Distance Learning Law Schools

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Garp, May 16, 2014.

Loading...
  1. Garp

    Garp Well-Known Member

    I had been thinking about the idea of studying law lately (more for fun and possible use). I understand the limitations of the online law school route (i.e. Cal Bar and practice in California, practice in some states after experience, practice in some with ABA LLM and some never). Also, grads from online schools are not going to be picked up by big law firms, may have some chance in CA at jobs at some levels of govt and will likely end in private practice or working for advocacy organizations. Passing the California Bar does seem to give you an advantage in sitting for law qualifications in some foreign countries (regardless of the online nature of the degree due to a sort of reciprocity with the California Bar). I suppose its reputation for being the most difficult helps.

    From what I can see, other than saying you have a nationally accredited degree (DETC), a degree from Taft or Concord are of not much more use than unaccredited California options since Concord and Taft are also listed as unaccredited schools for the California Bar. When people say accredited and law school in the same breath they mean ABA accredited. In reading it did not appear they had any advantage in other states.

    The two most affordable options are Northwest California University School of Law and American International School of Law.

    NWCUSL - Has been around for about 30 years. Decent pass rates on CAL Bar. Use of online technology, etc. Does not include prep courses. Cost around 13,000 for the program. http://www.nwculaw.edu/

    AISOL - New. They only have one baby bar under their belt (75% pass rate). Founding Dean of the Chapman University School of Law (ABA accredited) is their Dean. Online and real time courses. Baby Bar and Cal Bar prep courses included. Cost 8900 for program.
    http://www.aisol.org/WhyAISOL.aspx

    Not sure whether I will take the plunge. Means investing 4 years of my life and a lot of study. Subject matter is fascinating.

    Of course could get to the end of all of that and not pass the California Bar.

    Raising the Bar: Even Top Lawyers Fail California Exam - WSJ.com

    One of the interesting things for me has been reading about the glut of law school graduates in general, the generally low starting salaries for grads from all but the top schools, grads who cannot find jobs, and the huge debt load many Law School grads carry. That was disappointing to read (not as much for me as for some of the grads who one article said were in shock and disbelief over the post law school prospects).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2014
  2. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Concord was acquired by Kaplan University several years ago. Concord is still nationally accredited (by DETC), but it is now also covered under Kaplan's regional accreditation (from HLC-NCA). Their dual accreditation status is shown in the USDoE database.

    But even regional accreditation doesn't really make a difference in this case. As you say, the important thing for a law school is ABA. Everything else -- even RA -- is effectively "unaccredited" as far as the legal community is concerned.

    The word has gotten out, which is why law school applications and enrollments have undergone a dramatic collapse over the past few years.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2014
  3. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    CalDog made my point while I was typing too slowly. Mods, delete if desired.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2014
  4. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    The CalBar First-Year Law Student's Examination stats show:

    - 1 first-time taker in October 2012 (who did not pass)
    - 4 first-time takers in June 2013 (3 passed, so there's that "75% pass rate").

    School is not listed in October 2013 stats, so presumably 0 takers.
    School is not listed in June 2011 or October 2011 stats, so presumably 0 takers.

    So apparently 5 total first-time takers in school history; 3 passed.
    This is a 60% pass rate for first-timers; however, it's obviously not a very large sample.

    If you do enroll at AISOL, you can probably count on small class sizes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2014
  5. Garp

    Garp Well-Known Member

    AISOL is definitely new.

    Does anyone know if there is a similar attorney glut in Canada and the UK or is this a peculiar American problem. I know they don't have the same ambulance chasing contingency fee/commission sales approach.
     
  6. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    My impression is that the legal market is softening in Canada and the UK as well. However, the situation does not seem to be as bad as it is in the US, probably because (1) US law schools expanded more aggressively over the past 10-15 years, and (2) US law students graduate with more student loan debt, so they are more crippled by underemployment.

    *****

    To see the problem facing US law schools in one simple graph, click here.

    You will notice that Fall 2013 first-year law school enrollment is comparable to mid-1970s levels. For Fall 2014, it will likely drop further, to early-1970s levels.

