Are For Profit Law Schools Right For You?

Yes, such an animal exists.  I know of at least four, and they are all ABA approved law schools.  They are:

Florida Coastal School of Law;
Phoenix School of Law;
Charlotte School of Law; and,
John Marshall Law School.

It all would suggest that the big divide, coming, is not the difference public and private law schools, but between for-profit and not-for-profit law schools in this country.  And, as the divide develops, I would suggest to you that it arose because the not-for-profit law schools so neglected the needs of law students for practical training.  Or, as Phoenix School of Law advertises, they teach students to be "practice ready".  Except for the almost complete failure of law schools to actually teach the practice of law, these institutions probably could not survive.  Yet they do, and they are growing in number.

The objective of these schools is relatively simple.  Their students pay the for-profit law school tuition in exchange for training that enables the student to pass the bar. In turn, the tuition finances the for-profits operations and hopefully the school realizes a profit.

Given the ABA standards, no law schools is really that different.  Generally, they are profitable institutions that throw off cash.  In 2002 there was a story about Texas Wesleyan University School of Law getting in a tiff when the greater University took $1 million of the law schools profits to fund the University's losses.  The dean later resigned and a Wesleyan for a while thought of selling the law school to generate money.

First, it seems to me that it does not matter how many unread law review articles a professor writes, or how great his or her tenure.  How well the professor intimidates with the Socratic method is immaterial.  How much the law school gives back to the student from what it charges is irrelevant.  The test of merit is first and foremost how well the law school's graduates perform on the bar.  And, at least for Florida Coastal has been able early on to achieve impressive bar passage results.

Bar passage rate is paramount for the reason that without it you are not a lawyer.  You just have a degree, up to six figures in student loans that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy,  and  you have lost three to five years of your life.

The other test of measure is can the law schools graduates practice law (including go into practice for themselves) upon passing the bar?  Have the law graduates been field tested, so to speak.  I think we all know the answer with most not-for-profit law schools.  The answer is no. Some like Susan Cartier Liebel have been doing yoeman's work to correct this, but it is more than an uphill fight.  Not-for-profits would rather higher an ivy leaguer, green behind the ears and with no practical experience, than to go out of their way to find professors with the experience and know how to develop a curriculum and teach students to launch.  Most are now too worried that if they teach private enterprise that their placement rates will fall as their graduates go out on their own, and their rankings will fall.

There is just something that strips for-profit law schools of every other pretense.  They will live or die by their bar passage rates and in teaching real world law (making students "practice ready").  They will not receive big donations to name buildings after millionaires and billionaires. They will not have the luxury of the state government underwriting frivolous spending, which allows the school to ignore the practical aspects of what it does.  In doing so, the for-profit might finally force the not-for-profit law schools to reform.  The point is that accountability should be the most powerful motivator and the not-for-profits have replaced accountability with artificial standards.  They have adjusted their accounting to achieve rankings. They have ignored the changing legal landscape.  They exist now only because there is no other path, in most jurisdictions, to obtaining a law license.  For-profits might offer some hope. 

Comments

[Carolyn Elefant]

Chuck,
I love your blog and your philosophy of the practice of law. But I have to disagree, very strongly, that bar passage rates prove anything. Bar passage rates are quite frankly, a product of a good bar review course and time to study. Bar passage rates at so-called "top tier" schools are generally high because the graduates go on to work at large firms. The firms typically pay for a bar review class and also pay students a stipend so that they can study for 8 weeks without need ing to work. By contrast, many students who attend so called 3 or 4 tier schools may not have employment lined up after law school. As such, if a job opportunity comes up after the summer (e.g., for temp work), they may take it, thereby compromising their study time. Or they may not have the money to pay for a review class. What some law schools are now doing is allowing students to get class credit for taking a bar review class. If students are able to treat bar review courses as a class, then they will have more time to devote to studying. But that does not prove that the school is better, but rather, that it is just giving students an opportunity to study for a test.
My own experience is indicative. After law school, I went to work for the government, so my bar review course wasn't paid. However, I had a job during my third year of law school and started a business (writing resumes and cover letters on the Apple SE that I'd purchased with my summer earnings at biglaw) so I was able to pay for the course. And I stayed in Ithaca to study for the exam where I was able to sublet for about $200 for the entire summer. As such, I didn't have to work and devoted all my time to studying or just hanging out and passed the NY bar easily. By contrast, when I took the Maryland practitioners exam back in 2002, I was married and had two young children and was running my practice part time. It was incredibly stressful studying for test on nights and weekends alone - and that was just the practitioners' exam so it only involved 10 essays on Maryland's rules of practice and procedure. I doubt that I'd have been able to pass a full blown bar in those circumstances - but those are the circumstances of many students at the so-called "3 tier/4tier schools."
There's also a difficulty to bar prep that you overlook: not everyone will practice in the state where the school is located. Perhaps a school in NY or Florida can prepare most students for the bars in those states - but what if they intend to practice elsewhere?

[Tom]

There are quite a few 'for profit' law schools in California- Western States and Thomas Jefferson are two. Some have decent bar passage rates. Many do not. And there are plenty of bar review courses.

[Chuck Newton]

I received the following email from Charlotte School of Law informing me that I was wrong to state they were ABA approved. They are working toward this, but have not yet been approved. The email reads in part:

"I would like to clarify one point you make about our school in particular. You have stated that we, along with fellow InfiLaw consortium schools Florida Coastal and PhoenixLaw, have achieved ABA accreditation. As the youngest of the three schools, that is not yet true for CharlotteLaw. The process is well underway and I am happy to report that we have met each of our milestones in preparing for ABA consideration. The ABA site evaluation team visited at the end of September, and we expect to have a decision by late spring or early summer 2008. We are careful to be forthright about the process of receiving provisional accreditation, and regularly communicate our progress to our prospective students and the community at large. You can read more about the process on our website at http://www.charlottelaw.org/about/default.asp?PageID=195.