand an InfiLaw-owned-and-operated law school in an effort to ease the concerns voiced by students, alumni, and the Charleston legal community. On September 23, 2013, a delegation of eight students traveled to Jacksonville, Florida to visit the Florida Coastal School of Law, and on October 11, 2013, a delegation of six students traveled to Charlotte, North Carolina to visit the Charlotte School of Law. Three students were able to make the trip to both schools. The delegations were made up of a diverse group of law students, including representatives from the Student Bar Association, Moot Court Board, multiple Law Reviews, Trial Advocacy Board as well as numerous other student organizations. The delegations were also comprised of third-year, second-year, and first-year students, both full-time and part-time. The itinerary for both trips were set in advance and included opportunities for the delegation to sit in on classes, meet student leaders, tour the facilities, and independently engage faculty, staff, and other students. Both delegations traveled with the single purpose of being fact-finders, of inspecting each school with an open mind and an unbiased attitude, much like an American Bar Association (ABA) site team would inspect a law school. This report is the compilation of the experiences of delegation and chronicles  being on campus campu s and sitting in class, it details det ails the conversations conversati ons with students, stu dents, faculty, and staff members, and the impressions gleaned from the time spent at each school. The common hope of students who have signed their names below is that this report can help provide a tangible perspective and a firsthand account of the current InfiLaw-owned-and-operated law schools as well as the positives and negatives of both Florida Coastal and Charlotte in an unbiased and factual manner. On the morning of November 7, 2013 and prior to the formal release of this report, a copy of the final draft was sent to Peter Goplerud, President of InfiLaw Management Solutions, in an effort to  provide InfiLaw Systems Sy stems an opportunity oppo rtunity to respond respo nd to the content cont ent contained therein. therei n. Mr. Goplerud indicated that he believed there were “factual inaccuracies” in the report and requested a meeting to discuss those alleged inaccuracies. After rescheduling a phone conversation set for November 10, 2013, an evening meeting scheduled for November 11, 2013, and denying the request to submit his proposed corrections via email, Mr. Goplerud met with delegation members Daniel Cooper, Kayce Seifert, Annah Woodward, and Matthew Kelly on the morning of November 12, 2013. At that time, Mr. Goplerud  presented the aforementioned aforem entioned delegation delegati on members with wi th a red-lined copy of the report, which whi ch is attached in full as an Appendix to the report. Mr. Goplerud further informed the delegation members that “if [InfiLaw] end[s] up to publish a formal response, it’s going to be very thorough and it’s not going to mince any words.” The delegation thoroughly reviewed Mr. Goplerud’s proposed revisions and subsequently adopted only those revisions and comments reflecting objective matters of fact.

i

 

  TABLE OF CONTENTS

FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW ...................................................................................1 Academics & Curriculum ....................................................................................................1 Administration .....................................................................................................................2 Admissions....................................................................................................... ............................................... ............................................................................3 ....................3 Bar Preparation & Passage Rates .........................................................................................4 ................................................... ......................................4 Career Services & Employment Prospects ..........................................................................5 Classroom Experience .........................................................................................................6 Facilities ................................................... ........................................................................................................... ............................................................................6 ....................6 Faculty & Staff................................................... .......................................................................................................... ..................................................................7 ...........7 Library..................................................................................................................................9 Library ..................................................................................................................................9 Pro Bono ..............................................................................................................................9 Student Organizations ......................................................................................................... ................................................. .........................................................9 .9 Student Perspective ............................................................................................................10 Technology ........................................................................................................................11 Tuition, Financial Aid, & Scholarships .............................................................................11 CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW...............................................................................................13 LAW...............................................................................................13 Academics & Curriculum ..................................................................................................13 Administration ...................................................................................................................14 Admissions....................................................................................................... ............................................... ..........................................................................14 ..................14 Bar Preparation & Passage Rates .......................................................................................15 ................................................... ....................................15 Career Services & Employment Prospects ........................................................................16 Classroom Experience .......................................................................................................17 iii

 

  Facilities ................................................... ........................................................................................................... ..........................................................................17 ..................17 Faculty & Staff................................................... .......................................................................................................... ................................................................18 .........18 Library................................................................................................................................18 Library ................................................................................................................................18 Pro Bono ............................................................................................................................19 Student Organizations ........................................................................................................1 ................................................. .......................................................19 9 Student Perspectives ..........................................................................................................19 Technology ........................................................................................................................20 Tuition, Financial Aid, & Scholarships .............................................................................21 CONCLUSION .................................................... ............................................................................................................ ..........................................................................22 ..................22 APPENDIX ......................................................................................................... ................................................. ...................................................................................23 ...........................23

iv

 

  FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW

8787 Baypine Rd., Jacksonville, FL 32256 DATE OF VISIT: September 23, 2013 DELEGATION: Adrian Wilkes, 1L Annah Woodward, 2L Brian Burns, 3L Bruce Binney, 2L Julian Ferguson, 1L Katherine Weigle, 1L Kayce Seifert, 3L Matthew Kelly, 1L  _______________________________________________________  ___________________________ _____________________________________________ _________________ ACADEMICS & CURRICULUM

  Staring in the Fall 2013 semester, Florida Coastal Co astal has switched from a traditional



one-track JD program to its “JD Plus” curriculum.   JD Plus is a curriculum with 4 separate JD tracks, and students are placed in one on e of the different tracks based on their results from a mandatory man datory Kaplan diagnostic test. The first 3 tracks are focused on whether the student needs added focus on legal writing, analytical reasoning, or a combined focus on both. The fourth track is similar to a traditional JD track.   Several 1Ls stated that they were not n ot informed of the curriculum change u until ntil 3 calendar days before the start of classes; many 1Ls also expressed frustration with the lack of communication.    Several upperclassmen shared that just a few days before the semester started,







 



 



 



 



they had their schedules changed and rearranged, which was allegedly brought about by a change in faculty (many students reported a large number of faculty quit or were fired during the summer preceding the curriculum change) and the shift in curriculum.  Students under JD Plus placed on one of four different tracks based on LSAT, GPA, and results of an online diagnostic test. The tracks differ in the amount of doctrinal courses and skills/legal methods courses a student will take in a semester. An administrator in the Office of Academic Affairs stated that, “InfiLaw and the administrators at Florida Coastal decided to implement the new curriculum.” One faculty member stated that, “the curriculum change was mandated by InfiLaw via their central offices in Naples, FL, known internally as Central Services.” 

