New, Unaccredited Law School in Oakland

Interesting article here (reg reqd) from the Recorder about the East Bay Law School, an unaccredited school in downtown Oakland.  Tuition is just $7,000 per year, but only 11% of bar exam takers from unaccredited law schools passed the February bar exam in California, and even that figure may be deceivingly high: the attrition rate in unaccredited schools from acceptance to the bar exam is typically very high.  I like the idea of increased access to the legal profession, but as a consumer protection matter I would require all law schools to publish accurate statistics about costs and bar passage rates.

Comments

[David Giacalone]

All ABA-accredited schools (and all that are seeking accreditation) must supply both their attrition rates (academic and other) and their bar passage rates (first-time and subsequent) in easily-accessible and understandable format. That information is available at no charge for all accredited schools at the LSAC website. E.g., here is the information for Akron Law - http://officialguide.lsac.org/OFFGUIDE/pdf/aba1829.pdf .

As I have argued at this website and at my own -- http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/stories/storyReader$3679 -- law school applicants need to be doing their homework. If they are applying to non-accredited schools, they neeed to be especially vigilant in seeking out this information. I don't think we need specific consumer protection laws to mandate that the information be provided. We need law school applicants with enough competence to ask the questions and enough diligence to get the answers. It would be rather embarrassing if state legislatures fekt that law school applicants needed more protection than other consumers making big-ticket purchases.

[David Hricik]

I dunno.
"We need law school applicants with enough competence to ask the questions and enough diligence to get the answers. It would be rather embarrassing if state legislatures fekt that law school applicants needed more protection than other consumers making big-ticket purchases." If 11% are passing, and the actual percentage of entrants who pass is much smaller -- doesn't that suggest that we do need some protection that is obviously not getting through by this form of disclosure? I.e., no rationale person would blow 25 or 30k (low end, not taking into account lost wages during the time, etc.) for a 90% chance at failure, and so they must not be acting rationally -- due to lack of information, or something (e.g., the information is "out there" but it's hidden by glossing advertising brochures, or something).

I'm all for freedom of contract, and no doubt you could argue that 100% of that 11% are lawyers and they may have been unable to achieve that elsewhere, but, these people are obviously at the edge (based on the statistics, at least) of legal competency, and 89% (more) are below it.
As to the other point, I would say that it's the other way around: this shows that legislatures should be giving ordinary consumers more protection, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[John Steele]

Davids,

I can't place my finger on the stats, but at some earlier point I became convinced that enough of the unaccredited schools are money pits for the students that we need some level of consumer protection, so I can't really agree with David G this time.

One benefit of the "baby bar" concept is that the student needs to face reality earlier in the process, before all the money is spent.

[David Giacalone]

David H., There is nothing government can do to force people to make "rational" decisions -- even on Big Ticket purchases. If a law school applicant is too intellectually obtuse or lazy to ask obvious questions about attrition rates and bar passing rates, or is in denial about his or her academic talents and test-taking abilities, why should we expect rational decisions? A college graduate who is snowed by "glossy brochures" is not a good candidate for making rational decisions or paying attention to statistics (or making a good lawyer). Neither is one who doesn't realize a lack of major accreditation and a relatively low price tag are reasons to be especially cautious.

Perhaps more important: You and John act as if such information isn't available from these schools. Why not perform a little survey before deciding to treat young adults as dolts? Also, rather than ask the government to step in, why press the state or regional accrediting agencies, if they do not have requirements for disclosure similar to the ABA's?

[David Hricik]

It is not forcing people to make rational decisions, it is forcing the people with the information to disclose it meaningfully. If one presumes, as you do, that the students are competent, then something is amiss given the low pass rates. They are not getting the information (their fault or the schools? I don't know and neither do you, but if one posits reasonable students, then the information is not given by the schools, or is clouded over by glossy brochures, since a rational person with the information would not engage in the transaction).

Of course, this whole thing fits into the broader notion of whether government should deny enforcement of contracts that are bad deals. The current political philosophy is that it should.

[John Steele]

David G,

I wonder if we aren't in a "heated agreement." My proposed solution is largely a market one: mandatory disclosure of the kinds of information the seller wouldn't want to share but the buyer would like to have.

[David Giacalone]

John, I'm surpised that you think this discussion is "heated." I guess my main disagreement with you is about having government intervention before you have shown that (1) the information is not available from the schools or (2) the information is likely to lead to better decision-making by any significant number of applicants. Given the highly ambiguous nature of attrition information (especially at nontraditional schools, where many students have job and family obligations, as well as financial difficulties, that could greatly affect their ability to stay in school, and even to study), I'm not certain the information is particularly helpful. [and see Eric Goldman's post stating that more information appears unlikely to lead to better decisions. http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2005/04/andrew_perlman.html]

David H., although I assume competency, I do not assume diligence -- and I would like to see the applicants take the initiative. My posts "Homework for Law School Applicants" [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/stories/storyReader$3679] and "IL of a Decision" [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/08/16#a4522], suggest that many law students are doing an irresponsibly inadequate job in the process of choosing the legal profession, as well as choosing which school to go to.

As far as whether it's rational to take a chance on an unaccredited school, a lot depends on why the applicant is choosing the school. It might be very rational for a good student who plans to work hard in law school to choose a less expensive school. Like Abraham Lincoln, I believe the ability to become a good lawyer depends far more upon how much studying you do than on who the teacher is or who is sitting in the same classroom. If the price is sufficiently low, it might also be rational for a motivated applicants with marginal academic achievements to take the chance. (Think of all the would-be actors and actresses who uproot themselves to live marginally in L.A. or NYC for many years, with virtually no hope of being a star. They have a dream.)

