The unaccredited Harvard and Yale...

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

Loading...
  1. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Who are you arguing with? You quoted CalDog, but I don't recall him ever saying that he opposes DL law study.

    In an earlier post Rich asked:

    Is DL really good enough to prepare one to enter the legal profession?

    CalDog replied:

    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...


    Then you jumped on him (once again), without responding to the substance of what he wrote.

    Nobody (on this board anyway) is saying that the California unaccredited lawschools should go away. Nobody says that the opportunity for DL law study isn't extremely valuable for some students.

    But when only 28% of first year DL law students pass the FYLSE, and then only 26% of the survivors at the uaccredited law schools who do eventually graduate succeed in passing the bar, the yield isn't very good, even factoring in those successful on repeated attempts. That's just an unpleasant fact.

    Students at UCHastings all survive the FYLSE (because they don't have to take it) and enjoy a decent 86% first-time success rate on the bar exam.

    The obvious question is why this dramatic disparity exists and what can be done about shrinking it.

    I suspect that the part-time/full-time distinction is a significant part of it. I'll speculate that students in part-time B&M legal night schools have significantly lower bar-exam pass-rates even when they are ABA programs. Golden Gate U. was put on probation by the ABA because its pass rate was dropping towards 50%, though it does seem to have recovered to 68% in June 09.

    Another major variable is the one that CalDog led off with, initial selectivity. The most selective law schools always seem to have the best bar-exam pass rates. Stanford has a 93% success rate for first-timers and 80% for repeaters putting its total yield up around 98% or 99%. Stronger initial admissions translate into more capable graduates and improved success-rates.

    The library issue that CalDog mentioned is one of those annoying persistent problems that all DL faces. Here in California, and in other states I assume, each county has a public law library associated with its county court house. It's intended for the attorneys who have cases going in that county, but local DL law students would doubtless be welcome to use it too. I'm sure that all the usual databases would be available from these locations, even if the students' DL law school didn't directly provide access to them.

    Finally, there's the issue of in-person residencies. Students will need actual hands-on practice in courtroom advocacy and such things. Part of that is performance, as John Bear pointed out in an earlier post. It's possible that short lawschool residencies could be combined with remote internships in courthouses and legal offices in students' own counties, allowing the students to observe local courtroom procedure, see what happens at routine hearings, meet the judges, find out what practicing lawyers consider important and how they approach their cases, and so on. The DL law schools could facilitate it and help set it up. It would help translate abstract knowledge of legal principles into some tangible idea of what to do first when a new case file is plopped on your desk. (Do they still do that, or is everything in computers now?)

    I'm not sure whether that last would make a student better able to pass the bar-exam, but assuming that they do pass it, it would almost certainly make them more effective new public defenders or whatever it happens to be.
     
  2. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    We've seen enough of CS1’s writing in this forum to allow for some interesting generalizations. For example, you can expect CS1 to promote the following views:

    - Strong, reiterated support for current CalBar policies regarding DL schools. In the current thread, for example, note the repeated stress of “case closed” with regards to these policies, most recently in Post #59 above.

    - Strong, reiterated emphasis on the opportunities that California DL schools provide to those interested in non-traditional law careers. The line in Post #59 describing how “the door to study law is open in the State of California” was particularly poetic.

    - Strong, reiterated support for the current business models of for-profit DL California law schools (e.g. open admissions, high attrition). This is particularly evident in Post #51 above, which nobly defends the fundamental right of every individual to spend hard-earned money at a DL law school and then drop out.

    *****

    On the other hand, we also find that poster CS1 consistently avoids discussion of other related topics, like the following:

    - Minimal to no acknowledgement of the low overall success rate of California DL students.

    - Complete disinterest in alternative DL law models, (e.g. that of not-for-profit Oak Brook, which generally has more selective admissions and higher FYLSE and Bar pass rates than the for-profit DL schools).

    - Complete disinterest in the policies of states other than California, or in practices that might boost the potential acceptance of DL law schools by such states.

    *****

    It’s surely a total coincidence, but all of poster CS1’s positions are consistent with those that you might expect from an proprietor or administrator of a typical small for-profit California DL law school. Such a person would make a living by admitting as many prospective lawyers as possible, even those who have little chance of success, and would stand to increase profits by encouraging even more to apply. Such a person would likely discourage discussion of failure rates, discourage discussion of non-profit school models, and have no interest in expanding operations to other states where he or she was unlicensed. We can hypothesize that such a person might go so far as to monitor and contribute to internet forums where such discussions were occurring.

