DL Law Questions and thoughts.

I am currently finishing my MBA, which is from a RA institution and beginning to look at my next move. I have always wanted to go to law school, but like many, began a "normal life" a little to early. So my options appear to be limited to a non ABA DL law school. Through my reseach, I have limited the schools to Concord, Taft, Oak Brook, and NWCU. I am hoping to get some thoughts on the selections, and my opinion.

I think I am leaning towards Taft because of the moderate cost and the DETC. I have read many positive things about NWCU, but I think the lack of accreditation may hurt them at some point. I think that in the future (4-10) years, many (or at least a few, other than CA) states will begin to allow DL students to take their bar exam, and they will need some type of parameter. A recognized accreditation seems to be an obvious parameter, and only Concord and Taft appear to meet this qualification. I do not think the ABA is ready to recognize these programs anytime soon, but there appears to be grassroots movements in several states. For example, there is a bill in the Texas legislature right now that may be voted on soon to allow the DL schools to set for their exam if they pass the CA Bar Exam. (One of the legislature's daughter went to Oak Brook). Also, I want to utilize the JD in my business career, but would be regretful if the doors did open, and the school I chose was not allowed to enter.

 

It's not quite true that only California allows D/L J.D. grads to take the Bar exam.

What IS true is that only California allows D/L J.D. grads to take the Bar without any further experience or education.

Something like half of the states will accept an applicant with a California D/L J.D. and three to five years of practice experience. A much smaller group will accept an applicant with a California D/L J.D. and an LL.M. from a law school whose J.D. program is ABA accredited.

Some states, like Montana and New Jersey, won't accept any applicant who does not possess an ABA degree.

These rules are constantly changing. The only "sure bet" is that an ABA J.D. following an R/A B.A. will qualify you in any state to take the Bar. If you contemplate taking a degree from an unaccredited school, CHECK FIRST with the state Bar where you want to practice.

No one can predict what Florida (or any other state) will do.

I have never understood Texas' attitude toward correspondence law degrees. Their rules allow attorney applicants with three years (I think) practice experience to take the Texas Bar with ANY J.D. except one "based on correspondence study".

In any event, it is the Texas legislature that is considering the change you mention but it is the Texas Supreme Court that actually makes the rules. There's NO reason to think this change will happen anytime soon.

 

Oh, yeah. I forgot.

Your thoughts on the value of DETC accreditation have been hashed out on this board. Run a search.

I have heard nothing but good things, and a good many of those, about Taft.

On the other hand, Taft gets about twice what NWCU gets for a degree whose sole advantage is accreditation that won't help you with any state bar or qualify you to receive federal financial assistance.

What it WILL do is protect you from SOME state laws restricting the use of unaccredited degrees. I say "some" because, while Florida and Oregon won't object to you claiming to hold a J.D. on the grounds that it isn't accredited, other states may accuse you of practicing law if you represent to the public that you are a "J.D." (Arizona, for one.) It's roughly like calling yourself "M.D." without holding a medical license, though much less serious an offense.

So the value of DETC accreditation of law programs remains unclear, at least to me.

Finally, keep in mind that there are several non ABA law schools out there which hold R/A accreditation. As far as state Bars are concerned, they are treated EXACTLY like all other unaccredited law schools. Of course, R/A brings with it federal student financial aid, no small thing.

 

Good list... but strike Concord from it. It's too expensive, and if you do some Googling you'll eventually run in to some disconcerting stories about some kinda' underhanded crap that Concord pulled on some people. If DETC accreditation is a requirement of the D/L JD you're considering, Taft is DETC accredited... and, I would argue, a better school... but that's just me.

Oak Brook is quite a good school, but I just don't like its politics and the far-rightness and coservatism of its religious perspective. But if I wanted their JD badly enough -- and their JD is good enough for just about anyone to want it -- I'd figure out a way to live with being surrounded by right-winged religious zealots. Again... just me.

Northwestern California University School of Law (what you referred to as NWCU) is my personal favorite of the bunch... but I, like you, really wish they'd get DETC accreditation.

Sound thinking.