Before the government gets involved, the "lesser" accrediting bodies need to enforce rules like the ABA's Standard 501(b): "(b) A law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its educational program and being admitted to the bar," as well as the basic consumer information requirements of Standard 509. [http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/chapter5.html] Do the other accrediting bodies have similar rules?

Finally, I believe that the information a school gives out voluntarily, or upon request, tells a lot about the school and its attitude towards its students.

[David Hricik]

David G: I come to this conversation probably tainted by an earlier one, either on this site or a list serv, about the "glossy brochures" I referred to. (I vaguely recall it was on a list serv.) The perception was, and that's all it was was perception, that law schools are saying a lot of things in their brochures that would either hide, obscure, or downright misrepresent facts that objective data might otherwise reveal. Thus, you view it as lacking diligence to look elsewhere, while I may view it as an obligation of the school not to hide such information.

So, it may be that we come to the issue with different assumptions, me being that it should be fair to rely on materials provided by law schools, but that those materials can be misleading or at least obscuring of (awful grammar) the data that may be out there somewhere.

Which harkens me back to the "big ticket purchases" as the analogy. If appropriate, that frames the issue as one of mercanitilism, and I would hope that law schools would be held to higher standards than Chevy when it comes to their promotional materials.

[David Giacalone]

David H. Of course, I am not in favor of deception. I just wonder whether the government needs to get involved. Puffery is always permitted. The required disclosures by auto makers are for products purchased by virtually every American. Special protection for a group of educated people, who should be among the most skeptical consumers on the planet, seems unwarranted absent a very strong showing that there is a problem and it can be remedied.

[David Hricik]

I guess that is the point of departure: "unwarranted absent a very strong showing that there is a problem and it can be remedied." Seems to me that people blowing $50k or whatever for a 90% chance of failure indicates, strongly, that something is amiss. I think we agree more than we disagree, and you'd probably say less disclosure is needed than would I, but those are the marginal issues.

In a broader context, the issue that I see every so often is this: a student gets admitted to our school, which has a 90% pass rate, but is not cut out to be a lawyer -- has traits which history suggests put him in that 10%. Do you have an ethical obligation to fail them out early? Obviously, the institutional interests -- making money off tuition -- conflict with the student's interest to the extent that the school "knows" the person will likely fail. Perhaps a long talking-to is all that is available or required...

[David Giacalone]

Of course we agree on more than we disagree, David! Lawyers (and especially law professors) thrive in the apparent interstices between two stated positions. I still think we need more facts (for instance, the "90% chance of failure" statistic is almost certainly overstated).

I think the ABA's Standard is correct that a school should not be admitting someone who is unlikely to get a degree or pass the bar, and that the minor accrediting bodies should have similar rules.

On the other hand, a "good talking-to" is all that is appropriate when it appears that a student can't cut it academically in a law school. (Repeated, if appropriate.) We're talking about adults here. In America, adults are allowed to make mistakes, even big-dollar ones (look at the cars and houses we buy, not to mention those designer cups of coffee). A school owes students good-faith advice, but each students gets to roll his or her own dice.

For fun, check out the list of law school taglines that I featured at my website last year -- http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/11/04#a2653 . What were they thinking of?

[David Hricik]

UGH! My nomination is: "The law is the true embodiment of everything that's excellent." That is the most excellent drivel.

Maybe that's what the solution to this all is: enforce honest taglines (see the other discussion about lawyer ads). So, for these 90% failure schools (or whatever the true number is), these might work:

"Everything in life is a gamble. So are we."

"Not everyone can be a lawyer, and our bar passage rates prove it."

"Some people choose the easy route. For others, there's us."

[David Giacalone]

David, I agree that the "embodiment of excellence" quote is the highest form of drivel (not to mention totally false in practice). I very much like your suggested taglines. How about:

"We need the money more than Harvard (or you)!"

[David Hricik]

I liked the practice of law, and thought some of it had to do with excellence, but I'll be darned if I know if that logo means a thing. Maybe that's why it was chosen: hard to sue for false advertising when you say nothing.

Love the Harvard tagline.

Sigh. If only the practice of law had been this fun.

[Sonya Guadalupe]

I would like to comment on the interesting article from the Recorder about Unaccredited Law Schools. One Law School in particular by the name of East Bay Law School, which is an unaccredited law school located in Oakland, CA at 554 Grand Ave. the tuition is approximately $8,000 per year however, NO ONE in the HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL's since 2004 has been able to pass the 1st year Baby Bar exam. many students have graduated from this school with a diploma and were unable to pass the exam in other words it's a paper mill law school. One student in particular was kept there for 3 years as a student who had good grades and took the exam 2 time was unable to pass and after only having 3 to 5 classes to get a degree which is not recognized by the American Bar Association the student was asked to pick up her transcript by an Assistant Dean who is a Lawyer as well as an Assistant Dean.
the school does not have adequate instruction and the teachers are volunteers and do not get paid. you do not receive your transcripts after requesting and paying for them and letter grades are given without taking classes. this is the most unusual school I have ever been in and wonder if there is some consumer protection for the student at this or any school similar to this.? I feel that all schools should be required to answer to the community when events such as there occur not to mention accurate statistics about the history of the school and pass rate in general. if the school is not producing good work then what is the purpose of the schools excistence?
To say that you want more minority's in law is may be justifiable however, if you don't train the students nor give adequate education then how is it you can call yourself a Law School as well as a non-profit?
What exactly do you mean by non-profit and who is really profiting from this school anyway.?