    But while the enrollments may be comparable to early-1970s levels, there is still an important difference. In the early 1970s, there were only about 150 ABA-approved law schools in the US. Now there are about 200 law schools trying to fill seats.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2014
  7. NorCal

    NorCal Active Member

    NWCUSL is stupid cheap, nobody would argue that. I looked them up a few years ago, and I took it one step closer when I realized one day that my employer sent me to a training course that was literally on the same street as NWCUSL. Curiosity got the best of me, and I walked onto their "campus" which was on the mid level of a huge business complex. NWCUSL was nothing more than a small business office of approximately 800sf. Very lackluster experience, but hey its DL so they don't need a huge campus.

    So long as your pursuit is recreational, your golden. If your trying to sit for the bar exam, DL in general doesn't have a great passing rate; no matter which DL option you choose.

    Good luck moving forward, I hope it all pans out for you because I think I speak for many people when I say a lot of us have been in your shoes and flirted with the idea of earning a JD. (Some even took the plunge)
     
  8. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    My LL.M. is from Taft Law School and my experience was very positive there.

    It seems to me that the severe overproduction of attorneys in California (especially) isn't a good argument against doing a cheap D/L law degree IF you are willing to really work the program (always a D/L factor; no one breathing down your neck) and are thinking of taking the CA Bar. Here's why: A D/L J.D. has one enormous advantage over the vast majority of new law grads in California. S/he doesn't owe $120,000 to Sallie Mae. Most do, even the UC grads. There's no opportunity cost, either. So a new J.D. from, say, Taft Law can offer services to people and businesses without having to charge $250-500/hour.

    Where and how one gets a law degree has virtually nothing to do with being a good lawyer. Unless you are interested in the handful of Big Law jobs or top-level federal work, the law school DOES NOT MATTER. At all. To anyone. Period. Outside of the Tight Club of "legal elites" no one cares. Your professional reputation is most important as is your class standing early on (if your school even publishes such a thing. Mine, the University of New Mexico, ceased doing so about ten years ago.)

    So I say, go for it!
     
  9. Delta

    Delta Active Member

    It would seem to me that the two major hurdles to attending a California correspondence law school would be first, passing the "baby bar" and second, the California Bar to practice law. Do you have any recommendations for the best strategy to accomplish this? Are there prep courses that you recommend? Thanks for the excellent advice!
     
  10. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Well, the most important thing to do is work the program. Law school in any form is a reading and writing marathon. Take your first courses very seriously then take a Baby Bar review such as Bar Exam Outlines and Lectures You will pass if you work it like it's really law school.

    Passing the California Bar Exam isn't easy for anyone but again, work the next three years like it matters and do a Bar Review course. You will pass. Taft Law claims an historic pass rate for its graduates of 71% though that includes retakes.

    I mention Bar Outlines because I like their approach and they're cheap. I have no connection to the company and have never used their materials. There are other courses out there, some costing around $100 and some topping out at several thousand dollars. So take the recommendation for what you think it's worth.
     
  11. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Those are certainly two obstacles. However, my impression is that there is also a third obstacle: large numbers of DL law students simply drop out, either before or after the baby bar. It turns out that not everyone is cut out for four years of intensive independent study of material that tends to be difficult, dry, and boring (in my opinion). And note that the DL law schools make little or no effort to pre-screen applicants for legal aptitude. For example, ABA law schools universally require applicants to take the LSAT -- a test that is specifically designed to predict success in law school -- while DL law schools rarely (never?) do.

    My guess is that maybe 10-15% people who enroll in DL law schools actually become licensed attorneys. If you look at the Calbar stats, you will see that the correspondence/DL law schools send hundreds of new students into the baby bar every year. Yet the number of correspondence/DL law graduates who successfully pass the California Bar every year is only in the dozens. So hundreds of people enter the pipeline at one end, but only dozens come out at the other end of the pipeline. Obviously there are leaks.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2014
  12. Delta

    Delta Active Member

    Dropping out of law school is more of a symptom than an obstacle. If one has the aptitude to succeed in a traditional law school then why would it be any different for that same person attending a "non traditional" law school? I have to agree with Nosborne, wherein it really doesn't matter where one goes to school. It's the individual's aptitude, motivation and discipline to study that gives them the ability to succeed rather than the school. Granted, upper tier schools may have better resources but technology today plays a major role in leveling the playing field.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2014
  13. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Well...more of an obstacle I'd say. To qualify for the Bar Exam, a D/L student must log 864 hours of study time during each of four years. 2-1/2 hours per day, seven days a week. There is very little flexibility. If you fall behind, you are in trouble as it's hard to make it up.