Don't hold your breath for any D/L program to ever be approved or recognized by the ABA. I believe it will happen, but not in my lifetime. I also don't sense any grassroots movements in any states -- including Texas. I believe the bill to which you refer will fail miserably... that is, if it ever even gets out of committee. Texas is one tough-assed state that isn't satisfied to simply not suffer fools... it actually goes out and looks for fools that it can not suffer. As Nosbore pointed-out, it's an odd state; and is the only state to single-out D/L JD programs as and unacceptable prerequisite to sit for the bar even when the attorney who earned it has practiced for several years. This, weirdly, despite the fact that there's some language in Texas's rules which suggest that a D/L JD holder could come to Texas and practice in the federal system within that state with the Texas Supreme Court's blessing. Go figure.

Yeah... and be sure, adkindo, to read this one; and be sure to get good and ticked-off about it; and then be sure to write to DETC and Taft and complain, as suggested at the end of the thread's starting post.

Same here.

One could say the same thing -- except for the federal aid part of it that you mentioned -- about RA (but not ABA-approved) law schools, if you stop and think about it...

...except that, as already discussed, it might protect you in the event that Oregon-like legislation catches-on across the country and you'd like to be able to put it on your resume without getting a nasty letter from the states Office of Degree Authorization.

The only other possible (and the operative word, here, is "possible") advantage I can think of for a non-ABA-approved law school being either DETC- or, better yet, regionally-accredited might be that said JD could be thought of as having true academic value -- probably on the masters level, I'm guessing... despite its having the word "Doctor" in its name -- and might, therefore, qualify one to either teach or to use it as requisite to a PhD program or something. Or maybe not. Who knows.

 

But never forget that there are LOTS of applicants for teaching positions, most of whom possess the ABA degree.

I wouldn't think for a moment of earning a non ABA J.D. if I had any idea at all of teaching law.

Indeed, the only places I have ever seen holders of D/L or CalBar or unaccredited degrees teach is in exactly those schools. There's nothing at all wrong with teaching in such a school but I doubt seriously that it could be a career; more likely it is a part-time activity done out of love for the subject and teaching itself.

The primary teaching credential for non ABA schools in California is the possession of a law license.

 

I appreciate the feedback. I think I am a little more optimistic than most about doors opening in the next ten years. There appears to be a lot of "Concord Hating" in this forum, and I am not sure of the reason, unless they have become an obvious target as the leader of the cause. If DL Law programs gain more acceptance, it will be due to the actions of Concord Law School. They are the only program that is pushing the conversation. They have placed extremely well known professors in their program, and seem to attempt inroads with the ABA at every opportunity. The other DL Law programs, such as Taft, are currently just along for the ride hoping to follow the path that Concord creates. Concord is no different than the University of Phoenix, in that Phoenix was the institution that legitimized non-traditional learning environments. Today, UOP would be considered as close to mainstream as non-traditional schools will get. Due to their efforts, many schools have gained many benefits by following the path created.

Also, I am not sure if the description of Oak Brook as "right wing religious zealots" is appropriate. I actually respect them for laying it out upfront. They make no secret that they are a private institution that teaches the law from a biblical perspective. While not for me, they have an agenda. I find this method much more desirable than my undergraduate professors who were 90% liberal, but did not disclose their agenda, but attempted to incorporate it into the lecture as fact. I would have preferred they begin the class with a disclosure that they were "extreme liberals who like to hug trees, favorite author is Marx, and think Castro is cool. At least the students would be able to understand and dissect their lectures.

 

Oak Brook's religious outlook is not unique even among traditional, ABA schools. Ave Maria is an ABA school with a VERY conservative Catholic outlook. My point is, there's nothing about a religious orientation that would interefere with a decent professional education at the first professional degree level.

(I DO think that an advanced, academic law program might suffer from the philosophical "blinkers" such a school might impose, though.)

I think your comparison between UOP and Concord is not quite accurate. UOP is regionally accredited, which is a form of institutional sccreditation. ABA accreditation is professional accreditation. The standards for professional accreditation are usually much more detailed and demanding than institutional accreditation standards are.

Even the California Bar does not accredit D/L programs and CalBar is by far the most liberal of Bar authorities.

It's been a while since I looked at Concord's program, but one of the things you mention has bothered me no little.

From what I understand, Concord does NOT, in fact, "place extremely well known professors in their program." What they really seem to be doing is contracting with big name professors to videotape lectures on various subjects. The actual examinations and tutoring are done by much lesser lights. A Concord student does NOT have access to the "big names" in the way that a student at, say, Harvard, would. This MATTERS. It matters in the quality of the education, it matters for career networking, it matters for the development of legal scholars.

