Talk:Purdue Global Law School

Problems with Concord Law School

This section needs citations or some source to verify the text.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ku sta pos rgb 301 2755.jpg

The image Image:Ku sta pos rgb 301 2755.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reads like an ad

Added the Ad template. The article uses almost verbatim copy from their advertising website. Thirdgen (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a substantial cleanup on it this evening. Even before I did this, I think some of the edits that had been since the advert tag were added (e.g., noting the low bar pass rate) merited removal of the advert tag. I removed it as part of my edit.TJRC (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable Alumni - DO NOT DELETE

I will be adding alumni from Concord Law School over the next couple of months. The list will be small at first and will only include a couple of names. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE the first couple that are posted. This is NOT to give recognition to one or two people that I know or post people who are not "notable." This section will be used to show people who have graduated from Concord Law School and where they are currently practicing law. Please comment my personal talk page for further discussion, but please do so prior to any deletion. THANKS! talk:morning277

FYLSE

Concord's own website uses the acronym FYLSE. http://info.concordlawschool.edu/Pages/First_Year_Law_Students_Exam.aspx. Neither FYLSE or FYLSX is used by the State Bar.--S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GAO report -- no mention of Concord or Kaplan

In looking at the full GAO report ( http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10948t.pdf available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-948T ) I see nothing about Concord Law School. Indeed, Kaplan is not mentioned!--S. Rich (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pass Rate -- Improper Synthesis

Adding the repeaters to the pass rate, but that is, I'm afraid, a WP:CHERRY analysis. The State Bar stats do not tell us that 1200 different grads took the bar during 2003-2010 time frame. They tell us the exam was taken 1200 times by an unknown number of people. That is, there could be any number of repeaters from the years prior to 2003 who came on in to successfully or unsuccessfully take the bar. Since we do not have WP:V as to those people, the only clean way to report a pass rate is with the numbers for the first timers. Adding in the repeaters who eventually successfully take the bar might increase the pass rate from the 31%, but we cannot parse out those multiple repeaters. Saying there is a 28.5% pass rate including the repeaters is not an accurate way to measure the pass rate.--S. Rich (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If the statistic had no discernible value, as in, reporting the number of repeaters is of absolutely no use to the average reader, then why would the California bar spend such time and effort reporting that value? Clearly, it shows that those who have to take the bar more than once have a much lower chance of passing. Therefore, I will revert the changes, and also include the bar pass rate of repeaters only. Inferences and speculation on the meaning of those values can be left to the reader, without any opinion by the editor. Since it is publicly available data that the California bar considers worthwhile, it should be included. Picking and choosing which of the statistics the California bar provides is worthwhile is itself an editorial opinion. Jamesishere (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to go through the numbers and count up the number of repeat takers and successful repeat takers, please do so. As Concord was established in 1998, and assuming they complete a four year program, then 2003 is a reasonable beginning point for the count. However, combining the repeaters and first timers in an attempt to give an overall or combined pass rate would be improper. For example, State Bar reports that 15 of 67 repeat takers passed the February 2011 exam (for a 22% pass rate). The Committee of Bar Examiners does not tell us how many times the 67 repeaters had taken the exam in the past -- only that they were repeaters.--S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate how percentage pass rates for repeaters is subject to skewing, consider two scenarios. Each scenario requires a pool of takers who have failed the bar in the past -- it could be 20, 30, 40 or whatever number. For 5 different test dates (A, B, C, D, & E) we have 4 repeat takers on each particular date. To start both scenarios, 4 repeaters come in from the pool on test date A. 1 of the 4 passes. At this point the two scenarios vary. In the first scenario, the 3 failing repeaters from date A go on to try again on test date B and 1 comes from the pool. Of the 4 takers on date B, 2 pass. On the next date -- C -- the 2 failed repeaters from B come in and 2 from the pool come in. Zero pass on date C. On date D, these 4 repeaters from C come in and test. All 4 pass. On the last date -- E -- 4 repeaters come in from the pool to test and 3 pass. Total test takers for this first scenario = 11 and total passers = 10. A pretty good percentage (91%) is the result. But in the second scenario assume that none of the failed repeaters from dates A, B, C, or D goes on to try again on a subsequent date. That is, each of the 5 test dates is filled by 4 new repeat takers from the original pool for a total of 20 takers and 20 tests. Now compare the two scenarios: assume the pass rate for each of the 5 dates is the same, e.g., 1/4 (A), 2/4 (B), 0/4 (C), 4/4 (D), and 3/4 (E). Total people who passed = 10, but the pass rate is only 50% because 20 new people came in from the original pool on each of the test dates. (In other words, the second scenario provides that only one subsequent re-testing is done for the failed first time takers.)

