ABA Criticizes Chapman’s Peer Review, Grading

The American Bar Assn. has told Chapman University that it has “grave doubt” that the university’s fledgling law school has a competent faculty capable of “effective teaching.”

In a letter explaining why the law school fell short of earning ABA accreditation, the bar association decried the school’s lack of comprehensive peer review and evaluation that would assess the faculty’s legal scholarship and teaching methods.

In addition, “the school has not established that it has sound and rigorous standards for scholastic achievement,” according to a letter dated May 20. The university previously refused to disclose this letter and another accompanying the initial January rejection, but it agreed to let The Times read them Wednesday, after students were allowed to view them.

The letters have generated anxiety and a level of anger among many students, who say they were misled by the university into believing that the law school would quickly win accreditation. Many might have to attend a fourth year of school because they did not pass a state “baby bar” exam given in the first year to students in unaccredited schools.

“I feel disheartened on some of things we were not made aware of,” such as the possibility of a fourth year, student Judy Ballinger said.

In lawyerly fashion, several students are talking about suing.

Enrollment also is falling far short of early predictions. In its initial ABA application, the university had projected enrollment of 200 new students this fall, but after the rejection it revised the figure to 75. In an interview Wednesday, Dean Parham H. Williams Jr. said it might not top 65. Some of the 260 current students are leaving, Williams said, but he will not know for sure how many and their reasons until fall registration next month.

The university blames those developments on both the lack of accreditation and the arrival of ABA-approved Whittier Law School, which is set to open next month in Costa Mesa after relocating from Los Angeles.

Williams, who plans to resubmit Chapman’s accreditation application by Sept. 1, downplayed the ABA findings, saying the association’s May letter misstated aspects of the school’s peer review. The school is fixing its weak points, he said, predicting Chapman would win accreditation by the time the school graduates its first class next June.

“These things are fixable, and we are in the process of fixing them,” he said. The school also seeks accreditation from the State Bar.

President James L. Doti said he believes the school is paying the price for crafting a “less competitive model” to teaching law in contrast to the “Paper Chase” environment found at other schools.

“The ABA likes to measure rigor on more competitive grade standards,” said Doti, who dismissed the ABA’s concerns as mainly procedural. “The difference with the ABA was one of more philosophy than quality in the program.”

The ABA twice this year denied the 2-year-old school accreditation, an achievement that usually takes five to seven years from the time a school opens. Accreditation by the nation’s premiere legal organization would allow Chapman to join the ranks of the 180 most respected law schools in the nation, qualify its graduates for the bar exam in any state, and lend prestige to the university and the program.

*

The May letter, coupled with a January letter describing the reasons for the initial denial, show that the school has been struggling on several fronts to meet ABA expectations.

The letters also contain some praise, centering on Chapman’s progress within a short time in securing such big-ticket items as a site for a law school building, library space and financial backing from its board of trustees.

But the organization casts the school’s academic shortcomings in harsh terms.

“The school has not established that it has sound and rigorous standards for scholastic achievement,” according to the most recent ABA letter. “Although the faculty has adopted a new grading policy, it is yet to be implemented and hence the results of the new policy cannot be ascertained. . . . In light of the fact the faculty has refused to adopt a mandatory grading curve, it is not certain whether the new grading policy will have any significant effect in raising the standards of scholastic achievement.”

Williams, who assumed his post June 1 after 10 years as dean of Samford (Ala.) University’s law school and 25 years as dean of the University of Mississippi law school, said the grading curve will be in place by fall.

The May letter also raised “a new concern” over the effectiveness of teaching and quality of peer review of the 18 full-time professors and five adjuncts, an assertion Williams said was based in part on miscommunication with the committee.

“The school’s presentation left the committee with grave doubt as to whether the school has made a commitment to obtaining a faculty that possesses a high degree of competence, and, in particular, a faculty able to provide effective teaching,” the letter said. “Assuring teaching effectiveness should be a matter of great concern to the committee, especially for a new law school.”

The letter also said: “At the appearance before this committee it became clear that there is substantial resistance on the part of the faculty to any rigorous system of self-evaluation or peer review and that to date classroom visitation have been limited to several nontenured faculty whose contracts were up for renewal.”

Just why the ABA declared this a new concern is unclear, and the organization does not comment on ongoing accreditation matters. Its May correspondence notes that an unnamed “concerned” faculty member had written to the ABA about teaching issues.

Williams agreed that the university should have had such a review in place, but said that the faculty was overburdened with developing curriculum and tending to other tasks in forming the school. The university since has responded to the ABA that the school is now offering stipends and other incentives to encourage faculty to publish.

Williams also said the ABA erred in asserting only nontenured faculty up for renewal were reviewed. In truth, he said, all nontenured faculty were reviewed and the school is drafting a more rigorous approach to include review of the five tenured faculty members.

*

Chapman has taken steps to toughen its admissions and academic policies as well.

In the six months since its initial rejection, it has raised the median Law Schools Admission Test score from 145 to 147, and it will offer scholarships to the top 25% of admitted students to encourage them to enroll.

Dismissal policies also have been stiffened. After its first year, only one student had been asked to leave, and students could remain for three semesters with subpar grades before the school dismissed them.

Now, a student with a grade-point average below 1.6 after the first semester will be dismissed. Those students with a GPA below 2.0 after two semesters will be dismissed.

The school will also set up “baby bar” preparation classes. Only 13.7% of the students who took the exam passed, compared with the state average of 24.6%.

Reaction among students, who pay $18,000 annually in full-time tuition and fees, has been mixed. Some, who asked not to be named, said they were promised accreditation and have spoken to lawyers about their legal options.

Doti said that officials have been forthcoming with information and that students were never promised ABA accreditation. “What we did assure all students is we would do everything possible to move the law school forward toward accreditation.”

Bill Guzik, president of the Student Bar Assn., said, “Obviously, everyone is very concerned.”

But he expressed confidence that Chapman will earn accreditation in time for his class’ graduation.

“Being a member of the inaugural class, we knew what we were getting into. We are going to see it through the end.”