New Law School Auctioning Tuition?

I'm glad that I could be a form of cheap entertainment for you.

It is clear that you are categorically dismissing the chance of any school succeeding simply because most others have previously failed. Without proper research, there is little validity to your opinion. If you show me a specific problem with National, MD Kirk, etc. I could possibly agree with you.

It is clear that even in the strictest environments (of which you are only speculating will become in California), some schools will succeed and others will fail. Even every ABA law school starts from nothing, and we know that new ones are approved nearly every year.

As we know from available statistics, the chances of a new student becoming a practicing attorney after attending NWCU or Taft is probably in single digits (with most other correspondence law schools being in the lower single digits). A person taking a small financial gamble on another school (with unproven statistics) should only expect to get out as much as he or she puts in. In all likelihood, it is VERY unlikely that any correspondence law student will be admitted to the bar... I just don't see it as a crisis when a student attempts it.

 

I don't have any the information in front of me at the moment, but I am certain that I read claims that the state bar worked with students in this situation so that anyone with documentation of their studies lost very little credit for their law studies. I am virtually certain that NO STUDENTS had to start over after four years of study. Isn't it a requirement to provide information on students to the state bar a couple of times a year? If you have information to the contrary, please provide this.

Anyone who says that there is NO risk for even Taft or NWCU isn't being completely honest. These are very small private operations which, while not likely, could suffer problems that could lead to a closure.

The biggest risk (which probably accounts for 90% or more of students at these schools), is that a student will pay money to the school and never accomplish his or her goal of becoming an attorney. The vast majority of the blame here usually lies with a student's failure to dedicate enough time to the goal though.

The reason why a student could choose to go with a law school in business for one month is with an offer of $3000 for the ENTIRE program, of course.

 

Donate the $3,000 to a charity, lol! or flush it down the toilet the next morning you have your duty to do in the bathroom!

Ya cant even get an A.A. degree for $3,000 and one is going to spend that on a law degree that will qualify one to take the bar? lol. now this is sorta of getting comical, obviously that person is not serious about being an attorney, let me ask my Physician if he spend $4,000 to get his medical training, lol.

Actually NWCU has the highest number of practicing lawyers totally in California more then any other correspondence law school and certainly more then the total of at least 10 others correspondence law schools combined.

Taft comes in second.

National Law School wont be here in 2010 for his "graduation".

It is clear that even in the strictest environments (of which you are only speculating will become in California), NO SPECULATION, I HAVE FRIENDS IN THE COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS!

Changes are coming and many law schools arent gonna make it.

If one is serious about attending law school why would they go with a law school open for business for 1 month when there are 2 correspondence law schools that have been around since 1982?

Its not even logical, practical or smart!

Sounds like the "student" doesnt even have enough faith in themselves that they can complete the program as they are going into law school knowing the law school has a high probability of failing and most do.

Look me up before 2010, MD Kirk Law School and National, American Hertiage and West Haven, all those schools will be gone, the owners having gone out of business. and perhaps
even SCUPS and some of the others as well.

 

Well, now.

Let's look at this thing like lawyers, shall we?

The reason correspondence study is accepted in the Golden State is not because CalBar thinks it is a good idea. No, California is one of the few states where the LEGISLATURE rather than the Supreme Court decides what is an adequate legal education. It seems to me that California received some sort of "ding" for this in the last few years from the ABA.

Now, the Legislature is not ending correspondence law study. Therefore, D/L law programs will continue unless the Legislature reworks the entire Code on this subject. Unlikely, I think.

If I were CalBar and faced with regulating D/L schools, I'd impose the exact same admissions standards on ALL schools, D/L. unaccredited residential, CalBar accredited, ABA approved, and even law office study.

I suspect, make that STRONGLY suspect that two things would result:

-Bar pass rates fpr D/L and unaccredited schools would improve dramtically; and;

-few unaccredited and D/L programs would survive.

 

"If I were CalBar and faced with regulating D/L schools, I'd impose the exact same admissions standards on ALL schools, D/L. unaccredited residential, CalBar accredited, ABA approved, and even law office study.

I suspect, make that STRONGLY suspect that two things would result:

-Bar pass rates fpr D/L and unaccredited schools would improve dramtically; and;

-few unaccredited and D/L programs would survive"

FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE GETS IT! thank you, Nosborne!

The intention of the State Bar in the very near future is to HEAVILY REGULATE unaccredited law schools and correspondence law schools which they can do via their adminstrative powers given to them by the California Supreme Court.

This will DO EXACTLY what you just said.

Few correspondence law schools will survive with the elimination of the non-bar J.D. degree to anyone with a check in the mail to the school and not being required to pass the Baby Bar.

Then the State Bar makes the law schools meet strict operational regulations, admission requirements, financial stability, and "some" sort of approval process, if you will, for correspondence schools.