The difference between the two scenarios is significant and, more importantly, difficult to describe. If we present the number of repeat takers (based on state bar stats), are we tacitly describing a "first scenario" or "second scenario" percentage? Either way, giving a raw number of repeaters and then calculating a "pass rate" is a poor way to convey information to the readers. I recommend against it.--S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Kaplan Generic Logo.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kaplan Generic Logo.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concord Law School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104015650/http://info.concordlawschool.edu/Pages/accreditation.aspx to http://info.concordlawschool.edu/Pages/Accreditation.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011011438/http://info.concordlawschool.edu/uploadedFiles/CLS_Concord_Law_School/Concord_Law_School_Documents/Catalog_2010-2011.pdf to http://info.concordlawschool.edu/uploadedFiles/CLS_Concord_Law_School/Concord_Law_School_Documents/Catalog_2010-2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Article has been ignored for years. Unverified data.

While there have been a few edits, this article looks like it has been ignored for years. Data about students and staff have also been ignored, except for the California Bar pass rate.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Logo is outdated. Is the motto up-to-date? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no History section.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This may be a helpful place to look for History. https://www.concordlawschool.edu/about/choose-a-law-school/ CollegeMeltdown (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No rankings are listed. If the school is not ranked, that's important information. Other schools put ranking prominently in their Wikipedia articles. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no source for tuition costs. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

More context on recent reversions

Just wanted to add some additional context and supporting links related to changes reverted on 11/7/19.

Reverting deletion of EJD program description. Source supporting this reinclusion:

Reverting insertion of “unaccredited” into short summary. This addition was connected to a Buzzfeed article citation. Accreditation status, constraints for fully online law schools, and what that means for students is already fully described in the Accreditation Status section. Previous editor also removed reference to the parent university’s regional accreditation through the Higher Learning Commission. Source here.

More context on accreditation landscape for online law schools can be found here.

The previous editor's addition of the criticisms surfaced by Buzzfeed about the Executive Juris Doctorate degree offering have not been touched by this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewqwdqemdh (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 07-NOV-2019

  Clarification requested  

• Unless the COI editor notes the WP:DIFFS which were used to add this information, the edit request cannot be implemented because the verbatim text desired to be added has not been included with the edit request.
• To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:

1. Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
2. The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
3. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.
4. Reasons should be provided for each change.

• In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, the four required items are shown as an example:

Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length." 2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length." 3. Using as the reference: Paramjit Harinath (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. 4. Reason for change being made: "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with all four items from your request. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  02:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Two proposed revisions

First requested edit

1. Please remove the word “unaccredited” from the introductory line. "Concord Law School (formerly known as Concord University School of Law) is an unaccredited online law school based in Los Angeles, California." 2. Using as the reference: See existing citation 5 Higher Learning Commission. "Statement of Accreditation Status: Purdue University Global". www.hlcommission.org. 3. Reason for change being made: Concord Law School is a school within the Purdue University Global system (supporting reference: "Concord Law School at Purdue University Global commencement celebrates 20th anniversary of nation’s first fully online law school" www.purdue.edu. Retrieved 2019-11-08.), which is regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission per the above citation.

Second requested edit

1.Please reinstate the following sentence describing the Executive Juris Doctorate degree within the third paragraph of the Degrees offered section. "It is designed for executives, administrators and professionals in various fields who seek graduate-level training in law but do not wish to practice." 2. Using as the reference: What Is an Executive Juris Doctorate Program? www.study.com. Retrieved 2019-11-08. What Is an Executive Juris Doctorate (JD) Law Degree? www.learn.org. Retrieved 2019-11-08. 3. Reason for change being made: The first citation above describes an Executive JD as “geared toward professionals who have a strong interest in law but do not wish to practice.” The second citation states “Executive J.D. degree programs aren't designed to qualify you to sit for your state's bar exam but to provide you with a legal education”. Based on these two external descriptions, it is clear the requested reinstated statement is accurate and descriptive, not promotional.

Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 09-NOV-2019

  Edit request declined  

• Thank you for providing the needed information, it is much appreciated. Based on this information, the request could not be approved; the reasons for this are described below. (Please note that the numbers correspond to each request above.)

1. The requested changes do not specify that this is a regional accreditation. Including a regional accreditation under wording which might imply a national accreditation (or in this case, leaves that ambiguity for the reader to resolve on their own) would require a larger consensus to implement than that afforded by the COI edit request-review process.
2. The in-depth listing of class offerings in a manner similar to a college's course catalog (including the listing of such information as how a class was designed) is not the purpose of Wikipedia, per WP:NOTACATALOG. A link to the law school's current course catalog (where information on class content and any pedagogical considerations likely exist) would be more appropriately placed in the article's External links section.

