9 Comments

From the linked article:

"Concord posted a record pass rate of 62% among first-time takers of the California bar in the February. This is same as the first-time pass rate for Indiana’s February bar...“We can essentially perform as well or better than ABA (accredited) schools and do it completely online for a third of the cost"

Also from the linked article:

"Concord’s February pass rate came from just 13 graduates taking the California bar. By comparison, 169 individuals took the Indiana exam in February."

According to their own documentation (linked below) they had 220 students in their incoming first-year class in 2020. Only 13 in that class took the bar exam? I guess this makes sense inasmuch as they're offering their curriculum online nationally but are only accredited in California, but it seems really disingenuous for them to be claiming same outcomes for a third of the cost. Their high attrition rate seems to indicate they're admitting a lot of people who end up borrowing money to attend and never make it out of their first year, while another chunk of people borrow money to attend and never end up taking the bar exam, let alone passing it. This seems particularly significant in light of the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia page for Valparaiso Law School:

"In October 2016, the ABA censured the school for admitting applicants who did not appear capable of satisfactorily completing the school's program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.[3] One year later, the school suspended admissions[4][5] and shut down after the last class graduated in 2020."

How does Concord (now Purdue Global) Law School meaningfully differ from this description?

https://www.concordlawschool.edu/documents/business-and-professions-code-6061.7-disclosure.pdf

Expand full comment
founding

Oh good. Another dilution of the Purdue reputation. Thanks, Mitch!

Expand full comment

Who is going to sue the state over trying to take our water without our permission??

Expand full comment

It's not our water Maybe you need a new lawyer to explain this.

Expand full comment

I have yet to hear anything from any lawyers regarding this issue. And the people wanting to take the water didn't bother showing up to the community discussion.

Expand full comment

Then you need to ask someone familiar with the law .."who owns the water" before you claim " it is your water.

Expand full comment

*I* am not the one attempting to divert water away from where it is, generally claimed by the entities in the same area. "The lawyers" for the people who want to take it need to tell us what statutes they are using to justify the theft.

Expand full comment

You are claiming it is your water per your 8/8 post... "Who is going to sue the state over trying to take OUR water without OUR permission??" There is no statue that states ownership...therefore no theft. If you claim ownership YOU need to produce the statue that gives you ownership. Perhaps there needs to be one but it does not exist at this point.

Expand full comment

Oh there definitely needs to be one. Law or not, taking that water is going to make an impact on the people who live in the area.

Expand full comment