Jd Degree

Question from a friend:

Is Concord Law School the only institution that offers a Non-Bar JD or Executive JD?

 

There's more...

Taft has one... http://www.taftu.edu/

Do a search using "executive law" to find threads with more info.

 

NON-BAR JD PROGRAMS (AS OF BG15, 2003)

City University Los Angeles www.cula.edu (BG15, 249)
Kensington University www.kensington.edu (BG15, 249)
*Saratoga University www.saratogau.edu (BG15, 248)
*Southern California University of Professional Studies www.scups.edu (BG15, 248)
Thomas Jefferson College of Law www.heed.edu (BG15, 249)
Washington School of Law www.washingtonschooloflaw.com (BG15, 249)

*Also has Bar-qualifying JD

 

I think there is another one but I cannot remember the name of the school. The name id North...something. The are inexpensive and I kknow they offer a BSL when you complete the first two years

 

Ah! *Northwestern California University College of Law www.nwculaw.edu (BG15, 248)

 

Thank You

Thank you. You have been most helpful.

 

Snarl

And since a non Bar J.D. is essentially worthless anyway, why spend gobs of money at Concord?

NWCULaw is unaccredited but unquestionably legitimate. Its Bar program graduates new California lawyers every year and has done so since the 1980s.

If DETC accreditation is important to you (and I can see that it might be) there's always Taft. Taft U. is a good, well established California D/L school whose non Bar J.D. is exactly as useful as Concord's would be.

If the "Washington School of Law" is the Utah institution, they are unaccredited and banned in Oregon. That's a shame because as near as I can tell, they are legitimate. There really isn't a D/L accrediting agency for what they do. But they don't offer the J.D. Their law degrees are the LL.M. and J.S.D. in Taxation.

 

Nosborne 48,

Why do you think that the non-bar JD is essentially worthless?

There are positions in trust departments of banks, compliance departments in insurance companies and banks, and tax consulting firms that do not require one to have passed the bar exam of any state. For someone who has experience in the fields and are using the legal training as a way to enhance their careers in these industries, the non-bar JD is a viable option for them.

The worth of the JD degree (non-bar or bar) really depends on what one wishes to do with it. Do a search under "law degree" on monster.com. You will be surprised by what opportunities exist out there for a non-bar JD.


AlternateLaw

 

I certainly can't speak for Nosborne, but I'm sure that he recognizes that there are some legitimate uses for a non bar J.D.

I imagine what he means by claiming a non bar J.D is "worthless" is that it has less value than a bar qualifying J.D. Since the amount of time and money one would spend on both programs is the same, why would anyone want to go for the non bar option? Even if one doesn't think that the idea of becoming an attorney is very appealing at this time, who knows what opportunities will present themselves four or more years down the road? By taking the bar route, one has at the very least kept all options on the table for his or herself.

For most reasonable circumstances, choosing the non-bar route when a bar option is available is simply absurd.

 

The bar qualifying jd has more value. That is undeniable.
But, before you jump to the conclusion that the non-bar jd is absurb, consider the following :

First, the amount of time and money spent is not the same for a non-bar jd vs a bar jd. The non-bar jd only requires three years of study whereas the bar jd requires four years.

Second, do you know how difficult it is to pass the Baby Bar and General Bar? If you know that you will not practice law and not need the "stamp of approval of the California bar", why jump these hurdles?

Third, if one gets the non-bar jd, one must consider what else one is bringing to the table if they are contemplating a career move. If someone has been a compliance or trust officer or tax accountant for 10 years and wants to study law as a way to help them in their business career, why wouldn't the non-bar jd be sufficient for them? At a place like Taft, a non-bar jd has a lot more flexibility to choose electives that are more relevant to their business interests. You cannot do this with the bar jd track.


Ideally, I agree with you and Nosborne. Getting the bar-jd and, more importantly, passing the bar exam is the best choice. But, if one cannot or does not want to do this, the non-bar jd is still a good option for people under the right situation. They just have to be clear about what they want from the very beginning and realize the limitations.

 

I still must stand by my previous statement, "For most REASONABLE circumstances, choosing the non-bar route when a bar option is available is simply absurd." This is not to say that there may be some very LIMITED situations where I could see some purpose in it, but these are VERY few and far between.