1

 

 

  Many 1L students expressed concerns about abo ut their ability to transfer to another



 



 



 



 



 



school due to the new JD Plus curriculum—the majority of students are not taking the normal 4 doctrinal classes, which would complicate enrollment at another school as a transfer second-year student. A student leader involved with Florida Coastal’s Coa stal’s Law Review stated that when she attempted to transfer, she was required to meet with a dean before having anything signed; she also claimed that students in the top of their respective classes would meet with higher-up members of the Administration than students with less impressive GPAs that also wanted to transfer.  Florida Coastal has produced a brochure b rochure about the hazards of transferring; the  brochure appears to serve the purpose of dissuading students interested in applying to transfer.  Professors are required to give and students are required to take several “assessments” or midterms throughout the semester, which serves as a portion of the student’s final course grade.  Florida Coastal is also looking at legal education educ ation outside of a physical classroom: their proposed Center for Law Practice Technology Techn ology is an online legal curriculum that would offer on-campus as well as distance learning certificate programs.  One faculty member stated that the “Center for Law Practice Technology would

 be greatly detrimental to the curriculum and the ability of the schools to prepare students for the careers of practicing attorneys.”     Several student leaders explained their 1L experiences at Florida Coastal—  interestingly, the 3L leaders all described a very different Legal Research and Writing curriculum than what the 2Ls experienced. One 2L student leader explained that, unlike the 3L students and the students from Charleston, she did not have to write an appellate brief during her Legal Research and Writing course. At this point in the academic year, ye ar, 1Ls were unsure exactly what their legal writing courses and modules would entail.  



ADMINISTRATION

  A number of school officials (including deans) have transitioned from one



 



 



 



 



InfiLaw school to another (Dean of Academic Affairs recently left for the Charlotte School of Law; Peter Goplerud left his h is post as Dean of Florida Coastal to become President of InfiLaw Management Solutions) o  InfiLaw installed Peter Goplerud as Dean of Florida Coastal shortly after the purchase in 2004. One staff member commented that, “so many administrative changes have occurred that it has had a revolving door effect on the students.” One student even said that the students were often unsure who was in charge, stating that, “we don’t know who our deans are.” Another student stated that, “there is a lower level of administrators at Florida Coastal and an upper level of administrators, namely InfiLaw.” Many of the students, faculty, and staff encountered at Florida Coastal were all surprised to learn that Peter Goplerud was not yet y et Dean of the Charleston School 2

 

  of Law, as the impression on their campus campu s was that he was already Dean in Charleston. ADMISSIONS

  Approximately 6711 students in the 1L Fall 2013-entering class.   A staff member in the Admissions office stated that, “admission targets and goals go als

• •

are set by InfiLaw.”   Students are admitted on a rolling basis, ba sis, with some students starting during the fall semester and others starting in the spring.   The Admissions Office was reportedly informed in October 2012 of the potential curriculum changes upcoming for the 2013–2014 academic year, however, several students commented that information about the curriculum cu rriculum change was not communicated to the student body on a large scale until just day dayss prior to the start of the Fall 2013 semester.   According to several students, members of the incoming 1L class were only informed of the new curriculum structure and their individual curriculum 3 calendar days before the start of the Fall 2013 semester, which was after all seat deposits were required to be paid.









Coastal uses an alternative admissions program, AAMPLE, to offer   Florida admission to students whose “academic indicators may not reflect their potential

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



to succeed in law school.”2  Students take 2 law school courses co urses over the summer, Introduction to the 4th   Amendment  and  and Negotiable Instruments, and students who pass the courses are offered admission into FCSL’s next entering class. If students do not pass AAMPLE, they must wait an additional 2 years before they can re-submit an application to the AAMPLE program, per ABA standards. Florida Coastal’s AAMPLE website states that there is “no maximum number” of students who can join Florida Coastal’s entering class. The AAMPLE program lasts for 7 weeks, including an online orientation the week before the class starts and exams the week after class ends. Both classes meet for 4 hours each week. Everything involved with AAMPLE is online, including the classroom experience. AAMPLE costs $500, in addition to all a ll other application fees and seat deposits any other student would pay. The Charlotte School of Law uses the exact same program with the same courses and requirements. Florida Coastal also offers a “3/3 Program” where students from nearby Jacksonville University can enroll in Florida Coastal after only 3 years of undergraduate study, thus allowing the student to earn a baccalaureate degree and a JD in only 6 years.3 That is different from the normal tract where student work

1

 Obtained from Charleston Law Alumni report.

2 http://www.fcsl.edu/aample  http://www.fcsl.edu/aample  3

 http://www.fcsl.edu/33program  http://www.fcsl.edu/33program 

3

 

  for 4 years to earn a baccalaureate degree and then get a JD in 3 years at a law school. The school places a heavy hea vy emphasis on looking at characteristics ch aracteristics that they state are often ignored in the traditional law school application process. Most schools focus on LSAT scores and college GPAs, but Florida Coastal and Charlotte offer the same alternative admissions program (AAMPLE), which can allow students not traditionally considered as primed for success in law school to gain admission to Florida Coastal and Charlotte. One of the major concerns raised by b y students at Florida Coastal was the lack of transparency and communication concerning the disclosure of curriculum changes and individual learning tracts in the new JD Plus Program. The decision to introduce a new curriculum was made earlier e arlier in 2012, the Admissions office was informed in October 2012, but the new 1L students stated they were not informed until just days  prior to start of the Fall 2013 semester. BAR PREPARATION & PASSAGE RATES

  Kaplan and BARBRI are not allowed to be on campus at FCSL. FCSL offers its



own, in-house Bar preparation program. o  A BARBRI representative confirmed that the contract with InfiLaw  prevented BARBRI from:   Tabling (hosting tables and sessions) on campus.   Sending emails to students regarding their Bar preparation  programs.   Offering tuition assistance and discounts to students.   Competing with InfiLaw in pricing, advertising, etc. o  The BARBRI representative also confirmed that InfiLaw buys the rights to select BARBRI and Kaplan materials and then hosts its own Bar  preparation course under the school’s name, sets its own pricing, and offers its own classes.   Students are permitted to enroll in Kaplan and/or BARBRI, but must do so on !

