An ABA Law School That Isn't RA?

I was just loking at the UC system on the WASC directory, and to my surprise discovered that the University of California's Hastings College of Law in San Francisco wasn't listed. Nor does Hastings appear in CHEA's database.

Yet Hastings is one of the most prestigious law schools in California. One third of all sitting judges in the state of California graduated from Hastings (!) It's definitely ABA.

Is this a rare (unique?) example of the American Bar Association bestowing professional accreditation on a law school that doesn't have any institutional accreditation?

Or is Hastings somehow included in Berkeley's or UC San Francisco's accreditation?

Whatever the answer turns out to be, Hastings is an odd bird. It's a University of California unit that technically isn't a campus, it isn't part of another campus, but it just floats around free out there...

http://www.uchastings.edu/

 

Very interesting, Bill.

emphasis added

From http://law.utoledo.edu/lawreview/publication_archives/Volume%2034%20no_1_%20f02/haynsworth.html

So it appears that there are probably a few (<19) more ABA accredited schools that are not RA.

Tony

 

http://www.cooley.edu/overview/factsataglance.htm
It appears that the Thomas M. Cooley Law School used to fall into this category.
ABA accredited - 1978
RA (Northcentral) - 2001

 

http://www.nesl.edu/about/index.cfm?sid=

One that appears to onlyl have ABA accreditation.

Well...I guess that there are some exceptions to the rule of RA ---> Professional accreditation.

Tony

 

According to DOE, freestanding law schools may rely on ABA accreditation to qualify for federal student financial aid. There are a few.

The reverse is also true; there are four or five non ABA schools in California that are regionally accredited. These include La Vern, New College, San Joaquin, Humphries and a couple of others.

The two accreditations are not entirely independant though. WASC will not accredit a non ABA school unless it is CalBar accredited.

 

Possibly in a pair of years, Nothcentral U. (RA) possibly will have a Law School in California = (RA and not ABA)

 

If I were an older, permanent Californian who wanted to be a lawyer, especially if I didn't have a B.A., I'd think very hard about attending an R/A, CalBar accredited non ABA school. R/A would be optional; its big advantage would be eligibility for federal financial aid.

If I were a young Californian thinking about moving at any point in the future, I think I'd try to get into a State university outside California, say, Arizona, Oregon, or even Nevada. Even paying out of state tuition for the first year, I would still end up paying less.

A U.C. degree would come next, followed by Stanfords and U.S.C. I don't think I'd seriously consider any other ABA California school. Just too EXPENSIVE for what you get!

 

La Verne's pass rates last July were better than a couple of the UCs, but at $22,700 a year, they're not exactly cheap (well, until you compare them to the out of state tuition in the UC system).

Empire and Humphreys both do better than a couple of the ABA schools (last July's passing rates were 40% and 50% but they put in relatively few students), and only charge $32,000 for the whole programme. Now those two have to be a bargain.

Given what California is like, I'm quite amazed that a few disgruntled ex-GGU or Thomas Jefferson students haven't tried to sue. At nearly $27,000 a year, you're talking big, big bucks. Even Harvard only charges $33,000 a year. The difference is that GGU and TJ got 32% and 37% of their first-timers through the Cal Bar last July, but 89% of the Harvard first-timers passed. Those colleges make the UK commercial providers of legal education like BPP look cheap!

Angela

 

But even UC California INSTATE tuition is very high these days. I think you end up paying over $60,000 because of the "Professional Degree Fee".

 

I think we're missing the point. ABA is all that matters within that field as your degree can take you anywhere. I don't know many JD holders attempting to transfer their credit to other schools to advance their education.

 

The only reason I haven't attempted law school is because I don't live within commuting distance of an ABA school and the only school that is close by is Cal Bar and I know I don't want to stay in California forever.

 

Inasmuch as the University of California Hastings is a free-standing law school, ABA is institutional accreditation.

 

The US Dept. of Education officially recognizes the ABA as an institutional accreditor, but for "standalone" law schools only;

If a law school is part of a larger university (and most are), then it is expected to have traditional institutional accreditation. In this case, the ABA accreditation is irrelevant (as far as USDoE is concerned), because the institutional accreditation establishes its eligibility for Federal financial aid. ABA accreditation is only relevant (to USDoE) for freestanding law schools, since some of them lack traditional institutional accreditation.

The USDoE database lists about 20 freestanding law schools nationwide that rely on ABA for institutional accreditation, including three other schools in California: California Western (in San Diego), Southwestern (in Los Angeles) and Thomas Jefferson (in San Diego). So it's not particularly unusual.

 

You could take it even further, and make a case that certain UC Hastings degrees are actually unaccredited.

Hastings, like many freestanding law schools, lacks regional accreditation. It does have approval from ABA, as noted above.

However, the ABA has made it very clear that it only evaluates J.D. degree programs. If a law school offers other types of degrees besides the J.D., those other degrees are not covered by the ABA's approval process:

UC Hastings currently offers an LL.M. degree, and later this year they plan to start offering an M.S.L. degree (Master of Studies in Law).

So who accredits the Hastings LL.M. or M.S.L. programs? The ABA doesn't, because they only evaluate and accredit J.D. programs. The regional agencies don't, because Hastings is not RA.

In practice, nobody (including me) would question the legitimacy of a Hastings LL.M. or M.S.L. degree. But in theory, it doesn't seem like any recognized accreditor has evaluated and endorsed the quality of those degrees. So it could be argued that they are unaccredited.

 

I think I remember one of the lawyers that used to hang out on this board (either little fauss or nosborne) once indicated that the ABA approves JD programs and assents to LLM programs.

 

Actually the ABA "approves" JD programs and "acquieses" to non-JD programs.

But "acquiescence" does not mean that the ABA approves or endorses the non-JD program. It just means that the ABA has no objections.

The ABA's sole concern is with JD programs. If a law school wants to start a non-JD degree program (like an LLM or MLS program), then the ABA checks to make sure that the school has sufficient resources to do this, without affecting the JD program. If there will be no impacts to the JD program, then the ABA will "acquiesce" to the LLM or MLS program. But that's the only thing that the ABA checks.

So ABA "acquiescence" to an LLM or MLS program at a given school says nothing whatsoever about the academic quality of those programs. It just means that those programs have no adverse impacts on the JD program.

 

The only exception is the ABA approved LL.M. in Military Law at the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School (TJAGLCS) in Charlottesville, VA.
ABA-Approved Law Schools | Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar

 

OK. That's a special and unique case, because this particular law school offers the LL.M. degree only. There is no J.D. program for the ABA to focus on; all of the students are required to have an ABA-approved J.D. degree before they enroll.

 

And I previously disclosed this in contrast to your original assertion that the ABA evaluates /approves only the J.D. degree; e.g., “The only ‘exception’ is…”