I have a question perhaps nosborne48 and others could help me think through. I have an AS degree from Excelsior and wish to attend Taft law school next year. My background is heavy in legislative analysis and interpreting complex administrative rules and regulations for public assistance programs. It is this job that peaked my interest in law school in the first place. OK, enough said. My question... What value (if any) is there in completing a BS in Criminal Justice or Political Science prior to attempting law school? Thank you in advance for your feedback.
I assume you write administrative policies and procedures that interpret the regulations that your agency writes in response to the statutes that legislators pass. I think that background will help you somewhat. But I'm not sure that pursuing the additional BA in CJ will be that much aid to you in law school. Law school's less about knowing the regulations and rules and common law (it's a given that you're going to know the model rule or the prevailing common law) and more about being able to spot this rule or that in a given fact scenerio (when the prof's playing spot the red herring in the essay question) and then applying it, being able to discuss the issue from both sides, etc. UG's about knowing rules, in law school that's the minimum they expect. Having the rules or facts down cold in UG will get you an "A", in law school that without more will get you a "C" or a dreaded "other". I'm not sure the poly sci or CJ degree would give you that much of a leg up in law school. Not that it would hurt you or wouldn't help you in obtaining a job post-graduation, just that I think the benefits for law school studies would be marginal.
First, what little fauss said. Second, in direct answer to your question: None... that is, if you wish to attend one of the California Bar approved/accredited or registered, bar-exam-qualifying law schools (either of the residential or the distance learning type) that permits people to enter their J.D. programs with little more than an accredited associates degree, or at least 60 hours of undergraduate credits that are transferable to an accredited institution, or the passing of certain specific CLEP exams. What I'm saying is, at those law schools, you can already, just with your associates, get in and start your J.D. Those schools wouldn't be ABA-approved, however... but you could still sit for the bar exam in California; and after practicing law in California for around five years, you could sit for the bar exam in a couple dozen other states, too. At an ABA-approved law school, on the other hand, you'd almost certainly need to go on to the bachelors first... which, really, when it comes right down to it, is probably how it should be, my love for the California schools and their relaxed requirements notwithstanding. As for what kind of bachelors would best prepare you for the study of law, I'm not sure either a CI or political science BA/BS would do it. I'm not saying that either of those would hurt, mind you... but I don't know if either would necessarily prepare you to be better at getting the J.D. The study of law is kind of a self-contained thing... all wrapped-up in a J.D. degree. You need to enter it with good reasoning and logic skills; good reading, studying and memorization skills; and a high tolerance for long hours learning things you couldn't care less about. Learning how to brief a case -- and I mean properly and quickly -- studied almost as a separate thing, on your own time, prior to beginning the J.D. ... much like some theology students do with biblical languages prior to entering an MDiv program -- would make your J.D. studies go extraordinarily more smoothly, too. If you get nothing else from this post, at least get that helpful tip. Above-average and speedy briefing skills can make all the difference. The thing to do is use Google to go find some bachelors degrees out there (they don't have to be distance learning degrees 'cause you're only gonna' look at their coursework to get some examples) that call themselves "pre-law" studies, and look at the coursework. Then you'll begin to get an idea of what kinds of courses tend to help prepare one for law study. Surprisingly, virtually none of them have anything directly to do with law... or justice, or politics. Instead, the courses that will best prepare a future J.D. student are courses that sharpen the mind and stimulate/enhance critical thinking. Mathematics, philosophy (specifically logic courses), etc. One needn't prepare for a J.D. by taking law-related coursework. You'll get all of that you need within the J.D. program itself. Now, all that said, if you're planning on taking your J.D. and your law license to a big Washington, D.C. (or state capital) law firm and will be mostly dealing with issued that typically get dealt with in the political arena, then that political science bachelors, plus the J.D. will be the perfect combo. Or if you're planning on being either a prosecutor or criminal defense attorney, that J.D. plus a CS bachelors would be just right. So it's up to you. Just my $.02 worth... for what it's worth.
What little fauss and DesElms said. As long as you are committed to California (and why not?) and Taft is your choice (and a fine school it is) don't mess with the B.A. Caveat: You said A.S., right? An A.A.S. will not satisfy the CA Bar Examiners. Second thought: Is there any way to go to a CalBar evening resident program? I found studying law MUCH easier in a classroom setting (plus you'd avoid the FYLEX).
