Talk:Correspondence law school

List of schools

Moving from article to talk page for preservation:

List of California Correspondence/Online Law Schools

1. Abraham Lincoln University School of Law[1]
2. American Heritage University School of Law
3. California School of Law[2]
4. Concord Law School
5. Diamond Graduate Law School LLM Online Program
6. Esquire College
7. National Law School[3]
8. Newport University School of Law
9. Northwestern California University School of Law
10. California University School of Law
11. Oak Brook College of Law and Government Policy
12. Southern California University for Professional Studies
13. St. Francis eUniversity
14. University of Honolulu School of Law
15. West Coast School of Law, Inc.
16. West Haven University School of Law
17. William Howard Taft University School of Law

Wl219 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside the U.S.?

Do these exist outside the U.S.? The hatline says the main article is "Law School in the United States," so I infer the comments here apply only to the U.S. I think either there should be a cited mention that the U.S. is the only country with them (which seems unlikely to me), a discussion of them elsewhere (even if rudimentary for now), or it should be moved to Correspondence law school in the United States." Rigadoun (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather, there are correspondence law schools incorporated outside the US, but their primary market for students is the US because of liberal laws like in California that let these students take the bar. I doubt British or other common law jurisdictions are as generous about their bar exams. Wl219 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction - I see that Open University in the UK awards an undergraduate bachelor of laws degree, but I don't know if that will qualify a student to become a barrister. Wl219 16:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, the article is totally Americano-centric, as there are many correspondence law schools in other countries, which grant law degrees. I will try to amend it. --Karpada 10:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Some States Allow Examinees From Distance Learning Law Schools

I am currently in my last year of study at NWCULaw (Northwestern California University School of Law) (as of January 2017).

I had been accepted into various local and distant schools that all ran more than $100,000 for the program. I did not feel this would be a good return on my investment, so I decided to go with NWCULaw after doing some research on it.

The State of Florida does indeed allow me to sit for the Florida Bar, but I have to practice law in California (or any other jurisdiction) for ten years and show them work I have done. But I can sit for the Florida Bar at that point, if they agree to allow me to do so.

A few other states do as well, some require some physical location law school study (credit requirements), and all of this can be found by researching the Bar Admission Guide, published by the NCBE.

It should also be noted that the ABA, by their own rules, cannot accredit ANY distance learning program of law, Standard 306 forbids it, "Currently, no law schools that provide a J.D. degree completely via distance education are approved by the ABA." from http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/distance_education.html

On the First Year Law Students' Examination (FYLSX, FYLSE, or "Baby Bar"), the exam has an average of 80% failure rate, that does not change. While I cannot prove it, the numbers appear to tell a truth that the exam is not a hurdle, but a road block. It is passable, and it is far from easy. Someone should mention that the average failure rate appears to be a manual stopping point, adjusted for each administration of the exam. We do not have to be the best of the best to pass, but we have to be better than about 84% of everyone taking the same exam as we are!

Bar Exam Rates are also painfully low for those who go this route - thus, it is also not easy, but the Bar Exam is passable, and people from these programs do pass. For those who do, it is worth it - because studying law via open and distance learning is not easy, but it can be worthwhile, and at a far more affordable price point.

R.H. 4L, NWCULaw

My two cents

I was enrolled in Northwestern California School of Law and was doing pretty well, but withdrew over family obligations and the death of my dog. Ripped me apart. I really enjoyed it and the staff was great and they know all of the "loopholes." I requested that my first year be deferred, and they know how to do that and readjusted my start date to give me another chance. Great experience and some day I hope to go back.

But...in reading some of their requirements and benefits, I believe that Texas also offers/confers/recognizes an on-line law degree with the ability to practice law. Wikipedia's entry states that California is the only state that allows this. If this has changed since 2006, I'm ignorant of the facts, but someone with more time and gumption could look into it.

If this all sounds like I'm a pitchman, so be it. So sue me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.17.111 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Online Law Student

I am a student at the California School of Law. Several things need to be stated, corrected and clarified regarding: (a) (a) the list above that purports to be of the California distance learning law schools; and (b) important information that has been excluded by the Wikipedia Administrator from the main article, i.e. the Wikipedia article entitled entitled "Correspondence Law School."

