Law DL degrees that qualify for the boad in CA

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Abner, Oct 6, 2009.

Loading...
  1. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    My friend, a very well known plastic surgeon, is looking for a DL law degree school that will qualify him to sit for the bar exam in California. Money is no object. He is not interested in practicing law, but I guess he wants to be a lawyer in order to protect himself if he needs to.

    Law DL schools are not my cup of tea. Can you all please help me compile a list for him? Once again, these must be schools that will qualify him to sit for the bar and practice in CA.

    Thanks in advance!

    Abner :)
     
  2. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Concord University School of Law (RA and DETC) is now the biggest player; probably more than half of California DL bar passers come from Concord. Abraham Lincoln University and Northwestern California University School of Law are the next biggest.

    Some will suggest Oak Brook College of Law & Govt. Policy as the DL school with the highest pass rates. This may be true; however, Oak Brook has a strong religious orientation, and only accepts candidates after thoroughly screening them for their religious views. Oak Brook, unlike the others, is not for profit and not for everyone.

    Stats for the most recent bar exams (02/09, 07/08) show the following for bar passers from DL schools:

    Total: 110
    Concord: 59
    Abraham Lincoln: 16
    NW Cal: 10
    Oak Brook: 15
    All others: 10
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2009
  3. sentinel

    sentinel New Member

    William Howard Taft University has the Taft Law School offering the Juris Doctor (Attorney Track) degree.

    Kaplan University has the Concord Law School offering the Juris Doctor degree.

    Abraham Lincoln School of Law offers the Juris Doctor degree.

    There are other law schools offering law degrees via distance education but these should be a good starting point for investigation. The pass rates for the Baby Bar examination written after completion of first year should be consulted. For those not intending to practice law there are executive juris doctor degrees as well.
     
  4. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the replies everyone. Keep them coming. From what I can see, Concord looks like the best fit for him. What do you all think? Once again, he is a highly intelligent well known surgeon, and as such he wants to become a lawyer to protect himself from petty lawsuits. So it it were you, which would you choose? He studied the CA real estate exam for a couple of hours and passed on the first try! This guy is a genius. So, in my mind, he probably wants something he can finish as fast as he can so he can sit for the bar ASAP. So once again, if it were you, and money was no problem, which school would you pick?

    I am leaning towards Concord.

    Abner :)
     
  5. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Concord seems like a safe choice; it is easily the largest program, and the one with the most accreditations (RA and DETC, though not ABA). In fact, I've heard that Concord now enrolls more students than any B&M law school in California, although the Concord attrition rate is extremely high.

    Still, it might be worth checking out other smaller schools (Abraham Lincoln, NW Cal, Taft) to see if they offer lower tuition or particular electives.

    I understand that Calbar regulations require DL law programs to consist of four years of part-time study, no exceptions. So no DL law program will get anyone into the bar exam in less than four years. It doesn't make any difference how smart you are, or how quickly you would be capable of moving through the curriculum. Calbar says that DL students have to be in school for four years.

    Some schools, including Concord, offer an "Executive JD" program that only takes three years. This program will provide advanced legal knowledge, but it isn't bar-qualifying.

    The fastest way to get to the bar exam is through a traditional ABA-accredited B&M program, which only takes three years. Not sure if Calbar-accredited B&M programs are three years or four years.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2009
  6. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member


    Hmm. I hadn't thought of it from that angle. So the minimum is 3-4 years? I would tell him the sooner he starts the better. Then he can at least list the fact that he is a law student at XXXXXXXto at least show that he is familiar with the law, then ulimately will pass the bar. This is to discourage any ambulance chasers and make him more knowledgable.

    Why do you think Concord has such a high attrition rate?

    I will give him all the choices you guys have listed, as long as the can all lead to someone sitting down for the bar exam and being able to practice law in California. These schools all meet this criteria correct?

    Once again, if you were not worried about money, which would you choose? Which is more prestigious?

    Thanks CalDog and Sentinel!

    Abner :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2009
  7. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    You don't need to pass the bar to represent yourself in a legal proceeding.
     
  8. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Four years for part-time study at a DL school. Three for full-time study at a traditional ABA-accredited B&M school. I think a few traditional schools cut it down to 2.5 years by holding classes in the summer.

    The whole process could take even longer if it takes multiple attempts to pass the bar, which is probably not unusual for DL students.

    All DL law schools do. The study of law is intellectually demanding, requires passing very difficult licensure exams (bar and baby bar), and takes several years. Yet DL law schools typically have minimal to non-existent admissions requirements. For example, they don't normally require that applicants take the LSAT, which is mandatory at any ABA-accredited school.

    Essentially DL law schools have virtually "open admissions" (which is not surprising, since they are typically for-profit). So they enroll large numbers of students, including many who are grossly unqualified for a rigorous course of legal study. That's why the Bar requires a screening exam, the First Year Law Students' Examination (= "Baby Bar"), as a reality check. The attrition would be similarly high if there were "open admissions" medical schools that did not require the MCAT or enforce any other minimum standard for medical aptitude.

    Here's what I mean by "high attrition". In 2008 a total of 437 Concord Law students took the First Year Law Students' Examination (= "Baby Bar") for the first time. That's an indicator of the number of Concord students entering the pipeline every year.

    If you look at the post above, you will find that the number of Concord students that pass the General Bar exam, and therefore leave the pipeline, was only 59 over the past year (that includes graduates who took the bar two or more times). The number of new students that Concord enrolls every year is measured in the hundreds; the number of bar passers from Concord every year is measured in the dozens. So attrition is on the order of 80-90%, and this is typical for other DL law schools as well.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2009
  9. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Four years for part-time study at a DL school. Three for full-time study at a traditional school. I think a few traditional schools cut it down to 2.5 with summer coursework.