To answer your first point, it had been my understanding that the correspondence law schools which offered the non-bar programs charged on a per credit basis. If this is not correct and there is a slightly lower charge for these programs, then I will stand corrected. Be aware, however, if money is the most important issue for a potential student, then one should be advised that West Coast School of law has a BAR QUALIFYING program for only $1500 per year. Also, theoretically at least, even though a non-bar program can be finished in a year sooner than its counterpart, one will be studing the same material and will therefore spend the same amount of time learning the material. I imagine that completing a J.D. of any sort by correspondence in only three years is a very difficult task. From what I understand, the dropout rates for those on the four year route are extremely high.

It is true that the baby and general bar exams are extremely difficult. You seem to have failed to recognize that for someone taking the bar jd, the general bar exam is only OPTIONAL. For someone who has no interest in becoming an attorney he or she need never even attempt this challenge. It is just common sense that one should preserve this option if circumstances or interests in his or her life should change this shoud remain a door that can be opened at a future date. The baby bar is no easy task either, but for someone who is dedicating a significant amount of time and effort to law study, this should be viewed as a benchmark to ensure that one is properly progressing in this effort.

Probably the most important reason to "jump through these hurdles" though is to legitimize the J.D. We have the remember that even the schools which hold DETC accredidation are considered by most average individuals to be far inferior to ABA schools. If one was obtaining a non bar J.D. from a school with the name recogition of Stanford or Harvard (though we can be certain these schools probably won't be offering this kind of degree in the near future), this wouldn't be as big an issue. Trying to progress in one's occupation or obtain employment with a non-bar J.D. from Concord or Taft is a completely different issue, however. If one is able to pass the bar examination with a degree from one of these schools it goes a long way toward improving these credentials in the eyes of others.

 

What is your evidence to back up your statement that the opportunities for a non-bar jd a "very few and far between"?
(Also, what does "very few" mean to you, anyway....10 positions, 100 positions, 1000 positions?)

How do you know there are so few positions? Have you tried to do a job search to see what positions exist out there (and if they require bar membership)? Or are you making this statement just based on what you hear?

Go to monster.com, hotjobs.com, or careerbuilder.com etc. and do some research about this. Search under "law degree" and read through the job descriptions to see if the jd is required or is just preferred, if the jd needs to be from an accredited school or not, and/or if one needs to be admitted to a state bar or not.

 

You seem to be confused by my previous posts, and appear to have misunderstood my quote. Please re-read these posts and notice that at NO TIME did I ever mention that the OPPORTUNITIES for a non bar JD degree are limited. This is a seperate issue from which I have been speaking.

I believe that the PURPOSE for offering a "JD" degree, which completely extinguishes the right to ever sit for the bar exam very rarely makes sense. The job opportunites that you cite are the same for both programs (the non-bar program and the bar program where the degree seeker chooses to never sit for the bar exam).

Other than being required to pass the "Baby Bar" exam, there is not a significant difference between the programs. In the vast majority of situations, it simply does not make sense to sign up for the non-bar program, even if there is only a very small chance that the degree seeker would ever be interested in sitting for the general bar examination.

I would also like to take a moment to respond to your last paragraph. You request me to search for job descriptions for evidence on information relating to the status of JD degrees and membership in state bars. It is true that in many job postings this information does not explicitly state that accredidation and state bar membership is required.

You must be aware. however, that outside of California unaccredited law schools are very rare. I would certainly argue that even though this information may not be explicitly written out in job postings, under many circumstances it certainly is implied. Probably most importantly though, if one is attempting to obtain employment with an unaccredited (or DETC accredited) correspondence law degree, there is an immediate disadvantage when competing against ABA graduates. Though every individual situation is unique, this is something that can be mitigated by membership in the California bar.

Bottom line: Buyer beware!

 

I'm not confused by your previous posts and have not misunderstood you. I just disagree with you and feel that you are jumping to conclusions about the non-bar jd without backing it up with concrete data.

In one of your prior posts you say in your first paragraph:

"I still must stand by my previous statement, "For most REASONABLE circumstances, choosing the non-bar route when a bar option is available is simply absurd." This is not to say that there may be some very LIMITED situations where I could see some purpose in it, but these are VERY few and far between."

