Monterey College of Law - an accredited non-ABA Option Forum

[Nova]

As we wrap up our 2014 admission cycle, I just received our preliminary profile of the 2014 entering class (compared with previous years below). Despite what is reportedly going on nationally (lower admission standards to fill classes), it appears that MCL has held steady with our admissions criteria. We still have a few weeks left to consider late applications, but we are very pleased with our 2014 1L class so far.

MCL Data LSAT --- UGPA
Year: 25th/Med/75th --- 25th/Med/75th

Fall 2014:141 147 148 --- 2.74 3.28 3.58
Fall 2013:138 144 148 --- 3.00 3.29 3.59
Fall 2012:141 146 148 --- 2.67 3.03 3.60
Fall 2011:140 148 152 --- 2.95 3.21 3.44
Fall 2010:142 146 151 --- 2.96 3.20 3.43

Despite what is reportedly going on nationally (lower admission standards to fill classes),it appears that MCL has held steady with our admissions criteria.

this has to be a flame

[TheSpanishMain]

Is it your opinion then that anyone who wants to be a lawyer should be able to be one? What LSAT score to you represents a legitimately stupid person? Or lazy person? Why do you make people take the LSAT if you're comfortable with it identifying that legitimately stupid and/or lazy people attend your school?

+1. No offense intended, but if you're going to accept someone with a 138 LSAT, you're better off just waiving it entirely. A 138 means the person is either A) straight up dumb B) showed up in a drunken stupor/with a concussion or C) has severely limited English language abilities. None of these bode well for a prospective law student.

[bananasplit19]

Dean Winick:

I think all parties can agree that if MCL is a reasonable option for anyone, it would be for a very narrow sliver of the population: 831-rooted, financially strapped, perhaps older students aiming solely for solo practice or a public-interest job in Monterey or Santa Cruz. As a Monterey kid, while I'm not immediately seeing how it would be a good investment, I can at least imagine situations where it might be a legit option that isn't scammy or malicious or whatever colorful adjectives TLS users come up for it. Unfortunately, I think this may not be the ideal forum to be advertising/answering questions about MCL, although I admire your dogged determination at it. That target demo probably aren't frequent visitors here.

To the rest of TLS:

You guys are crazy salty. You'd think this guy crapped in your cereal or something.

[BigZuck]

Dean Winick:

I think all parties can agree that if MCL is a reasonable option for anyone, it would be for a very narrow sliver of the population: 831-rooted, financially strapped, perhaps older students aiming solely for solo practice or a public-interest job in Monterey or Santa Cruz. As a Monterey kid, while I'm not immediately seeing how it would be a good investment, I can at least imagine situations where it might be a legit option that isn't scammy or malicious or whatever colorful adjectives TLS users come up for it. Unfortunately, I think this may not be the ideal forum to be advertising/answering questions about MCL, although I admire your dogged determination at it. That target demo probably aren't frequent visitors here.

To the rest of TLS:

You guys are crazy salty. You'd think this guy crapped in your cereal or something.

When the dude comes on here and lies to us and won't fess up when he gets called on his lies, I think it's fair for people to think he's scammy/scummy. That's totally on him.

I can only speak for myself but if he were 100% honest I, for one, wouldn't think he was such a turd.

[PepperJack]

It's a business. He does it to make money. If you ask why he's admitting them, he'll call you a troll. Let's call it what it is:

He preys upon the public, and the desire people have to be an attorney. With employment #'s it's kind of a scam, but tier 1 schools do the same (think Alabama, at least when I checked them out years back). Here, there's a reasonableness standard. If you have a 139 LSAT, it's naive to think you'll get a non-minimum wage job out of some non-accredited hole. The quality schools that do this is more egregious.

If you study the dean's writing, temperament and behavior it becomes evident this guy would be impossible to hire for any type of position at a quality law school. He lacks proper judgment, is combative and devotes significant time to everyone who criticizes his school.

[MCL Law Dean]

Dean Winick:

I think all parties can agree that if MCL is a reasonable option for anyone, it would be for a very narrow sliver of the population: 831-rooted, financially strapped, perhaps older students aiming solely for solo practice or a public-interest job in Monterey or Santa Cruz. As a Monterey kid, while I'm not immediately seeing how it would be a good investment, I can at least imagine situations where it might be a legit option that isn't scammy or malicious or whatever colorful adjectives TLS users come up for it. Unfortunately, I think this may not be the ideal forum to be advertising/answering questions about MCL, although I admire your dogged determination at it. That target demo probably aren't frequent visitors here.