    I am not, of course, trying to imply that CS1 is in fact such a person. I am just noting that this model is successfully predictive for poster CS1's responses, and also for his or her sensitivity to the topic of California DL schools in general.

    Also, this is not to imply that the proprietors or administrators of for-profit California DL law schools should have no say in forums such as this one. But it's hardly the only perspective worth airing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2010
  3. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    Your selective approach at the bar exam only tells part of the story. If we examine the results from February 2004 through 2009, it paints a somewhat different picture:

    CA ABA Approved schools for first time takers shows: 49.5% (04), 57.7% (05), 59.7% (06), 60.8% (07), 62.2% (08) and 53% (09).

    CA Unaccredited schools for first time takers show: 9% (04), 3.7% (05), 5.6%(06), 12.3% (07), 28.3% (08) and 28.8% (09). Based on the statistics it looks like passing rates are improving for CA unaccrediited schools.

    Even more interesting is the success rate for first time takers of correspondence law schools, which show: 41.3% (04), 42% (05), 35.8% (06), 39.5 (07) (no statistic for 08) and 40% (09). A very decent showing. I can now see why the ABA is worried about it, especially with those percentages.

    While there is no disputing that the pass rates for DL law gradutes is lower than ABA law school graduates; apparently, the people who are investing their time and money in DL law programs are not worried about it. Moreover, a respectable number of them are passing the bar and going on to become productive members of the legal profession. Good for them!

    It also doesn't look like the California Committee of Bar Examiners is too worried about the lower DL law school pass rates, either; and, in that regard, will continue to allow those pursuing non-traditional paths of legal study, to sit the bar.

    Enough said.

    Links:
    http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/FEBRUARY2009STATS.pdf
    http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/FEBRUARY2008STATS.pdf
    http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/FEBRUARY2007STATS.pdf
    http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/FEBRUARY2006STATS.pdf
    http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/FEBRUARY2005STATS.pdf
    http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/FEBRUARY2004STATS.pdf
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2010
  4. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    I have no connection to any California DL law school and your insinuation that I do is unfounded.
     
  5. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Sometimes you just can't win, no matter how explicit you try to be.

    For the record, I genuinely believe poster CS1, when he states that he has no connection to any California DL law school. He convinced me back in post #14 above, when he inquired about the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. Hastings is the oldest law school in the state, the largest ABA-accredited institution in northern California (and second-largest statewide), and one of the most prestigious. Nobody in the California legal community would have asked that question.
     
  6. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    Not only am I unfamiliar with Hastings, but I only recently moved to California and don't keep tabs on ABA law schools nor DL law school for that matter. Unlike you, I have studied law and have first hand experience with studying law through a distance learning program. Instead of pointing fingers at me, I suggest you enroll in a law program and see if you have what it takes. When you do, I will be happen to listen to your suggestions on how DL law schools can be improved.

    You'll have to take up ABA torch with someone else, I have nothing else to add.
     
  7. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Another interesting quality of poster CS1 is that he or she has chutzpah. The post above accuses BillDayson of providing selective statistics, then responds with ... selective statistics.

    Note that CS1’s entire argument is based exclusively on February bar data. Bar exams are typically offered twice a year, in February and July. The vast majority of students at traditional, ABA law schools graduate in May, then take the Bar exam in July. So people typically look at July results when comparing schools.

    The February exam is much less popular. Traditional law students don’t usually take the February exam, unless they have dropped out of the traditional academic schedule at some point, possibly due to bad grades, personal issues, etc. In any case, February bar takers are much less numerous, and much less successful, than July bar takers.

    But this is only the case for students at traditional law schools. Students at DL schools are on non-traditional schedules, and take both February and July exams with equal frequency.

    So CS1 is presenting bar pass data for a weak minority of traditional students – not the strong majority. I’ll present complete numbers, for both July and February, in the next post.
     
  8. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    There is no conspiracy here, only in your mind, the stats from February are valid and stand. No amount of your propaganda is going to erase those yearly February statistics.

    Enjoy your thread.
     
