Funny story by Dr. C. and ODA

This is a real funny story by Dr. C. and ODA.

Pacific Coast University a diploma mill?

This school is State Approved by California Government.

And Committee of Bar Examiners of California

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/cert_detail.aspx?rid=1492


A few graduates are attorneys, professors and Judges. Other work in private offices and other; work in courts, government’s offices and much more.

Oh Boy, I have to make contact with Dr. William J. Lewis and the California Bar Association, and inquire them in relation to this classification by ODA.

Maybe, a good quality court legal battle, make ODA modify their cataloging.

 

Yes, makes you wonder...!!

If a school is unaccredited, say so. If it is selling degrees with little or no work, say so. No reasonable person objects to honest labelling.

But be careful how and what you label, Dr C!

Here is a perfect example of a school that obviously is NOT a diploma mill!

 

Hold it, folks.

PCU is NOT accredited by the California Board of Bar Examiners. It is an "unaccredited" school that is registered with the Board. That's all.

CalBar's website states clearly that registration does not imply approval.

That is why PCU students, along with correspondence school students and those studying in Judges' chambers and law offices, must pass the First Year Law Students' Examination before receiving credit for any of their law studies. Students at ABA or CalBar accredited schools are exempt from this requirement.

Bottom line: PCU is a State Approved school just like Kennedy-Western or Columbia Commonwealth. Oregon's ODA is just doing its job and, I believe, within its rights.

 

Hold on there Nosborne... you're getting your "approvals" mixed up. PCU is approved by the State of California. In California, this means the State certifies that the school has been evaluated and all depts and degree programs meet minimum standards as established by the Cal. Educ. Code. In California, a school needs to be approved before it can be licensed. And apparently, PCU graduates can sit for the Bar exam and are eligible for professional licensing since the school was founded in 1927 (77years ago).

KWU and Columbia Commonwealth operate under no such supervision or certification by the State of Wyoming. These operations have business licenses to operate, that's all. The State specifically does not endorse or certify these schools. And graduates are not eligible for professional licensing.

 

Very true, but state approval is state approval as far as ODA is concerned. I still think that Oregon is within its rights.

That doesn't mean I think they are right in this case, however. PCU is NOT a diploma mill.

Odd thing, though. Why ISN'T PCU CalBar accredited? They don't even claim to be candidates for accreditation. (CalBar, unlike the ABA, has a candidate status.)

This is a resident school. According to their web site, their library is designed to meet CalBar requirements. They seem to have an adequate, qualified faculty and physical plant.

A glance at the statistics for the Bar and Baby Bar shows that PCU students routinely pass these examinations on their first attempt.

It can't even really be the money. PCU charges less than $12,000 total tuition and fees for the entire four year program. That's a very, very cheap path to the Bar. Much cheaper, for example, than Concord's D/L program.

So why cling to unaccredited status?

 

further thought

There is one possibility but this is just speculation on my part. PCU doesn't seem to require the LSAT or any other pre law school testing. If you have 60 s.h., you're in, it appears.

An inevitable consequence of such an open admissions policy is a high drop out rate. CalBar might consider this as evidence that PCU admits students who are not reasonably equipped to undertake law studies. CalBar terms this "exploitation" and forbids it.

 

Nosborne: The point was that KWU and Columbia Commonwealth aren't Approved at all. You're right though, the ODA disregards this distinction altogether and only considers recognized accreditation (OR THEIR OWN APPROVAL PROCESS!!) as legal in Oregon.

I can think of a number of reasons why a school maintains unaccredited, Cal. state approved status:

(1) In law, the license to practice is the critical credential. PCU provides that channel to the California Bar.

(2) CA State Approved schools tend to be much less expensive than WASC (not counting the National Test Pilot School).

(3) Open enrollment and less cost is an attractive alternative to many for post-secondary education and less discrimatory. Claims of exploitation seems like cartel protection to me. Are we saying that only certain worthies are entitled to legal education or should attempt it? Why shouldn't those who have the required prerequisities be admitted? Has PCU been charged and convicted of unfair or exploitive practices? Large state universities (U of Md comes to mind) appear to have a mandatory failure quota built into their underclass education process. This seems exploitive as well, since I don't see the state universities giving anybody's money back.

 

I haven't run the numbers. I don't off hand know whether there are any CalBar accredited schools as cheap as PCU.

Note please that I am not comparing PCU to WASC R/A schools like LaVern or New College. Most CalBar schools are NOT R/A.

There was a time in American legal education (at the ABA level, anyway) when first year washout was a standard policy. The LSAT and tightened admissions standards were developed to eliminate first year washout (which is why the LSAT predicts only how well a student will do in his first year of law school) and to a large extent it has succeeded.

Don't you think it's fairer to prescreen students BEFORE they waste a year of their lives and substantial cash as well? Assuming, of course, that the LSAT is a valid predictor which it seems to be, anyway.