Over time this strategy reduces the number of correspondence law schools, and it doesnt eliminate it entirely, that would upset the legislation, but it certainly puts a stranglehold on the worst of the worst and the new correspondence law schools!

AND I SUPPORT THAT 100%

For this reason and many many other reasons a new law student should pick a law school that has been around like Taft and NWCU since 1982 cuz frankly the other schools have little possibility in surviving and frankly there is not enough room in California for 16 correspondence law schools once the NON BAR JD degree is eliminated!

 

Let's not jump to conclusions, shall we?

Before you automatically assume that Nosborne was agreeing with your opinion, let's go back and take another look at his comments:

You notice that he writes what he would do if he were in charge of rewriting regulations for the California bar, and NOT what he believes will happen. I think that he will be the first to tell you that this is pure speculation on his part, and was not intended to tell the poster who won the tuition at National that he might has well have "flushed his $3000 down the toilet."

Perhaps Nosborne will be willing to comment on the main discussion: Was the poster who obtained the tuition deal taking a REASONABLE risk? Or is it so obviously clear that new bar regulations are guaranteed to happen and that they will be so strict that 50% of correspondence law schools (including National) will be eliminated within two years?

For the record, I think that Nosborne is probably right about what would happen if admission standards for DL and unaccredited schools were made the same as the ABA schools. I strongly suspect that most of the problems with these schools are directly related to the quality of students admitted and probably have little to do with the quality of education given.

As mentioned before though, I really have my doubts on how strict (if this even happens) new regulations may be. My reason: The evidence of the California bar "accredited" law schools. The state bar already controls these schools. As we can see in official records, the bar passage rates for many of these are EXTREMELY dismal, and we haven't seen any attempt by the state bar to change this.

 

Re: Let's not jump to conclusions, shall we?

I'm not debating the fact that D/L law school performance on the California Bar Exam is dismal. But does anyone know why?

 

Subject beaten to death!

In the end all my comments will be proven right, why?

Cuz I have a contact inside the Committee of Bar Examiners
that knows what rules are going to be changed, when, how, and what the goal is.

The state bar has this authority to change the rules and they want total full control over ALL law schools.

And no your wrong about it being just the law students, most correspondence law schools, (NOT ALL) but most with the non-bar J.D. make getting that degree so easy my 11 year old could get it.

AGAIN. I STAND BY MY PREDICTION, THAT STUDENT WILL NOT BE GRADUATING WITH A BAR QUALIFYING J.D. FROM NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL IN 2010, WHY? IT WILL HAVE CLOSED BEFORE THEN.

 

The real distinction between CalBar accredted and ABA approved schools on the one hand and D/L, unaccradited schools, and law office study on the other hand is that the SCHOOL must prove that its program is effective in the former category while the STUDENT must prove that his studies are effective in the latter.

This is an open invitation to frauds and charlatans to bilk tuition money out of students who have NO realistic hope of becoming lawyers. Not ALL programs do this; not ALL students in such programs are unprepared. But if the figures tell us anything, it is that "open" admissions policies are no favor to the potential student.

But so long as the California Legislature REQUIRES CalBar to admit to the Bar exam anyone completing a degree from a D/L or unaccredited school, nothing can really be done.

Look, law is not rocket surgery but neither is it simple and easy. Many, many people, maybe most people, aren't equipped mentally, emotionally, or psychologically to study law. There's no shame in this; I could never be a physician or professor of music. But the LSAT together with ugpa predicts with astonishing accuracy not only success in law school but also Bar exam success. NO school or program should admit any student whose indicia suggest future failure without a damned good reason. To do so is to sell snake oil, I think.

And both ABA and CalBar accredited schools are REQUIRED to use the LSAT or prove that they use an equally valid admissions examination.

 

Whenever in these posts I run across persons who favors new correspondence law schools with minimum admission requirements or relaxed standards for correspondence law schools or for admitting anyone who wants to study law or who supports non-bar J.D. degrees I realize such person is not qualified for a real J.D. degree or to be an Attorney at Law.

I support a major crack down on correspondence law schools,
a tightening of the admission requirements, the elimination of
the non-bar J.D. degree and uniform standards throughout California for the operation of a law school.

and guess what? The State Bar is going to make major changes in all of the above.

Want a real J.D. degree and want to be an Attorney at Law, by correspondence study, go to Taft or NWCU they will be around after the State Bar changes the rules.

Go to the other schools with no performance record, like St. Francis eUniversity, American Heritage, West Haven, National Law School, MD Kirk Law School, or ( Bob's Law School, or Joe's Law School) and take a chance you will not pass the baby bar, not be able to get credit for law study or get transcripts or get a diploma or have an alma mater after the school closes.

