Charleston Law School has had a tough few years. It was established in 2003–right when that big law school boom was starting– and its first class graduated in 2007. The school began as a way to fill a gap in legal education that existed in Charleston; despite the fact that it’s the second largest city in South Carolina, there was not a law school there when Charleston Law began operating.

In 2013, the school began dealing with a company called InfiLaw, which eventually purchased the school pending approval by the American Bar Association (ABA) and South Carolina’s commission on higher education.

InfiLaw is part of Sterling Enterprises, a private equity company from Chicago, and it operates for-profit law schools. Currently there are three in InfiLaw’s collection–Florida Coastal School of Law, Arizona Summit Law School, and the Charlotte School of Law. Charleston Law would be the fourth. The company’s reputation within the law school field isn’t particularly stellar. There are concerns that InfiLaw is a scam, and predatory–after all, it takes students who can’t get into other law schools, puts them into massive debt, and then those students have a very difficult time finding jobs that can pay off said debt. In an in-depth piece on for-profit law schools that focused heavily on InfiLaw, the Atlantic attempted to pinpoint the company’s motivation:

A Florida Coastal faculty member who is familiar with the business strategies of private-equity firms told me that, in his view, the entire InfiLaw venture was quite possibly based on a very-short-term investment perspective: the idea was to make as much money as the company could as fast as possible, and then dump the whole operation onto someone else when managing it became less profitable.

Regardless of whether or not those are actually InfiLaw’s practices, actually taking over Charleston Law could lead to serious changes at the school.

That’s where this all gets very, very messy. Those two entities that have to approve the sale–the ABA, and the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (CHE)–have a few different moving parts. It’s a confusing mess, but essentially what’s happened is that one committee of the ABA, the accreditation committee, has approved the sale; however, another part that needs to give its approval, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, has deferred making a decision. They’re waiting on the CHE, who have their own set of problems with which to contend.

Now CHE is caught in the middle. One of Charleston Law’s founders, a man named Ed Westbrook, doesn’t want the school sold to InfiLaw. He’s in the minority, as the other two founders want to see it go to InfiLaw. Westbrook claims that he can successfully operate it as a non-profit, without taking any money from the state. He’s made vague statements about using his own money to do so. Now, both Westbrook and his lawyers, and InfiLaw and its lawyers are reaching out to the CHE with conflicting proposals and information. Westbrook’s optimism is admirable, I guess, but Charleston Law as it stands seems a bit like a sinking ship. For example, the school’s new President, Maryann Jones stepped down in November. She lasted in the job for a grand total of eight days. Her reasoning was described in an email she sent when she resigned:

The level of vitriol, with all sides making me a lightning rod for an unfortunate situation that was not of my making, makes this truly a situation that I am unwilling at this stage of my life to undertake.

Back to the CHE approval though, which appears to be the lynchpin to this deal. Want to be even more confused? There are 15 seats on the CHE. Four are vacant, and eight are being held by people whose terms have technically expired. Governor Nicki Haley is trying to fill those seats–but that would be in January at the earliest.

So, will InfiLaw succeed in its takeover of the Charleston School of Law? I have absolutely no clue. This tangled web of players, committees, and arguments is a mess–perhaps symbolic of the messy relationship between the ABA, for-profit law schools, and students. Whatever happens, it’s now in the CHE’s hands…and I for one do not envy them.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post InfiLaw’s Attempt to Purchase Charleston Law is a Giant Mess appeared first on Law Street.

When most students attend a university, be it public or private, the money they pay into tuition goes back into the school–be it for new dorms, professors’ salaries, taxes, or any other expense. For years, our institutions of higher learning have operated in this manner. But a growing trend in higher education is for-profit schools, ones that operate to make money for their investors and shareholders by offering a service, in this case, and education. They are often characterized by fierce publicity campaigns, and wide recruitment techniques, getting as many people as possible to enroll in programs.

Do these names ring a bell….University of Phoenix and DeVry University? They, among others, are examples of these for-profit schools.

But recently, for-profit schools are under fire, and seven former employees of Premier Education Group, a company that owns over 24 schools in almost a dozen states, filed a lawsuit against their former employer. The plaintiffs allege that administrators purposefully misled students and gave them false information about graduation, testing, and certification; all as a means to rake in the federal funding they received from the students. They say the schools were willing to keep under-performing students at the school, and mislead others, so that they could collect this funding, thereby increasing their profits. The allegations go so far as to say test scores were fudged in order to keep students in school rather than risk losing them- and their money. Obviously, this is unacceptable at any establishment of higher learning. The programs Premier offers cost about $10,000 a year, oversee 17,000 students, and the company receives $112 million per year in Pell Grants. Needless to say, this isn’t pocket change.

Politicians have also taken notice of for-profit schools. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation in 2013, which would restrict the amount of federal funding for-profit schools could collect. Rather than getting up to 90% of funding from the federal government, schools would only be eligible to receive up to 85% through federal funding. While this doesn’t seem like a huge drop, it would be a step in the right direction for deterring for-profit schools from treating students as cash cows. Hopefully, publicity raises awareness for students to make more informed decisions about attending a for profit school.

But aside from this lawsuit, what’s the deal with for-profit schools?

The lawsuit points toward a bigger trend of people being skeptical of for-profit colleges potentially taking advantage of students- whether by preying on them for the federal money they bring in, or providing less than exceptional educations leading to hardship post-graduation. Studies have shown that students at for-profit schools end up having higher rates of unemployment and greater debt after graduation than their counterparts at traditional schools, according to some studies, at almost double the rate- as this graph shows.

These stats are important because students at for-profit universities account for almost 10% of all degree-seeking students in the United States, a number that continues to increase with time. If a large contingent of students are going to use for-profit schools to get a degree, they should be protected as much as possible against any unfair practices the schools may have.

Imagine if a well-known state school was employing similar tactics: people would be up in arms about it. For-profit colleges, though not as well known, still graduate thousands of people into the workforce each year. These students need to be as prepared as much as possible for what’s ahead, and informed of the challenges attending a for-profit college can present…. before enrolling in one.

Even Adult Swim joined in on the fun, making this video that mimics the advertising strategies for-profit colleges often use, poking fun at the lack of accreditation, lax admission standards, and lofty claims many of these schools make to students.

This isn’t to say that all for-profit schools rip off their students. In fact, for-profit schools have been an effective way for many students to receive degrees in their field. But this lawsuit shows how important it is to keep for-profit colleges honest when giving students their options, especially when receiving federal funds.

[NYT] [Bill] [YouTube] [GAO]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Tracy O via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post For-profit Schools Getting Sued: A Growing Trend in Higher Ed? appeared first on Law Street.