!

!

!



their own time, with no help from the school or from BARBRI or Kaplan. Students must also pay the full price, unlike most other law schools that allow BARBRI and Kaplan on campus and can offer students discounts and incentives.   Florida Coastal charges a fee for its in-house bar ba r prep course in addition to normal tuition.   If a student does not pass the Bar on their first attempt, FCSL will give that student supplemental prep courses at no cost, co st, plus living expenses while preparing for the next Bar. If they fail the Bar a second time, the school will reimburse that student $10,000. This reimbursement program went into effect e ffect for all students 4 starting during or after the Spring 2013 semester.     The only caveat is that students have to complete a numbe numberr of requirements, listed on their website, before a student can be eligible for the reimbursement program.







4

 http://www.fcsl.edu/assured-o http://www.fcsl.edu/assured-outcomes-partnershi utcomes-partnership/bar-pass p/bar-pass  

4

 

 

  Florida Coastal posted a 67.4% bar passage rate for the July 2013 F Florida lorida Bar



Examination. o  Out of the 11 law schools in Florida, only one other law school (Ave Maria School of Law – 57.7%) posted a lower bar passage rate than Florida Coastal. o   Non-Florida law schools posted at 72.2% passage rate, while the state average was 77.2%.   Florida Coastal posted a 79.3% bar passage rate for the February 2013 Florida Bar Examination. th o  Out of the 11 law schools schoo ls in Florida, Florida Coastal had the 7  best bar  passage rate.. o   Non-Florida law schools posted at 78.1% passage rate, while the state average was 80.2%.   Listed below are the bar passage rates for Florida Coastal from the last 4 years (2012-2009): 75.2% o  July 2012: o  February 2012: 76.3% 74.6% o  July 2011: 81.7% o  February 2011:





  o  o  o 

o

July 2010:2010: 78.8% February 60.9% July 2009: 83.0% February 2009: 66.1%   All bar passage data was collected directly from the website of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners.5 The data was unavailable on campus at Florida Coastal.



CAREER SERVICES & EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS

  Annette J. Ritter, Associate Professor of Professional Skills and Director of Trial



Practice & Mock Trial, in an email to all faculty regarding the new Center for Law Practice Technology provided an overview of the new program that was written by Richard Granat and Stephanie Kimbro, directors of the Center and affiliate faculty at Coastal, stated in section 4 of the overview that,  that, “ students who  graduate from Coastal need to be ready to go into practice for themselves as solo or small practitioners because their employment prospects may be dismal and only a relatively small percentage of Coastal Coa stal students will get jobs in law firms.”    Career Services Department was surprisingly evasive and uncooperative uncoop erative in answering questions or sharing data and information regarding: o  Employers, including but not limited to the list of firms and organizations  participating in on-campus interviews o  Job placement data o  Data differentiating between JD required jobs and JD preferred jobs o  Internship and externship placements o  Judicial clerkships



5

http://www.floridabarexam.org/    http://www.floridabarexam.org/

5

 

 

  One of the administrators in Career Services: “InfiLaw serves as a resource and



guiding entity” Initially, two students from the CSOL delegation visited the Career Services S ervices Department in the early afternoon, and the staff was uncooperative and unwilling to engage in any conversation. After the initial visit, three different students visited the department later in the afternoon and met with the same staff members and again experienced the same lack of cooperation and unwillingness to engage. The majority of questions asked, relating back to the topics discussed above, were answered with the statement that the information was either available online on line or it was “privileged.” Data and information like what was requested above was not found to be available on the Florida Coastal website. CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE

  Members of the delegation were allowed to attend class on the day of the visit.



The 1Ls attended a 1L Torts class while the upperclassmen attended an Evidence class. 1L Observations: The 1Ls observed a first-year Torts class comprised of students admitted during the fall semester. The class size was rather large and an d the classroom was very nice. The students did not have textbooks in class, which seemed odd. Some of the students seemed to be prepared, while others were clearly not. The professor made an effort to call on different students, but had to return to the same core group who appeared to be academically stronger and more prepared. At the end of class, the p professor rofessor took time to meet with students who had questions at the Knowledge Bar, directly outside o off the classroom. 2L/3L Observations: The 2Ls/3Ls observed an upperclassman Evidence class. The environment was more similar to that of a community college than a law school. The students appeared to be inadequately prepared and academically weak—throughout the class the  professor had to constantly lead students and feed them information to garner the solicited answer. However, the professor did seem to know kn ow his students, as he was able to call on them all by name without referencing a roster. A member of the delegation reflected that, “the student interaction added nothing to the class experience, which is disheartening because the student interaction is an integral part of the classroom and learning experience at Charleston.” FACILITIES

       

• • • •

Overall impressive facilities. Cafeteria on site, capable of serving hot meals. Gym, free use for students and alumni studying for bar exam. Lockers, available for each student. 6

 

 

  Parking spots are available in a parking garage adjacent to the law school and the



students are not charged for this.   There were two dedicated courtrooms on campus. One for Trial Advocacy and one for Moot Court. Both were very impressive and made use of very modern and state-of-the-art technology. On occasion court is actually held in these courtrooms and they are often utilized by the local legal community.   The campus offered several “Knowledge Bars” or small-group study stations that made use of white boards as the tables and a presentation area. The area was said to be used for small group discussions or questions with the professors outside of the classroom.





