The unaccredited Harvard and Yale...

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by PaulC, May 21, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Actually, they didn't decide to drop the accreditation, they decided to drop the degree program that required the accreditation. Until recently, Harvard has not offered the PhD in Clinical Psychology degree. Without that degree program the accreditation is superfluous, maybe even impossible. Then they decided to (re)create a PhD program in Clinical Psych. The APA accreditation was just a necessary step. Was it ever in doubt? No.
     
  2. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    I'm well aware of the ABA recognition. My point was that Hastings has no RA accreditation. Arguably, if it wasn't for its ABA approval, Hastings would be no different than many other unaccredited schools lacking regional or national accreditation, yet, conferring degrees.

    I disagree. Hastings ABA approval is a departure from the norm, since most B&M law schools hold regional accreditation. Unlike their B&M counterpart, Hastings didn't have to go through the hoops and scrutiny to earn regional accreditation, which makes them an exception.

    My argument doesn't extend to what things the ABA are going to be looking at, only that Hastings lacks RA accreditation. Further, it seem ambiguous to me that a school like Hastings could circumvent the rigorous process that other law schools had to go through to earn their RA or NA accreditation, in addition to ABA approval, where warranted.

    I disagree, in the same way that the ABA has granted recognition to unaccredited law schools like Hastings, the Committee of Bar Examiners has granted recognition to DETC law schools, in relation to which, both of these aspects would be indicative of an exception of sorts.

    In otherwords, like I said, they make the final determination on law schools.

    I agree, with the exception that in the past, the California Committee of Bar Examiners did allow graduates from out-of-state unaccredited law schools to sit the bar exam. The policy on that, however, changed in the 1990's.

    I'm glad to see that the California Committee of Bar Examiners have remained open to a wide range of law schools from DETC - to the unaccredited - to correspondence -to ABA approved, which preserves California's custom of allowing those that have pursued non-traditional paths of law study -- including those who have never attended a law school but that worked under a lawyer -- to sit the bar.

    While ABA approval may very well be the best thing, it hasn't stopped a number of graduates from non-ABA schools to sit the bar and go on to practice law.

    Tell that to the lawyer in court who graduated from a non-ABA law school that he has distinctly inferior status under California law. It won't hold much water and that's where the Committee of Bar Examiners comes in, to level the ABA playing field.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2010
  3. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    ABA conducts detailed and comprehensive evaluations of law programs. No one doubts that ABA accreditation is rigorous and meaningful.

    But if a school only offers law programs -- which is the case for "standalone" law schools -- then what is left for an RA agency to evaluate after ABA has done its work? Nothing.

    Schools like Hastings aren't circumventing rigorous review by foregoing RA. They are just avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort.
    I didn't say that a lawyer who graduated from a school like Concord or Taft had distinctly inferior status under California. I said that his law school did. There is no other way to interpret the FYLSE requirement.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2010
  4. lchemist

    lchemist New Member

    While you are correct in your observations, I wasn't referring to the coriolisis effect, but to the direction the flow of wastewater takes after it leaves the toilet; until it reaches the lateral, it usually goes straight down following gravity, so two toilets located opposite to each other in the planet, will flow at least for a few feet, in the opposite direction.
     
  5. lchemist

    lchemist New Member

    He won't do it, since Randi, Brown and Blaine are professional magicians, it would be unethical to expose each other methods..

    What Randi did with Uri Geller was due to Geller's claim of posessing supernatural powers.

    Derren Brown has explained some of his work in mentalism in books such as:

    Pure Effect
    Absolute Magic
    Tricks of the Mind

    His DVD "The Devil's Playground" deals with card magic.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2010
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    In reality, there are two classes of law schools in California: accredited and unaccredited. Accredited schools include those accredited by the ABA or the CalBar. Everyone else--irrespective of whatever accreditation they might have--are considered unaccredited.

    Students from unaccredited schools must pass the Baby Bar before proceeding past their first year of study.

    Accreditation of Taft or Concord by RA or DETC might help in some situations, like employer tuition reimbursement, but it has no bearing on one's eligibility to sit for the bar examination.

    Everything else is navel-pondering.

    But I have two questions of people immensely more knowledgeable about such things than I am: First, would the CalBar consider accrediting a DL law school? (ABA is famously hostile to DL.) Second, should they? We know students can study for and pass the Bar via DL. But is that how attorneys should be trained? Passing the Bar permits a law graduate to practice law. But one becomes an attorney at law school.

    Is DL really good enough to prepare one to enter the legal profession?
     