I haven't looked at them, but wouldn't he be talking about alot (with emphasis on the word "alot") more money than a DL JD program? Also, I thought that some CalBar evening resident programs required the baby bar, too. Or did I misunderstand? Finally, while I agree that the evening program would be better, just generally (I know a guy who's got quite a successful criminal practice going in Fairfield, CA who did it that way and swears by it), the downside of such a program would be that the student would lose the ability to "attend class" on his/her own schedule. Of course, for the upside of what being in class (and the discipline of having to keep-up with everyone, etc.), it might be worth it to lose the flexibility upside.
Thanks for your advice. I would love to attend an evening law program. The problem is the closest school is a 90 minute drive one way. So attending class three to four nights a week in addition to work, etc. isn't feasible. So the next best thing for me is correspondence. Hopefully I will be able to do it!
I think you will find that Taft's tuition is much closer to an evening CalBar program's tuition than you might think. Taft isn't cheap and some CalBar programs aren't horribly expensive. Regarding studying on one's own schedule; studying D/L will require 2-1/2 hours of study EVERY DAY for FOUR YEARS in order to meet the annual 864 hour requirement. There's really not a lot of flexibility there. Study at a CalBar resident school is much closer to the usual law school routine; nine month years and 16 week semesters. Don't get me wrong; you will end up putting in about as much time over all. Whether you take the FYLEX depends on whether the school is ABA or CalBar accredited or merely "registered" and whether you are a "regular" or "special" student under CalBar's rules. Not all California resident schools are accredited. look at www.calbar.ca.gov under "Bar Exam" then "Law Schools" for the details.
Instant tuition comparison: Taft is the cheaper of the two DETC D/L law schools. It gets about $5,000 in tuition for each of four years. About $20,000 total. San Francisco Law School is fairly representative of CalBar accredited four year evening programs and charges about $6,500 for each of four years. About $26,000 total. Non CalBar accredited resident schools are a bit cheaper. Legitimate but unaccredited D/L schools (Oakbrook, Northwestern Cal) can be somwwhat cheaper as well. Over the entire program, the SFCL student will pay about $6,000 more in tuition, a not insignificant amount, to be sure, but not an overwhelming difference. BTW, the CHEAPEST ABA programs in California are those of the University of California. By my figures, resident tuition and fees for three years including the Professional Degree Fee total well over $60,000! Tuition and fees at private California law schools total more than ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS!!
My really, truly last thought: For most students, the chance of FINISHING a resident program is probably much higher than the chance of finishing a D/L program. Case in point: Concord now tells the world that it has thousands of law students yet only a few dozen Concord students attempt (let alone PASS) the FYLEX. It IS perfectly possible to complete Taft's program and become a lawyer. Dozens, maybe hundreds, have already done so and no doubt dozens will do so in the future. But make no mistake, it is doing law school THE HARD WAY.
Okay, so I have to back off Concord a little Concord claims 1,800 J.D students. Something like 250 Concord students took the June Baby Bar. That is a MUCH higher percentage than has been the case in the past and strikes me as a very positive sign. I do not know how many are "executive track" students who don't take the FYLEX. I would like to see their retention statistics.
I have a very good friend in the Concord Bar JD program and while his grades are in the upper 10% of the class, he has failed the baby bar three times now. Each time he must fly from his home state, to LA, rent a hotel room, pay the bar fees, etc. He is almost through with the second year and because he failed the baby bar he gets no credit for the previous work. Personally, I think the negatives outweigh the possible positives with a DL JD. Just my $.02
Man, that IS grim. Has he explored taking one of the Baby Bar prep courses? I think Fleming's offers one. It might seem unreasonable to take a Baby ar prep course but there's nothing "baby" about the FYLEX except its limited subject matter. Believe me, I've been a lawyer since 1986 and graduated in the top third of my class at an ABA accredited state school. I'D have to take a review course if I wanted to pass!
Concord has some kind of prep course, which he has taken, as well as Flemmings. He has always been one or two points away each time. The last time he used the computer for the essay rather than handwriting. (big mistake if you're a fast writer)
If you are really committed to being a lawyer I would suggest taking out student loans and going the traditional route. Law is a field where the name of you degree means a lot. I doubt that you will have many hiring options with law firms after having completed a DL law degree and not having a BA to begin with. If this degree is nothing more than something for your own interest or you plan to use it in a private practice then by all means continue in the DL format.