The school is located outside of downtown d owntown Jacksonville, in a new building with attached parking garage. The facilities are housed within one building and offer students a gym, cafeteria, lockers, ample room for studying, and a heavy emphasis on modern technology. One notable innovation was the presence of “Knowledge Bars”; these locations served as a place for students and teachers to meet immediately after class, directly outside of the classroom. The schools used to utilize a separate building across the campus for the Administration, but that building was reportedly sold and is no longer utilized by Florida Coastal. FACULTY & STAFF

  The delegation was able to have lunch with a number of student leaders from the



Student Bar Association, Moot Court, Trial Advocacy, Law Review, and other organizations. Most student leaders present at the luncheon expressed general satisfaction with availability of faculty, but also commented that, “every professor I didn’t like is gone” (referencing the power po wer that students believe their year-end evaluations of professors can carry).   Several members of administrative staff (i.e., front desk in Admissions Office) were new hires, brought in over the summer.   Several professors mentioned that it was tough to have a true open-door policy  because of the multiple student evaluations required by the Administration. A few  professors also mentioned that their course load prevented them from being available, saying that some professors had to teach between 3-5 classes per semester.   Quotes by members of the faculty and staff: o  “The school has an open door policy, but due to class load and constant evaluations there is not enough time to meet with students.” o  “You speak up against InfiLaw and you’re gone” (confirmed by hesitant hesitant second employee later on during the visit).   Although the delegation did not visit Phoenix School of Law (now Arizona Summit) but allegations made and lawsuits filed by two different recently terminated professors confirm the quote above.6  o  “InfiLaw wants the lawyer to be more like the client.”







!

6

 http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/11/phoenix-law.html 

7

 

 

  “Not everyone should be a lawyer and InfiLaw seems to have a different

o

 

o

 

o

 

o

 

o

mindset.” “InfiLaw wants to provide the ‘nurse practitioner’ of the legal lega l field by gearing students more towards the JD preferred jobs.” “InfiLaw tries to make a ‘law-school-in-a-box,’ but that’s not what you do in legal education.” “The school is an assembly line and professors are part of the process in assembling that widget.”  widget.”  “Over the summer [of 2013], 14 professors were ‘invited to leave’ the school, several being tenured.”

The CSOL delegation spent time speaking to faculty and staff, one-on-one, unobserved by administrators or InfiLaw representatives. During these conversations the faculty and staff were extremely professional and seemed to have the highest h ighest regard and concern for their students’ legal education. During the conversations with the faculty, many were concerned about the quality of students being admitted when students were being admitted at such high volumes. One faculty member stated that it was similar to an assembly line starting out with a lower level of raw material and being expected to develop from that an impeccable  product in an impossible amount of time. Another faculty member echoed a similar concern stating that many of the students, who should not have been admitted to law school in the first place, are harmed by the InfiLaw model because it places high expectations on students who cannot meet them in such a short amount of time. Instead, these students struggle and are unable to achieve the results necessary for a successful legal career, yet still graduate with a JD and the associated student loan debt. Another concern expressed by faculty and staff were the expectations being  placed on faculty to prepare students for a legal career and, at the same time, the expectation to continue working on o n scholarship while completing multiple evaluations for each student during a semester, including multiple graded assessments. The overall effect, reported by one faculty member, was an increase in the amount of stress placed on the professors and a decrease in the amount of time available to meet with students outside of class and an d pursue their own scholarship. Many of the faculty confirmed an open door policy with the students, but reported  being unable to meet with students as much as they would expect due to the responsibilities being placed on them by Central Ce ntral Services (InfiLaw). All of the faculty and staff members expressed concern con cern regarding the apparent divergence between their goals and those of InfiLaw, internally known as Central Services. Several of the professors echoed the concern that if a person speaks against the directions or changes set by Central Services they could lose their job. This fear was based on the recent departure of 14 professors who were “invited to leave.” One  professor noted that of the 14 “invited to leave,” “some were expected while others were shocking, considering they were cornerstones of the institution.” Again, the same issue has been heard in Arizona at InfiLaw’s third law school, which is currently in the midst of two lawsuits by former professors claiming that “if you speak up against InfiLaw, you are gone.” The delegation was concerned that 8

 

  this apparent fear of expressing opinions regarding the education of students has a detrimental and chilling effect on the relationship between faculty and the administration. LIBRARY

  3 floors with study carrels, study rooms, computer lab, and printing/copying



 



 



 



 



facilities. The Library closes at 9PM with limited access to bottom floor afterwards and no library staff; library hours are extended during exams. There is a one-floor study space open until 12AM. There was only a limited offering of course co urse reserves, with only book per class  being available to students. The Library staff removes sections of supplemental texts for the purpose of creating subject-specific binders, which some students cited as helpful during bar  preparations. The study rooms are available with dry erase boards and small computer monitors/TV screens with DVD players.

PRO BONO

  Unlike Charleston, which requires 30 hours of pro bono services for graduation,



 



 



 



 



Florida Coastal does not require the completion of any pro bono hours to graduate. Florida Coastal’s pro bono department is almost entirely student-run, with limited faculty supervision. Instead of independent student hours, student organizations o rganizations are required to report a certain number of pro bono hours to receive funding from the Student Bar Association. Individual members of the legislative branch of the Student Bar Association at Florida Coastal are required to complete a certain number of pro bono hours to maintain their positions. One student leader who worked in the pro bono department said, “we have good connections around the community, but b ut it’s up to us to maintain those connections.”

The impression from the student body was that the emphasis on pro bono service and giving back to the community was placed on student organizations and student leaders by student leaders. There was limited involvement in this department dep artment from the Administration. STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS

  There is a large selection and diverse range of student organizations, clubs, and



groups for student to be involved with. 9

 

 

  Florida Coastal boasts a championship-winning Moot Court Board, which is



ranked 2nd in the nation, as well as a s a successful Trial Advocacy program. o  As a note, Moot Court rankings are determined by points earned by individual teams at individual competitions. Florida Coastal typically sends a large number of teams a year to competitions around the country. One Moot Court member said it was upwards of 20-30 teams a year. The more teams a school sends, the more points it can earn.   Moot Court Board leaders and Trial Advocacy program leaders repeatedly commented on the healthy size of their organization’s respective budgets and their ability to travel to a high number of competitions each year.   Florida Coastal’s Law Review executive board members discussed issues with  budget cuts, school-wide over the last year and the impact these cuts had on their organization; the Law Review apparently was able to successfully negotiate a way to keep more of its budgeted money than other groups.





