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.
J-Dog, get ready to take a bigger bite out of this school's ass. Look up the attrition rate for first year students. Toilets find that this is a good revenue stream (even if only for one year), and allows the school to propel its bar passage rate.
ReplyDeletehttp://laverne.lawschoolnumbers.com/
For the Class of 2008, the rate of first year attrition was listed at 17%. I suspect it would be higher now.
Too bad, the TTT ABA does not require its member schools to have a certain percentage of its recent grads be hired as LAWYERS. Of course, we both know that this is because the ABA knows that many would lose accreditation.
"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)."
ReplyDeleteFinally!!!! Someone brought up the securities laws' requirements regarding appraising investors of investment risks (and as an extension, taking into account an investor's level of sophistication regarding particular investments). Perfect analogy.
Students might be okay if they don't plan on practicing outside of California. If it were in a state in which the state courts required an ABA law degree, then they'd be screwed. As far as I know, La Verne is one of those law schools that started as CA-accredited but is trying to level-up to ABA status.
ReplyDelete@ Nando
ReplyDeleteMeh, I’m against closing any SCHOOL just because their graduates can’t find/keep jobs in the profession related to the DEGREE they got. I know that sounds asinine, but let me explain.
To me (and granted is not a view held by many in our generation) a schools primary purpose is education, to provide you the skills necessary to earn the DEGREE of Juris Doctor. The bars primary purpose is to the be the gatekeeper of who has the MINIMUM COMPETENCY to apply those skills learned in one’s education. The graduate has the primary purpose of finding themselves a job or creating one and actually being good or not, PRACTICING the law.
I’ve worked with some really smart lawyers from both high ranked schools and schools I had never heard of. The one thing they all have in common is that they are very good at the PRACTICE of law.
I’ve also worked with, battled against and cleaned up the messes of lawyers that are complete and total morons in the practice of law. Again from both high ranked schools and lower ranked schools.
What I have noticed is that the ones who absolutely suck from lower ranked schools don’t last as long the ones from higher ranked schools, and naturally have less time in the profession to do real damage to their clients.
The ones from higher ranked schools last longer only because the name on their diploma is more valuable to the firm for marketing purposes then their stupidity and crap work costs the firm for writing memos for 2-4 years till they let them go. They last maybe another year in the profession on their own as a solo, again riding the coattails of the degree name or former firms name, but not any legal competence.
I see many of the same lawyers on a regular basis in my practice area and myself and my colleagues often say “thank god X is not practicing anymore or MY GOD Y still has a freaking licenses/job?”
To me - let the schools produce as many graduates as they want. The crème will rise to the top, and the crap will be drummed out or not given a chance to even start screwing stuff up. The all-stars, the ones really good at the profession outside of a school/education setting will make their own path, either proving their worth to a firm or starting their own practice that actually thrives based on performance of the lawyer in the PRACTICE of law.
I’m all for giving those folks a shot. The ones that don’t make it, well thems the breaks, they got a DEGREE from the school –which is the schools primary purpose, but the school’s not a placement agency or gaunteener of real practical skill in the profession or that you will last much less be any good at it.
Let the few folks that are natural gifted at the profession claw their way up where is counts, actually being able to provide competent legal services no matter where they had to go to law school (for whatever reasons, not good at LSAT, need to live near family, have to work to pay for school –whatever)
My 2 cents.
Is there a joint JD/MBA program with the University of Shirley in the offering?
ReplyDeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteA true profession works to ensure that its members will be able to practice in the field. Do you see 200 medical schools or 174 dental schools, in the U.S.?!?!
A true profession does not take in as many students as it can. The schools limit entry into the profession.
Furthermore, law schools are not in the business of printing money. At this point in time, it appears most are in operation solely to make some serious cash. Apparently, you don't have a problem with that. Would you have a problem with some other guy sleeping with your wife or girlfriend, i.e. "Hell, I made a move and she was dumb enough to fall for it. I don't care. It doesn't affect me. I got mine. I don't have a responsibility to see if she is with someone else. I don't even have the responsibility to wear a condom, or let her about my STD. If she passes it on to her dumbass boyfriend, that's on her."
