LaVerne Denied; Others At Risk? Not Really.

As has been widely reported, the ABA has formally denied LaVerne College of Law full accreditation citing its low bar passage rates. I've already written extensively on this topic and have noted that the many of the current students may suffer most, so I'll not regurgitate those feelings here. That said, I'm happy the ABA took a stand against a mediocre institution and only wish they would do it in areas other than bar passage (which, let's face it, can be taught with an intensive study course and can be gamed like any other standardized test), like actual attorney employment [x] months after graduation.

Now that the hammer has fallen on LaVerne, should anyone else be sweating?

According to this link, Thomas Jefferson, Whitter, Western State, and Southwestern were all at least 15% below the California State average in 2010. But all of them are already fully accredited, and they didn't do nearly as bad as LaVerne, so I don't expect any action here.

What about the nation's other four provisionally-accredited law schools? Well, none of them provide an easy out for the ABA.

The Charleston School of Law had a 72% bar pass rate last July, -4% against the overall, and -11% compared to the University of South Carolina. The previous exam was similar. Although there's no compelling reason to have more than one law school in South Carolina, they're in almost no danger on this front, and they're in the worst shape.

Drexel had an excellent year in 2009 and posted the state's best result in Feb. 2010. Elon has done well, and Charlotte isn't doing nearly as bad as LaVerne.

So unfortunately, I fear this will just be a one-time thing. The other new schools apparently have learned how to emphasize bar pass rates and teach to the test so that the ABA won't have a good reason to reject them. Not that being a graduate of Elon will be any easier for a prospective student than being a graduate from LaVerne, but I suppose one less school in the mix is a net positive.

EDIT: Looks like Charlotte and Elon both gained full accreditation (the title of the article reads "earned...") at the most recent vote despite graduates from either having little to no chance at meaningful legal employment. Way to go, ABA.

More on La Verne College of Law's Accreditation

La Verne College of Law has received official notice from the ABA (by way of a 14-page letter; did this really take 14 pages?) that its accreditation committee recommended denying La Verne because of low bar passage rates.

This shouldn't surprise anyone when a school's bar passage rate is less than 70% after the 2nd try and the 1st try takers lag behind the state's other schools.

But of course, Dean Allen Easley has a defense/excuse: "we need more time!"

"We think that they've misunderstood some of the facts," Easley said of the committee's recommendation. "They have not given enough weight to all the changes we've made that are likely to produce better results in the future."

Making the requirements for admittance and grading more stringent could take years to show results, he said, adding that the university has also improved its legal-writing program and revamped its third-year bar exam support course.

You've had five years. Is that not the point of "provisional" accreditation, to give a school time to make adjustments before it becomes a fully-accredited institution? What were you doing in those five years? You had 3 full cycles of students. Why weren't these adjustments made already, as in 2-3 years ago? Or - if you had any institutional pride six years ago - after your 2005 class only had a 32% first-time pass rate? And where are these "more stringent" criteria for admissions? You're still apparently admitting kids with 148-150 LSATs. This kid and his/her 149/3.2 (public school poli sci) allegedly got $11,000 in scholarship money.

And let's not forget that the 1L transfer rate is over 17%. At least in my opinion, 1L attrition is a fairly solid indicator of the value of a school. Using LSN's numbers, the following schools are all over 20%: Florida Coastal, Cooley, Barry, St. Thomas (Florida), Cal-Western, Touro (37%!), Western New England, Jones/Faulkner, Liberty, Nova Southeastern, Oklahoma City, Detroit-Mercy, Valparaiso, Western State, Widener, Willamette, Florida International, and Golden Gate. I omitted Whitter because it was on probation at the time, and I probably missed one or two others. All of those are fully-accredited, and it reads as a who's who of poorly-regarded law schools. I think the ABA made a poor decision giving full accreditation to Jones/Faulkner and Liberty and I think any school that has 20+% of its students leave after the first year should be placed on automatic probation.

I'm also wondering how "more stringent" curves will make bar exam pass rates rise. What exactly is the thesis here? They'll force more drop-outs? That getting a C- in Torts instead of a C+ will make Joe Schmo study more?

Here's to hoping the ABA denies full accreditation. Sorting out the law school bubble will be no cut-and-dry task, but an ABA that enforces standards and refuses to add more schools to the mess is a positive step.