STUDENT PERSPECTIVES

  Quotes from current Florida Coastal students: a bout the new courses or that o orientation rientation was for o  “They did not tell us about



credit hours.” “Academia and our education are not as important as the bottom line.” “I don’t value my classroom experience.” “They (the Administration) are bad at communicating anything to the faculty and us students.” o  “We are being whiplashed with changes.” o  "I don’t love anything about InfiLaw.” o  “We never hear anything about InfiLaw unless money is involved.”   Students were aware that school was a for-profit institution and part of a consortium of other for-profit law schools. They were also commented that InfiLaw’s business goals did not always seem to align directly with their academic goals and long-term career ambitions. a mbitions.   Many Students leaders expressed that they did not have school spirit or pride in their intuition, in the quality of people the school was admitting, or in the quality of education they were receiving from Florida Coastal.

  o  o 

o





The delegation met with student leaders for lunch and was given approximately 2 to 3 hours to walk around the Florida Coastal campus and speak with students, faculty, administration, and staff. During the 2 to 3 hours, CSOL delegates had the opportunity to speak with many students in a one-on-one setting. It was during these meetings that 1L students expressed their frustration with the lack of transparency and communication regarding the new curriculum and expressed their concerns about the inability to transfer. Conversation with 2L and 3L students repeated many of the same complaints regarding the lack of communication between the administration and students. When asked about the school’s emphasis on technology, many students expressed frustration that the school was more concerned with technology than education. 10

 

  At the luncheon with student leaders, including the executive board of the Florida Coastal Student Bar Association, the students were kind, honest, and welcoming. The student leaders were concerned about future employment prospects and discussed limited success among their classmates in securing positions for after graduation. TECHNOLOGY

  Every classroom had multiple monitors and projectors, as well as SMART board



technology.   Appellate and trial courtrooms on campus were technologically capable and included various video monitors, projectors, etc.   Students feel a lot of money is misspent on technology that is not needed or used, when that money could be redirected to more education-centered projects.   Florida Coastal does not require students to own laptops and offers a computer lab in the library for all students to access. Students without laptops are even  permitted to take exams in the computer lab in lieu of handwriting the exam.







Heavy emphasis was placed on the available technology throughout the school by the administrators conducting the tour of Florida Coastal. Every Eve ry classroom had at least two projectors and in classrooms designed for class sizes of 75+ 7 5+ students, additional monitors affixed from the ceiling so students in the back could see clearly. Throughout the tour, members of the CSOL delegation asked how often the technology was utilized. Peter Goplerud could c ould not provide a firm answer to tha thatt question stating that he was unsure since he was no longer in a managing position at the school. The Knowledge Bars, located throughout each floor, were equipped with computers and SMART boards for use by professors and students. During the tour, no students were seen utilizing the SMART boards or Knowledge Bars. The only student that mentioned actually using the Knowledge Bar / SMART board came from a student ambassador who informed us that he and his friends had used it to watch football last fall. Several of the students repeated concerns c oncerns and disappointment that the school chose to put so much of their tuition toward technology that seemed unneeded, when it could have been directed for other uses. TUITION, FINANCIAL AID, & SCHOLARSHIPS

         

• • • • •

Full-time tuition for 2013/2014 — $41,351 Part-time tuition for 2013/2014 — $33,535 Full-time tuition for students starting law school in Spring 2014 — $20,675.50 $20 ,675.50 Part-time tuition for students starting law school in Spring 2014 — $16,767.50 $16 ,767.507  Any student taking over 16 credit hours must pay $1,659 per additional credit hour. Students who register for less than 9 credit credit hours will also also pay $1,659 per credit hour, instead of the part-time tuition. Every student is charged a $103 matriculation fee during their first semester.

7

 http://www.fcsl.edu/tuition  http://www.fcsl.edu/tuition 

11

 

 

  Peter Goplerud: “Tuition has risen every year by 3% since InfiLaw took over the



 



 



 



 



law school.” The Yellow Ribbon Program, helping military veterans attend law school, has no limits or caps, so veterans who qualify can attend Florida Coastal at no personal cost. Many students clearly stated they chose the school for the large scholarships that were offered, not because of the reputation of the school itself. The most recent Fall-entering class that Florida Coastal had scholarship data for was Fall 2012. In that class, 286 students matriculated in with conditional scholarships. Since then, 95 students (33% of those who entered with scholarships) have had their scholarships reduced or eliminated. For Fall 2011, 302 students matriculated matriculated in with conditional scholarships. Since then, 105 students (34.7% of those who entered with scholarships) have had their scholarships reduced or eliminated.

12

 

  CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW

201 S. College Street Charlotte, NC 28208 DATE OF VISIT: October 11, 2013 DELEGATION: Annah Woodward, 2L Brittany Hayes, 1L Daniel W. Cooper, 3L Julian Ferguson, 1L Matthew Kelly, 1L  Nicholas Smit, 2L  _______________________________________________________  ___________________________ _____________________________________________ _________________ ACADEMICS & CURRICULUM

 



   

• •

 



   

• •

   

• •

 



   





A student to theclasses delegain delegation tion that he waswith informed that Charlotte would soon beginmentioned to offer online conjunction the Charleston School of Law for those interested in practicing in South Carolina. Charlotte Edge program introduced this year to incoming 1L class   Charlotte Edge focuses on producing practice-ready graduates, require Advanced Writing and Lawyering classes that span two years, instead of the traditional oneyear Legal Writing and Research path.  Charlotte Edge offers four separate tracks for students to take towards their J.D., students are placed in their specific track by the results of a Kaplan diagnostic exam that all incoming students must take.   The 2L and 3L classes are still on the traditional J.D. track Doctrinal classes have been “semesterized,” so that students take two classes per semester, instead of four across the academic calendar calenda r year 2L Student: “We’re glad [the 1Ls] are the guinea pigs for new course schedule” Like most schools, Charlotte offers an Orientation for incoming 1L students prior to school starting. However, Charlotte’s Orientation is a mandatory, eight-day  program that is worth 2 credit hours towards graduation. Student: “Orientation was a lot of work and very confusing, and getting the 2 credits means that we are really only taking 12 hours during the semester” Professors have to complete graded student assessments every three weeks  With the large number of students Charlotte admits into its classes, professors are concerned with the wide variety of student ability in individual courses. One  professor said, “How do you challenge the top students that could have gone anywhere, without leaving behind the bottom 25% that probably should not be in law school?”