Regards,  Spintendo  22:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the accreditation issue, as the article states, Concord is officially categorized by the State Bar of California as a "registered unaccredited distance learning law school." (See [1]) It may be that the university as a whole is accredited, but with respect to law schools, "accredited" has a very specific meaning based on whether they meet a law-school-specific accreditation process that determines whether graduates are eligible for a law license (that is, whether they can sit for a state bar exam). A school may have American Bar Association accreditation (valid in any state, I believe) or state accreditation (valid only in the approving state; California has many such schools listed at the page I just linked). Or, in a handful of states including California, a graduate of an unaccredited law school may nevertheless take the bar exam and become admitted to practice law, if and only if the student/graduate meets certain conditions, which are discussed at the linked page and mentioned in this article under the "Accreditation status" heading -- e.g., passing the First-year Law Students' Examination/"Baby Bar". Because Concord indisputably falls into this last category, and because a law school's lack of accreditation is one of the most significant facts about it, the word "unaccredited" absolutely belongs in the lead. Perhaps the accreditation of the university could be listed as a subsidiary point under "Accreditation status," so long as it is clear that university accreditation and law school accreditation are distinct concepts. --EightYearBreak (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request – – Related to updated state accreditation status

Please consider the following edits to this entry in light of new state-level accreditation status for Concord Law School granted 8/21/20 by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California. Supporting sources are included.

Requested Edit:

1. 3 related edits to intro, History and Accreditation status sections: *Remove ‘’unaccredited’’ from introductory paragraph. *Add the following to the History section “In August 2020, Concord Law School was granted accreditation by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California.” *Update Accreditation status section to reflect Concord Law School’s change in status from “registered unaccredited distance learning law school in California” to “law school in California accredited by the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners”. Please note, per the listed source document from the State Bar of California website, Concord Law School students are no longer required to pass the First Year Law Students’ Exam (FYLSE or “baby bar” as referred to in the article). For transparency and accuracy, editors may choose to reflect that this requirement has changed for new students. 2. Using as sources: Weiss, Debra Cassens & Ward, Stephanie Francis (August 25, 2020). [2] “Afternoon Briefs: 3 online law schools get state accreditation; cop immobilization maneuver can be fatal”. ABA Journal. Retrieved September 8, 2020 “The State Bar of California: Law Schools” [3]. www.calbar.ca.gov. Retrieved September 8, 2020. Odendahl, Marilyn (August 25, 2020). [4] “Purdue’s online law school achieves California accreditation”. The Indiana Lawyer. Retrieved September 8, 2020. “The State Bar of California First-Year Law Students’ Examination” [5]. www.calbar.ca.gov. Retrieved September 8, 2020. 3. Reason for change being made: Change in accreditation status.

Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify your request. It doesn't appear in https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/aba_approved_law_schools/in_alphabetical_order/ Is the school ABA accredited, or just some state certification thing in CA? Thanks. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

My original suggested edit was to remove the word “unaccredited” from the first sentence, because that is no longer accurate due to Concord receiving accreditation from the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California on August 21, 2020. Instead, I see that a new edit was made where an inaccurate and uncommon term (“ABA-unaccredited”) was introduced to describe Concord. The most complete and accurate statement of Concord’s accreditation status would be that "Concord Law School is a fully online law school based in Los Angeles and accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California.” (See supporting references 1-5 below).

To address your question, I have gathered some additional supporting documentation and citations both for why Concord’s California-accredited status should be included, and why the term “ABA-unaccredited” should be removed.

Support for Replacing “Unaccredited” with “California-accredited” due to Concord Law School’s Accreditation by the State Bar of California

• The Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California is authorized by law to accredit law schools in California and oversee and regulate those law schools. (5)

• The authority to allow graduates of a law school to sit for the California bar exam and become licensed to practice law in California resides with the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California, not the ABA. “Whether a jurisdiction requires education at an ABA-approved law school is a decision made by a jurisdiction’s highest court and its bar admission authority and not by the Council or the ABA.” (6)

• The State Bar of California permits graduates of ABA-accredited law schools, as well as California accredited and unaccredited registered law schools, to sit for its bar exam and become licensed attorneys in the state.(5, 7)

Why Referring to Concord Law School as “ABA-unaccredited” Instead of “California-accredited” is Inaccurate and Misleading

• A fully online law school like Concord is not eligible for ABA accreditation by virtue of its online status alone, regardless of its quality or rigor The ABA Standards for Accreditation of Law Schools limit accredited law schools to offering no more than one-third of their program of legal education via distance learning. (6)

• Because it is fully online, Concord has never applied for ABA accreditation. Stating that Concord is “ABA-unaccredited” is misleading and inaccurately suggests that Concord previously had but lost ABA accreditation, or that the ABA has ever considered or made a determination regarding Concord’s accreditation status, which it has not.

