But, did you not just say above in reference to my post earlier ...
So, which is it - an entity outside the state sets the criteria, or the state sets it? Sounds like double talk, I may be wrong.
Zepp, you are trying to compare apples and peanuts here. Obviously, students who attend a DL law school are aware they can only take the California Bar. DL schools regardless of curriculum are going to attact statistical outliars and a lot of failures who have no business being in law school. A DL school at present is basically a glorified reading list, it has nothing to do with what goes on a law school. However reading for law is a traditional and proven method of passing the bar. Since students already have a undergrad degree, so if they choose to read for the bar exam, what is the problem?
The English who have been practising law a lot longer than we have, have no problem with an external LLB.http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/panel/law/about_qld.shtml
The answer here is for the ABA mossbacks to accept online education and let the well endowed ABA schools offer external JDs. This is the 21st Century, we have the technology available to replace the "sage on the stage with the guide on the side." But it takes money and aside from Washington Posts's Concord, no one has the money to make that sort of investment in a school that can only churn out California lawyers who then get blocked by ABA Luddites at every step.
Now, for my diatribe –
Quote from: Opie58 on December 31, 2011, 08:54:09 AMNow, for my diatribe –You'll have to excuse me for not copying your whole diatribe, but I'll try to hit all the points.I don't hope to convince you of anything. I think that would be a lost cause. I'm just defending what I find to be very reasonable standards for admission to the practice of law. I have never said they are the only reasonable standards, nor that there can be no alternative to the ABA standards. I have also never said that states that don't accept ABA standards don't know what they are doing. Personally, I believe the ABA standards are far too liberal. I also don't believe that the lower tiered ABA approved schools should be charing the same tuitions as those at the top of the list (and the non-accredited schools shouldn't be anywhere near the price). But those arguments are neither here nor there. The pro-se arguement has popped in and out for different reasons. Sum up to say, someone claimed that they were being unconstitutionally denied access to the courts. That's a non-starter. You have no constitutional right to practice law, and it has nothing to do with access to the courts. I'll leave it at that.