Law Grads Online, Bar None
from the here's-your-degree,-you-can't-practice-anywhere dept
The first class from an all-online law school is about to graduate. For four years, the inaugural class of Concord Law School have been watching professors over streaming video, debating legal points in chat rooms, and taking tests online. Now, they’re graduating, but the school still isn’t accredited, so they may not be able to do much with the degree. Both the American Bar Association and the California Bar Association saying that the students couldn’t possibly learn the law online. However, the students will be taking the California bar exam next year – and it will be very interesting to see how well they do. Many of the students are apparently using the legal knowledge they’ve gained to help them with existing jobs, rather than to move into a new career as a lawyer.
Comments on “Law Grads Online, Bar None”
e-learning
e-learning is the next big thing on the internet. While it may be moving at a glacial pace itself, there is clear evidence of growth in revenues and value of this application to corporations, governments, and individuals alike. There is yet no evidence that online students receive less than an education than their tradtional counterparts. I would venture to bet that these online law students do just as well on the bar as their “physically” educated counterparts.
A look through Peterson’s directory of distance education
http://www.petersons.com/
Will provide numerous credited and unaccredited all-online, pure elearning programs, including Master’s and Doctorate level degrees.
Grabbing headlines recently are
Pheonix online (APOL on the NASDAQ)
http://money.cnn.com/MGI/snap/A0871.htm
with a market cap of $7 billion + and
Strayer Univeristy (STRA on NASDAQ)
http://money.cnn.com/MGI/snap/A13E7.htm
with a market cap of ~$500 million in the up an comer.
Concord School of Law Investigation
Did you know? Concord University School of Law refused to share final exam results with one of its 2001 third-year students. That is, although there are copies of emails sent to Cassandra Colchagoff, Associate Dean of Administration, proving the student had requested (in writing) that he wanted a review of the results with his professors (what was marked correct of incorrect) the online law school wrote to Michael P. Lambert, Executive Secretary of the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) on May 2, 2002, and specifically denied such a request was every made to hinder and obstruct DETC’s investigation of the school.
Did you know? Concord University School of Law advised the 2001 third year student that he could only see the multiple choice results (what was marked correct or incorrect) of his final exams, if he traveled to their California offices within 90 days of the exams.
Did you know? Concord failed to advised the same 2001 third-year student his grades until after the start of the 2002 academic year. In addition, the online law school didn’t forward any information to the student concerning 2002 course registration.
In short, Concord has obstructed any serious investigation of the 2001 third-year student’s complaint(s) by knowingly suggesting that the student failed to meet the institution’s academic standards.
That is, the Associated Dean of Administration Cassandra Colochagoff, originally said in writing that she subtracted points from the 2001 third-year student’s overall scores, for work previously advised as “extra credit.” Interestingly, she would later submit in writing the same scores, but later claim she didn’t subtract points.
It appears Concord lowered the final exam scores to compensate for her original reduction and refused to share the test results (what was marked correct of incorrect).
Did you know? Concord denied a 2001 third-year student its signature “live professor-led group chats” for the 2001 Evidence course. The 2001 third-year student submitted a print out copy of the 2001 Evidence Syllabus to subtantiate that as far as the 8th month of a 12 month program the online law school hadn’t schduled professor-led group chats.
In response, Concord wrote: chats were held and that there is no record of the 2001 third-year student attending Evidence course chats. The third-year student claims no chats were held because he was the only third-year student until October 2001.
Interestingly, in October 2001, the online law school held two fourth-year planning session in California, but they somehow didn’t invite the only third-year student actually participating with their online program.
Somehow the online law school would later introduced previously unknown students it now presented as its 2002 fourth-year group and first group of graduates. The only real third-year student charges the previous unknow students as “absentee students.”
Pease take this information serious. This could happen to any distance learning students. For more information please contact the following individuals and request opportunity to see the actual case file.