To the rest of TLS:

You guys are crazy salty. You'd think this guy crapped in your cereal or something.

Thanks, Bananasplit. I think that you have it mostly correct. If you have the flexibility, financial resources, and most importantly . . . interest in establishing your legal career elsewhere . . . MCL is not for you. Of course, it is obviously difficult to overcome the erudite arguments of bathroom jargon that a few self-humored TLSers believe replaces substantive discussion. (Must make their T-14 alumni . . . and their mother . . . proud.)

FYI, I started posting here because LST founder Kyle McAtee challenged me (in a positive way) to explain California-accredited law schools in the larger context of American legal education. In response, I began reporting out our data using as close to the ABA/LSAC format as possible, given the small size of our program. Of course, given the dramatically different market we serve, I also get why that effort at transparency opens us up to criticism from those who have invested so much in their quest for "tier-ism". But I'll let the readers judge for themselves, which is the whole point anyway. Accredited, non-ABA law schools are provided few information outlets, we are not included in LSAC, LST, or any of the rankings or reviews . . . and despite the few virulent attacks here on TLS, there is also an underlying interest in the fact that there are alternatives for legal education that might fit a specific individual's non-traditional career path. Sticks and stones . . .

[MCL Law Dean]

Is it your opinion then that anyone who wants to be a lawyer should be able to be one? What LSAT score to you represents a legitimately stupid person? Or lazy person? Why do you make people take the LSAT if you're comfortable with it identifying that legitimately stupid and/or lazy people attend your school?

+1. No offense intended, but if you're going to accept someone with a 138 LSAT, you're better off just waiving it entirely. A 138 means the person is either A) straight up dumb B) showed up in a drunken stupor/with a concussion or C) has severely limited English language abilities. None of these bode well for a prospective law student.

Or you could be an intelligent, hard-working single parent, working a 50 hour a week job in your mid-forties who wants to make a career change, but doesn't have the time or money to take off a year to study for the LSAT. We find the LSAT is the least effective predictor of law school and bar pass performance. However, it is required by the accreditation rules.

[bjsesq]

Sitting in his modest office with a glimpse of the world-famous Monterey Bay shining brightly out the window, Mitchel Winick, Dean of Monterey College of Law ponders aloud why anyone would want to attend law school anywhere else.

Sources close to TLS say "employment" is the answer to your internal dialogue question.

[WheatThins]

We find the LSAT is the least effective predictor of law school and bar pass performance. However, it is required by the accreditation rules.

Can you provide data to back this up? From everything I've seen, the LSAT is the MOST effective predictor of law school and bar passage performance.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Is it your opinion then that anyone who wants to be a lawyer should be able to be one? What LSAT score to you represents a legitimately stupid person? Or lazy person? Why do you make people take the LSAT if you're comfortable with it identifying that legitimately stupid and/or lazy people attend your school?

+1. No offense intended, but if you're going to accept someone with a 138 LSAT, you're better off just waiving it entirely. A 138 means the person is either A) straight up dumb B) showed up in a drunken stupor/with a concussion or C) has severely limited English language abilities. None of these bode well for a prospective law student.

Or you could be an intelligent, hard-working single parent, working a 50 hour a week job in your mid-forties who wants to make a career change, but doesn't have the time or money to take off a year to study for the LSAT. We find the LSAT is the least effective predictor of law school and bar pass performance. However, it is required by the accreditation rules.

Two things: I am curious to know what data you use to conclude the LSAT is an unreliable indicator at the levels of students you're accepting. I'm curious to see this to conclude if you're justification shopping or not.

Second, why would an alternative accreditation board require it? Surely they must be privy to the same data as you AND have similar business interests as you (I.e filling a gap in the "really really want to be a lawyer without putting any effort into it market). Have you had any productive discussions with them about eliminating the requirement?

[TheSpanishMain]

Or you could be an intelligent, hard-working single parent, working a 50 hour a week job in your mid-forties who wants to make a career change, but doesn't have the time or money to take off a year to study for the LSAT. We find the LSAT is the least effective predictor of law school and bar pass performance. However, it is required by the accreditation rules.

