the Oregon degree mill law has been clarified

Note that the article uses only the term "diploma mill", provides a definition of a "fly-by-night" school that offers diplomas for sale, and then ends the article by pointing to a link that leads to the ODA link of unaccredited "degree suppliers". Again, unaccredited schools are rarely fly-by-night schools from which one can buy a diploma. In sum, the article is not written very well seemingly because the author didn't do their homework; I doubt whether the author is being intentionally misleading.

 

Unaccredited California law schools are regulated by the California Bar. They are unaccredited in name only. In reality they must meet the rigorous standards of one of our nation's toughest bar.

 

yaknow, this is not my thing but this statement seems to me to be pure junk. if a school is not accredited then it is NOT regulated. that's the whole idea. they do whatever they want to do. it's the students who have to pass the bar exam, not the school. an unaccredited law school can have a 0% pass rate on the bar exam year after year and continue to exist as long as there are people stupid enough to sign on. it's the students that have to pass the bar, not the school.

 

Hypothetically, you are corrrect, but one can contrive an example to llustrate any position...

 

There are basically three kinds of law schools in California.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=10115&id=5128

First, there are the ones that are accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA is recognized as an accreditor by the Dept of Education/CHEA. More importantly, ABA accreditation is recognized by (and often required by) bar admissions people nationwide. All of California's more prestigious law schools are ABA.

Second, there are a set of California law schools that aren't accredited by the ABA but are accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the California State Bar. Several of these also have regional accreditation, which doesn't mean a whole lot for bar admission but might satisfy some states' degree-use laws.

The California Bar Examiners treat these Calbar schools as accredited, but other states' bars don't. Since the California Bar Association isn't a Dept. of Education/CHEA recognized accreditor, telling other people that you have a Calbar accredited degree might conceivably be a criminal act in a few states if there isn't some other recognized accreditation. (It's hard to imagine anyone actually being prosecuted for it though, unless they were illegally practicing law or something.)

Here in California, these Calbar accredited schools are typically perceived as being lesser law schools and their graduates' poorer performance on the bar exam tends to bear it out. It's pretty much accepted that Calbar is less demanding than the ABA, which is why weaker or less-well-funded lawschools oftentimes opt for it.

Finally, I need to point out that neither the ABA or the California Bar Association are currently willing to accredit DL law programs. All ABA and Calbar accredited lawschools are B&M classroom-based.

And third, there are the fully unaccredited California lawschools. That's unaccredited in the legal-profession sense, since a couple of these schools (Concord and Taft) do have DETC accreditation. DETC presumably satisfies degree-use laws in Oregon or wherever, even if they wouldn't get their holders admitted to the bar. So somebody could say that they have a non-bar JD without having Oregon SWAT breaking down their door, wrestling them to the floor and cuffing them. Most of the nonaccredited California lawschools don't have any accreditation though.

The California Bar Examiners treat all of the California DL lawschools as unaccredited, whether or not they are DETC, since they are neither ABA or Calbar accredited. That means that their students have to satisfy additional requirements such as the first year law student's baby-bar exam.

It's true that the California Bar Association does have the authority to regulate these unaccredited schools, but it's pretty minimal. There have been California "lawschools" that essentially consisted of a single attorney teaching most everything for example. The unaccredited schools have reputations here in California ranging from interesting and reasonably legitimate (if proletarian) such as (DETC-accredited and fairly big-budget) Concord, down to a constantly changing array of small obscure low-end things that border on being mills.

 

Unaccredited law schools in California do have to register with CalBar, but the registration requirements are not considered "rigorous".

It is possible for a non-ABA law school to apply for a more demanding review, resulting in "CalBar accreditation". But this process is completely optional. According to Calbar, there are currently 45 non-ABA law schools in California. Only 18 have undergone the CalBar accreditation process.

The remaining 27 schools are considered "unaccredited" for legal education purposes (although some are DETC-accredited, as noted above). The students at unaccredited law schools are subject to rigorous CalBar review -- in the form of the "Baby Bar" exam. But the schools themselves are not.

 

Well... I know that Canterbury University is legally authorized to issue degrees in its jurisdiction (also if the degrees released aren't worth the paper they're written on).
See at http://www.wes.org/ewenr/05oct/feature.htm
This make them legal papers, isn't it?

But are these degrees valid as credentials in the jurisdiction they are issued, or not?

That's the question!

 

Daniel66 asks if these degrees (eg Canterbury) are valid in the jurisdiction where issued.

In the case of Canterbury, no. As the cited article says, they are "empowered to confer degrees via their articles of incorporation."

But jurisdictions do not regulate corporate self-empowerments. As I wrote once in Bears Guide, I could form a corporation empowered to appoint the Pope, and have it declare that I am the Pope. The corporation might be legal, but its action would not have wide acceptance.

 

I like that illustration.

 

According to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, Canterbury University degrees do not meet Oregon statutory requirements. So there's your answer, at least as far as Oregon is concerned.

It is unclear whether Oregon would regard Canterbury University as a legal unaccredited institution (= degrees usable if explicit disclaimer added) or as an illegal diploma mill (= degrees unusable). But in practice, it may not really matter very much, because either way there are significant disincentives to use the degree in Oregon.

 

If you look at the British list of Accredited degree issuers (www.dcsf.gov.uk/recognisedukdegrees ) and look under "Recognised Bodies" you will see The Archbishop of Canterbury is a recognised issuer of degrees but The Pope is not.
However we do actually list all other religious colleges that issue Proper degrees, IE Divinity degrees after long study. Very different to the US system but neater I think.