DETC usurps CalBar's wishes and intent!

One of my partner's employees -- her best shift manager -- is a 37-year-old Mexican, now-former immigrant who recently got his U.S. citizenship. We'll call him "Ernesto" because... well... that's his name.



As I sat with him at the table during the party at his sister's house which celebrated the momentous occasion, Ernesto told me that he had always wanted to be a lawyer; that he had actually intended to do it in Mexico, but then fate brought him to the U.S. nearly two decades ago; and how he worried that he'd be old and gray by the time he got through his undergrad (part-time) and then finally got accepted into, and completed an education from, an ABA-accredited law school.

Of course, he didn't realize to whom he was telling his tale of woe; that I happen to know so much about this particular subject; and how much I could probably help him. He knows now, of course.

I ask the reader to imagine the smile that came across Ernesto's face when I explained how California does things; that he didn't necessarily need to go to an ABA-accredited law school (that is, as long as he was certain that he only wanted to practice in California... at least at first); that he could spend, literally, less than half per-year on law school than even the least expensive ABA-accredited law schools in California; and that he could do so without having first gotten his Bachelor's degree... or even his Associates degree. Tears, I tell you, started well-up... I kid you not.

Then, being the anally-retentive that I truly am; and not wanting to put him in harm's way in the future in light of the trend in this country toward Oregon-like legislation in other states that will, no doubt, eventually make it illegal for him to claim a JD degree that is not from a school accredited by an agency approved by the U.S. Dept of Education/CHEA; I suggested to Ernesto that of the various California D/L JD programs available out there, he should pay just a little bit more and get one from a school that's not only approved to issue California Bar-qualifying JD's, but is also DETC accredited. At least then, I told him, if he should ever happen to want to move to and live/practice in a state that would let him sit for their Bar Exam with his California D/L JD (after the requisite 3 to 7 years of practice in California, of course), he wouldn't run into weird problems in that very state wherein someone calls his JD "technically illegal" because it's not from a school accredited by a USDoE/CHEA agency... notwithstanding the fact that he might licensed to practice law there. (See this thread.)

At this writing, the only two California Bar-eligible D/L JD programs in the state that are also DETC-accredited are Kaplan's Concord Law School, and William Howard Taft University School of Law. I am candid with everyone about the fact that hate Concord (which is too expensive, anyway); so, even though I, personally, like Northwestern California University School of Law better, I strongly recommended to Ernesto that he apply to Taft.

We were, I thought, well on our way. I started explaining the "Baby Bar" exam to him; and prescribing all the cool and interesting study aids and ways to help him with that all-important first year, etc.

Then, suddenly, we hit a huge roadblock. Here's why...

California's Committee of Bar Examiners has set forth that anyone may enroll in any of the various California Bar-eligible D/L JD programs as long as they meet the following requisite educational requirements:

1. An AA, AS, BA or BS degree from a college/university licensed by the California BPPVE, or accredited by an agency approved by USDoE/CHEA or any other verifiably-similar government-approved accrediting/licensing agency; or,
   
2. sixty or more hours (or ninety or more quarter credits) of undergraduate, upper-division-transferable credit from a college/university licensed by the California BPPVE, or accredited by a USDoE/CHEA-approved agency or any other verifiably-similar government-approved accrediting/licensing agency; or,
   
3. passing scores on either the "English Composition" or "English Composition with Essay" CLEP examinations; plus passing scores on any two (2) of the "Humanities," and/or "Mathematics," and/or "Natural Science," and/or "Social Science and History" CLEP examinations (current titles of certain of said exams having changed ever-so-slightly since CBE first published its standards, but said exams still identifiable by interrogating the official CLEP web site).[/list=1]And for the longest time, in accordance with the wishes and intent of the California Committee of Bar Examiners, Taft had the above three requirements on its web site and admitted any candidate who met any of them -- including the third one (the one where certain CLEP exams, alone, would do it).
   
   But when we went to Taft's web site, to our dismay, the third option, above -- the CLEP-alone option -- was gone. After pondering it for a second, I muttered to myself, "I'll bet it's because of their DETC accreditation."
   
