Accordingly, most courts reject general educational malpractice claims. In Bittle v. Oklahoma City, for example, a state appellate court rejected a law student’s claim against Oklahoma City University and its board of trustees. The student’s grade point average fell below the minimum required by the school, and it dismissed Paul Bittle. He sued, alleging that his dismissal was caused by the poor performance of his constitutional law professor, who arrived late to class, discharged class early, canceled class, and provided no make-up classes or academic counseling. The court found “no specific agreement . . . for the provision of particular educational services beyond the provision of an adequate legal education,” and so dismissed Bittle’s suit. Nevertheless, courts generally will consider educational malpractice claims where specific agreements provide for particular educational services, so long as such consideration does not tread upon, as one court explained, “the nuances of educational processes and theories.” Such judicial intervention is especially likely when courts consider student claims against for-profit enterprises.