Taft or Concord Law School

[jonlevy]

Problem with you guys is you have no sense of humor.

[cerealkiller]

Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

Like it or not, he makes a very plausible argument.  I agree with you insofar as the correct definition of "success" is arguable. But it's just silly to ignore the fact that a graduate of an online law school is going to be hampered, rightfully so or not, with more than a few career hurdles. A few of which will never be successfully navigated, no matter how brilliant the individual may be. For instance, no one from an online law school will ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why not? A law degree is not even constitutionally required to sit on SCOTUS.  People may get fed up with the ABA as the self appointed guardian of who is qualified.

Too bad "the people" don't nominate SCOTUS Justices, Presidents do. With or without the ABA, the SCOTUS nominations would look much the same as today with nominees coming primarily out of the best law schools in the country.

[jonlevy]

Too bad "the people" don't nominate SCOTUS Justices, Presidents do. With or without the ABA, the SCOTUS nominations would look much the same as today with nominees coming primarily out of the best law schools in the country.

Ever read the "Power Elite" by C Wright Mills?  That is why we have SCOTUS judges who are essentially corporate and government schills.

[cerealkiller]

Too bad "the people" don't nominate SCOTUS Justices, Presidents do. With or without the ABA, the SCOTUS nominations would look much the same as today with nominees coming primarily out of the best law schools in the country.

Ever read the "Power Elite" by C Wright Mills?  That is why we have SCOTUS judges who are essentially corporate and government schills.

And that would somehow magically change if only the elitists would allow non-ABA grads to crash the party? I think not.

[Marauder]

I spoke to the HR analyst that works for the county I live in, and this is what I was told. As of today a Taft Law Degree is recognized since it is a school listed in CHEA. 

[Opie58]

If you are easily offended by people looking down on an online degree, avoid any place with ABA grads.

I do avoid those people who believe they are better than those who did not go to the schools they did or anything else they feel justified to place themselves on a pedestal above someone else.  For those people, they will never really be happy with themselves because some “Jones” will always have something they don’t and will feel they don’t measure up – “since I feel substandard, I’ll make others feel substandard so I can feel better about myself” (deflection psychology).  What happen to judging someone on their worth & actions??  Or, character doesn’t really matter anymore – how sad?  If that is what I have to face working in another firm, than no, I will avoid those kinds of conceited, self-absorbed, narrow-minded folks and challenge them from my small personable solo practice representing the common underdogs of our fine country as I have for my entire adult life.  Will I be rich – not in material measurements, but in my own self-esteem I’ll be a millionaire; but, each his own.  How one judges success for them is not contingent on what I think or believe.  What they choose for themselves should be no one else’s business as long as they can support themselves and their family and not harm others along the way.  If I choose to attend a nontraditional law school, knowing full well of the imposed limitations now in place by some sort of self-appointed political body that was irrelevant less than 100 years ago, and can make my way in it, who’s place is it to judge what or how I do it?  That’s what attracts me to California’s Bar – giving everyone a chance to pursue their own dreams their own way, but setting the standards of conduct to weed out those who follow the dark side or fails to meet minimum standards of competency.  Some will agree with I present, others will not; again, what one chooses to exercise is a personal choice.

[john4040]

I do avoid those people who believe they are better than those who did not go to the schools they did or anything else they feel justified to place themselves on a pedestal above someone else.  For those people, they will never really be happy with themselves because some “Jones” will always have something they don’t and will feel they don’t measure up – “since I feel substandard, I’ll make others feel substandard so I can feel better about myself” (deflection psychology).  What happen to judging someone on their worth & actions??  Or, character doesn’t really matter anymore – how sad?  If that is what I have to face working in another firm, than no, I will avoid those kinds of conceited, self-absorbed, narrow-minded folks and challenge them from my small personable solo practice representing the common underdogs of our fine country as I have for my entire adult life. . . .  If I choose to attend a nontraditional law school, knowing full well of the imposed limitations now in place by some sort of self-appointed political body that was irrelevant less than 100 years ago, and can make my way in it, who’s place is it to judge what or how I do it?   That’s what attracts me to California’s Bar – giving everyone a chance to pursue their own dreams their own way, but setting the standards of conduct to weed out those who follow the dark side or fails to meet minimum standards of competency. Some will agree with I present, others will not; again, what one chooses to exercise is a personal choice.

Let me first address the red text above, because I believe it's pertinent to my answer below.  You're betting that you can pass the bar and make a life as an attorney.  If you're going to an online school or even most T3s and T4s, statistics show you're wrong.  This fact underscores the response below:

I don't have a problem with people chasing their dreams - as long as they take responsibility for their actions and and pay their debts in a timely manner.  However, when those graduates start using government money to chase rainbows and start asking for a direct bailout (or increasingly use IBR or the other various government bailout programs), I believe that the tax payers that will end up sholdering the rainbow chasers (i.e., burdens on society) have the right to hold those folks accountable for the poor decisions that they made.  If you're going to school with your own funds or on a scholarship then, by all means, go.  If you're chasing rainbows, have little shot at actually becoming an attorney, and want to borrow from the government, then you don't deserve the money.  The government shouldn't dole out money to encourage losing propositions.  Yet, time after time, we give money to those with less than a 25% shot at "making it", we don't question their wisdom, we can make a quick, relatively accurate determination of whether they will be able to pay their debts simply by knowing the school they wish to attend (but we don't), and we allow them to become burdens on society.  As a result, you're increasingly seeing more "basement dwellers" - i.e., those 30 year olds who have made poor decisions and are debt-slaves.  I suspect that you can count on seeing more and more of those as the cost of tuition increases (as a result of an overabundance of federal cashing being doled out without scrutiny), the demand for labor decreases, and as more individuals are repeatedly told that they are special little snowflakes that deserve a chance to chase rainbows.  Our education system is quickly becoming the joke of the world.  It's really as simple as that.

