Law School Transparency, an advocacy group for law students has alleged that the associate dean of Rutgers-Camden Law School, Camille Andrews had sent prospective students doctored information that steeply exaggerated the benefits of attending the law school. The LST stated that the Rutgers-Camden administrator prepared and sent out materials that overstated earnings expectations and downplayed the risks of unemployment. Law School Transparency, on top of demanding the resignation of Andrews, has asked the university to substantiate the data sent to prospective students and called for the ABA to conduct an investigation into the matter.
However, Rutgers-Camden dean, Rayman Solomon has said that the recruitment material might be inaccurate, but he’s “open to discussion.” The promotional campaign which has come under fire targeted potential applicants who had taken the GMAT and not the LSAT. While the goal of the campaign, according to the law school officials, was to target a new market – the activists allege that by leaving LSAT applicants out of the ambit of the promotional campaign the law school made sure that the target was not to recruit candidates, but those candidates who were unaware of the real situation.
The Law School Transparency group has made the following allegations about the campaign to recruit students at the law school of Rutgers-Camden:
- The employment data cited in the promotional materials excluded mention of the 43 graduates out of 242 who are unemployed without making the distinction clear
- The law school claimed that its graduates made an average salary of more than $1, 30,000, while LST claims that out of 242, a maximum of five graduates are earning that salary.
The LST put forward a lot of other data to show that there was an intentional and misleading campaign to rope in greenhorns.
The dean said that the law school disagreed with the analysis made by the activists, but did not dispute any of the data put forward by them.