One can REASONABLY INFER from this that you mean that there are LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES for non-bar jd holders. But, how do you know this - especially since it seems that you have not researched this issue at all?

As far as your comments about job postings are concerned, why conclude that just because bar admission is not mentioned in a job posting that it is probably implied. Maybe it is not?

I agree with you about your position in regards to following bar jd track from a non-ABA/correspondence school. Bar membership definitely helps.

But, I cannot agree with you about your positions as far as the limited opportunities ("situations") for the non-bar jd, unless you provide me with more evidence. These situations may not be "very limited" and may not be "very few and far between". This is why I emphasized in my prior post that some research needs to be done about this.

I recall from some prior posts that you were/are going to the U. of London and wish to practice in Alaska eventually. Good luck with accomplishing this (if you have not done it already).

From what I've gathered so far, you are not a lawyer yet, nor do you work in a law related area, nor are you a hr person who may be screening people for non-traditional jobs for one with a legal background. So, why should I just accept your opinion about this?

Meanwhile, I'm going to research this non-bar jd issue further to see what the opportunities really are.

If you believe that following this track is absurd, that's fine.

 

One final time in simple terms:

I believe that in most reasonable circumstances going for a non accredited (or DETC accredited) "JD" is absurd. This is because there is no significant difference in cost and effort (with the exception of being required to pass the "Baby Bar") between it and its bar eligible counterpart.

Why under most REASONABLE (there are exceptions to this that I previously mentioned are probably few and far between)circumstances would a person choose to intentionally extinguish his or her right to ever sit for the general bar examination?

Though this topic has been discussed at great lengths in the past, I would certainly like to hear other opinions on the matter. This would be a better way to come up with more "concrete" evidence on whether the non-bar "JD" from an unaccredited (or DETC) school has any significant value.

Employers (and other users) please chime in on whether you believe this kind of degree has any value beyond that of the bar route where the degree seeker chooses to NOT sit for the general bar examination.

 

Is DETC "unaccredited"?

 

Clearly no. DETC is a form of national accreditation which is considered by most to be a lower standard of accreditation than the ABA (American Bar Association). It is better than no accreditation at all though, especially for someone who has no plans on ever sitting for the general bar examination.

Only two of the California correspondence law schools (Concord and Taft) hold this type of accreditation. All others are unaccredited.

 

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I thought you were saying that a school that had national accreditation (DETC) was unaccredited..

I see that was clearly not the case, I sit corrected-

Yes, the ABA does not grant accreditation DL law schools, sad but true. I guess it is a good thing that California does, aye.

 

Hi recruiting,

Cal Bar doesn't accredit DL law schools.
It merely allows the DL law school graduates to take CA Bar if the schools are registered with Cal Bar.

 

My two cents...

In twenty years of active law practice, I have NEVER seen a job description calling for a J.D. that did not also require either that the J.D. be from an ABA accredited school and/or current Bar membership.

One quasi exception (maybe): Professors at CalBar accredited schools MIGHT get by with a CalBar J.D. with neither Bar admission nor ABA accreditation.

I have often stated my opposition to the so-called non-Bar J.D...in a nutshell, I deny that such a degree is legitimate even if it comes from a DETC school. The J.D. is a professional doctorate program designed to prepare students to practice law. A non-Bar J.D. does NOT represent any such training; by definition, if it did, it wouldn't be "non-Bar".

HAVING SAID ALL THAT, however, my three favorite U.S. D/L law schools each offer the beast. SOMEONE is buying these degrees and they aren't cheap. The non Bar-J.D. must be of SOME professional value, right?

Indeed, even David Boyd over at Taft U finally caved in and started offering a non-Bar J.D. after years of protesting that a J.D. must qualify the holder to take some Bar exam somewhere or it isn't a J.D. at all.

I don't agree, BTW, that there is only nominal difference between the no Bar-J.D. and the Bar-J.D.; the latter is actually a MUCH larger undertaking. FOUR years of study and 80 odd semester hours instead of THREE years and, what, 60 s.h. or so? (i.e. NWCU says that the non-Bar student need complete only three years' worth of study at his own pace instead of four years at the Bar's required progress. www.nwculaw.edu )

(Not to mention the need to put in 864 hours per calendar year and pass the Baby Bar, neither requirement applying to the non-Bar degree.)