First the list at the top of this page is not accurate. There are only seven California correspondence law schools and five California online schools, for a total of twelve, not seventeen as the list above indicates. The accurate list of the seven correspondence and five online schools is as follows:

         California Southern University 
         International Pacific School of Law 
         MD Kirk School of Law 
         Northwestern California University School of Law 
         Oak Brook College of Law and Government Policy 
         Taft Law School 
         University of Honolulu School of Law 

         Abraham Lincoln University School of Law 
         American Heritage University School of Law 
         California Midland School of Law (formerItalic textly Aristotle         
           University Institute of Law)
         California School of Law 
         Concord Law School 

For a verification of the accuracy of this list, go to the relevant section of the website of the State Bar of California, "Registered unaccredited distance learning law schools in California". State Bar of California, at http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Education/LegalEducation/LawSchools.aspx#distance.

But much more importantly, the readers of this discussion page should be aware of certain very important, indeed crucial information, which the Wikipedia administrator will not allow me to post as part of the main "Correspondence Law School" article.

First, at the "Use of Socratic Method" section in the Main article there is an extended discussion of the traditional Socratic Method way of teaching law. Yet, the Wikipedia administrator will not allow me to post, in the "Use of Socratic Method" section of the main article, the extremely important, indisputable and crucial fact that there is only one school among the twelve above-listed distance learning law schools that utilizes the Socratic Method as its basic teaching pedagogy, that school being the school I attend, the California School of Law.

Secondly, data is set forth in the "Baby Bar Pass Rates" section of the main article that shows that students from the California School of Law perform much better on the "baby bar" than students from all other schools, both distance learning and "fixed facility." Yet the Wikipedia Administrator will not allow me to post, in the "Baby Bar Pass Rates" section of the Main article, the extremely important, indeed crucial fact that the cause of the far superior performance of the students from the California School of Law on the "baby bar" appears to be that the California School of Law is the only distance learning school that uses the traditional Socratic Method as its basic pedagogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.248.240 (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply giving readers the "pass rates" does not really tell us much. How many students took the various exams? If 2 of 3 passed one time, for a 66% pass rate, does that mean that 1 of 2 taking another time for a 50% pass rate is a poorer showing? The sample size in either case is not significant enough for such analysis. Give us the numbers, not the rates. That way we can avoid puffery, vagueness, weasel words, and peacock terms.--S. Rich 23:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer to "S. Rich" from Online Law Student:

You are confused. No "pass rates," vague or otherwise, are stated in the paragraphs that I set out above on this discussion page. My discussion above, rather, concerns three totally different points, namely: (a) that the list of correspondence and online law schools at the top of this discussion page is inaccurate; (b) that the Wikipedia administrator would not permit me to insert a paragraph in the main Wikipedia "Correspondence Law School" article that would state that the only distance learning law school using the Socratic Method is the California School of Law; and (c) that the Wikipedia Administrator would not permit me to insert a paragraph in the main article that would state that the reason that the students from the California School of Law have a far superior performance rate on the baby bar, when compared to the rates for students from other distance learning law schools, is that the California School of Law is the only distance learning law school utilizing the Socratic Method as its basic teaching pedagogy.

Your complaint about the way the "pass rate" numbers for the baby bar are presented, thus, has absolutely nothing to do with what is stated above on this discussion page. Your complaint, rather, apparently concerns the pass rate numbers that are set out in the main Wikipedia "Correspondence Law School" article. You, therefore, should take your complaint to the Wikipedia administrator, who has tightly governed the content of that main article.

But, in any event, if you want the actual "hard numbers" for the June 2009 Baby Bar, you can go to the references to the California State Bar website that are given, in the main Wikipedia "Correspondence Law School" article, at the footnote references numbered 32 and 33. If you go to these references, for which links are provided in the main Wikipedia article, you will see that, although the numbers for the California School of Law are small, because the disparity between that school's students' performance and the performance of the students from Concord and Abraham Lincoln is extreme(e.g. 100% vs. 24% and 28% for First-Time takers), the differences in performance between the schools are meaningful, both as a matter of common sense and according to the accepted rules of statistical analysis.