   I picked-up the phone and called Taft. Sure enough, I learned, once Taft got DETC accreditation it removed the CLEP-alone admission option from its web site and ceased admitting students who met only that standard. The reason, they said, was because DETC required it of them. Taft told me, in fact:
   • That DETC accreditation standards strictly prohibited them from accepting the third-listed item, above -- the CLEP-alone item -- as adequate qualification requisite for entry into their D/L JD program under any circumstances; and,
     
   • that they are not permitted by said DETC standards to accept such CLEP-alone qualifications even on an exceptional, individually-assessed, case-by-case, non-normative basis; and,
     
   • that this is true despite said DETC policy's apparent conflict with the expressed wishes and intentions of the California Committee of Bar Examiners, which ultimately has final say over which D/L JD programs qualify one to sit for the Bar; and who is allowed to become licensed to practice law, regardless what DETC or any other accrediting agency (including the American Bar Association) thinks abou it!
   We were both disappointed, of course. But this problem does not stop Ernesto from going to law school at all. It just stops him from going to Taft or Concord or any other DETC-accredited D/L JD provider. In fact, he could go take the appropriate CLEP exams right now and just go to Northwestern California University School of Law (which, if not Taft, is my recommendation) where he'll end-up getting his California Bar-qualifying D/L JD for even less money than if he'd gone to Taft!
   
   But, if so, his JD will not be DETC-accredited. And that, I thought to myself after a few days of pondering, just ain't right!
   
   So I sat down and wrote an email message to Michael Lambert, Executive Director of DETC, with a copy to Taft. I briefed Lambert in the situation, and asked him how DETC's admission standards could be relaxed (but only for California D/L JD program providers) so that they corresponded with the admission standards as set forth by the California Committee of Bar Examiners.
   
   
   Continued in next post...

 

Continued from previous post...


In support thereof, I offered Mr. Lambert the following formal argument that he could use to help DETC decsion makers and other powers that be to understand the necessity:

• The California distance-learning Juris Doctor degree (D/L JD) is unique and unprecedented in U.S. higher education. It's a California-only issue that is unlikely to arise in any of the other 49 states in the foreseeable future. Yet the matter is easily worthy of DETC's consideration since California, though it be only a state, is nevertheless the world's fifth largest economy with a comparatively large, -- ne, inordinate -- number of attorneys (both actual and potential); and, therefore, huge numbers of citizens, which the DETC ostensibly exists to well-serve, are both directly and indirectly affected by this important issue. Even before one considers the other aspects of it as discussed below, the mere scope of the issue elevates it to a matter of at least pseudo-public policy, if not public policy in fact.
  
  Additionally, the California Bar has gone far out of its way to intentionally, and with deliberateness, blaze an important trail in this narrow area; and by so doing, flying headlong in the face of the powerful American Bar Association (which expressly prohibits any of its accredited law schools from offering D/L JD programs), so that more of California's citizens may become attorneys by alternative yet well-regulated means which ensure that no one will be concomitantly harmed.
  
  Its handful of unique D/L JD programs is one of the California Bar's most powerful tools for making the practice of law accessible to all of its citizens; and one of the areas in which the intent of the Bar with regard thereto is most palpable is its published standards for admission to such programs. The CLEP testing alternative to a requisite undergraduate degree or a certain number of hours of trans ferable, upper-division, undergraduate credit, was expressly included in the Bar's D/L JD admission standards so that minorities, citizens of foreign birth, those of limited financial means, second- or even third-career candidates, and manifold others for whom the practice of law would otherwise be beyond reach could, nevertheless, realize their precious dreams. While the inclusion of the alternative CLEP exams as requisite to entry into a D/L JD program might seem at first to degrade the presumed standard of candidate excellence (with concomitant harm to citizens later presumably disserved by the resulting attorneys), the Bar's imposition of its unique "Baby Bar" examination for end-of-first-year D/L JD law students, as well as other appropriate regulatory safeguards, ensures that the overall quality of California DL/JD graduates is easily on-par with those of other law school types.
  
  The DETC, by its well-intentioned imposition of admission standards upon its accredited institutions (such as Taft and Concord) which expressly prohibit the use of Bar-specified CLEP exams as alternatively requisite to DL/JD program admission, effectively (even if unintentionally) re-erects the very barriers to admission that the California Bar has worked so hard to tear down. By so doing, the DETC makes, once again, the practice of law essentially inaccessible to a certain, otherwise deserving segment of its population.
  