Getting into the 140s does not require a year of full time study. If you're talking about 90th percentile plus scores, yes, even an intelligent person probably needs to study and drill. Getting above a 138 should be a layup for any literate native English speaker.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[John Everyman]

Is it your opinion then that anyone who wants to be a lawyer should be able to be one? What LSAT score to you represents a legitimately stupid person? Or lazy person? Why do you make people take the LSAT if you're comfortable with it identifying that legitimately stupid and/or lazy people attend your school?

+1. No offense intended, but if you're going to accept someone with a 138 LSAT, you're better off just waiving it entirely. A 138 means the person is either A) straight up dumb B) showed up in a drunken stupor/with a concussion or C) has severely limited English language abilities. None of these bode well for a prospective law student.

Or you could be an intelligent, hard-working single parent, working a 50 hour a week job in your mid-forties who wants to make a career change, but doesn't have the time or money to take off a year to study for the LSAT. We find the LSAT is the least effective predictor of law school and bar pass performance. However, it is required by the accreditation rules.

Why am I having so much trouble finding any "class of xxxx" age breakdown on your website?

[beachbum]

This is unbelievable.

[TheSpanishMain]

Is it your opinion then that anyone who wants to be a lawyer should be able to be one? What LSAT score to you represents a legitimately stupid person? Or lazy person? Why do you make people take the LSAT if you're comfortable with it identifying that legitimately stupid and/or lazy people attend your school?

+1. No offense intended, but if you're going to accept someone with a 138 LSAT, you're better off just waiving it entirely. A 138 means the person is either A) straight up dumb B) showed up in a drunken stupor/with a concussion or C) has severely limited English language abilities. None of these bode well for a prospective law student.

Or you could be an intelligent, hard-working single parent, working a 50 hour a week job in your mid-forties who wants to make a career change, but doesn't have the time or money to take off a year to study for the LSAT. We find the LSAT is the least effective predictor of law school and bar pass performance. However, it is required by the accreditation rules.

Also, comments like "not everyone has the time or money" always bother me because it implies that people with high LSAT scores have them because they're silver spooners who can afford to live off of their parents while hiring private tutors and stuff. I studied for the LSAT while working full time, and the only money I spent was on a $20 LSAT book and a bunch of old tests and questions from LSAC. Probably cost about $100 total, and I'd study during my lunch break and in the evening.

[johnnyquest]

Also, comments like "not everyone has the time or money" always bother me because it implies that people with high LSAT scores have them because they're silver spooners who can afford to live off of their parents while hiring private tutors and stuff. I studied for the LSAT while working full time, and the only money I spent was on a $20 LSAT book and a bunch of old tests and questions from LSAC. Probably cost about $100 total, and I'd study during my lunch break and in the evening.

+1
Full-time student with full-time job and spent very little on prep materials.

[bjsesq]

+2 Full time student with two part time jobs and two kids. GTFO out of here with that "I can't" shit. If it matters, you make time.

[Tanicius]

Interesting thread. Props to the dean for exposing his institution to negative Google press, but I don't think most of his customer base uses Google.

[PepperJack]

They don't just admit anyone:

http://www.montereyherald.com/news/ci_2 ... law-school

[redsox]

How large is your faculty?
What % went to ABA-accredited law schools?

[gnomgnomuch]

+3. 2 jobs, an internship and classes. (tbf, i haven't taken the LSAT yet, but i started in mid 140's and i'm in low 160's now)

[BigZuck]

+4
Worked full time making around minimum wage and totally supporting myself. Prepped for and took the test three times. I had an LSAC waiver so it wasn't like I was oozing with cash.

[gnomgnomuch]

+4
Worked full time making around minimum wage and totally supporting myself. Prepped for and took the test three times. I had an LSAC waiver so it wasn't like I was oozing with cash.

oh god man, i cant even imagine surviving on a min wage salary... did you live in NY/SF or something, or was it more manageable? Also, serious props.

[BigZuck]

+4
Worked full time making around minimum wage and totally supporting myself. Prepped for and took the test three times. I had an LSAC waiver so it wasn't like I was oozing with cash.

oh god man, i cant even imagine surviving on a min wage salary... did you live in NY/SF or something, or was it more manageable? Also, serious props.

God bless Texas

Come to think of it that year was probably more like $10 an hour, which is a decent clip above minimum wage. Still, I wasn't exactly rolling in dough and I was working 40 hours a week so didn't have an abundance of free time either.

[exitoptions]

How large is your faculty?
What % went to ABA-accredited law schools?

Don't worry about that. The institution is "IN PARADISE" and technically it's a "LAW SCHOOL" (unless you ask the ABA). What could go wrong?