 

No, I don't. Many of those who are prescreened away would not have wasted their lives and money. Prescreening introduces discrimination for the sake of maintaining licensing thresholds within the industry. Assuming basic scholastic prerequisites are met which indicate the student can read, understand concepts, and follow a lesson plan, then education should be available to any who seek it.

 

Fair enough. If you believe that the LSAT is invalid in that it excludes people who are intellectually equipped to undertake law study, then your argument makes sense.

But remember that NO law school uses the LSAT alone; it is always coupled with the student's undergraduate G.P.A. Now, G.P.A. is at least SOME reflection of a student's ability to pursue a long term educational goal.

I don't claim that these devices are perfect but I DO think that they are about the best available to predict whether a student "can read, understand concepts, and follow a lesson plan".

Also don't discount that the law demands a particular TYPE of reasoning. A student who might ace dental school can have trouble in law school, (and I presume that the reverse is true as well).

Well, I understand the attraction of a policy decision to "let folks try it for themselves." But remember that poorly performing students take up classroom seats and make learning harder for their classmates. This is LAW SCHOOL we're talking about, not high school civics. The level of effort required by the best prepared students needs to be experienced to be understood.

You know what would be an interesting Ed.D. dissertation? Someone could do a longitudinal study of success (however defined) in the practice of law as a function of the source of one's legal education.

 

Nosborne: what I find fascinating is the diversification in our educational system. Even those who could not get into Haaavaad Law or who get prescreened out in competitive placements can STILL pursue their potential in at least one State who grants them access to the Bar through alternative means.

The Ed.D dissertation would need to factor those who have succeeded in law not so much on their merit or knowledge but their pedigree and alma mater.

 

You can't necessarily assume that all those who go to PCU could not gain admission to an ABA or CalBar school.

I would guess that those who actually complete the program probably could have gotten in to an accredited school.

Also, although we who post here often talk as if the purpose of law school is to pass the Bar exam, the REAL purpose is to equip graduates with the theoretical, and some of the practical, knowledge to be competent lawyers in practice. To do that well requires well equipped students as well as good teachers and an adequate facility.

I know of NO research on the question of whether schools like PCU are better or worse or just the same as accredited schools are. I'd be interested in anything you come across.

 

I agree that attendance at PCU does not suggest lower echelon students who are unacceptable to more traditional universities. The state approved route is a viable option in California for a variety of reasons.

I'm not aware of post graduate career studies but there is a good bit of data on the performance on bar exams suggesting the quality and pertinence of education from various institutions.

 

Two breaths of fresh air from opposite directions

Thanks for the intelligent debate, Kirkland & Nosborne. I'm not an uncritical viewer of the ODA list by any means, but you guys just ratcheted things up several notches from the slip-sliding away on K-W jelly with which this thread so cheekily opened.

 

Oh, that's okay, Uncle. We'll dust off the invective any minute now and make this thread really SIZZLE!

The more I look into PCU, the more impressed I become. It's so CHEAP! And, as has been pointed out, its students DO pass the Baby Bar and General Bar. It's certainly been around long enough and its faculty, while not comparable to an ABA school in terms of degrees and scholarship, seems sufficient in number and qualification to provide a reasonable legal education. I suppose it depends on class size as much as anything.

I did a little looking at California State requirements for state civil service. Near as I can tell, they care about the law license. They don't seem to care about the J.D. although they definately DO care about accreditation for other degrees.

PCU could be a very good choice under the right circumstances.

N.B. As cheap as it is, a PCU J.D. STILL costs four times what my UNM J.D. cost me in terms of tuition and fees. Sigh. Those WERE the "good old days".

 

How is the Due Process that ODA give to the universities before labeling as diploma mill?

I would like to know the systematic and methodical process that Dr. C and ODA use to labeling Pacific Coast University, and the approved Lawyers that graduate from that school, as diploma mills institution and persons.

 

Re: Two breaths of fresh air from opposite directions

PCU, actually, uncle, not K-W.

And our debaters have demonstrated that we are not talking about 'jelly' but more like 'egg on face'.

 

I believe the ODA and its administrator are very wrong to have labeled Pacific Coast Univ Law School as a diploma mill. Founded in 1927, approved by CA State, listed by Californina Postsecondary Education Commission (www.cpec.ca.gov), legitimate faculty, graduates sit for the CA Bar. I too would be most interested in the criteria being employed by the ODA for such official name calling. I doubt there is a formalized process for evaluation (other than the binary function of: accredited, good; unaccredited, bad). If ever there was a case for budding attorneys...why not pursue this case as a practicum?? (I suspect they won't though)...too much bias and potential for adverse media attention since the ODA generally stands for the public good. I suppose they could cough up the dough to get "evaluated" but then isn't that what has already happened to be labeled as they have?

 

oops

You are correct, Adamsmith. Right poster, wrong thread. Commendation of the other two still stands.

 

Agree,Uncle!