c130nav, I agree to the extent that the potential law student really needs to consider carefully what it is he wants to do in the law. Law professors tend to come from a handful of top ranked schools. New associates at large commercial firms also tend to come from particular schools. Law students interested in high level careers with the federal government should certainly consider Georgetown (arguably the overall best single law school in the U.S. by the way) or another major D.C. area school. But to work in California state government or politics or work in small to medium sized firms, where there is no liklihood of moving out-of-state for five years or so, I'd STRONGLY recommend going the non ABA, CalBar accredited route on the basis of cost alone. The fact is, the average new grad from a big prestigeous private school, or really, ANY ABA private school, will graduate owing so much money that he can't afford to accept the starting salaries of small to medium firms or state agencies. Even a UC law grad will likely owe many tens of thousands of dollars. There are two consequences to this: 1) The CalBar grad will not be in competition with big name grads. The big boys won't be able to AFFORD to work for government or small to medium firms; 2) Since his debt service is so much less than a Stanford grad's would likely be, the CalBar grad will actually net out better on his lower salary! Unless you want to be a law professor or land a high paying big firm job, the law LICENSE is more important than the law DEGREE. This is a recipe for much better job satisfaction as well. Outside California, the analysis shifts only to the extent that the "cheap" school will be the state university.
Thank you all for your feedback. I feel correspondence law school is my only option. The closest calbar evening program is very far (85 miles one-way) from me and is expensive. The program costs 50,000 (not including books/fees) for the four year program. I want to graduate with the smallest amount of debt possible because I wish to stay employed in the public sector so, the pay is not all that great. My first choice is Northwestern California however, their unaccredited status bothers me. Prices are tempting though. Looks like Taft.edu is the winner. Once again, thank you for your feedback!
NWCUlaw is unaccredited, but... If you are commited to becoming a California lawyer via correspondence study, you need to consider what advantage there really is in a DETC vs. unaccredited degree. The fundamental requirement to practice law in California or any other state is to take and pass the Bar exam (and be able to prove good charactor). The fundamental requirement for a non lawyer to take the Bar exam is a law degree or, in a handfull of states, four years of law office study. The only law degree acceptable in every state is one from an ABA accredited school. California is the ONLY state that will allow a "general" (i.e. non attorney) applicant to take the Bar based on a correspondence degree. Notice, please, that the terms "R/A" and "DETC" do not figure anywhere in this discussion. AT THE MOMENT, there is NO practical difference in the Bar exam utility of a Bar qualifying J.D. degree from a DETC accredited D/L school and a Bar qualifying J.D. degree from an unaccredited school. It doesn't matter to the Bar examiners of California or any other state. It MIGHT matter regarding the claiming of the degree as a credential in its own right in states that regulate such things but even there, if you become eligible to take that state's Bar exam, the accreditation of your J.D. is immaterial. DETC accreditation does not qualify you for federal student aid. There appear to be at present four major California D/L law schools by which I mean four schools that routinely generate reasonable numbers of Bar examinees and (eventually) lawyers; Concord and Taft, both DETC, and NWCU and OakBrook, both unaccredited. All of these have roughly comparable FYLEX and Bar exam pass rates (since OakBrook has declined a bit and Concord has begun to hit its stride). Historically, OakBrook has beaten the socks off all the others. But since the DETC schools are more expensive than the unaccredited schools, you must decide for yourself whether DETC accreditation is worth the additional cost.
One last general observation Most of the doctoral discussion emphasis on this board tends to be on dissertation doctorates. This is as it should be; a dissertation doctorate (which the J.D. certainly is NOT) is an enormous, life consuming task that requires singleminded dedication for years to complete. But don't allow this emphasis to obscure the fact that a Bar qualifying D/L J.D. is ALSO an undertaking of heartstopping size that will require a significant block of the student's daily schedual EACH and EVERY DAY for FOUR LONG YEARS. There is no "study at your own pace"; the annual rate of progress and total hours devoted to study are governed by Bar Rules. I have no figures to offer but I'd bet that the large majority of people who actually begin D/L law study do not complete the first year. On the other hand, the majority of people who commence residental law study at ABA schools certainly DO complete the program and receive thier degrees. I'd guess that most CalBar schools also have resaonably high completion rates. Bottom line: You will not succeed unless you REALLY want to be a lawyer. And $50,000 in tuition IS a lot (which school, BTW? San Joaquin?) but it is still MUCH LESS than most others will spend.
How to pay for it If it IS San Joaquin, they are WASC accredited meaning that their students participate in all types of federal student loan and grant programs even though they're not ABA accredited. So $50K is a lot but it IS doable. Good luck!