Monique.Malson@ed.gov
Jim_McGlothlin@dca.ca.gov
sue@detc.org
detc@detc.org
You should keep in mind that Kaplan, Inc. and its parent company The Washington Post are involved. The Washington Post disclosed recently that it had increased eightfold its federal lobbying expenditures targeted for the Department of Education, form $40,000 to $324,000.
In addition, it is important to also know that Sally Stroup, Assistant Secretary for Post-Secondary Education, served as the chief Washington lobbyist for the University of Phoenix. Mrs. Stroup’s former employer reported income up 82 percent, to $32 million, in the fiscal year that just ended last August. University of Phoenix has seen its online education increase 80 percent in the past year. Its parent company, Apollo group, has seen its online revenues grow from 28.6 million in 1997 to $185.5 million in 2001.
Write:
Monique Malson
United States Department of Education
Western Division, Seattle Office
915 Second Avenue, Room 3310
Seattle, Washington 98174-1099
RE: OCR 0902216
Michael P. Lambert
Executive Secretary
Distance Education and Training Council
1601 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
RE: Concord Complaint(s)
Amy Cox-O’Farrell
BPPVE
400 “R” Street Suite 5000
Sacramento, CA 95789-0818
RE: Complaint #991918
Re: Concord School of Law Investigation
On February 21, 2002, Professor William I. Weston, openly
admitted in writing that only five (5) Fourth year students
were participating in the online clinical/externship
program Kaplan, Inc. (Concord School of Law) operated
during the 2002 Academic year. Immediately, I confirmed
with Mr. Weston that the information was true and correct.
Professor Weston wrote:
“We do have fourth year students. I met them at a
recent career development seminar which we ran exclusively
for them. In addition, I run an online clinical/externship
program called LEEP (Legal Education Experience Program)
and I have five 4th year students actively enrolled in the
program.”
Interestingly, Kaplan, Inc. (Concord School of Law)
submitted information to the California Bar identifying
more than five (5) students as having actively participated
in the LEEP program during the 2002 academic year. In fact,
10 students were granted Juris Doctorate degrees in 2002,
because of the false information and allowed to sit for the
February 2003, California General Bar Exam.
Rule VII, section 4 of the Rules Regulating Admission to
Practice law in California requires that students in
correspondence schools “must have received passing grades
in courses requiring not less than 864 hours of preparation
and study during a period of not less than 48 nor more than
52 weeks” to obtain credit for a year of legal education.
Therefore, even if the other five (5) fourth year students
who graduated from Concord and were allowed to sit for the
California Bar had started the LEEP program on any day
following February 21, 2002, it appears impossible that
these alleged students complied with Rule VII, section 4
(not less than 48 nor more than 52 consectutive weeks).
Contact:
teresa.colney@calbar.ca.gov
gayle.murphy@calbar.ca.gov
cbj@calbar.ca.gov
StewardRD@gao.gov
Fraudnet@gao.gov
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
HEA@mail.house.gov
feedback@nationaledtechplan.org
Oig.Hotline@ed.gov
OPE_WWW@ed.gov
Concord's admission process is terrible
I’ve had an extremely bad experience with Concord law school. I applied for admission in the April for the June semester. I was told all my documentation was in order. I then decided to apply for the Septemeber semester instead of June. I was told all my papers were in order. I was asked to resubmit some forms for September which I did. I aslo paid a $100 admission fee.
In late August I was suddenly informed by the counselor that my admission for sept was not valid and that I would have to retake the entrance exam and resubmit my papers. Ridiculous. I tried calling other officals at the office to no avail.
I feel this university has flawed process for admissions and doesn’t have a standardised process for admissions. The counselors do not know what paperwork is required. I was contacted by -4 different people all asking fo different information and all confused about what they needed. At the end I submitted all that was required and still was required to retake the entrance exam which I refused as a matter of principle.
Needless to say they are refusing to refund the $100 admission fee
Concord's admission process is terrible
Hi–
This is Jason Song, a reporter with the LA Times. I’m interested in your law school experiences and am hoping we could talk. I can be reached at 213 237 6311 or jason.song (at) latimes.com
Thanks