    The whole process could take even longer if it takes multiple attempts to pass the bar, which is probably not unusual for DL students

    All DL law schools do. The study of law is intellectually demanding, involves very difficult licensing exams, and takes several years. Yet DL law schools typically don't try to screen their applicants: they have minimal to non-existent admissions requirements. For example, they don't usually require applicants to take the LSAT, which is mandatory at any ABA-accredited school. DL law schools are typically for-profit, so they have no incentive to turn away prospective paying customers, regardless of their chances for success.

    Essentially DL law schools have "open admissions", so they enroll large numbers of students, including many who are grossly unqualified for a rigorous course of legal study. That's why the Bar requires an early screening exam, the First Year Law Students' Examination (= "Baby Bar"), as a reality check. The attrition would be similarly high if there were "open admissions" medical schools that did not require the MCAT or any other test of medical aptitude.

    Here's what I mean by "high attrition". In 2008 a total of 437 Concord Law students took the "Baby bar" for the first time. That's an indicator of the number of Concord students entering the pipeline every year.

    If you look at the post above, you will find that the number of Concord students that pass the General Bar exam, and therefore leave the pipeline, was only 59 over the past year (that includes graduates who took the bar two or more times). Concord enrolls hundreds of new students in any given year, yet only dozens of Concord grads actually become bar passers in any given year. The numbers suggest that attrition is on the order of 80-90%, and this is typical for other DL law schools as well.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2009
  10. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Actually, having 437 Concord students taking the Baby Bar and 59 Concord students passing the General Bar in the same year (2008) does not prove 80-90% attrition. The relevant questions are: (a) The 59 Concord students who passed the General Bar in 2008 constitute what percentage of the number of Concord students who took the Baby Bar in 2005? and (b) Of the 437 Concord students who took the Baby Bar in 2008, how many will pass the General Bar in 2011?
     
  11. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    From a big-picture perspective, the pattern is the same from year to year. Every year, there are hundreds of new law students at Concord -- yet there are only dozens of new attorneys with Concord degrees. So the underlying conclusion doesn't change -- attrition must be very high.

    For calendar year 2005, a total of 370 Concord students took the Baby Bar for the first time, presumably after being enrolled for one year.

    For calendar year 2008, a total of 55 Concord students passed the General Bar on the first try, presumably after completing four years of study. This suggests that only about 15% of the cohort of Concord students who took the Baby Bar in 2005 successfully became attorneys in 2008. In fairness, that number should rise over time, because some of those who failed the bar on the first try will eventually pass as repeaters.

    It is impossible to forecast the future, but historical data suggest that it will be around 10-20%, with more passing as "repeaters" in 2012 or later
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2009
  12. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    I think he thinks being a lawyer plus a doctor would intimidate people planning on trying to sue. I actually think he would be a very good lawyer. The guy is a quick study.

    Abner
     
  13. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    I see what you are saying, makes sense. I am rather dense today. I thought you meant Concord had a higher attrition rate in relation to other schools . I am going to give him his options, and it will be up to him.

    Thanks guys! He will appreciate it.

    Abner
     
  14. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    I never said that the underlying conclusion would change. I merely was pointing out that General Bar passers 2008/Baby Bar takers 2008 would yield an inaccurate statistic. Of course it is impossible to predict the future. But my point in suggesting that the more accurate statistics would be General Bar passers 2008/Baby Bar takers 2005 or General Bar passers 2011/Baby Bar takers 2008 was intended to convey the notion that rather than formulating the equation as General Bar passers same year/Baby Bar takers same year, the correct formula would be General Bar passers year x + 3/Baby Bar takers year x. I'm not sure what Concord or any other DL law school would need to do in order to raise their pass rates to above 10-20%.
     
  15. sentinel

    sentinel New Member

    The success rate for students attending any law school, whether on-campus or distance education, has always been largely a function of the ability and motivation of the student. The attrition rate of on-campus law students is lower due in no small part to the highly selective admissions policy of most law schools. An interesting comparison of attrition rate and bar pass rate between lower tier law schools and distance education law schools might yield more statistically relevant and reliable measures.
     
  16. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    DL law schools could improve their completion rates by doing what every ABA-accredited law school already does as a matter of course: require applicants to take the LSAT (which is designed to evaluate legal aptitude), and preferentially admit the highest scorers. In practice, there is a strong correlation between LSAT score and success on the bar exam.

    However, DL law schools are for-profit institutions, and are not concerned with maintaining ABA accreditation (since they are ineligible for it anyway). So they have no interest in enforcing an LSAT requirement. Their applications, enrollments, and profits would fall significantly if the LSAT was required. This is because (1) studying for and taking the LSAT is expensive and time-consuming, and would discourage many prospective students from even applying, and (2) many of those who did take the LSAT would likely get low scores, which would discourage them from taking the next step of enrolling in law school.

    It's different for ABA-accredited schools. They have to maintain a certain success rate on the bar exam in order to maintain their ABA accreditation, so they need to screen out applicants who have little or no chance of success. And the vast majority of ABA-accredited schools are non-profit, so they are less concerned about maximizing enrollment. The ABA-accredited schools have incentives to be selective, and to only enroll students who have a reasonable chance of becoming attorneys. The DL schools have no incentive to be selective; their goal is simply to enroll as many law students as possible (even if they are grossly unqualified) and to collect as much tuition as possible.

    Oak Brook is an exception, as a non-profit DL school. Their goal is to not to make money, but to produce lawyers and judges who share their religious convictions. So they actually are selective (both for legal aptitude and for theology), and they probably have the lowest attrition rate among the DL law schools. But they are not for everyone.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2009

Share This Page