That would be in line with your "every man for himself" mentality.
Nando,
ReplyDeleteYour analogy with medical school forgets that medical school has entrance requirements far beyond law school with far less demand to attend. You need to have a specific degree as a prerequisite, you need to demonstrate on the entrance test that you have an understanding of the basic building blocks of the science of medical profession, then you must apply and in many cases interview personally before being admitted. Additionally, and most importantly, before you can practice medicine you must intern and learn the actual practice of medicine. Its much harder to get into medical school, and when you finally get out, again unlike law school, you have an actual practical understanding of the field you’re getting into and the ability to start practicing it at that point. Out the door a doctor has proven he can practice his profession, most new lawyers have not.
None of that is true with law school. As such law school becomes the default to anyone who can’t find a job with whatever degree they got. Law school is easiest to get into professional program with the highest demand. According to Google in 2008: 67,000 people took the MCAT, 8,000 took the DAT (dental), and around that many took the PCAT (pharmacy), while 143k took the LSAT.
Those professions are limited by less demand, core requirements and harder entrance exams, law school is not.
The law schools did not create the demand, aimless BA degree holders clambering to get into law school did. So now law schools are popping up everywhere because we demand them. So long as anyone with a degree can get in, they will apply. When demand for seats in law school declines, law schools will close. But closing law schools now, under the current system, does nothing to decrease demand. So long as everyone and anyone can go to law school, and law school remains the easiest professional school to get into, shitty job prospects or not, if you build it, they will come, in droves.
But law schools can learn from the med school model in another way. If it was up to me, the first 1 to maybe 1.5 years would be the standard core 1st year curriculum with room for maybe 1-2 electives.
Once you complete that, your given a Master’s Degree in law. You would have learned enough to use that legal education in something other than being an attorney, like a paralegal, working in regulation, working for the government, whatever, but you can’t take the bar or be a lawyer. It would also give law students who realize they made the wrong choice an out with a degree after 1 year.
After the MA, if you decide that law school and the legal profession is really what you want to do, then you can apply to the doctorate program in law, the JD. It would be based solely on your performance in the MA, and maybe even include interviews. The next 1.5-2 years would be a residency. Where you actually learn the legal profession and learn the skills you need to practice law out the gate (and get paid a small salary since each law school would now have a legal clinic like med schools do-maybe not enough to cover all the costs, but enough to reduce the debt load compared to now). First year general law residency practicing general law cases (like many states have now with law student practice acts). Second year, you specialize and practice that. Then you get the JD, sit for the bar, and if you can’t find a job with a firm, you at least have the skills to go on your own till you do. You also are more profitable sooner to a firm since they don’t have to train you as much.
As to my girlfriend/wife, that makes no sense, I sleep with other peoples girlfriends/wives, not my own.
Ah man my response got removed?
ReplyDeleteNando,
ReplyDeleteYou seem very passionate about this topic- that’s good in my book, even if I don’t agree with you, I won’t just cast your arguments off as not meriting thought.
The comparison of laws schools to med schools - Med schools require much more stringent entrance requirements, a pre-med BS, interviews etc. In 2008 (so says Google) 67k people took the MCAT, 8k DAT, and about the same the PCAT, while 143k took the LSAT. Law school is the easiest of the professional schools to get into, with the highest demand and lowest entrance requirements.
That schools limit entry into the profession - Schools limit entry into the degree program, but not the profession. The bar does that, it’s the gate keeper for entering the profession in all but the one state that allows for diploma privilege. Additionally I think there are four state that still allow you to read for the law and take the bar exam, completely skipping law school. Then there is California with its on special deal. Schools only limit aces to the JD degree, they don’t control entry into the profession. You can graduate with a JD and never pass the bar, never take the bar or take the bar pass and not be able to enter the profession (because the state denies your app or something else), or you can pass the bar and enter the profession without ever getting the JD.