  The DETC admissions policy, in this case, also serves to be an additional barrier to that same population segment's ability to obtain a DL/JD that bears the soon-to-be-crucial additional imprimatur of being accredited by an agency (such as DETC) that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Education's Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). As more and more states follow Oregon's lead and battle the growing "diploma mill" problem by making it flatly illegal for one to claim any credential which has not been earned at an institution accredited by a CHEA-approved agency (such as DETC), the ability to obtain one's D/L JD from a so-accredited school will become critical; and, moreover, will begin to feel to students more like a right than a mere privilege. Since the entire breadth and depth of social conscientiousness and accessibility that that sort of presumption implies is precisely what the California Bar had in mind when it created a set of D/L JD admission standards that virtually anyone with the will (as opposed to the breeding or the finances) could meet, any DETC admission standards which effectively impede the accessibility to the practice of law that the Bar intended by its own published admission standards is fundamentally contrary to public policy; and is ultimately harmful to the very citizenry that the DETC ostensibly exists, in largest measure, to well serve.
  
  It is imperative, therefore, that DETC immediately change its admissions policies such that the accreditation status of the very narrowly-defined class of schools (such as Taft or Concord) that offer the unique California Bar-qualifying distance-learning Juris Doctor program will not be materially endangered if said institutions decide to honor the wishes and intent of the California Committee of Bar Examiners by complying with its published admission standards. Other, non-Juris Doctor programs would not be affected by this imperative, thereby allowing the DETC's high admission standards to continue to apply for all other programs. But, because of the unique and unusual nature of California's distance-learning JD programs; because the state imposes adequate regulatory safeguards to ensure that D/L JD candidate and graduate quality will be maintained regardless of DETC standards; and because, as a matter of public policy, the public interest is best served by DETC's doing nothing to effectively impede the spirit of the Bar's prior actions, DETC policy should be modified, posthaste, to enthusiastically conform therewith!
  
  This argument should be considered independently of the actual wishes of either Taft or Concord regarding this issue. Even if neither of those schools would, as a matter of their own policies, begin admitting candidates with the CLEP-only qualifications if the DETC decided to allow same, their views on the matter should not serve to preclude other California D/L JD law schools from honoring the Committee of Bar Examiners's wishes even if they should later decide to seek DETC accreditation.

I sent that email to Mr. Lambert about a month ago. I even sent a copy to Sally Welch, DETC's Assistant Director. To date, I've received nothing from either of them. I won't even go into, here, the rant that that deserves.

But I did get a response from someone at Taft -- someone pretty high-up in the food chain there (who shall remain nameless here) -- who indicated that he agreed; and that he would contact someone he knew at Concord to see if they did, too. He also took the time to explain to me how the procedure within DETC to relax the admission standards -- if, in fact, DETC could even be convinced to consider it -- would work.

Anyone who agrees with me that DETC's admission standards should not be permitted to trump the expressed will and intent of the California Committee of Bar Examiners is hereby invited to make his/her wishes known to the DETC; and to implore the DETC to relax its admission standards for DETC-accredited, Bar-eligible D/L JD program providers such that said standards will correspond with those set forth by the California Committee of Bar Examiners.

To do so, simply open a fresh composition window in your email software and then highlight and copy any parts of these two posts of mine -- especially any part or all of the italicized text argument, above -- to your clipboard; then paste said text into your email composition window. Though you're welcome, of course, to then "frame" the copied/pasted text with whatever introductory and/or closing sentences or paragraphs you like, the truth is that if all you sent to DETC was the italicized argument text, above, that would be enough.

Address your email to Michael Lambert, Executive Director of the DETC; with a copy (cc to Sally R. Welch, DETC's Assistant Director. A copy (cc to Taft's admissions department wouldn't hurt, either. Personally, I couldn't care less if you also copied anyone at Concord.

Then, thereafter, if you want to indicate, here, that you did so -- or make whatever other comments you'd like to make -- please don't hesitate to do so.

Thank you all, in advance, for your thoughtful consideration and help.

 

Another option for Ernesto is take the needed CLEPS and get an AA from one of the big three. It would be as easy as option 3 and cost under $1000. Good luck.

 

I think that I'll respond to the haiku version, rather than the 1000 page Russian novel.

I don't understand how DETC is usurping the California Bar Association's wishes and intent.

The bar association permits individuals to do their pre-law studies at state approved schools, but that doesn't imply that all California law schools need to accept credits from state approved schools.

I don't see why CLEP and similar exams are any different. Just because the California bar association (or the underlying state code) permits something doesn't obligate all state law schools, let alone their national accreditors, to adopt it.