Concord seems to me to be engaging in a kind of "bait and switch", if my impression is correct, and I don't like it.

It is my opinion, and only my opinion, that a non accredited J.D. program should be seen as nothing more, and nothing less, than a method of satisying the legal study requirement for a law license. Concord's Bar pass rate becomes vitally significant under this analysis and they frankly haven't done well enough historically to justify their very high tuition.

 

If a school's 'religious orientation' implies that the school and its admissions procedures aren't welcoming towards individuals with different beliefs, then the orientation would presumably interfere with the professional education of those dissenters.

(I'm sensitive to that because I'm one of the dissenters.)

But yeah, I think that I get your point. Nobody would ever accuse California of being the buckle of the Bible belt, but Oakbrook's education does seem rather effective at enabling its students to pass the resolutely secular CA bar exam.

 

Actually, one could argue that having a faculty and student body made up entirely of people sharing a single religious and social view IS detrimental to the overall educational experience. I think, though, that this would be truer at the undergraduate level than in a professional degree program. The legal elements of negligence, for example, are pretty much value neutral.

I would certainly NEVER attend such a school myself, but I have to say that there really wasn't much diversity of legal philosophy in evidence at the University of New Mexico, either. I daresay the diversity existed, but legal philosophy just wasn't relevant to learning the rules of search and seizure or hearsay so no one talked much about it.

 

Oh, and by the way, another thing about Concord that raises my eyebrows, at least, is the school's CONSTANT claim to being the nation's "first and only on-line law school".

Now this is technically true but factually quite misleading. Concord is classed as a "correspondence law school" by the California Bar Association. It is DECADES from being the first such school. NWCU has been around since th '70s.

Furthermore, both Taft and NWCU offer on line study support and are, to that extent at least, as much "online" law schools as Concord is.

Bottom line: I just don't LIKE the way Concord does business.

 

Although this is accurate, my point was that once UOP took control of the movement towards non-traditional higher education, they created a path that very few saw, a legitimate online/non-traditional education. Not many would have thought that UOP would gain RA at one point. People laughed, then became extremely negative, then accepted the institution. Last I heard, UOP grads were having little trouble gaining access to traditional terminal degree programs. Even when I was in undergraduate school (4 years ago), that was considered impossible for UOP, or any other of institution like UOP to compete with traditional state university students for good Doctorate programs.

I think Concord has helped get the Genie out of the bottle. This is more evidenced by the panic that you see with many ABA Institution Professors and Graduates actions. Two years ago, many of these forums had lighthearted discussions on DL Law degrees, but now the discussion is filled with "hate type" postings. I have not expert background on the subject, but I get a wide mix of perspectives from individuals such as yourself. In my opinion, the Genie never goes back in the bottle!

 

Well, don't hold your breath.

I haven't heard much in the way of panic issuing from law professors or graduates of ABA schools, either here or anywhere else. Perhaps you can point to an example?

As to "hate postings", I haven't seen a SINGLE such posting on this forum concerning any Bar qualifying J.D. program, B&M or D/L.

I myself have frequently criticized various law schools but always by pointing out specific items that I consider to be evidence of dishonesty, poor or misleading business practices, or overcharging.

I have also posted vigorous opposition to any sort of "non Bar J.D." program but, again, I have always explained exactly why I take that position.

So while you are at it, would you kindly point to a "hate posting" example?

 

No "hate" postings here, but this forum is specifically for distance learning discussion. I was speaking of almost every other "law student" forum such as http://www.lawstudentparadise.com/. I was not implying anything negative about your comments..

 

From what I understand UoP was founded in 1976 and became RA in 1978 (from UoP website). I was totally unaware that they were ever a laughingstock in terms of their accreditation chances. 2 years seems reasonably quick from founding to RA to me, but I'm not an expert. I would be curious to hear from one.

 

A minor issue: I don't think the legitimization of UoP is strictly a recent phenomenon. I went to a top-tier law school with an admit rate at the time of 17 or 18%, and three people in my class that started with about 170 had UoP UG degrees. That was for a class entering in 1991. Now of course, that was in the pre-online days, but I really don't think the reputation of UoP has recently changed THAT dramatically regarding gaining admission to terminal degree programs.

