A DL school would be a step down the ladder and decrease your odds of passing the bar.
One exam's stats don't mean much, how about a 10 year spread? The baby bar is also going to eliminate a lot of folks who would drag down the average. The assertion that DL is somehow better is unsustainable, the students who survive it may be better but the quality of instruction is not going to be superior because the instruction is virtually nonexistent. But having said that I am firm believer that everyone should have the choice of DL and that the ABA monopoly is BS. Law does not require so called Socratic method, the bars can be passed on wrote memorization and passable English writing skills supplemented by a bar pass course. I also dispute the ABAs contention that a JD is the equivalent of a PhD, it is equivalent a UK Bachelors in Law and there are a lot of deluded lawyers out there who think the JD qualifies them to be university faculty when they don't know jack about political science, history or whatever.
so which option do you plan to pick? You don't seem to like ABA or online. You doing the on campus CBE accredited route?
Quote from: justanothersucker on November 19, 2011, 02:41:43 PMso which option do you plan to pick? You don't seem to like ABA or online. You doing the on campus CBE accredited route?I am currently doing an external LLD at UNISA online, graduated from a correspondence law school 20 years ago and have been licensed in multiple jurisdictions. I don't like ABA because they limit me to a few states and federal courts. I have no problem with online but the ABA effectively shuts non ABA grads out of most jobs therefore one would be foolish to attend non ABA unless precluded from doing so by geographic considerations. I would also maintain that anyone who succeeds with the California DL route would have succeeded at a ABA school regardless.