I really doubt if you could get into an ABA law school with the equivalent of 60 semester hours of CLEP credit. But it's technically legal in California for a law school to do that.

 

Whittier Law School
This is an ABA (and RA, obviously) accredited school.

Tony

 

Apparently it varies quite a bit.

Here's what University of San Francisco says about law school admissions at USF:

Admission requires a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university. USF observes the standards of the American Bar Association which require that no more than 10 percent of the credit presented for admission may be in non-theory courses or courses without intellectual content of substantial value.

They also say:

Transcripts are carefully evaluated to determine the strength of the undergraduate curriculum and the validity of the applicant's grade point average.

http://www.usfca.edu/law/html/admis_jd.html

My point is that USF demands considerably more than the minimum set out in the California Bar Association's Rules. But that isn't necessarily a usurpation of the state bar.

 

Greg-

Thank you for taking this battle on. Six months before Taft became DETC accredited, I had decided to enroll with them to pursue my law education via the CLEP option. After taking the CLEP's and getting my financing together-suprise! Taft was awarded their DETC accreditation and the door slammed shut! Since then I have been working on getting an AA from one of the big three to be admitted.

At the time I spoke to an addmissions person at Taft (she will remai nameless) was trying to help me get in because I had inquired prior to their accreditation.

I don't know how true this statement is, she told me that Concord had "pressured" the DETC to not allow Taft to admit CLEP students becasue they feared losing to many students?

After awhile, I did consider enrolling at Northwestern California. After reading all the stuff about the "diploma mill" issue. I have decided to pursue a DETC JD. I plan to stay in California and practice here, however life happens and you never know where you will end up.

Thank you for your effort!

 

I understand your point, Bill. In fact, I agree that requiring more than the minimum is not a usurpation. DETC can require (within reason) whatever they want. Still, when quite a few RA (CalBar) schools consider special applicants, and at least one ABA school does the same, DETC ends up looking rather silly in regards to this policy. Maybe this is just another example of overcompensation on the DETC's part.

 

Yes, and I'd like to point out that he went right to that and figured it out all by himself. I had actually explained the "big three" to him before he started talking about law school. So when this whole Taft/DETC barrier cropped-up, his gears started turning and he immediately thought of CLEPping his way into an AA or AS from one of the "big three" without my even bringing it up. The guy's quick, I tell you. He'll make a good attorney someday!

Yeah... well... the problem with that is that it made you foolishly posit something like this:

• "I don't understand how DETC is usurping the California Bar Association's wishes and intent."

If you didn't read the italicized "formal" argument, then you flat-out missed it. There's a matter of public policy at issue here. The CalBar allowed non-ABA-accredited, distance-learning JD programs for a reason -- a reason that has everything to do with accessibility. DETC is effectively end-running that... even if only unintentionally (although based on some of the private messages and emails I'm getting after starting this thread, I'm beginning to wonder just how "unintentionally" it may have been... but I digress)!

Objection, your honor! Relevance?

Agreed, categorically. But in this particular case, it should. Again, it's an accessibility issue -- accessibility created by CalBar, and now effectively being end-run by DETC. That's the whole issue, in a nutshell.

Well, Myoptimism's follow-up -- the one about Whittier -- certainly reveals that to be categorically untrue. But it's irrelevant in any case. We're not talking about ABA-accredited schools, here. We're talking about CalBar's having couragiously flown in the face of the ABA by creating a special class of non-ABA-accredited law schools, the graduates from which at least it would honor by permitting them to sit for the Bar exam -- to the completely intended chagrin of the ABA! DETC doesn't get to swoop in here and effectively undo all that. It's an accessibility policy that the CalBar expressly intended to accomplish -- and for good and honorable public policy reasons -- even though it knew that doing so would piss off and/or even alienate the ABA! Bravo, I say. Bravo!

Your honor, please... I renew my objection! Relevance!

Again, we're talking about a narrow class of law schools whose very existence is almost solely because the California Committee of Bar Examiners wanted to make the practice of law accessible to those for whom it would, in any other state or any other circumstances, be a mere pipe dream. USF and what it will or will not accept has no more to do with this issue than the Bush administration does with fairness or honor. It's an apples-to-oranges argument.

Okay... that's just wrong. Man, oh, man... what I'd give to be able to prove that! Concord, huge and arrogant though it may be, should fear me on this one, because, were I of a mind to, I'm precisely the kind of person with both the will and the means to do it. That is, were I of a mind to.