Update on U. of La Verne Accreditation; ABA Recommends Denial

So as it turns out, one of the most popular entries on this blog recently has been my entry from January on the University of La Verne, where I discussed their provisional accreditation status. As far as google keywords go, "La Verne" is up near the top, somehow topping the lost porno searchers (seriously, if you're googling "pornography" and you wind up here, you epically failed; also, my hits for this entry will skyrocket as a result of using the word "pornography" multiple times. go me).

As it turns out, the ABA's accreditation committee is recommending a denial of full accreditation to La Verne. According to this article, a final decision will come June 11, after the ABA Council issues its finding on whether it accepts the recommendation or denies it, and whether La Verne will continue to have provisional accreditation if denied. La Verne will have a chance to present its argument for accreditation, but it seems they're not overly optimistic:

"There's a pretty good chance that we won't get full approval because the odds are stacked against us right now," said Allen K. Easley, the college's dean and professor.
...

During [a meeting last Wednesday with 150 concerned students], Easley said college officials were discussing the denial with their lawyers.

Meanwhile, officials said, the university is applying for state bar accreditation to ensure every current student will be able to take the exam after they graduate.

I would hope so, although I think "the" exam is faulty wording; it should be "a" bar exam. Rightfully, students are pissed.

"Even looking at this with the most likely and optimistic view of the school is that we're probably going to lose our accreditation in June," said Rachael Alcorn, 24.

"When I graduate in (May) 2012, I'm only going to have the California bar (and not ABA backing). That's not what I came to this school for."
...

Student Ali Kazmi, 25, of Rancho Cucamonga said he was trying to determine what his next move would be.

"It catches you off guard ... I'm worried about the school's reputation now," Kazmi said.

Well, it's not like the school had a stellar reputation to begin with, but I completely understand where these students come from. The ABA's course of action during the entire law school bubble was to "Always Be Accreditin'." It was a logical assumption to make that all provisionally-accredited would be fully-accredited in due time. The students couldn't have predicted the ABA would wake up and enforce standards, and so I think they have a right to be angry at the situation.

For example, here is what the 2010-2011 Course Catalog says about accreditation:

The University of La Verne College of Law has been provisionally approved by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association since February 13, 2006. The Section of Legal Education may be contacted at 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60610 or by phone at (312) 988-6738.

Provisional approval precedes full ABA approval. ABA policy states that students enrolled in a provisionally-approved school are entitled to all the rights and privileges as students at fully approved schools. A law school must remain in provisional status for a minimum of two years before becoming eligible for consideration for full approval.

Do you see that? It "precedes full approval" as if it's a given, a guarantee, an inevitable turn-of-the-page consequence. No mention of the chance that the ABA will say "no." No mention of the 5-year provisional expiration or the school's previous issue with low bar passage rates. That seems like misrepresentation of a material fact, and that's not right, La Verne.

Unfortunately, the students are the ones really getting screwed here. The school will go on, possibly as a state accredited institution, but that model seems to work in California and they'll have a better reputation than the other California-only schools. The students, however, are stuck with a J.D. from a non-ABA school, which means they can't practice in most states. Even though they'll be denied the benefit of an ABA-approved education, they'll still be paying the massive costs (I think it's around 36k a year). If La Verne loses 2012 accreditation, the Class of 2012 will be truly and royally screwed. Most law students severely overpay for a product. La Verne's 2Ls and possibly 3Ls will be overpaying for a product they can't even fully use.

So here are my pithy, but completely serious suggestions for all involved:

-If you're the ABA, make a rule or exception that allows students who enrolled at a provisionally accredited school to finish as if they'd gone to a provisionally-accredited school.

-If you're a 1L at La Verne in the top 1/3 or so of the class, transfer. For the love of all that's holy, get out of Dodge. If you're in the bottom 2/3, find something else to do with your life unless you have a warm seat waiting for you on the other side.

-If you're a 2L or 3L at La Verne, complain, protest, and spread awareness about the massive screwjob that the school and the ABA seem to be performing.

-If you're the La Verne administration or faculty, ask yourself why you're running an institution that charges around $36,000 a year for an education where students aren't even equipped to pass the bar, may not have a chance to even take the bar, and, even if they pass, are thrown into a saturated legal market that has almost no use for them.