  Student: “We are worried about if we will be prepared for the Bar” 13

 

 

The transition to the Charlotte Edge program was wa s the result of an InfiLaw-lead initiative between its consortium of law schools. The upperclassmen upp erclassmen are still on the traditional track they started on, but the incoming students have been started on the new Charlotte Edge program, which had the stated goal of producing more practice ready graduates. Many of the students expressed concerns about whether or not the new approach would successfully succe ssfully prepare them for the Bar. Students were also concerned about the number of credit hours they were taking per year semester being less than what students at other schools were taking. tak ing. The classes themselves seemed very large, despite a school wide cap of a maximum of 75 students per class, which was down from previous years. ADMINISTRATION

  Student: “We have so many Deans and I have no idea who they are”   The first Deans were installed by InfiLaw, but the faculty had a hand in choosing

• •

the current dean for the first time this year, placing Jay Conison in his current  position as Dean of the Law School,    Professors say Dean Conison has been working to improve the communication



 between faculty and the administration; they are pleased with his efforts so far and excited about what he will continue to do.   Unfortunately, the delegation was unable to meet with Dean Conison, although he was on campus in the morning, he left prior to the reception.



The delegation was able to meet a few of the upper-level administrators upon our arrival and at the reception, but did not have the opportunity to have one-on-one conversations with them outside of the group setting. During visits to various administrative departments, many of the individuals who we were able to speak with were part time students or recent graduates serving in various administrative support roles. ADMISSIONS

  Four full-time staff members    Approximately 2,957 applicants last year and approximately 5,000 annually    60% of applicants are admitted, while 25% of those admitted chose to actually

• • •

attend the law school   The school offers rolling admissions and start dates for first year students in both the Fall and Spring semesters (tuition data is listed under the "Tuition" section).    The Admissions Center was primarily staffed by graduates.   Quotes by recruiters in the Admissions Office: o  “Your LSAT scores aren’t really important.” o  “They [CSL] look at things besides GPA and LSAT. So if you don’t have good ones you can always take AAMPLE and get in.”



• •

14

 

 

  Students with low LSAT scores and/or low GPAs are recommended to apply for



alternative admission through Charlotte's AAMPLE program.8    AAMPE – Alternative Admission Model Program for Legal Education 9  o  A program designed to give students—whose outright admission to law school is questionable by traditional applicant criteria—an opportunity to enter law school. o  Students take 2 law school courses, with successful completion resulting in admission. CSL states that there is no maximum number of individuals who can join CSL’s entering class   The course cost $500 and if the applicant passes both courses, he or she is admitted into the school. However, the AAMPLE program does not award any credits towards graduation.





The two admission recruiters who spoke to the delegation were graduates of the Charlotte School of Law. One had failed to pass the Bar Exam, but planned to retake it at the next opportunity. The other recruiter had graduated and was pursuing additional education before taking the Bar. They informed the delegation that the school hires former graduates to do recruitment and to attend various law school recruitment events. Unfortunately, the Dean of Admissions was unavailable unava ilable at the time. One member of the delegation mentioned that the Admissions Office had the feel of a call center, because once you walked inside the office and behind and  behind the reception desk, the first thing to be seen was a series of workstations where recruiters could make phone calls and send emails to potential applicants. On the bulletin-board-likewall was a list of applicants who were to be connected immediately with someone higher up in the admissions office if they called. Everyone working at the recruitment/admissions center was a former student and graduate of the school. The former students working in the office talked about how the school looked past p ast traditional indicators of success and downplayed the importance of LSAT and GPA. They explained that the school would work with you to get you admitted. When asked about the curriculum and career services, the answer was that it depended upon what you put into it. They both were enthusiastic about the school and why they liked it, but neither could provide concrete answers about why the school was a good choice. The answers they did provide were based on opinion.  opinion.   BAR PREPARATION AND PASSAGE RATES

  2013 July Bar Passage Rate for CSL in North Carolina = 53.17%   Delegation was not given access to the Bar preparation resources and staff     BARBRI and Kaplan are not allowed to table on campus  o  Information confirmed by both students on campus and by a BARBRI

• •



official who said, "we are not allowed to table on campus per our contract with InfiLaw."  8

 http://www.charlottelaw.or http://www.charlottelaw.org/admissions/fr g/admissions/frequently-asked-questi equently-asked-questions#5 ons#5   du/admissions/aample ple    http://www.charlottelaw.e http://www.charlottelaw.edu/admissions/aam

9

15

 

 

  "Tabling" on campus means having a presence on campus and setting up

o

 



 



 



 



 



tables in the common areas of law schools so students can have access to their materials and sign up for their Bar preparation courses. c ourses. Charlotte utilizes a self-developed, in-house Bar preparation program, known as BEAR (Bar Exam Advanced Review).  Several upperclassmen reported that BEAR cost $2,500 and was a mandatory course. The $2,500 was charged in exclusion of tuition.  Beginning with the Fall 2013 entering class, Charlotte now offers its "Assured Outcomes Program," which, in terms of its Bar Pass Program, will provide students who fail the North Carolina or South Carolina Bar exam twice, with $10,000 to help further assist in bar preparation. prepa ration.  o  In order to qualify for that financial assistance, you must meet 10 requirements outlined on their website.10  Student: “I can’t take standardized test to save my life, I know I’m probably going to fail the Bar a couple times. But Charlotte looks past that at your true potential” Charlotte posted a 53.17% bar passage p assage rate for the July 2013 North Ca Carolina rolina Bar Examination. o  Out of the 7 law schools in North Carolina, Charlotte had the lowest bar  passage rate. Carolina law schools posted at 57.21% passage rate, while the    Non-North state average was 63.35%.

o

  Charlotte posted a 60.64% bar passage rate for the February 2013 North Carolina



Bar Examination. nd  best bar o  Out of the 7 law schools in North Carolina, Charlotte had the 2  passage rate. o   Non-North Carolina law schools posted at 46.40% passage rate, while the state average was 49.08%.   All bar passage data was collected directly from the website of the North Carolina Board of Bar Examiners.11 The data was unavailable on campus at Florida Coastal as well as on their website. Unlike Florida, North Carolina only had the 2013 bar  passage data available on its website.