[sigh... accompanied by a disgusted headshake]

No, thank you for your dead-on and illustrative testimony. See what I mean, everyone? The CalBar wants jayncali73 to have a shot. DETC, apparently, doesn't... at least not in the same way, and with the same ease, as CalBar wished and intended. And, therein, lies the problem. DETC doesn't get to fiddle with public policy in an area as important as this. It's just wrong.

I love that DETC has accredited Taft. Prior to this issue cropping-up, I wanted NWCULAW to get its DETC accreditation, too. Taft told me that DETC's hovering over its shoulder served to manifestly improve the overall quality of its coursework -- to the point that, Taft told me, it would now no longer accept in transfer any D/L JD credits from any other California D/L JD law school -- with the possible (and the operative word, here is "possible") exception of Concord. Taft is, I believe, better for its having become DETC accredited.

So, DETC accreditation, I would argue, is a good thing! In fact, I think many folks around here are underestimating it, generally; and I believe (and from my conversations with Dr. Bear it appears that he, too, believes) that DETC is becoming positioned to give regional accreditation, generally, a real run for its money someday in terms of objective overall credibility. So I'm not, by any means, categorically "anti-DETC." On the contrary... I'm a real fan... generally speaking.

I just think that DETC is messing, in this particular case, with something that it just shouldn't mess with.

• DETC needs to relax its admission standards -- but only for this very narrow class of unique and unusual D/L law schools -- so that the will and intent of the California Committee of Bar Examiners is not effectively end-run.

Simple as that.

By the way, jayncali73, remember to edit-down that which you quote so that long quoted passages, like mine which you quoted here, don't become a scroll-button nightmare! Just a helpful-hint-o-the-day.

Except, perhaps, for this very narrow class of schools created almost exclusively for the purpose of enhancing accessibility to the practice of law. That being the case, any impediment thereto -- whether or not intentional -- is wrong; and, moreover, is against public policy.

Agreed. And supported... generally.

Amen. From your typing fingers to DETC's email inbox. I hope that you -- and others reading this -- will send an email to them making those sentiments known, as I prescribed in my initial posts.

 

So....

Then the issue is more procedural than practical since Ernesto has quick, low cost, and perhaps better way to accomplish what he was seeking in the first place?

 

OK guys, I think we should all step back and take a deep breath.

When we (Taft) applied for DETC accreditation we were fully aware of the DETC mandated J.D. admission standard. By applying for and accepting accreditation, we agreed to adhere to DETC standards.

Accrediting bodies are free to adopt any standards they feel appropriate regardless of the opinions of regulatory bodies.

In its many decades of developing academic and business standards for distance learning programs, DETC has adopted numerous rules that all DETC schools are expected to follow. From a personal viewpoint, there are one or two that I would like to see changed. The J.D. admission standard is one. I would like to see a standard similar to the ABA.

The DETC Commission regularly reviews academic standards. I will be contacting the Dean at Concord in the near future to ascertain his opinions on the subject. If Concord agrees the standard should be modified, the next step would be to submit the proposed revisions to DETC Research and Academic Standards Sub-Committee. Upon approval by the Sub-Committee it could then go the DETC Commission which, after a public comment period, could approve the change.

Each step in the process could take six months.

I can say with 100% certainty that Concord did not pressure the Commission to take any action which would be harmful to Taft. The Commission simply doesn’t work that way. Further, since Concord has adopted an admission standard even higher than the DETC standard (a bachelors degree), any such effort wouldn’t make sense.

 

It's all just academic? Is that what you're suggesting? And, therefore, not worth all this worry?

Public policy should never be abandoned because there is a private workaround. And, anyway, taking the CLEP exams prescribed by CalBar and CLEPping into an AA or AS are not equal tasks. Equivalent, on some levels, perhaps. But despite your conclusion (to which Ernesto came to also), passing the CalBar-specified CLEP exams is a decidedly less rigorous, costly and time-consuming task than getting an AA or AS from one of the "big three."

I, for one, resent the implication of hysterics... but please proceed.

Whoa... wait a minute. Are you saying that you want to go the other direction from what I propose, here? To a more strict, more rigid, more restrictive ABA-like DETC standard?