I also can tell you that the superior performance of the California School of Law students on the June 2009 administration of the baby bar is consistent with their superior performance on other administrations, e.g. in October 2009. Although the differences in performance between the schools in October 2009 were not as extreme as they were in June 2009, the California School of Law students nevertheless fared substantially better in October 2009 than the students from Abraham Lincoln and Concord.

One last point. If you are interested in an online legal education, you should take into account something besides baby bar pass rates. I urge that you take into account which school uses the traditional Socratic Method in its teaching program. In short, as stated above, and which I tried to state in the main Wikipedia "Correspondence Law School" article, the California School of Law is the only online law school that has the technology that makes it possible to teach by the live, "give and take" Socratic Method as it is used at the best and most prestigious "brick and morter" law schools.

There is no confusion on my part. I did not address the effectiveness of on-line education or the Socratic Method. (Or number of non-traditional schools listed.) I simply pointed out that giving a "pass rate", without supporting data, does not tell the reader much. Without such data, "far superior performance" & "superior performance" are empty boasts. The "burden of evidence" WP:BURDEN (e.g., hard numbers) in editing is on the person proposing the edit.

If you wish to edit the article yourself, I recommend registering as a user with Wikipedia. That way you can access these pages which have editing restrictions on them.

I am interested in legal education, but not for myself. I passed the California Bar in 1986.

Second Answer to S Rich From Online Law Student

Your second note confirms my view that you are confused. This is because that facts are that The Wikipedia Administrator has prohibited me from presenting the very "hard" numbers in the main article that you believe are so important. But, despite this, you persist in criticizing me for not presenting hard numbers.

Further, the subject of my topic in this discussion page involves the Wikipedia Administrator's "heavy hand" in prohibiting me from pointing out the significance of the numbers that I was permitted to present, not the issue of presenting hard numbers. Thus, no matter how any reasonable person would view the exchange between you and me, you are criticizing the wrong person.

In any event, if you were truly interested in the "hard numbers," rather than lecturing me or accusing me of using "weasel words," you would just go look the hard numbers at the locations that I pointed out to you in my prior answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.248.240 (talk • contribs) 17:20, July 20, 2010

First, please sign your posts so we can keep track of who has written what; it's impossible to carry on a conversation if we can't keep track of the participants and what they've said and to whom. Second, I don't know what you mean by "The Wikipedia Administrator." This is a wiki; we're all editors and no one has control over any article.

Finally, I suspect you might be running into trouble because you're making assumptions and drawing your own conclusions about the meaning of your numbers. You - as a Wikipedia editor - can't say that the numbers are caused by particular phenomena (e.g. the method of instruction). You can only cite other reliable, WP:V:verifiable sources that make the claim. We don't perform original research here. ElKevbo (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go, Online Law Student, the hard numbers are now posted.

And I see that California SOL had 3 or 5 takers passing. Two of the 5 were first timers, so 3 of the 5 were repeaters. Evidently, only 1 of the 3 repeaters passed.

Now if 1 of the 3 passers had actually failed, the pass rate for California would have dropped to 40%. Similarly, if the one taker from Midland/Aristotle had passed, that school would have had a 100% pass rate. In that case, would Midland have a "far superior performance" compared to the other schools?

The issue I presented in my discussion was whether or not simply posting pass rates was informative to the readers. In statistical [[Sampling (statistics)|sampling], it is important that the sample size be adequate. For Midland, California, Honolulu, Oak Brook, MD Kirk, etc., the numbers of takers/passers are too small to make hay.

Consider this -- some ABA approved schools (Cal. Western, McGeorge, T. Jefferson, and La Verne had ZERO percent pass rates for their June 2009 takers, but they each only had one or two students taking the Baby Bar. Does that mean that these schools have "far inferior performance" compared to other schools?