The delegation was not allowed to speak with the Bar Preparation staff. As a result, we are unable to comment on the program except for what we learned from students. There is a dedicated suite in the facility for the BAR Preparation program. CAREER SERVICES & EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS

  Just as was the case at Florida Coastal, the delegation not allowed access to



Career Services.   Student: “Yes some people find jobs, you just really need to get to know the career services people”   Small practice center called an “incubator” 





10

du/admissions/bar-pass-program pass-program    http://www.charlottelaw.e http://www.charlottelaw.edu/admissions/bar http://www.ncble.org/  http://www.ncble.org/ 

11

16

 

 

  Allows recent graduates to work in eight rentable offices for a period of 24

o

months for a discounted rental fee. The school provides four practicing attorneys to help the new lawyers lawye rs create their practice and get if off the ground. The delegation was not allowed to visit Career Services or speak with Career Services personnel. As a result, there are no comments on the administration or individuals associated with this department. However, the delegation was able to speak with several students and graduates of the school. Two graduates were currently working in the recruitment area of the admissions department, spoke excitedly about why they liked the school but were unable to provide any information regarding job job prospects. One of the student tour guides who was 70 days away from graduation spoke excitedly about having an upcoming job, but when later pressed for details stated that she actually only had ha d ideas about a potential career and no solid job prospect. Another student said that her  boyfriend who had recently graduated was able to secure a job, but that was “the exception and not the rule.” CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE

  The delegation attended the same class, a 2nd semester Property Class.   All students utilized casefilemethod.com printouts and no textbooks were used in





class. Students at Charlotte seemed to be using some sort of electronic textbook in lieu of traditional ones.    No students were addressed by name or even called on until 16 minutes before the end of class, which is not a typical Socratic-method lecture.   The professor’s PowerPoint slides were extremely unhelpful and hard to follow, and contained little useful information.





The classroom experience was not impressive and un-engaging. The first observation was the lack of textbooks in the classroom; students at the Charlotte School of Law use an online textbook format. The professor did not seem to know any of her students by name and did not try to engage the students directly until the end of the class. One delegation member was concerned by the presentation of materials in the class, and stated, “I don’t know how I could have ever taken notes or outline based on the content and the manner in which it was provided during class.” FACILITIES

  School recently moved into new skyscraper in uptown Charlotte  o  They now use 10 floors of a 27-story building    Plenty of spaces for students to study, relax, and congregate.   The classrooms and the two courtrooms for Moot Court Cou rt and Trial Advocacy state-



• •

of-the-art, facilities.

 



Parking aretoavailable for students rent for $ 135/month. $135/month. The parking garage isspots traced the high-rise building.toMany students also walked from other 17

 

   parking lots or utilized the light-rail as the school was in the middle of the uptown area.  The Charlotte School of Law recently moved from its facility a few miles outside of downtown Charlotte to a new ne w and very impressive high-rise location in the he heart art of the city, which offers the growing student body more space and better access to the legal community. The campus incorporates many types of technology, including keycard access to the elevators e levators and every floor of the building, as well as interactive, touch screen monitors throughout the facility to provide directions and information about current events. FACULTY & STAFF

  Quotes from current Charlotte professors: p rofessors: o  “Some students are not as strong as other students at other institutions” o  “Central Services was able to help develop the Bar passage program…we



[the InfiLaw consortium] developed it together. It was our [the consortium's] decision”  o  "The biggest concern for me about the class size and the number of

 



 



 



   

• •

students InfiLaw brings in every year is do I challenge topnot 10% of the class that could have gone [tothat lawhow school] anywhere the while leaving behind the bottom 25% who probably shouldn't be in law school." There are 2 tracts for full-time professors: a Tenure tract which requires the  professor to teach 2 classes per semester as well as to work on scholarship scholarship and a Teaching tract which requires the professors to teach 3 classes per semester. Professors seemed happy with their employment and their school, expressing a feeling of camaraderie among the faculty and staff.  Professors were all very kind and willing to take time to speak with the delegation. Professors are allowed to have writing fellows and research assistants.  The faculty also mentioned that they enjoyed a good relationship with the students, a sentiment echoed by many of the students on campus.

The faculty and staff at Charlotte were extremely warm and welcoming. However, due to the low class load on Fridays, much of the faculty and staff were not on campus or available. On the day of the visit, the professors available were grading one of the multiple student assessments that professors are mandated to have during the semester. One of the delegation members was able to speak to two profes professors sors highly regarded by the students on campus as the best, and both echoed the same concerns regarding teaching classes that contained both very capable law students and students who "probably shouldn’t be in law school." LIBRARY

 



Currently confined to the onefacility) floor ofisthe high-rise whileand the prepared. permanent   home of the library (two floors of being renovated 18

 

 

  The library did have two full-time reference librarians available to assist students,



however the librarians leave at 7:00PM during the week.  Given the number of students enrolled, there were very few students utilizing the library or study spaces during the visit. However, the trip was scheduled for a Friday, a day that traditionally has fewer classes scheduled and not as many students on campus. PRO BONO

  For current 2L and 3L students, Charlotte requires the completion of 30 pro bono



hours to graduate. The 1L class is required to complete 50 hours before be fore graduation. *(This information was provided by Peter Gopleraud on 11/12.) The delegation did not see a pro bono department, but was informed on 11/12 by Peter Gopleraud that there was an office dedicated to Pro Bono. No student leaders discussed that topic with any member of the delegation. STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS

  Charlotte offers 43 different student organizations offered on campus. 12    The large variety of student groups and a nd organizations offered on campus allows