  7. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    What I mean is, I very much doubt that there is actually much "mentalism" in what he does. Stooges, camera angles and scene cutting are a staple of his programming. In a few instances, the acting and CGI are so horrible that it makes me sad, since some of his productions are really astounding and entertaining. Anyway, I think many more people buy into the feigned legitimacy of Derren Brown than they do of David Blaine (who doesn't claim any magical powers, btw). Then again, I haven't exactly taken a survey... is an analytical review of a random sampling of YouTube comments considered scientific? :p
     
  8. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    If Hastings lost its ABA accreditation, then yes, it would be in deep trouble.

    But exactly the same is true for any ABA-accredited law school, even RA schools like Berkeley or UCLA. If they lost ABA accreditation, they would be in equally deep trouble, as far as the legal community was concerned.

    In fact, this is not an entirely theoretical issue, because ABA has put some California law schools on probation in recent years, including the law schools of regionally-accredited Whittier College and Golden Gate University.
     
  9. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Ignoring its UC affiliation, connections to the California state bar, history, reputation and academics, sure. If it didn't have any accreditation, then it wouldn't be accredited.

    Hasting is a B&M law school. It doesn't offer any DL at all, that I'm aware of. Certainly not law degrees.

    I think that the distinction that you are looking for isn't DL/B&M, but rather between law schools that are part of larger universities, and stand-alone law schools. The majority of law schools are RA because they are parts of larger RA-accredited universities that teach many different subjects. The law program is typically also ABA accredited, since that's what matters in the legal world.

    Providing one-stop institutional accreditation for stand-alone law schools is part of the services that the ABA offers. The US Dept. of Education recognizes their competence to do it and it falls within the scope of the ABA's recognition as an accreditor.

    You seem to be suggesting that Hastings is trying to pull a fast one and avoid scrutiny. My point is that if a regional accreditor hasn't already inspected matters like institutional finances and governance, then the ABA is willing to do it. Everything that the regional accreditors would be looking at is still getting inspected. The result is ultimately the same in that regard. There's no reason to repeat the accreditation process all over again with a second accreditor, if the second accreditor isn't relevant to admission to the bar or to the practice of law.

    Except that the California bar examiniers don't distinguish between DETC law schools and law schools with no accreditation at all. If the law school isn't ABA or Calbar, then it's considered unaccredited. DETC accreditation (or RA for that matter) doesn't receive any recognition from the bar examiners.

    The issue isn't whether graduates of non-ABA law schools have a different status after they are admitted to the bar. The issue is whether California state law makes a distinction between schools with and without ABA/Calbar accreditation that's relevant before admissions. It does. It has a significant impact regarding matters like the FYLSE. The presence or absence of RA or NA makes no difference in that regard.

    I think that if you ask a California attorney who graduated from a non-ABA/Calbar law school what that experience was like, he'll probably happily tell you war stories about the angst associated with taking the baby bar and similar things. In my experience they are pretty upfront and non-defensive about it. They are proud that they managed to pass the notoriously difficult California bar and become attorneys in the way they did.

    There are plusses and minuses - it can be a lot less expensive to study non-ABA than ABA. Admission to law school is a lot easier. And the only way to study law by DL is through a school that the bar examiners consider unaccredited, since neither the ABA or Calbar accredit DL law schools.

    But the odds of a first-year law student actually making it all the way and becoming an attorney is significantly lower than at ABA schools. Graduates of non-ABA law schools might not fare as well in competitive hiring either. There are lots of attorneys out there competing for positions and employers have a pretty good grasp of the pecking order. And there will be difficulties (of various sizes, depending on whether somebody was actually admitted to the California bar etc.) if people try to use a non-ABA California law degree for admission to another state's bar.
     
  10. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    That question is easy. The answer is "no". According to CalBar's accreditation rules (emphases added):
    *****
    That question is harder, and more subjective. Most states currently say "no". But California says "yes".

    My uninformed impression (as a non-lawyer, non-law student) is that predominantly DL law programs could be good preparation, if:

    (1) they were as selective at screening their students as B&M law schools are;
    (2) they offered full online access to legal databases to their students;
    (3) they supplemented DL instruction with some significant face-to-face residencies

    I don't think any current DL law schools meet all of these standards. I would suggest Oak Brook College of Law and Government Policy (which is not ABA, CalBar, RA, or DETC) as the closest. However, Oak Brook is not for everyone, due its strong religious orientation.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2010
  11. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    Anyone can point out the inadequacies of a DL law school, but it won't hold much water, unless you can base it on firsthand experience of what the program and coursework consisted of, how the instructors interacted, what online research resources were available, et cetera. The fact that graduates from these programs have sat the bar and went on to practice law is indicative that the programs work for the most part. The success or failure untimately falls on the students, and since most students enrolled in DL programs usually work all day and have families to support, they may not be able to follow through with their legal studies.