• The term “ABA-unaccredited” misleadingly suggests that a California-accredited law school like Concord is of inherently lesser quality than an ABA-accredited school. However, California accredited law schools are subject to many of the same or similar regulatory requirements as ABA law schools, including those concerning honesty and integrity regarding finances and in communications with students and prospective students. (6,8) California accredited schools are also subject to inspections more frequently than ABA schools are. (5) In fact, although Concord is not eligible to apply for ABA accreditation due to its online format, in 2019, Concord was the recipient of the ABA's Brown Select Award for Access to Justice. (9)

• “ABA-unaccredited” is not a term that is used or recognized in legal education, law school accreditation, or the legal profession. The term “ABA-unaccredited” inaccurately suggests that ABA-accreditation is the only relevant accreditation status for readers. While knowing if a school is approved by the ABA may be important to some, California-accredited status could be an important characteristic for those in California or considering becoming licensed attorneys in California searching for an alternative to traditional legal education.

Sources:

1. Janelle McPherson. (2020). Purdue and two other online law schools get full California accreditation. The National Jurist. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.nationaljurist.com/national-jurist-magazine/purdue-and-two-other-online-law-schools-get-full-california-accreditation

2. State Bar of California. (2020). “Law schools in California accredited by the State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners”. State Bar of California Website. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Law-School-Regulation/Law-Schools#cals

3. Weiss, Debra Cassens & Ward, Stephanie Francis ( 2020). [2] “Afternoon Briefs: 3 online law schools get state accreditation; cop immobilization maneuver can be fatal”. ABA Journal. Retrieved October 26, 2020 from https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/afternoon-briefs-3-online-law-schools-get-state-accreditation-cop-pit-maneuver-kills-dozens

4. Odendahl, Marilyn (August 25, 2020). [4] “Purdue’s online law school achieves California accreditation”. The Indiana Lawyer. Retrieved on October 26, 2020, from https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/purdues-online-law-school-achieves-california-accreditation

5. State Bar of California. (2007). Title 4- Admissions and Educational Standards Division 2.-Accredited Law School Rules. Retrieved on October 26, 2020, from http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules_Title4_Div2-Acc-Law-Sch.pdf

6. ABA. (2020) Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools 2020 - 2021.Retrieved on October 26, 2020, from https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2020-2021/2020-21-aba-standards-and-rules-for-approval-of-law-schools.pdf

7. State Bar of California. (2020). “Law Schools”. Retrieved on October 26, 2020, from http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Law-School-Regulation/Law-Schools

8. State Bar of California, “Guidelines for Accredited Law School Rules” effective May 19, 2019, retrieved on October 26, 2020, from http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/AccreditedLawSchoolGuidelines.pdf

9. ABA. (2019). Louis M. Brown Awards presented at Midyear Meeting Retrieved on October 26, 2020, from https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/01/aba-access-to-justice-award/

Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spintendo: regarding above Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

After looking at this request, I am in favour of removing an ABA-unaccredited from the introduction and adding a sentence at the end of the intro about their accredited status with the California bar. The text would read as follows:

Concord Law School (formerly Concord University School of Law), is an online law school based in Los Angeles, California. It is currently known as Concord Law School at Purdue University Global and is one of several schools within Purdue University Global. Established in 1998, Concord Law School was the United States' first fully online law school. They are currently accredited with the State Bar of California.

The "Accreditation status" seems to have already been updated, so I think we should leave it as-is. I am pinging editors who have participated in this discussion: @Ewqwdqemdh:, @Spintendo:, @Graywalls:. If no one objects in a week I will implement the proposed introduction. Thanks for considering my proposal. Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for reviewing the edit request. I would suggest refining the last sentence to "Concord is accredited by the State Bar of California". Saying the school is "currently accredited" is a relative time reference, see MOS:RELTIME. The introductory paragraph should include only an absolute declaration of the school's accreditation status. The existing Accreditation section already addresses the timeline of the accreditation. Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You are correct; currently should not be there. I have struck it out. Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Since there are no objections I have implemented the suggested prose. Another user closed the ticket earlier today. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request – – Update bar exam pass rates

Please update the information about Concord Law School’s bar pass rates per the below request. The most recent official statistics available are based on the February 20201 bar exam.

Edit Request

Please update the first sentence in the Bar pass rate section. FROM: “Concord's pass rate for the July 2019 sitting of the California bar exam was 29% for first-time takers and 17% for repeat takers, compared to 64% and 27% overall pass rates, respectively.” TO: “Concord's pass rate for the February 2021 sitting of the California bar exam was 42% for first-time takers and 17% for repeat takers, compared to 53% and 27% overall California pass rates, respectively.” Using as source: The State Bar of California Office of Admissions. General Statistics Report, February 2021 California Bar Examination (PDF). Retrieved July 30,2021.

Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Done. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)