The definition of a profession is debatable - a “profession” by itself does not necessarily mean one that is high paying or exclusive. Law is a trade, a service industry, a profession. A professional school is one that teaches you the skills of that profession or trade (debatable how well law schools do this). There are more lawyers in the US than plumbers or garbage men, those trades based on numbers alone are more exclusive than lawyer.
STDs/girlfriends - whatever, come on, that shit does no good for your cause and makes you look like you can’t handle a debate. Drop the personal attacks and think like you have been trained, else wise it does not look like a serious debate on the issues but a vendetta and you lose any credibility in the eyes of those not decided either way, or who might benefit for your comments, but will tune you out for resorting to that stuff.
Matt,
ReplyDelete"The definition of a profession is debatable - a “profession” by itself does not necessarily mean one that is high paying or exclusive. Law is a trade, a service industry, a profession. A professional school is one that teaches you the skills of that profession or trade (debatable how well law schools do this)."
I never said that all professions had high salaries. You added that. You think it is debatable that law schools may not be teaching one the skills of the trade?!?! Even tenured "law professors" openly joke about how they teach you to "think like a lawyer." Do you want a doctor or dentist who was trained to "think" like a physician or dentist - or one who was thoroughly trained to do the job?!
Medical schools require lengthy training, residencies, etc. Dental schools require at least 2 years in practicum, working on people's teeth. Then, they enter a brief apprenticeship under another dentist. Is it your position that recent JDs are in a similar position to go out on their own and hit the ground running?
We disagree on this issue. That is fine. But I have kicking the hell out of the law school industry for almost 18 months now. Not once has a law school defender or shill been able to show that law school is a wise investment for most. I have challenged deans and "law professors" to debate the state of legal education. Until two weeks ago, not one of them had even bothered to respond.
By the way, the schools and banks are repeat players in the $y$tem. The law schools can manipulate data, and thereby take advantage of prospective law students, i.e. one-time players. Furthermore, the one-time player bears the entire risk in this scheme. You were attempting to defend that arrangement. And when you are taking such a stance, you can bet your ass that I am going to smash that argument down. I am simply not going to be congenial and statesmanlike, in the process.
This is real life; we are not at the debate club at Groton or Andover. We are talking about real people who are being buried in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, and weak job prospects. If you were expecting a gentleman's (scholarly) debate, you were sadly mistaken.
I am glad that you enjoy what you do, for a living. However, do not attempt to turn this into a sterile hypo. This is not an academic discussion or scholarly article about the effect of the Rule Against Perpetuities on serfs.
Lastly, you basically advocated an “every man for himself approach,” in your prior comment. I used that example to illustrate that this results in chaos.
My other post got deleted, but briefly we came up with the same solution, 1 year of law school and you can get out with an MA but can’t take the bar, apply for the doctorate program and spend 2 years in clinical training so when you get out you actual have some skills to use if you can’t find a job working for someone else.
ReplyDeleteAs to the “thinking like a lawyer” thing, LOL WUT? That is the ONLY skill law school teaches you, and it’s the only skill you really need practice, everything else you can look up, making arguments based on fact and not emotion, that’s the skill of the practice of law.
Now as to your inability to engage in civil discussion, that’s too bad I’m glad you have been able to spend the last 18 months battling the system you think is the cause of all your woes. Believe me I would love that freedom, but I don’t have that luxury.
Why? I am buried in debt more than ANYONE I have ever seen on any of the scam blogs. Before law school I owned a few rental houses in Arizona. I was advised back then, to borrow as much cheap money from the government as you can for school, then when you graduate sell the houses and pay off your loans (we were averaging 10-15% increase in value for 10 years strait in Phoenix). You can guess how that went when I graduated in 2009, gone, poof, can’t rent them, can’t sell them, the bank won’t even take them back, but I still owe the mortgages.