Also, ask yourself why your school has been less-than-upfront about the possibility that the school would lose accreditation (see my previous entry, or the course catalog entry above) and why I'm not able to find up-front tuition and costs on the school's website. Are you hiding this information from prospective applicants? Are these the operational values that you want to be associated with?

Also, I honestly think the La Verne administration should seriously consider some type of rebates to students for the school's failure.

Overall, it's hard to not see La Verne as the epitome of the law school bubble. From the first article linked:

The college has 420 students, up from about 250 or so prior to it gaining provisional accreditation from the ABA, he said.

A 68% jump. Think students don't factor in accreditation? Think the school didn't advertise it to the max?

I have no connection to La Verne, and I know no one who's ever talked about the place, but it's hard to not blame the school in this situation. Hopefully, the school can retain provisional status, only to prevent a large amount of students from being doubly screwed. If the ABA leaves the school with no accreditation, I really hope they find a way to except the current 2Ls and 3Ls, because it's really not right leaving them as the hot potato victims of this mess.

University of La Verne: A Different Kind of Misleading Advertising

The University of La Verne Law School (located in Ontario, California, and yes, I had to look it up, too) is trying again to bump it's "provisional" ABA accreditation to full ABA accreditation. The ABA's decision on their accreditation was delayed last year after only 34% of the graduating class passed the California bar exam on the first try. The school received provisional status in 2006 and the timeline is 5 years, so some are concerned that its time will expire and it won't be accredited, although it appears things are getting slightly better:

The exam pass rate for the same 2009 group rose to 73percent after students who had done poorly the first time retook the exam. These rates are called "ultimate" pass rates, which are also evaluated by the ABA. The 2010 first-time bar passage rate for graduating students at the law school reached 53percent.

Matt Jones, a first-year student at the law school, is among some first- and second-year students concerned about not being able to take the multi-state bar exam if they graduate at a school without ABA approval. Jones has nonetheless expressed satisfaction with the education he's receiving at the school, but he said the situation is a potential mess for many graduating with as much as $140,000 in debt.

This is a valid concern, isn't it? If you go to a school that's only provisionally accredited, you have one set of rights, but how many 0L's honestly realize that provisional accreditation expires? How many honestly realize that enrolling in a provisional school and graduating from a non-accredited school is a risk to take into account? Is the school upfront about this possible scenario?

Let's ask the Dean.

"They were told as graduates of provisional schools they're entitled to take the bar in all 50 states," [Dean Allen] Easley said. "The harder question is how much detail has gone into conversations with individuals about what would happen if the school loses its provisional status before they graduate. That gets to a level of detail you're not going to get into every single conversation. Certainly if anyone were to ask what were to happen if the school lost provisional approval before graduation, they would get an accurate answer. ... I don't think that question always gets asked."

Law school is a major investment of capital. The entire premise of our federal investment laws are that individuals should be fully apprised of the risks of an investment, especially the risks that have high acquisition costs (like trying to figure out the ABA's rules on accreditation).

And yet, this law school - a six-figure investment over three years - apparently only tells people "an accurate answer" of what would happen if they lose provisional status in the rare event that that person actually asks the question. Such a situation is blatantly contrary to the last 80 years of revelations about investment regulation, and it's also seemingly counter to common law contract principles (e.g., duty to disclose latent home defects).

Personally, I don't think the ABA should be accrediting schools where only ~50% of the class passes the bar exam, but that's just me. I just think the school has a duty to be entirely up front about their accreditation status, including the chance that they'll lose provisional accreditation.

But don't worry, kids, Dean Easley has a plan in case the ABA bucks a trend and actually rejects the school:

If a denial occurs, Easley said the law school would initiate an expedited application process to regain provisional status. He said recent precedent placed that process at about eight months.

"I think there's a good chance (for approval)," Easley said. "I believe we meet all the standards, but it's not my decision. The council is charged with making that decision. I hope we will get full approval and I believe we should."

Well, Dean Easley, you may meet the ABA's standards, but you don't meet mine, and you certainly weren't meeting your duty to prospective students if you weren't being entirely up front in disclosing that the school may lose accreditation.