    Because of those factors, I would surmise that it contributes to the higher drop out rate among not only DL law schools, but DL programs in general. Nonetheless, anyone that can make it through years of legal study and go on to pass the bar exam has my utmost respect. I also believe that if someome wants to spend their hard earned money on a DL law program and later drop out, then it's their prerogative. They assume the risk of failure and likewise benefit to the extent they succeed, even if only a small percentage of those candidates pass the bar.

    As it now stands, the ABA approved law schools are not the only game in town, and until such a time that the California Committee of Bar Examiners determines that DL law graduates are no longer allowed to sit the bar, I have no problem with anyone improving their life through the distance study of law.

    Finally, a large number of CLE courses for lawyers and paralegals today are delivered online, which further validates this medium. Thus, there is no doubt in my mind that DL law is here to stay.

    CalDog, if you want to promote ABA law schools and talk law, start a thread on it? For those of you who were discussing the subject of Harvard and Yale, my apology for digressing from the topic.
     
  12. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    I don't typically start threads. However, I sometimes respond to explicit questions, such as those that were posed in Posts #7, #14, #29, and #46 above, including yours. These questions addressed law school accreditation issues, so my answers did as well.

    If you have further questions about Hastings or similar schools, or about law school accreditation in general, you can start the thread and I will contribute if I have info.

    This is where we disagree. At the risk of further digression, I will briefly explain why.

    If a student enrolls at an ABA law school, he or she will probably become a practicing attorney some day. Now that's a program that "works for the most part."

    But if a student enrolls at a DL law school, he or she will probably never become an attorney. So such a program doesn't "work for the most part" -- on the contrary, it fails, for the most part.

    That doesn't mean that DL law schools are hopeless, or that they should be abolished. But it does suggest that they could be improved. Hence my response in Post #50 to the question posed in Post #46.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2010
  13. major56

    major56 Active Member

    In Texas, a major public university system player that doesn’t have its own law school is the Texas A&M University System (e.g., in contrast to University of Texas, University of Houston, Texas Southern and Texas Tech University systems). In Jan. 1998, Texas A&M and South Texas officials signed a deal in giving A&M a law school without building or buying one, while providing South Texas faculty and graduates better name recognition without moving the school from downtown Houston (e.g., the proposed South Texas College of Law of Texas A&M University).

    According to A&M University officials they had planned to ask the coordinating board for permission to issue law degrees, meaning South Texas diplomas could bear the A&M seal. The association plan was nixed in Feb. 1998 by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) because the alliance plan between South Texas and A&M wasn’t approved by the board before the law school started calling itself South Texas College of Law of Texas A&M University and using that name in advertisements. Clearly Texas A&M found great value in such an alliance (semi-acquisition) effort toward a standalone ABA approved law school. http://www.stcl.edu/accreditation_memberships.html
    Nevertheless as CS1 has pointed out, several posters, me included, have drifted-off from PaulC’s original thread posting.

    Note: Texas A&M and South Texas College of Law do have a collaborative Bachelor and JD in six years program (e.g., pre-law) in place, but no Texas A&M law school. http://www.stcl.edu/admissions/3-3program.htm
     
  14. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    Before you start making suggestions on how DL law schools should be improved, you might try enrolling in one and see if you have what it takes to make it through one of their programs. Until then, the only determinative issue on DL law schools is what the California Committee of Bar Examiners has to say on it, and, they have spoken. As a result, other DL law graduates will sit the bar

    Case closed.
     
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    DL law schools prepare some of their students for passing the California Bar. Some. But that's not the question. Do DL law schools prepare attorneys to practice the law?

    Having a license and being prepared to perform are hugely different things, as anyone sitting in a car next to a 16-year old with a brand new driver's license can attest.

    Based on my limited knowledge about DL law schools, plus my more extensive experience with both DL and classroom-based methodologies, I posit DL law schools prepare people to pass the bar, but do not prepare them to practice law.
     
  16. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Unfortunately, your case has a few holes, which should be apparent to other readers. But for the record:

    - CalBar is only "determinative" in California. There are 49 other state bar associations (actually 50 with DC) and they obviously have a say on DL law schools too. In general, their opinions are quite negative.

    - CalBar has "spoken" -- and they say that DL law schools are second-rate (in fairness, they say the same thing about some unaccredited B&M schools too). DL law students have to pass the "Baby Bar" to prove that they are credible bar candidates. ABA and CalBar students don't.

    Now, if you are satisfied with this state of affairs, and are content to let DL law schools remain as second-class choices in a single state, then that's fine. You can close the case.

    However, other people would like to see more widespread adoption and acceptance of the DL law approach. For this to happen, DL law schools would have to improve their academic credibility. I've already suggested some ways that they might go about it, but am open to other suggestions as well. Perhaps you should start a new thread.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2010
  17. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Rich: "Having a license and being prepared to perform are hugely different things..."