  9. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Total bar pass stats for first-time takers 2009 (including both February and July)
    76.2 % California ABA schools
    31.9 % California DL schools (includes both “distance learning” and “correspondence”)

    Total Bar pass stats for first-time takers 2009 (including both February and July)
    80.7 % California ABA schools
    31.7 % California DL schools (includes both “distance learning” and “correspondence”)

    *****
    Total bar pass numbers for first-time takers 2008 (including both February and July)
    4,227 California ABA schools
    59 California DL schools (includes both “distance learning” and “correspondence”)

    Total Bar pass stats for first-time takers 2008 (including both February and July)
    4,248 California ABA schools
    76 California DL schools (includes both “distance learning” and “correspondence”)

    *****

    Now in reality, the bar pass numbers for the DL schools are misleadingly high, because the raw pass rates shown above do not reflect the large numbers of DL students who flunk the FYLSE. In other words, a large fraction of DL students – quite possibly a majority -- are flunked out by the “baby bar” before they get to the “real bar”.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2010
  10. CS1

    CS1 New Member

  11. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    The February numbers are completely valid. Nobody wants to erase them. In fact, I incorporated them into the post above. However:

    In 2009, 88.1 % of first-time ABA takers took the July exam.
    In 2008, 88.2 % of first-time ABA takers took the July exam.

    So the July results are important, and they stand too.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2010
  12. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    You really are desperate, aren't you ;)
     
  13. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Ah, but you are being selective again. California recognizes both "correspondence" and "distance learning" schools. The latter category is larger, and includes the best-known, largest, and only regionally accredited DL law school, Concord. I averaged both categories.

    Shouldn't an analysis of DL law schools include "distance learning" schools?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2010
  14. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    No, the low FYLSE pass rates back up the claim.

    However, I confess to being a bit confused:
     
  15. ITJD

    ITJD Active Member

    If we're going to discuss law school accreditation and bar pass rates, can it be in a thread that isn't titled "Unaccredited Harvard and Yale"?

    I know, I'm asking for a lot :)
     
  16. CS1

    CS1 New Member

    Because someone happens to study law through distance learning doesn't mean that they are an administrator or on the staff of that school, only that they studied there. Once again, I have no connection to any California DL law school or any other DL law school.
     
  17. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    The California Bar posts links to statistics (and past exam questions) for about the last ten years for both the FYLSE and Bar Exam on this page. There is information on pass rates at individual schools as well.

    *************************

    For the July 2009 Bar Exam:

    CA ABA 3723 first-timers took, 79.3% passed
    CA Accredited 360 first-timers took, 32.2% passed
    CA Unaccredited 117 first-timers took, 26.5% passed

    The summary statistics didn't include DL stats, though these schools are listed separately on a subsequent page. Their results were --

    CA DL 66 first-timers took, 32% passed
    CA correspondence 21 first-timers took, 33% passed

    ****************************

    February 2009 Bar Exam

    CA ABA 504 first-timers took, 53.2% passed
    CA Accredited 110 first-timers took, 24.5% passed
    CA UA correspondence 25 first-timers took, 40.0% passed
    CA UA DL 73 first-timers took, 28.8% passed
    CA UA B&M 24 first-timers took, 0.0% passed

    ************************

    July 2008 Bar Exam

    CA ABA 3745 first-timers took, 83.2% passed
    CA accredited 344 first-timers took, 36.6% passed
    CA unaccredited 145 first-timers took, 32.4% passed

    Again, retreiving the DL figures from a subsequent page

    CA UA DL 75 first-timers took, 33% passed
    CA UA correspondence 33 first-timers took, 30% passed

    **************************

    February 2008

    CA ABA 503 first-timers took, 62.2% passed
    CA accredited 135 first-timers took, 29.6% passed
    CA unaccredited 145 first-timers took, 28.3% passed

    Retrieving the DL stats --

    CA UA DL 19 first-timers took, 35% passed
    CA UA correspondence 23 first-timers took, 13% passed

    *************************

    July 2007

    CA ABA 3716 first-timers took, 75.9% passed
    CA accredited 295 first-timers took, 31.5% passed
    CA UA B&M 39 first-timers took, 20.5% passed
    CA UA "correspondence" 65 first-timers took, 30.8% passed

    Up through this exam, the State Bar referred to all the CA DL law programs as 'correspondence'. Subsequently, they have been breaking them down according to whether they are online/interactive or truly correspondence.