 

I agree completely. Though my experience in the subject is limited to my LL.B. studies, I have read comments from former students at schools such as Taft and NWCU which have indicated that personal responsibility is the determining factor in the success of a student (this is not say that certain curriculums and/or interaction with professors may have great benefits).

Out of curiosity... If we could jump in a time machine and go back to 1982 at the begining of NWCU (or 1986 in the case of Taft), would JDLLM2 be saying the same things about these schoos as he is about National and other new schools today (taking the fact that he believes that specific new bar regululations will appear in the immediate future out of the equation), that all new schools are just fraudalent attempts to steal students' money?

As we know, not all used car dealers are crooks, not all lawyers are crooks, and not all people starting new law schools are either.

I can't stress enough, that if JDLLM2 can show SPECIFIC problems with a new school I would probably be inclined to agree with him that it would be a poor decision to attend that school. These problems could include things such as poor organization or public records of discipline of deans or professors (not to mention countless other things). As of the time being, the only evidence that he has shown that National is doomed and is guaranteed to fail is that other new correspondence law schools have failed previously. As National seems to be structured similar to Concord, there is no evidence (that I have seen as of yet) to believe that it is unable of producing similar numbers. Again, if anyone has evidence to the contrary, please let me know, as I am very curious.

Just because it is possible that regulations MAY change, how do we know that National will go out of business and NWCU and Taft will survive? The answer is clear: We don't know... in that event ANY school would be a gamble. While prior history may be a good prediction of future success, it is clear that it is complete speculation.

*****Dude is ready for JDLLM2 to crazy about now *****

 

The Facts

Abraham Lincoln University School of Law
ONLY A HANDFUL OF GRADUATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

Oak Brook College of Law
ONLY A HANDFUL OF GRADUATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

American Heritage University School of Law
ALL INDICATIONS NO GRADUATE PRACTING ATTORNEYS

Southern California University for Professional Studies
ONLY A HANDFUL OF GRADUTE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

Concord Law School
ONLY A HANDFUL OF GRADUTE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

St. Francis eUniversity
ALL INDICATIONS NO GRADUATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

Esquire College
NO GRADUATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

University of Honolulu School of Law
NO GRADUATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

MD Kirk School of Law
NO GRADUATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS PROBABLY NEVER WILL!

West Coast School of Law, Inc.
ABOUT 3-4 GRADUATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS, A RUMOR ONLY!

National Law School
NO GRADUATE PRACTINGS ATTORNEYS PROBABLY NEVER WILL!

West Haven University
NO GRADUATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS PROBABLY NEVER WILL

Newport University School of Law
VERY SMALL NUMBER OF GRADUATE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

William Howard Taft University School of Law
2ND HIGHEST NUMBER OF GRADUATE ATTORNEYS FOR DL

Northwestern California University School of Law
HIGHEST NUMBER OF DL GRADUATE PRACICTING ATTORNEYS

Let see now 15 correspondence law schools and only 8 schools have graduate practicing attorneys.

NWCU has more graduate practicing attorneys then the combined total of all 7 other schools!

Taft comes in second place.

And someone should pick a new correspondence law school based on what now? lol, lol

 

where is the future practicing attorney who shelled out $3,000 for his J.D. law studies at National Law School? lol

He seems awfully quiet now.

Did he already process his refund?

Or did they already mail him his diploma? lol

 

""Just because it is possible that regulations MAY change""

NO THEY POSITIVELY ARE CHANGING I GOT A FRIEND AT THE COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS!
(you seem to keep overlooking this)

In fact, Dude, you should get the discount coupon at National and sign up for law school now before your only correspondence law school is one of the two best out there that will survive and either one of them is not easy to graduate from either right now let alone in the future!

 

I challenged you to come up with a SPECIFIC reason why National cannot join the ranks of NWCU, Taft, Concord, or Oak Brook. Since National has no statistics yet, prior statistics of other schools have limited value. I'm sure that if you really had the qualifications you claim, you'd be able to come up with a better argument than this.

What you have done is the equivalent of this:

A murder is committed in Anytown, USA (let's say that there is a prior history of murders committed by divorced white females in this town). The police ignore any specific evidence of this murder and look for the first divorced white female and arrest her (after all people of this demographic have committed murders in this jurisdiction before). The prosecution puts on its case based exclusively on the evidence shown here and no facts about this murder are presented at trial... Is it reasonable to assume that a jury is going to convict (obviously this scenario would never happen)?

 

If I had to guess he is probably too busy studying to waste time on a chatboard. If he is going to accomplish his goal of becoming an attorney, he has a LOT of work ahead of him.

 

No, I am not overlooking your claims. I am only questioning the validity of your opinion (something that seems to make you bounce of the walls whenever it happens ).