If so, then that flies in the squarely in the face of public policy and re-erects the very barriers that Calbar sought to bring down in the first place. You can't be serious. Is this a typo? Tell me it's a typo, Mr. Boyd. If it's not, then I say...

When CalBar enhanced law school accessibility by specifying requisite educational standards with which nearly anyone could comply, many felt it would result in lower-quality law students and lawyers; and that only ABA's standards would be an adequate sentry at the gate. There will always be people who (mistakenly) believe that. CalBar's policy intentionally flies in the face of that kind of thinking -- and for good reasons. For DETC or Concord or Taft or anyone else to now try to reverse the progress of that is unconscionable.

How anyone can read the italizcized formal argument in my original posts and not see the public good that the CalBar policy accomplishes, in this case, is completely beyond me. But worse, that anyone would want to in any way undo that is purely repugnant.

I call to everyone's attention the final paragraph of my italicized formal argument, to wit:

• This argument should be considered independently of the actual wishes of either Taft or Concord regarding this issue. Even if neither of those schools would, as a matter of their own policies, begin admitting candidates with the CLEP-only qualifications if the DETC decided to allow same, their views on the matter should not serve to preclude other California D/L JD law schools from honoring the Committee of Bar Examiners's wishes even if they should later decide to seek DETC accreditation.

I would now add that "their views on the matter should also not serve to effectively reverse CalBar's accessibility intent in the first place!"

Okay... I'm confused. Above, you indicated that you believed that an even more rigid, ABA-like admission standard should prevail; and that that's the sort of change to DETC admission policy that you'd like to see. Now, here, you're describing what you'll be doing, and you're talking about "next steps" to policy change.

So I ask:

• A change to precisely which policy? To a relaxed JD admissions standard that does not effectively end-run CalBar wishes and intentions, as I'm calling for; or to a more rigid, ABA-like standard such as that of which you seemed to extol the virtues earlier herein?

I ask because if it's the former, then just tell me where to sign-up.

But if it's the latter, then you may just have a fight on your hands. This is a fight I didn't want to take beyond simply asking people, here, to implore DETC to relax its admissions standards for a very narrow class of D/L law schools so that public policy would not be harmed. But if one of those law schools is now going to use the opportunity to make it even worse, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to pull out all the stops to stop that. And I don't have the time.

So please help me understand, Mr. Boyd, precisely what you're referring to. Does Taft want to honor and conform with the CalBar admissions standards while still maintaining the integrity of its DETC accreditation; or does it seek to effectively obliterate them by seeking an even-more-rigid DETC standard that is more in keeping with the previously-CalBar-rejected ABA's?

Well, there's a relief.

 

I don't want to speak for Mr. Boyd but I believe that the ABA allows its schools to admit special students who don't hold any degree based on the recommendation of the faculty or dean. This (Section B)may be what he's referring to:

Standard 502. EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

(a) A law school shall require for admission to its J.D. degree program a bachelor's degree, or successful completion of three-fourths of the work acceptable for a bachelor's degree, from an institution that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Department of Education.

(b) In an extraordinary case, a law school may admit to its J.D. degree program an applicant who does not possess the educational requirements of subsection (a) if the applicant’s experience, ability, and other characteristics clearly show an aptitude for the study of law. The admitting officer shall sign and place in the admittee’s file a statement of the considerations that led to the decision to admit the applicant.

 

I don't know what the politics and legislative history was surrounding the adoption of the code sections and resulting rules governing admission to the bar.

But that isn't really relevant, is it? How is DETC reducing accessability when all of the CA-approved DL law schools are still out there?

I wrote:

"The bar association permits individuals to do their pre-law studies at state approved schools, but that doesn't imply that all California law schools need to accept credits from state approved schools."

That's obvious, isn't it?

If the California Bar Association Rules allow students to do their pre-law studies at non-accredited schools, then wouldn't law-school admission requirements specifying study at accredited schools constitute a limitation on accessability?

The logic of your argument should have you angrily demanding admission for people who did undergraduate work at non-accredited schools.

I wrote:

"I don't see why CLEP and similar exams are any different. Just because the California bar association (or the underlying state code) permits something doesn't obligate all state law schools, let alone their national accreditors, to adopt it."

DETC isn't restricting accessability, since all the non-DETC schools still exist out there and they are just as free to accept CLEP credit as they always were. If that's not good enough, and if accessability is being unjustly restricted if even one law school is allowed to deviate from the minimum statutory standards, then CLEP is the least of your worries.