• •

for there to be something for every one of the 1,200+ students on campus. The delegation met with student leaders from Moot Court, Trial Advocacy, Law Review, and the Student Bar Association, who were very open about their school. The consensus from that group was that they liked their school, but they also echoed some of the same concerns about the the size of the school. Student leaders also mentioned a lack of communication between the Administration and student organizations, saying that policies and procedures would be set in place without any notification or discussion from from the Administration. However, those same students mentioned that the relationship was improving due to the arrival of Dean Jay Conison. STUDENT PERSPECTIVES 

  Quotes from current Charlotte students: o  “We enjoy the culture and vibe of the school. We enjoy our relationships



with our professors.” o  “Professors are accessible and always willing to talk.” o  “They use too many portals and we don’t know where to get out information from.” o  “Classes are taught in a way that other students don’t have to think for themselves” 12

http://www.charlottelaw.or charlottelaw.org/community/st g/community/student-organizations udent-organizations    http://www.

19

 

 

  “Professors baby us.” o  “Class is not challenging enough.” o  “Students at other North Carolina law schools are better prepared for the o

Bar, because they are taught to think and not just given the answers.” o  “I learned all intentional torts and defenses in one month and I am concerned that is not good enough for the Bar.” “We focus on sending competitive compe titive teams, unlike Florida Coastal who o  focuses on quantity over quality, sending 30 teams a year.” – a Moot Court member's response to questions about their program. o  “Classroom experience teaches us to just pass the bar and get a job. Why do we need to know all that other fluff when we just need the information to pass the Bar?” Even though the delegation traveled to Charlotte on a Friday, we were still able to speak to a number of students in various stages of their law school careers. Many students, including current 1Ls, expressed concerns regarding the new curriculum and whether or not it would actually be beneficial in the long run. Many repeated the  phrase that is seemed like the school is “still trying to figure it it out and we will just have to see what happens.” Many students did say that overall they enjoyed the school the chose open door policyinthey had theirgood professors. Several studentsand didappreciated state that they Cha rlotte Charlotte order towith achieve grades their first year and then transfer to other schools. Also, the students echoed the same concerns the faculty had regarding the enormous sizes of the entering classes. The professors were concerned on how to challenge those who could succeed in any law school while not leaving behind those who should probably not be in law school. The students, and the quotes above, reinforce that concern, there are students that feel class is not challenging enough or that professors "baby" those who may not be as quick to catch on, and then there are students that don’t want to learn any more than is necessary to pass the Bar. Student also mentioned that they loved their new location in uptown Charlotte. They had more space than their stand-alone facility a few miles outside of do downtown. wntown. Due to their new location, the school is right in the middle of the legal community and the epicenter of Charlotte. TECHNOLOGY

  The new campus is vey technologically advanced.     Every classroom contained SMART boards, proximity card scanners were located

• •

on every floor and in every elevator, each floor had an interactive display by the elevators that served as a map and as a school information center, and there were Knowledge Bars located throughout the facility.   Every classroom and both courtrooms contained projectors, monitors, and SMART boards.    There are several computer labs throughout the school.





20

 

  Charlotte Law's new high-rise is full of very impressive technology. Every Eve ry classroom has at least two projectors and the moot court/trial advocacy courtrooms are equipped with multiple monitors, projectors, and teleconferencing equipment. There were a few students using the computer labs, but no students were o observed bserved using the Knowledge-Bars. However, the interactive maps, while very informative and useful, raised the question as to whether the money spent could have been utilized in a manner more focused on student-education and student-learning. Some students also mentioned that the loved the technology but feel as if the money could  be spent in other ways for more educational purposes. TUITION, FINANCIAL AID, & SCHOLARSHIPS

         

• • • • •

Full-time tuition for 2013/2014 — $40,146 Part-time tuition for 2013/2014 — $32,476 Full-time tuition for students starting law school in Spring 2014 — $20,073 $20 ,073 Part-time tuition for students starting law school in Spring 2014 — $16,238 $16 ,23813  Yellow Ribbon (for military veterans) program limited to 20 spots for the entire student body (new and returning) and is limited to $5,000 per semester per student from the school



  Student: “I came here only because they gave me a full ride”   The most recent Fall-entering class that Charlotte had scholarship data da ta for was



Fall 2011. In that class, 472 students matriculated in, with 261 (55% of the entering class) entering with conditional scholarships. Since then, 164 students (63% of those who entered with scholarships) have had their scholarships reduced or eliminated.   For Fall 2010, 413 students matriculated in, with 260 students (63% of the entering class) entered with conditional scholarships. Since then, 155 1 55 students (60% of those who entered with scholarships) had their scholarships reduced or eliminated.14 



Due to limited access to administrators, the delegation was unable to obtain much information in this area. Students explained that recent changes had been made to the way that student loans were distributed. As a result, students did not receive their loan refund checks until after the drop/add date, which is after classes had already started. To account for this delay, students mentioned that Charlotte offers students who need assistance in the interim a special short-term loan to help cover costs.

13

http://www.charlottelaw.or charlottelaw.org/admissions/tu g/admissions/tuition ition    http://www.  http://www.charlottelaw.or http://www.charlottelaw.org/sites/default g/sites/default/files/admissi /files/admissions/12_12_Conditional ons/12_12_Conditional%20Scholarship%20Scholarship%20Retention%20Data%20Form_0.pdf  

14

21

 

  CONCLUSION

The delegation approached the visits to both schools much like a site team from the American Bar Association would: with an open mind, an unbiased attitude, and with the sole purpose of being fact finders. It was not our intention to disparage any individuals or to the castfacts a negative lighttoon odraw n the their schools orconclusions. the respective student b bodies, odies, but simply to gather for others own However, after spending time on campus understanding both the Florida Coastal School of Law and the Charlotte School of Law, every member of the delegation came to the same conclusion: ownership of the Charleston School of Law by the InfiLaw System would not be in the  best interest of the school, the student body, the faculty and staff, the alumni, or the legal communities of Charleston and South Carolina.

22

 

 

APPENDIX

23

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close