When I decided I wanted to be a lawyer in my late 20s I did not even have a college degree yet. I borrowed for that (no parents to help me), then the JD at a very expensive school, then because of what I wanted to practice an LLM.
The grand total I owe, after my nest egg houses went south, for student loans and houses I can’t get rid of or even live in because I’m in a different state? I can tell you $393,716.23. It’s on an Excel spreadsheet right next to my computer, which I’m sitting at almost 2 in the AM on a Saturday night, working while listening to people bitch about “massive” debt in the 100k range “ruining their lives,” and not having a job handed to them at graduation. You all come off as entitled lazy whiners when I read this drivel where anyone who does not agree with you is a law school shill or has no idea how hard it is out there. F-U, come live my life for one week, most would off themselves.
I don’t have time to blame others for my stupid choices, I gotta work my ass of 7 days a week not only practicing law as a public interest lawyer, but teaching myself how to handle any other cases I can pick up, making contacts in the field, finding mentors who are willing to advise me on or send me work, ghostwriting legal articles for lawyers blogs, and running my own tech company advising lawyers on systems integration. Anything I can to make money and keep myself active in the field until things do pick up.
And “real life” I mean you what, 23-25? WTF do you know about massive debt, the legal profession you have never practiced in, and what “real life” is? Real life is busting my ass to pay off the money I voluntarily borrowed and keep food in the fringe and the lights on (TV, home phone, Netflix all that went years ago). I don’t have the luxury of blaming someone else. I have sign next to the spread sheet that says you got yourself into this mess, now you get yourself out. That keeps me going on 4-5 hours of sleep seven days a week to dig myself out. Being upset there was not pot of gold for me at the end of the rainbow does not pay the bills.
“Real life” real life I got in spades, I’m not some kid who has spent 22 of his 25 years living in the comfy confines of education land riding my unicorn to my “early” 11AM class who is just now finding out, sometimes real life suck ass and hard work or not it does not owe you anything.
Good luck Nando, keep doing what you think you have to do, but your far better off than many others.
nando,
ReplyDeleteRe-reading what i posted it came off as bitchy to you, that was NOT my intent. I'm just as frustrated as you are, I just get a bit pissed when people think that just because I like being a lawyer or an working my ass of to make it work, I don't know what's its like to be drowning in debt or am some law school shill.
The only difference between me and some scam bloggers is, I see this as a mess I got myself into and one I have to get myself out of. Not one I got duped into and am now angry at the system.
I agree with many points of the scam bloggers, but I also feel I did allot of this to myself and hence I need to get myself out of it. Others can learn from my mistakes, but they can't pay my bills.
Sorry I did exactly what I accused you of doing, personal attacks, being sleep deprived makes you say things you would not normally do. I apologize. M
For the record, I did not remove any response. It got trapped in blogger.com's automatic spam filter. I'm not sure why, but there's nothing I can do about it except marking it as non-spam.
ReplyDeletewow debt, now I know why so many african american men perfer not to go to college. Is not much of an investment if you owe more money than what you started out with, and on top of that- end up making less than a highschool grad who started when he/she was 18 and now has better pay because of their relevant work experience. Shame shame shame on these institutions for not preparing our kids!!
ReplyDeleteI haven't read any of the other comments about this article but am just commenting about ULV college of Law in general. If anyone is ever considering going to this sorry pathetic excuse for a law school please just strangle yourself instead.
ReplyDeleteI had the unfortunate experience of attending this school and can write a detailed fifty page essay about the school's deficiencies, but will just tell you their worst flaw was the lies they told their potential students and their students. I vividly remember during orientation, the number one asked question was about the status of the ABA. Repeatedly we were told by numerous professors that there was nothing to worry about. Most stated that once a student starts with the accreditation, no matter what happens, the student will graduate with the accreditation.
The problem with law schools today is that most of them are in it for a profit and will inflate stats and tell lies to bring in a paying student body.