Why the difference...Bar exam

While rooting about in connection with another thread, I reviewed a couple of recent sets of California Bar Exam statistics. Folks, there just is no comparison. Graduates of ABA approved residential programs crush the California Bar Exam. (There are a couple of exceptions in California but those schools are in deep trouble and may not maintain their ABA approval if they don't close altogether).

Every other regular source of applicants does poorly, often very poorly. Now why should this be? There's an idea out there that law school does not prepare the student to pass the Bar exam. Is it that the schools are so much worse? Or is it that their students are poorly prepared?

 

No. You're right. But the overwhelming difference suggests that there's something going on. Following your reasoning, the non ABA schools are admitting unqualified students. I hope it isn't that.

 

By the way, Concord has had fewer than 11 first time takers in the last couple of exams so we don't know how well they did. Lots of repeaters though and they did very poorly. Dont look for Concord to get ABA accreditation any time soon.

 

A few possible factors: less prepared academically, age, family responsibility, etc.
The non-ABA is a valuable avenue for motivated individuals who do not want to pay the sky high ABA tuition. Personally, I just want to have a back plan if the corporate career ends somehow unexpectedly. There is no way I'd be willing to pay ABA tuition for that. After graduating from NWCU, I was able to pass the California bar on the first try at 55+.

 

Another factor: students who go to ABA schools are going to have more resources in general. They can probably pay for extra tutoring sessions, etc. At the very least, they're probably going to be less likely to be needing to work to make ends meet while going to school. The more time you can spend studying, the more likely it is that you're going to pass.

 

My oldest sun graduated from private ABA accredited law school in CA, for 2 out of 3 years of his studies there the school was on probation by ABA due to Law School's low bar passage rates and eventually the law school closed in 2019.
He passed bar exam on third attempt.
Why he/we took the risk with this school, because at the time his mom worked at the school and tuition was part of her benefits.
Now he is practicing attorney in the state of CA.

Some of his coworkers are graduates of CALS law schools such as Trinity, NWC.
https://calawschools.org/law-schools/

These schools possibly have larger #s of students who are working adults, some are in part time programs like 4 year programs.
This could be one of the reasons for lower performance at Cal Bar that its harder for them to learn all that is required?
Also admissions to the programs are less strict, not all required LSAT at the time, not sure how its today.

 

But is it fair to the student to charge 10s of thousands of dollars for a degree when he has a poor chance of passing the Bar?

 

You are absolutely right.
I don't think they should charge more, possibly taking advantage of different populations of students?
Who holds them accountable? CALS law schools have different oversight.
Purdue Global maybe an exception, to early to know.

I speculate that some students maybe unable to get in to ABA accredited school and their only way to earn JD is via such rout and they or their parents have the $$$$$ to pay for it. While others have no choice and pay for it or don't know the difference from ABA schools or think CALS schools offer easier rout to the profession and they will recover the cost once working.

 

I agree, most of the law students who attend ABA accredited law schools are full-time students. While most students attend non-ABA accredited law schools are working full-time, even working outside of the legal profession. It is much easier to attend 3 years of law school full-time without financial obligated distraction. But there a correlation between non-ABA accredit law schools and accredited ones in student loan debts.

 

I have some interest in the https://nwculaw.edu/
As an international student, I would like to know if this school allowed me to sit a Bar exam and probably become a licensed law practitioner.

I sent an email to the school in June:
Hello,
I appreciate the details you've shared. I have a couple of queries about the program:
1. As an international student with no prior legal education, I am interested to know if this program would make me eligible to sit for the bar exam in California.
2. Are there any extra prerequisites or conditions for this program that I should know about?
Kind regards,
xx

This is their reply:
Yes, students who complete our 4 year J.D. degree program are eligible to sit for the California General Bar exam.

There isn't anything particularly notable to mention but you should read through the following pages carefully.
NWCU Admission Requirements: https://nwculaw.edu/school-information/admissions (There is a section on foreign studies towards the bottom)
FAQ Question 11: https://nwculaw.edu/school-information/faq#q11 (Are TOEFL or IELTS test scores required for international applicants?)
CAL Bar Examinations: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Examinations (Information an the various California Bar Examinations)
CAL Bar Admission Requirements: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Requirements

Hopefully this information is helpful, and appreciate if someone share their experience as foreign students (who never been to the US) is able to sit for the bar exam and obtain the license.

 

It bothers me that Lerner put his finger on it but not perhaps in the way he intended. The LSAT is a very accurate predictor of law school and Bar exam success. Maybe all schools should require LSAT scores and also be required to counsel applicants whose scores are under 150. If the low scoring student still wishes to proceed, he does so with a clear warning.

But what's happening instead is schools are accepting other test scores or requiring no test at all. That's exactly the wrong approach. Of course, the schools will get bitten in the end when too many of their graduates fail the Bar. Bit that will happen only after these students have borrowed and spent a lot of money.

 

Aren't they pretty much non-competitive admissions? If you meet the requirements, you're in, right?

 

And if you pony up.

 

They are open admissions for the most party, everyone gets a fair shot at being a lawyer in California. A an undergraduate degree is not required, only 60 units of college is the base line. It is fair and egalitarian. Of course many of the applicants overestimate their abilities and get sorted out. It is exactly the correct approach if we are to break the back of the ABA lawyer guild. We need progressive legal practitioners not more corporate clones.

 

If you take a look at the California exam rule, there is no rule on visa. As long as you have a valid passport, you should be able to register to take the exam. Since the exam centers are in California, you'll need to make sure you can the get the visa to enter into the US to take the exam. Also, even if you pass the exam, the chance of getting hired with a work visa sponsored by a law firm is probably remote.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Examinations/Exam-Rules#:~:text=At%20some%20point%20during%20the,all%20times%20during%20the%20exam.

 

California license is perfectly fine for international practice. First rate credential recognized everywhere. You don't need to be resident in California to practice law. Just get a virtual office in Los Angeles or London and you are all set.

 

Law school and the bar exam are there to assure the public that the attorney they consult is minimally competent. Making students feel good about themselves isn’t part of that mandate. A law school shouldn’t accept or continue to enroll students that it knows are unlikely to pass the Bar.

 

Right. Same principle as Medical schools operate on. In both professions, to forestall and prevent consequences that can be horrific. The dangers of incompetent doctors are obvious. So are the dangers of an incompetent lawyer. They may include:

(a) You get "put away" unjustly. Perhaps for years - or even life. Your country or mine - it happens.
(b) You lose an accident case you should have won - and don't get the 7-figure compensation you could have had
(c) Again, you lose an accident case. This time you have to PAY 7-figure compensation you shouldn't have had to.
(d) You buy a house. Sloppy legal work messes up your title - crooks steal your house from you.
(e) You get a shock on divorce - it'll take the rest of your life to pay. Or longer.... and it shouldn't have. And maybe you never get to see your kids. It's happened - again, sometimes where it shouldn't have.
(f) A mega-business sues to make an example of you. They win, in circumstances where it could have been averted by legal competence. Result: peonage for life.

A bar exam doesn't eliminate the danger completely - but yeah - it makes the odds way better - in your favour.