    John: Indeed. Years ago, I knew a man named Bert Ballard, who had an extremely successful business, teaching law school graduates how to be lawyers. Most of the big time San Francisco law firms* sent their new hires there for a 2-month full time program covering all the things they wanted their lawyers to know: dealing with ethical and gray area issues, how to wake a judge at 3 am when you need something urgent; dealing with weeping widows collapsing in your office, etc.

    And, in the same vein, my old friend Lura Dolas, a skilled professional actress, has built a very successful business recently teaching lawyers how to be actors: overcoming stage fright, developing a resonant voice, creating the arc of the narrative, coaching witnesses, etc. www.luradolas.com
     
  18. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Here's the California Bar's law school page.

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

    They say this:

    Unaccredited Law Schools in California

    The lists below are published for informational purposes only...

    Neither the Committee nor the State Bar's Office of Admissions will advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of studying law through correspondence, distance learning or fixed facility law schools, or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the listed schools.

    Prospective students should refer to available resources such as the law school pass/fail statistics on the bar examination and First-Year Law Students' Examination...


    Ok, so doing as they suggest and turning to the statistics for the June 2009 exams (the most recent stats posted), we find:

    The California First-Year Law Student's Exam is administered to students at unaccredited law schools but waived for students at accredited schools. The pass rates in June 2009 were --

    CA Unaccredited Correspondence 28.2% first-timers, 16.4% repeaters

    CA Unaccredited Distance Learning 28.1% first-timers, 21.5% repeaters

    CA Unaccredited Fixed-facility 13.0% first-timers, 18.3% repeaters


    In other words, students entering unaccredited law schools have significantly less than 50% chance of even making it past their first year.

    Moving on to the California Bar Examination itself, the June 2009 pass rates were:

    CA ABA Approved 79.3% first-timers, 31.2% repeaters

    Out of State ABA 69.4% first-timers, 26.8% repeaters

    CA Accredited 32.2% first-timers, 12.6% repeaters

    CA Unaccredited 26.5% first-timers, 11.5% repeaters


    Put the stats for California unaccredited law schools together, both the FYLSE and the Bar Exam, and you have a worryingly small percentage of initial law school entrants actually making it out at the other end as attorneys. (In some cases less than 10%.)

    Looking at some specific schools...

    Pass rates for the FYLSE

    Concord Law School (RA) 28.5% first-timers, 27.9% all takers

    Taft Law School (DETC) 26.9% first-timers, 24.0% all takers

    Oak Brook College of Law and Public Policy (no institutional accreditation) only had two takers total in the June 2009 exam, both of them repeaters, both of whom failed.


    Pass Rates for the Bar Exam

    ABA Accredited --

    UC Hastings 86% first-timers, 37% repeaters

    Stanford Law School 93% first-timers, 80% repeaters

    Golden Gate University 68% first-timers, 25% repeaters


    California Accredited --

    JFK Univ. Sch. of Law (RA) 30% first-timers, 14% repeaters

    Lincoln Law Sch. Sacramento (no institutional accreditation) 50% first-timers, 13% repeaters


    Unaccredited --

    Concord (RA) 38% first-timers, 24% repeaters

    Taft (DETC) 33% first-timers, 0% repeaters

    Oakbrook (no institutional accreditation) 67% first-timers (small sample, 2 of 3), 0% repeaters
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2010
  19. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    There's nothing wrong with open debate about a school that is based on discussing its specific coursework, how the instructors interact with its students, the resourses abailable to those students, inter alia. However, I would like to hear from people that have been through a DL law school and can tell me firsthand about their experiences.

    Moreover, I don't see the California Committee of Bar Examiners' position on DL law schools changing, anytime soon. For them to do so would be a departure from tradition and custom, in allowing some people who have pursued non-traditional paths of law study, to sit the bar.

    So, for those working people that can't attend a B&M law school, or that are supporting families, disabled veterans, or those with limited funding or who are from impoverished backgrounds, the door to study law is open in the State of California.

    You may not like it, but the case is closed.
     
  20. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    I am neutral, as long as accurate information about success rates is made available to consumers. Note, however, the "the door to study law" is open to non-traditional applicants in a number of other states besides California. For example:

    - States like Massachusetts, Alabama, and Tennesse also have non-ABA law schools (although these are exclusively B&M, while California has both DL and B&M).

    - Other states may accept non-ABA law degrees. For example, Connecticut has no non-ABA law schools, but accepts non-ABA degrees from neighboring Massachusetts.

    - Several states, including Vermont, New York, Washington, Virginia, Maine, and Wyoming (as well as California) still allow Bar applicants to qualify through law office study (basically apprenticeship). For example, one of the sitting Justices on the Vermont Supreme Court never attended law school; she qualified for the Bar after working as an editor in the State Attorney General's office (and acting as a single mother). Such on-the-job training is obviously even more cost-effective than paying DL law school tuition.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2010

Share This Page