    I put in about that much time most days for my LL.M. but I didn't have to keep a log and I earned just 24 semester hours over about 2-3/4 calendar years. A single J.D. year would be about 30 semester hours. True, tax law is notorious among both lawyers and accountants which is why most practitioners take a Master's in the subject but a J.D. year is going to be demanding of the most disciplined and well prepared student. Be warned. But don't be discouraged. It CAN be done.

    In an ideal world, the potential Californian D/L law student would spend the considerable extra tuition and complete the first year at a California Bar accredited evening program. Doing so would exempt the student from the Baby Bar and would give the student a solid foundation in the basics. The Bar exam, remember, is largely about basic legal understanding though applied to a wide variety of law. The law itself can be learned fairly easily once the basic understanding is acquired.
     
  14. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    If one has the aptitude to succeed in a traditional law school, then that person probably has a good chance of succeeding a non-traditional school.
    The point is that non-traditional law schools admit many students who do not have the aptitude to succeed in a traditional law school.

    Concord Law School is the biggest law school in California, in terms of enrollment.
    Yet it only produces a few dozen attorneys per year, while big ABA schools produce a few hundred attorneys per year.
    Why is Concord a giant in terms of enrollment, but a midget in terms of successful bar passers ?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2014
  15. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Depends on what you mean by a legal job. Outside of large firms, it doesn't matter even in the hiring process. This opinion is based, however, on my experience of hiring and being hired for legal positions and I live in New Mexico so YMMV.

    I don't agree that the aptitude for D/L law study is the same as for traditional study. Yes, your brain must be trained to think in a particular way regardless but D/L law study is much, much more demanding of personal dedication and discipline.

    Or maybe mania and obsession? (grin)
     
  16. Delta

    Delta Active Member

    Exactly! They probably would not have succeeded in a traditional school anyway! How is that an "obstacle" to successfully completing a correspondence law school? If you are talking about the overall attitude of these correspondence law schools in accepting every Tom, Dick and Harry that applies then it is a marketing deception but for someone who has the aptitude and potential to succeed in law school as evidenced by a high LSAT score (listed on this thread), a graduate degree, etc. How is the dropout rate of a particular correspondence law school an obstacle to success?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2014
  17. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Then go DO it!

    Good luck whatever you do.
     
  18. sideman

    sideman Well Known Member

    This was my experience. If not for D/L law study I would not have studied law. My set of circumstances and stage of life would not allow it. But with D/L law study I was able to get the required hours in, under extreme time management, and accomplish something that was impossible otherwise. Now it's true that I did not pass the baby bar (the two words in themselves are an oxymoron---there's nothing baby about it---it's a one day bar exam). But I came close. And who knows? One day I might attempt it again. But I satisfied myself with the knowledge that I could do it and the knowledge gained has served me well in my industry.
     
  19. Garp

    Garp Well-Known Member

    Nosborne48, thank you for you practical insight. Both realistic and encouraging. All of the information has been helpful. It is interesting to hear from people who have taken the route or are in the profession.

    I do agree that Concord may well have a model dependent on putting large numbers of students in knowing they will not come out attorneys on the other end through attrition. This was similar to what an ex executive of Trinity Seminary said once about their model being dependent for cash on large numbers enrolling but not actually completing degrees. I think he said they would have been in trouble had all of them continued on (drained resources).

    A criticism I heard about Concord was that they had hurdles which included elimination of people from the program who looked like they might impact pass rates. Having said that they do fill a niche. Possibly wise for people to take the LSAT to see if they have an aptitude for the study of law (not sure the correlation between the test and ability).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2014
  20. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    There are three ways to fail when studying at a California law school:

    (1) by not passing the baby bar;
    (2) by not passing the general bar;
    (3) by dropping out or flunking out of school (regardless of exam results).

    Statistically, the failure rates for all three of these options are higher at correspondence/DL law schools than at traditional ABA-approved law schools.
    That's the only point that I'm trying to make.

    Is it possible for a sufficiently motivated and talented correspondence/DL law student to succeed, in spite of the elevated failure rates?
    Obviously yes. Dozens of people do it every year.
     

Share This Page