Law School Discussion

Taft, ALU, Concord

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2012, 03:35:33 PM »
I am glad you brought up the comparison between the two schools.    If you had to do it all over again what school would you go to or recommend?  I currently work as a paralegal in family law and as much as I tell myself not to go to law school it is always in the back of my mind.  BTW I love what I do, but would like to one day have my own practice in family law and immigration.  In the meantime I am attempting to become a LDA (Legal Document Assistant) in California so I can become self employed. 

In your opinion why do people fail the baby bar?  Is it lack of preparation! 

I presume that ABA law schools in 1L finals must have a similar test, hence the reason for not requiring its students to take the baby bar. 

Do you teach at TLS?

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2012, 02:00:46 PM »
No I don't tach at taft.

People fail the baby bar because:

1.  They have not prepared enough i.e. not memorized everything

2.  They lack the basic ability to pass standardized tests such as being able to write in standard English.

I think the baby Bar is likely harder than law school finals.

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2012, 05:42:51 PM »
I've met attorneys who have told me that they found the FYLSX to be really tough, but I just looked at some past exam questions and they seemed pretty straightforward. You definitely need to know your stuff and to be prepared, but it seems doable. My law school finals in contracts, torts, and crimlaw were considerably more complex and lengthy than anything I saw on the FYLSX essays. Not to mention the fact that law school exams are typically three hours per topic, as opposed to one hour per topic on the baby bar.

Why is the pass rate so low? Frankly, it probably has to do with the academic capabilities of the average test taker. I went to a lower tier ABA school, and we had some students who clearly should not have been in law school. They did not possess the skills or drive to learn voluminous amounts of information and then to effectively apply those rules to a complex fact pattern. The people who squeeked in with low GPAs and low LSATs often failed out. I imagine (and maybe I'm wrong!) that unaccredited schools attract a larger number of these types of students, ie; those who didn't get accepted anywhere else. 

I don't mean to paint all students at unaccredited law schools with a broad brush, I know that there are success stories, and I know that some very smart people have graduated from such schools. However, it seems to be the most obvious reason.

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2012, 07:33:56 PM »
They fail because they are clueless about the law. Imagine trying to teach yourself negligence from Gilbert's outlines and nutshells.  You either are going to get it or you are not. Reading casebooks and hornbooks on your own will serve no purpose at all except to confuse.  The teaching method and the students are both inferior, that's a given. The amazing part is that 1 out of 5 pass at all.

I don't know if the stats are available but since the majority of distance ed students went from correspondence to online, has the pass rate gone up, down or stayed the same?

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2012, 08:06:19 PM »
Honestly, I can't imagine. It must be incredibly difficult. Even sitting through classes, getting called on, and studying with friends I still found certain concepts difficult to grasp (the Rule Against Perpetuities still baffles me). That's why I have huge respect for the people who make it through and pass the Ca bar, they must be very disciplined, motivated, and smart.

So, if 20% pass the FYLSX, and another 30-50% of those folks pass the bar, you're looking at 6-10% of those who start actually finishing the process. Pretty sobering odds.

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2012, 06:57:26 AM »
I always figured it at 10-1 against going in but a lot of that is simply attrition of sticdents who drop out or don't get past year one.  Paralegals and people who have a lot of contact with the court system are going to have a higher success rate, maybe 30% is my guess.  By the way I was originally accepted at three law schools and attended an ABA school but canned it before the end of the first semester.  I really did not like law school at the time.  By the time I wanted to give it another whirl I lived 250 miles away from the nearest law school and had a job I did not want to quit, so distance learning looked like it was worth a try.  But if I'd lived closer to a city with night law school, I would have done that instead.

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2012, 07:02:57 AM »
A lot of common law jurisdictions have done away with or have modified the Rule against Perpetuities so it only narrowly effects testamentary dispositions. So for example, one can usually have a contract with a contingency clause that exceeds 21 years by inserting a choice of law clause for a jurisdiction that has abolished the rule.

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2012, 08:20:42 AM »
Yeah, the RAP is great example of how law professors can waste inordinate amounts of your time and money. CA has statutorily modified the common law RAP, and yet in both Property and Wills & Trusts we spent endless hours dealing with validating lives and pregnant octogenarians. On the CA bar there were maybe 2 or 3 MBEs that dealt with it, and nothing in the essays. Absurd.

Are most of the people who attend online/correspondance doing so for reasons of geographic isolation, like you were? Or are most just not able to attend a brick and mortar school due to work schedules? It makes sense that if you live in, say, Reno, your options are online or nothing. I'd do it, too, if it were the  only option. If other states would open their doors to unaccredited grads I think you'd see better bar pass rates from these schools. The fact that they're limited to CA is a huge impediment.   

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2012, 10:36:17 AM »
The solution would be for the ABA to allow ABA accredited schools to offer an online law school option. 

However, the law professors, who usually have only JDs after all and not an academic SJD or LLD and are vastly over compensated, would pitch a fit since anyone can "instruct" and develop an online class for a tiny percent of the cost of a big shot law professor boviating at some lecture hall full of students.

Re: Taft, ALU, Concord
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2012, 02:52:23 PM »
For me online law school is my only reasonable option for the simple reason that I need to work full-time.  Being unemployed while in law school and not knowing the eventual outcome does not sit well with me.  I need to make sure I will not have to accept any legal job...simply because I need to pay my bills or out of desperation. 

I have heard too many stories of unemployed law students that have graduated, passed the bar but cannot find a job.  I am also not 20 something with few responsibilities.  That is my story and I am sticking with it!