Your argument is simultanously too strong and too weak.

I wrote:

"My point is that USF demands considerably more than the minimum set out in the California Bar Association's Rules. But that isn't necessarily a usurpation of the state bar."

You called DETC's not accepting a bunch of CLEP credit in place of conventional undergraduate work a "usurpation" of the state bar. I pointed out that the University of San Francisco Law School diverges from minimum state bar requirements even more dramatically than does DETC.

 

Ah. Now I understand. Kindly ignore my post on the related thread.

As a PRACTICAL matter, very, very few "special"students are admitted into ABA law schools. Many (most?) schools require the B.A. in hand; others allow applicants with 90 s.h. and VERY strong academic records to apply. These students meet ABA requirements too, but there aren't very many of them. On exceedingly rare occasions, someone without even 90 S.H. gets in but this makes the papers, it's so rare.

The only competent testimony I've seen on this board was a comment from Mr. Boyd stating that his CLEP students out perform the majority of A.A. and B.A. students. (At least, that's what I understood him to say.) Nevertheless, his school (Taft) opted for DETC for what I am sure were good and sufficient reasons.

I wonder if DETC could be mollified by changing the name of the degree awarded to "special"students to LL.B.? Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, this WAS the distinction between the J.D. and LL.B. at places like Stanford and Duke. After all, DETC is an INSTITUTIONAL accreditor. They really aren't a PROFESSIONAL accreditator as such. Maybe honor could be satisfied in this way?

 

Sorry I got away from this thread for a while.

And you see that as acceptable? When you were a kid and you really wanted something -- and I mean bad -- how did you feel when, after you had proffered your best, most rational, and most convincing argument, your mother's response was a dispassionate "We'll see?" The special student option is rarely used at ABA-accredited law schools; and is neither the functional or moral equivalent of California's forward-thinking "CLEP-alone" admission standard. The former relies on the whim of others who may or may not have your best interests at heart. The latter, on the other hand, sets forth a means by which virtually any person could have a shot at the brass ring and do good works in a truly meaningful way. The practice of law -- at least in the hands of the moral and contientious -- is citizenship on steriods. It should be available to any person who can study the material and then pass the exam (and who satisfies all the ethical requirements, of course).

Bill... I luv ya', buddy... but you keep asking questions that betray your refractory refusal to read the italicized formal argument text, in my original posts, wherein I believe you will find your answers, to wit, in this case:

• "The DETC admissions policy, in this case, also serves to be an additional barrier to that same population segment's ability to obtain a DL/JD that bears the soon-to-be-crucial additional imprimatur of being accredited by an agency (such as DETC) that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Education's Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). As more and more states follow Oregon's lead and battle the growing "diploma mill" problem by making it flatly illegal for one to claim any credential which has not been earned at an institution accredited by a CHEA-approved agency (such as DETC), the ability to obtain one's D/L JD from a so-accredited school will become critical..."

Of course the other (non-DECT-accredited) D/L law schools are out there. And of course anyone who wants to CLEP-in to one of them can just go there... that is, as long as it's okay with him/her that s/he could be subject to arrest in other states years in the future -- states which may have, by then, adopted Oregon-similar laws which make it illegal to use (on ones business card, resume or anywhere else) a degree not obtained from an accreditor that has not been approved by USDoE/CHEA.

No, it shouldn't... and I'll tell you why: A thing should always be called exactly what it truly is. CalBar's admission standards, however flawed you may perceive them to be, at least properly categorizes its entities and calls them what they are. A degree from an unaccredited school may or may not actually be worthy of the term "degree." I don't think we have to argue that here, too, do we? CalBar wants the people its admits who say they have a "degree" to have something that is objectively a "degree" and not something that someone at CalBar has to take the time to assess. Hence, CalBar requires candidate whose requisite education is a "degree" to actually have one that everyone can agree is deserving of the title. If CalBar is going to admit people with something less than a degree -- which it clearly does -- then CalBar doesn't try to define things (it doesn't have the time; rather, it just goes straight to CLEPping-in. Period. Makes total sense... and calls everything exactly what it is.

Why... when they, too, should just be able to CLEP-in, like anyone else? As it should be.