Further, barriers to entry must be erected as lawyers are members of a profession.  As a professional, you will have direct access to client money and will be placed in a position to, essentially, "speak" on behalf of your clients.  Because attorneys are, by nature, in a position to be trusted by their clients, they owe fiduciary duties to their clients.  Thus, a different, arguably stricter, standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law applies to attorney conduct.  As a result, we simply can't afford to let anyone and everyone into the profession.  Not everyone has the capacity to act ethically or competently.  Like bar exams, ABA accreditation standards act as a baseline hurdle to protect the public from students being taught by diploma mills.  Indeed, denial of ABA accreditation is recognition that the education you received does not even meet minimum standards and should not be valued.

[sollicitus]

Why "concede?"  That's what I'm calling "... lame, subjective, and unsupported ..."  It only encourages narrow minded people to believe they have some sort of plausible argument.  The other guy's argument shouldn't even be considered as having any sort of merit.

*Is Opie58*
*Thinks he is a "ruthless pitbull in the courtroom" who will never back down*
*Furiously writes 2/3 of reply to Motion for Summary Judment on minor point that should be conceded*
*Wonders why judge just dismissed his personal injury case on summary judgment*

True. A major factor in on campus learning is you learn to clean the mental pallet of tv perpetrated myths and behavior. There are always a few who act crazy in person but they tend to weed themselves out or just be labled psycho and left alone.

Wanting something "bad enough" and actually being qualified and doing it correctly are not even close to the same idea for most people.

Online grads can be equal to ABA but it's on them to prove themselves. They have to go double as much as everyone else and get a good rep out there. Win big cases, kiss hands & shake babies, all that stuff.

It might take a century or it might not happen at all. It's on them and only on them to make whatever happens happen. Not climbing a mountain because it's too big is on the climber not the mountain. Raise yourself to the standard, it will not lower itself to you.

[cerealkiller]

If you are easily offended by people looking down on an online degree, avoid any place with ABA grads.

If I choose to attend a nontraditional law school, knowing full well of the imposed limitations now in place by some sort of self-appointed political body that was irrelevant less than 100 years ago, and can make my way in it, who’s place is it to judge what or how I do it? 

The ABA doesn't impose any limitations on you. It's the state legislatures, and, more importantly, employers who impose the limitations. ABA-accreditation gives employers confidence that a prospective employee has received a legal education that meets a minimum standard of thoroughness and quality. Should your imagined right to work as an attorney somehow trump an employer's right to hire whom he sees fit?

Like it or not, ABA-accreditation combined with the U.S. News and World Report rankings provide employers immediate feedback as to the marketplace's perceived quality of the prospective employee's legal education. From there, the employer can then drill down even further and examine grades, extracurricular activities, and so on to arrive at a decision to hire him or not. Was so wrong with that?

There's nothing particularly draconian about the system. Every prospective law student knows or has reason to know the rules of the game. If you choose to sidestep the minimum requirements to play the game and end up watching it from the sidelines, don't cast blame on the ABA.

[sollicitus]

If you are easily offended by people looking down on an online degree, avoid any place with ABA grads.

If I choose to attend a nontraditional law school, knowing full well of the imposed limitations now in place by some sort of self-appointed political body that was irrelevant less than 100 years ago, and can make my way in it, who’s place is it to judge what or how I do it? 

The ABA doesn't impose any limitations on you. It's the state legislatures, and more importantly, employers who impose the limitations. ABA-accreditation gives employers confidence that a prospective employee has received a legal education that meets a minimum standard of thoroughness and quality. Should your imagined right to work as an attorney somehow trump an employer's right to hire whom he sees fit?

Like it or not, ABA-accreditation combined with the U.S. News and World Report rankings provide employers immediate feedback as to the marketplace's perceived quality of the prospective employee's legal education. From there, the employer can then drill down even further and examine grades, extracurricular activities, and so on to arrive at a decision to hire him or not. Was so wrong with that?

There's nothing particularly draconian about the system. Every prospective law student knows or has reason to know the rules of the game. If you choose to sidestep the minimum requirements to play the game and end up watching it from the sidelines, don't cast blame on the ABA.

Their argument will of course be that they do meet the requirments (just for their area) and they want it expanded if they prove themselves.
They also will argue that they often chose that path since other paths don't meet their nontraditoinal student requirments.
There is a reason why online attendence (JD and otherwise) is skyrocketing recently. Turn on any TV channel and watch the commercials. Not a single break will occur without an ad for an online college.