You have given us many reasons to doubt what you say. In prior posts you have claimed to be a graduate of a state bar accredited law school, but when I did some homework I found out that you had previously claimed to have graduated from NWCU.

Your comments are posted in the following claiming to be a graduate of the state bar accredited school:

http://www.degreeinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23763&perpage=30&highlight=juris&pagenumber=2

"I am a graduate of an ABA law school and prior to that a State Bar Accredited Law School, I refused to take the bait
and name the law schools as this will take away the focus on
1 man law schools operations and my quest here in California
to shut them down!"

Then later you say that you didn't graduate from a state bar accredited school, but only attended one and transfered to another school (later claimed to be NWCU), where you graduated:

http://www.degreeinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24744&highlight=juris

"I went to Lincoln Law School in San Jose a state bar accredited law school I think around since 1926, then finished last 2 semesters elsewhere because I had a family issue.

What is your problem where I went to law school?

I have a J.D. degree and an LL.M degree and YOU dont!"

This conflict gives me at least SOME reason to doubt your claims. In this thread at times you have claimed to have friends (note the plural use of the word) at the state bar, then at other times you claim to have A (singular use of the word) friend at the state bar.

For the sake of argument, let say that you are correct and know more than one person at the state bar who is feeding you this information. Even if these people are being completely truthful and giving you their accurate opinion, this is a LONG way from being set in stone. I am not completely familiar with the way that they run things there, but I am sure that it is not only the person (or people) you claim to know there making the decisions. I would be willing to bet that, while there quite likely some people who share your opinions there, there are at least some others who don't. Since it will probably (if it even happens) be a group effort to write new regulations, we can only guess what kind of changes will be made.

 

Dude,

You are neither a law student, a law graduate or an Attorney at Law.

You have ZERO credibility and know nothing about law schools in California, NOTHING.

Go to National Law School, take your chances, I dont care!
Amazing though how you can defend when you know nothing
about Calif correspondence law schools or even how the State Bar here works!

I am going to continue to post here telling people BIG changes are coming to California from the State Bar regarding correspondence law schools, why, because my friend works at the State Bar, enuf, said.

I am not busy studying I have a sucessful 1 man practice an office at home and plenty of time to make money, enjoy my kids at home and continue to warn potential students what is going on.

1) NOTICE YOU FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE FACTS I PROVIDED REGARDING EACH CORRESPONDENCE LAW SCHOOL AND HOW MANY ATTORNEYS THEY GRADUATED. kinda hard to argue with facts, huh! lol

2) NOTICE THE NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL "STUDENT" HASNT RESPONDED TO DEFEND HIS $3,000 FOR 4 YEARS!

is that because he already changed his mind and dropped out or because his J.D. diploma already arrived in the mail, LOL LOL

 

Are you foaming at the mouth yet?

Obviously you haven't paid attention very well. Though not a student in a J.D. program, I am a law student.

Of course I have zero creditbility. I don't believe I have said anything to the contrary. That is the simple nature of posting anonymously on an internet discussion board. Everyone here realizes that. I have merely exposed your own creditbility issues on several occations (most recently in my last post). It is easy for one to see that we should question your word, that is all.

I would hate to say that I am defending National law school, as I really don't know much about it. I have done a little research on it that shows to be promising. Nobody knows what will come of it, but I have seen no reason to believe that the winner of the $3000 tuition auction wasn't taking a reasonable risk under the circumstances. The odds of any school being successful are minimal in this environment, but until I see something that shows otherwise, I have no reason to believe it is impossible for National to join the ranks of the top correspondence law schools. AGAIN, if you have SPECIFIC evidence against this school, my mind is open for you to prove to me that it will be a failure.

As I have repeatedly said here, you may be completely correct that big changes are coming. I have only brought up the possibility that you MAY be wrong (something that drives you completely insane and that shamelessly gives me a bit of a chuckle, the "how dare you question my creditbility" syndrome).

I never said that you were too busy studying. Obviously you have misunderstood my posts. I said that the reason why cpaq hasn't chosen to chime in again is that he is probably too busy studying to waste time here.

The "facts" that you have posted seem to be a little misleading. The simple truth of the matter is that enrolling in ANY correspondence law program is usually a VERY poor decision if the student is relying on accomplishing his or her goal of becoming an attorney. Even the best correspondence law schools probably have less than 10% of their original students admitted to the bar, these are the real facts. If there is ANY way to do it, attend an ABA school, if you can't make this happen, to a certain extent, you are gambling.

 

I know I'm being childish... but did that do it?

P.S. - I know that there is absolutely no chance that you are a practicing attorney. A few spelling or grammar errors here and there are understandable, but anyone who does not know the difference between "your" (a possesive pronoun) and "you're" (a contraction) could not have the skills to pass the California bar. This is something that you have done countless times.