What it comes down to is this -- the ability and dedication of the individual student. That is, all schools use the same casebooks and teach in the same method. So why should one school have a different pass rate than any other? Simple. It depends upon the individual students and what each individual does. So, if a student has ability and drive, then that student can go to a "lower tier" school and pass the Bar. If the student does not have the ability and/or drive, they can go to Harvard yet fail the Bar.--S. Rich 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Third Answer of Online Law Student

You guys just don't get it, or at least you are pretending you don't. The simple and straightforward facts are that one online law school, and one only, the California School of Law, has the technology that: (a) makes it possible for the professors to ask students questions and follow-up questions; and (b) makes it possible for debates over legal points to be held by and between the professors and the students in the school's "virtual classrooms." And this school, not surprisingly, for the past administrations of the "baby bar" has had far superior pass rates in comparison to the online schools that do not have such technology.

Thus, S. rich's playing with the numbers does not, in any detract from these hard statistical facts for the last two administrations of the baby bar. Nor does S Rich's claim that all the schools are teaching by the same method, and thus different pass rates are insignificant.How many times do I have to say it:only one online school has the technology to make it possible to teach by the traditional Socratic Method, i.e. by the traditional give and take, question and answer procedure.

And as for ElKevbo's claim that there are no "Wikipedia Administrators," I invite him to review the "View history" of this discussion page.

Enough said, I've got much better things to do with my time than debate with people who are not interested in listening to the opposition's points. So, with this note I bid you guys and any readers a "fond Adieu."

Online Law Student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.248.240 (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Online Law Student edits

Wikipedia Discussion Page Insert on 8/22/2010 by Online Law Student.

Yesterday I made significant changes to the article entitled "Correspondence Law School." These changes, first and most importantly, provided important factual information regarding distance learning legal education that was not in the prior draft of the article. The changes I made also involved the correction of several erroneous statements in the prior draft. And lastly, I reorganized the article's presentation format to made it rational.

I have discovered that all of my changes have been deleted and the prior draft, including its erroneous factual statements, has been reinserted. My only reasonable action to take in this situation, obviously, has been to reimpose my draft, which I have done. If the materials in my draft are removed again, I will pursue a complant with the Wikipedia appeal structure because it is clear to me that any future deletion of my additions and corrections will be improper.

I also intend to inform the California State Bar of this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.248.240 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 August 2010

Reimposing your draft is not your only reasonable action available, but it's not the worst action you could take. Feel free to inform any outside body you think necessary, but please be careful how you couch your intent on article and user talk pages. This project has a stringent policy regarding legal threats. Please read and understand that policy. Thanks Tiderolls 20:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the website "onlinelawschoolreviewer.com", which you use extensively as a source, is not a reliable source. That, in itself, draws your edits into question. You have been warned repeatedly about the site not being appropriate as either a source or an external link on Wikipedia, yet you continue to restore it. Repeated spamming of this link despite warnings can result in administrative action being taken. I encourage you to locate alternate sources that do meet Wikiepdia's guidelines to be a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance list by state.

It would be nice if someone could look up the current state bar policy on sitting for the state bar exam for each state in regard to correspondence/online law schools. I would propose the chart would have under the left column "state" the second column would be "permits graduates from correspondence law schools to sit for the bar" (yes or no) and perhaps a column listing those law schools whose graduates have sat for the bar in each of the states that permit such and whether or not they passed. That last one is probably a tall order but with all the people who go on Wikipedia surely they will eventually accomplish this. This would make this article eminently more useful than it currently is which only vaguely alludes to a the fact that some do and some do not. This is like an article on gemstones that mostly says some gems are valuable and some are not without saying which ones are which. Truly, most people who would search for this article are looking to find out where they can sit for the bar exam if they go to such and such a school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.134.164 (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Correspondence law school. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120323190419/http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/4/documents/Education/List_of_Unaccredited_Correspondence_Schools.pdf to http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/4/documents/Education/List_of_Unaccredited_Correspondence_Schools.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Correspondence law school. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101203094107/http://www.ncbex.org/uploads/user_docrepos/760207_litigation.pdf to http://www.ncbex.org/uploads/user_docrepos/760207_litigation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090901143948/http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/January2009&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2009-01_TH_05_onlinelawschoolgrad.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines to http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/January2009&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2009-01_TH_05_onlinelawschoolgrad.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)