    **************************

    February 2007

    CA ABA 600 first-timers took, 60.8% passed
    CA accredited 120 first-timers took, 30.8% passed
    CA unaccredited B&M 8 first-timers took, 12.5% passed
    CA UA 'correspondence' 124 first-timers took, 39.5% passed

    *************************

    July 2006

    CA ABA 3962 first-timers took, 73.7% passed
    CA accredited 290 first-timers took, 26.9% passed
    CA UA B&M 42 first-timers took, 11.9% passed
    CA UA 'correspondence' 68 first-timers took, 23.5% passed

    ***************************

    February 2006

    CA ABA 524 first-timers took, 59.7% passed
    CA accredited 112 first-timers took, 28.6% passed
    CA UA B&M 18 first-timers took, 5.6% passed
    CA UA 'correspondence' 95 first-timers took, 35.8% passed

    I tired of copying the results at this point, but additional years are available at the link above if anyone is interested. Perhaps more interesting than the general overall statistics is the breakdown by individual law schools for each exam.

    Several things caught my attention.

    -- The unaccredited DL law schools seem to consistently outperform the unaccredited B&M law schools. The latter seem to be an endangered species. They typically operate from small office suites and can appear and dissappear quickly.

    -- Calbar accreditation doesn't seem to be associated with any significant improvement in bar exam pass rates.

    -- The California Bar is interested in and watching the DL law schools, as indicated by the changes in how they list them from exam to exam and by their having begun to distinguish between interactive and correspondence DL delivery modalities.

    -- That interactive/correspondence distinction doesn't seem to make much difference in bar exam pass rates.

    -- There's quite a bit of variation in the DL/correspondence pass-rates from exam to exam. I'll speculate that's due to small sample size. It appears that the DL pass rate kind of bobs around the 33% level.

    -- As CalDog has already said, more than 80% of ABA graduates take the July exam after graduation, and these individuals do significantly better than ABA graduates who take the February exam. These latter individuals may in some cases have experienced problems in completing their programs.

    -- Whichever of these exams we are looking at, the ABA pass-percentage doesn't drop below 50% and the unaccredited (and Calbar) percentages don't rise above it. If an ABA law school's overall pass-percentage falls towards 50%, the ABA is likely to lean on the school and put its accreditation on probation. (That happened with Golden Gate U. and Whittier a while back.)

    ****************************

    The FYLSE first-timer pass-rates were

    June 2009

    Correspondence 28.2%
    DL 28.1%

    Oct 2008

    Correspondence 35.8%
    DL 19.2%

    June 2008

    Correspondence 28.6%
    DL 36.0%

    Oct 2007

    "Correspondence" 26%

    June 2007

    "Correspondence" 24%

    ************************

    -- Combining the large FYLSE attrition with the lower bar-pass rates at the unaccredited law schools will significantly lower their overall yield.

    -- Students the Calbar-accredited schools don't have to take the FYLSE and still do about as well on the bar exam as graduates of the unaccredited schools. So it looks like whatever instructional improvements the accreditation represents just about match the effect of the FYLSE's failing out many/most of the weaker-performing students at uunaccredited schools after their first year. I'll speculate that the difficulty of the FYLSE exam might be intentionally calibrated to create that result.
     
  18. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Just in case you haven't noticed, I made another thread for this mess.

    For the moment, gentlemen, return to your corners and wait for the bell to sound round 2.
     
  19. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    They are reported in the California Bar stats.

    General Bar Examination -- Law Office/Judge's Chambers Study

    July 2009

    1 first-timer took, 0% passed, 3 repeaters took 0% passed

    February 2009

    1 first-timer took, 100% passed, 4 repeaters took, 50% passed

    July 2008

    2 first-timers took, 0% passed, 2 repeaters took, 100% passed

    February 2008

    3 first-timers took, 0% passed, 2 repeaters took, 0% passed

    July 2007

    2 first-timers took, 0% passed, 0 repeaters took

    February 2007

    2 first-timers took, 50% passed, 2 repeaters took, 50% passed

    July 2006

    0 first-timers took, 1 repeater took, 0% passed

    February 2006

    0 first-timers took, 2 repeaters took, 0% passed

    So it looks like a total of seven new California attorneys were made this way during the four years 2006-9.
     
  20. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Bill: "So it looks like a total of seven new California attorneys were made this way during the four years 2006-9."

    John: Thanks for this, Bill. I wonder why the numbers are so tiny. Is it that most people don't know about the possibility, or is it really hard to find a lawyer willing to take you on, or is the amount of time and effort so daunting?

    (For the DL law programs, California used to mandate, perhaps they still do, a documented study time of 3,456 hours, spread evenly over four years. That's 3 1/2 hours a day, 5 days a week. I wonder if there is a prescribed study time for the private study approach?)
     

Share This Page