 

If that is true about UOP, I stand corrected. I did not think they were RA for that long. As for UOP Grad's having easy access to competitive Doctorate programs, to be honest, I am basing that off of one University. That being the case, just recently has this very large state university began allowing "equal" access to UOP grads for many PHD's and DBA's.

 

adkindo

I just wanted to make something clear, here.

If you are interested in studying law for personal fulfillment or to help you deal with the law and lawyers in connection with your business or other profession, I STRONGLY encourage you to do what seems best to you.

In other words, don't say, "Well, I can't get an ABA degree so I will just forget the whole thing." Believe me, any of the D/L programs you are considering will give you a solid, basic, professional level understanding of American law and our legal system. That can't HELP but be valuable.

Also, it's CHEAP. The first year, which is also the most important year, at NWCU should cost less than $4,000 tuition, books and fees. If you take and pass the Baby Bar, that first year is pretty well transferrable to any California non ABA school.

So on the one hand, don't pursue a D/L J.D. in the hope that maybe someday you'll be able to practice in Florida; that's probably a pipe dream. But on the OTHER hand, don't fail to pursue legal knowledge in what may be for you the most cost effective and convenient way merely because the resulting degree has limited utility. If you WANT to study law and D/L is the only way to do it, GO FOR IT!

 

Criticize Concord or Oakbrook and suddenly you're a Marxist...

Oh, yeah... that's it: Jealousy.

What part of my reason being that Concord has been known to jerk-around its students did you not understand?

Okay, then... so why didn't you just say you were some sort of promoter for Concord? (I'd call you a "shill," but we tend to reserve that term around here for those who promote diploma mills... and Concord, notwithstanding my dislike of it, is most certainly not diploma mill.)

Ohgod... here we go. Another right-winged religious zealot making the claim that everyone and everything to the left of his particular degree of right extremity is an "extreme liberal;" lamenting the fact that most of academia isn't as closed-minded and afraid of new ideas (or virtually any thoughts/ideas other than those exactly like his). Such as he have made much hay, lately, of the relatively recently released American-Enterprise-Institute-funded, and Center-for-the-Study-of-Popular-Culture-investigated "study" which found/concluded, in part, that 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal, and 15 percent are conservative; and that 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identified themselves as Democrats, and only 11 percent as Republicans. The disparity is even more pronounced, concluded the study, at the most "elite" schools, where, according to the study, a whopping 87 percent of faculty are liberal, and only 13 percent are conservative. Said the study:

• "Today's colleges and universities are not, to use the current buzzword, 'diverse' places. Quite the opposite: They are virtual one-party states, ideological monopolies, badly unbalanced ecosystems. They are utterly flightless birds with only one wing to flap. They do not, when it comes to political and cultural ideas, look like America...
  
  [...]
  
  "Colleges like to characterize themselves as wide-open places where every thought can be thought, where any opinion can be held, where all ideals and principles may be pursued freely. The demonstrable reality, however, is that you will find a much wider-and freer-cross-section of human reasoning and conviction in the aisles of a grocery store or city bus.

Such unmitigated hogwash is all the rage among conservatives these days -- most of it funded by the far-right Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, or the Heritage Foundation, or, of course, the aforementioned American Enterprise Institute, and several others -- and claiming that the aforementioned study of the party affiliations of college professors proves a massive gulf between Right and Left. Liberal professors, it states, often outnumber conservatives by ten to one and sometimes by more than twenty to one on campus... all this, despite the fact that Americans, generally, tend to be more or less evenly divided between "liberals" and "conservatives," the reported stated.

"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals, or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."

But I would ask: Have you, adkindo, or Lichter -- or any of your ilk -- ever actually looked-up the word "liberal?"

• lib·er·al
  
  adj.
  1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
  1.b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
  1.c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
  1.d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
  
  2.a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
  2.b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
  
  3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
  
  4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
  
  5.a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
  5.b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
  n.
  1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
  2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
  
  FROM: Middle English, generous, from Old French, from Latin lberlis, from lber, free; see leudh- in Indo-European roots.
  
  liber·al·ly adv.
  liber·al·ness n.
  Synonyms: liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded
  These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly: a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; fond and openhanded grandparents. See Also Synonyms at broad-minded.
  Antonym: stingy
  
  SOURCE: The Free Dictionary

Boy, what a shameful thing to which one might dare ever aspire: Being liberal. After all, open-mindedness, generosity, tolerance, and progressiveness are truly things of which no right-thinking (yes, pun intended) American should ever be proud.