Yes, but with a decided impediment. See my earlier argument wherein I referred you to the relevant part of the italicized argument text, above.l

You're making an argument that's better suited to degrees that aren't terminal, professional credentials where the degree, itself, is often the reward; and having it may or may not necessarily qualify anyone for any particular thing. But a law degree is part of a highly regulated world wherein the degree itself is but the first step toward what is truly the reward: The law license. In few other fields of endeavor are the precise things which must be taught in school -- and even in what order -- so well-regulated. Your argement treats law school like a thing separate from that for which it prepares. But that's a faulty paradigm. It begins with matriculation. If you doubt that, then why does the Bar require even law students to register; and why does the Bar so tightly control both content and precisely how long the student has to complete it? It's a different world, Bill. Honestly. Because the process begins the way the student applies to law school, one cannot permit such schools to be as subjective as those offering other types of degree programs. It's an apples and oranges sort of thing.

The University of San Francisco Law School is no one's means of last resort. CalBar expressly intended for California D/L JD programs to be precisely that for those who need it. Don't get me wrong, that's clearly not all (or even the primary thing) that California D/L JD programs are; but D/L law programs are where those with no other choices were intended to go. That being the case, D/L JD programs, as a matter of public policy, should not have the same freedom to be so selective that barriers to admission which CalBar expressly set out to tear down may be re-erected.

That's the difference.

Oh, God... no, no, no! I mean... don't get me wrong; I understand what you're saying and why, and I recognize its logic, but, please, no, no, no!

D/L JD holders have enough on their plates, what with all the ABA-accredited JD-holders standing around, smirking, and looking down their collective nose at them; and having to be shown, the hard way, in court, that they (the D/L JDs), too, can clean their clocks when it really matters. The Bar card is the equalizer; and the credential following the name needs to be equal, too. Re-creating two classes of lawyers is a leap backward of unspeakable proportions -- and effectively paints a target on the backs of the LLB holders who would be considered substandard in some way and whom every client who didn't win would sue for malpractice.

Criminals would seek out LLB holders for representation so that they would be guaranteed a second trial if they lost, citing, by definition, inadequate counsel. Please... no, no, no! No return to the two-degree LLB/JD system. Aaaaaahhhhhhh!

The silence is deafening.

 

Regarding the LL.B. in California, Washington State, and a few other jurisdictions its quite possible to become a lawyer with NO law degree at all! Instead, the student studies with a judge or experienced lawyer in a Bar supervised program for four years and receives a certificate of completion.

Still, I think you are right. The basic law degree in the U.S., for better or worse, is the J.D. Anything else would require too much explanation.

 

Honesttogod, I know how to spell "conscientious."

I think I was typing/thinking so fast that my brain was at the conscientious part before my fingers had even typed the conscientious part and somehow they got blended.

Man, that's not too embarrassing, is it? [shakes head in disbelief]

Indeed. And if D/L JD holders get sh_t (be it spoken or otherwise) from those who graduated from ABA-accredited programs, just imagine what kind of grief those who got there via the tutoring method (could/would) get.

Whew.

 

" Originally posted by DesElms
So please help me understand, Mr. Boyd, precisely what you're referring to. Does Taft want to honor and conform with the CalBar admissions standards while still maintaining the integrity of its DETC accreditation; or does it seek to effectively obliterate them by seeking an even-more-rigid DETC standard that is more in keeping with the previously-CalBar-rejected ABA's?

The silence is deafening."

Based on our 20 year operating history, Taft believes CLEP students should be eligible for admission to our J.D. program and we are working toward that goal.

 

Mr. Boyd, I want you, at your earliest possible convenience, to use the part of your shirt sleeve which covers the top part of your forearm nearest your wrist to wipe imaginary beads of nervous sweat from your brow as you say, aloud but still as a bit of a relieved mutter:

• "Whew! Am I ever glad Gregg's not standing here right now!"

because if I were anywhere near you at this moment I'd want to kiss you.

And I've heard you're not really even that cute. (kidding... just screwin' around)

Well... that's certainly a load off my mind.

Of course, being the anal-retentive that I am, I think I would have been even more relieved if you had written something like:

• "Taft believes CLEP students should be eligible for admission to all California-bar-approved distance learning J.D. programs -- even if they're DETC-accredited -- and we are working toward that goal."

But until and unless you indicate otherwise, I'll assume that's what you meant.

So, I still would have kissed you... or at least tried.

Thank you. Seriously. Thank you.

Now all we have to do is convince DETC. I sure hope those reading this thread have been firing-off those emails, as earlier requested.