Such diatribe as the aforementioned study is likely to give conservative activists and lawmakers ammunition to push their decidedly conservative agenda in the name of "intellectual diversity." In pursuit of the goal of idiological balance, far right-wingers are calling for institutions to be required to hire more conservative scholars; and some have even called for monitoring of students' assigned reading to make sure it's sufficiently "pro-American" (read: pro-Republican and stiflingly conservative).

"It is obvious that ... these are debating points designed to hoist the left by its own petard," wrote Stanley Mr. Fish, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in a recent edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education, "but the trouble with [such] debating points is that they can't be kept in bounds."

Wrote Sara Hebel in another, more recent Chronicle article:

• Many university administrators, faculty members, and state lawmakers believe that [such] plan ... would invite too much meddling by lawmakers in academic matters. Some insist that such legislative efforts might actually hinder debate on campuses and restrict professors' ability to appropriately balance classroom discussions of significant scholarly ideas.
  
  The American Association of University Professors issued a statement saying that ... [such] proposal would encourage state and campus officials to exert oversight on faculty members on academic matters rather than trust their professional judgment. The group took specific exception to language in ... [one] proposal that would encourage institutions to make faculty employment decisions "with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives."
  
  "The danger of such guidelines is that they invite diversity to be measured by political standards that diverge from the academic criteria of the scholarly profession," the statement reads. For example, it said, a political-theory department might be required to hire a professor espousing Nazi philosophy if a college were forced to provide a real "plurality of methodologies and perspectives" in its academic courses.

How appropriate it is that Nazi tactics were used as a way of illustrating the point.

Hence, the reason -- at least in part -- why I recommended, herein, against Concord... in an effort to be merely helpful. Who knew it would so trip adkindo's trigger.

 

Re: Criticize Concord or Oakbrook and suddenly you're a Marxist...

I don't think that anything that Adkindo wrote justifies this over-the-top response.

He's certainly right that many university programs seem to have their own social and political agendas. Oftentimes these programs are less up-front about their biases and social-change ambitions than Oakbrook is about theirs.

I don't think that all occurances of the word 'liberal' refer to the same thing.

In the context of this post, referring to political biases in American universities, the word 'liberal' seems to be synonymous with the word 'leftist' in some very broad sense.

Do you really want to argue that only leftists are open-minded, generous, tolerant and progressive?

If you mean that seriously, then it sounds dangerously close to fanaticism. If you don't mean it seriously, your point unravels.

(That's always the problem with hyperbole.)

 

Re: Criticize Concord or Oakbrook and suddenly you're a Marxist...

Cogent and unambiguous statements which, with some degree of appropriate passion, express well-placed intolerance by both liberals and leftists of the machinations of the religious Right seem always met by assessments such as this.

Characterizing what liberals are arguing these days as social change is just a misrepresentation of the facts. This country's frightening shift to the Right makes us the conservatives. If that's so, then why should a professor have to issue a disclaimer, up-front, that s/he espouses what either is now, or should continue to be? It is the Right's view of what's "normal" that is skewed.

Nice job of declaring a thing what it isn't in the first place, and then arguing against that... much like Bush43, et al, do with issues like, for example, the social security "crisis," just to name one. "Leftist" isn't the word the Right uses as its preferred term of derision. Being a "liberal," and all that that implies, is precisely what the Right decries. To the Right, anything left of their extreme is "leftist." I remember when the term used to be relative to an agreed-upon center. And I, for one, am sick to death of the disingenuousness of it all.

Is it now, above, more clear what I mean? I'm neither exhibiting fanaticiscm, nor seeing any unraveling or hyperbole. One thing you'll always notice about a liberal: He'll wear his achievements on his sleeve. A conservative, on the other hand, will pretend he hasn't made any strides with each rightwardly-progressing step... all the while labeling the right's refusal to keep quiet about its notice of it as fanaticism, hyperbole or, worse, hysteria.