Good news for students who like taking courses from their living rooms. The American Bar Association recently moved to allow schools to increase the number of credit hours a student can take online to one-third of the amount needed for graduation. That’s about one year of law school.
The ceiling had been 20% of credit hours, so it’s a pretty substantial change. Before, to increase the number of online hours allowed, schools had to get permission from the ABA.
Not long ago, the number of credit hours a student could take was limited to just 15. And, before that, it was 12.
However, the pandemic forced most schools to pivot to a completely online format — a move that didn’t cause the sky to fall. Online learning got some serious love from legal education — a reversal from before, when critics complained that legal education was slow to embrace it.
A number of law schools have variances that allow them to offer even more courses online, which won’t change under this expansion. It simply allows schools to give students more flexibility should the schools opt to do so.
Given the pandemic, schools have the technology and experience to offer classes online should they choose to do so.
Most students want the option, apparently. The ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar recently surveyed nearly 1,400 third-year law students and found that nearly 69% want the opportunity to earn more distance education course credit than what their law school offered.
Of course, the applauses were not across-the-board. Some students sued their law schools when they went online. They argued they should not have been charged full tuition, given the law school experience was not as advertised.
Still, the technology salvaged what could have been a far worse outcome — the cancellation of school outright. The move to online was a success and should not be shelved, many argue.
“Our brief experiment is likely to show the viability of on-line legal education, such that we should expect many law schools to significantly expand on-line courses,” wrote Timothy Casey, a professor in residence at California Western School of Law in San Diego, in an essay “Reflections on Legal Education in the Aftermath of a Pandemic.
“Teaching on-line had some practical and financial advantages. Students and teachers met on-line from their own homes. Commuting was eliminated completely, saving time, fuel and maintenance costs, and, perhaps most importantly, mental frustration.”
He continued: “The pandemic dispelled the myth that legal education could not be delivered on-line. We did it.”
There are a host of reasons why distance learning has been promoted in numerous circles even before the pandemic. For one, it allows people who don’t live near a law school to get a law degree, which helps diversify the profession. Secondly, some students have family and work obligations and have struggles adapting to the traditional law school model.
Thirdly, it opens more doors, particularly when it comes to experiential learning, which is normally for-credit work. You’re not limited to working in the downtown courthouse, for instance. Plus, learning to use remote tools can be vital, given how that’s the legal profession is evolving.
“Experiential learning should reflect practice,” so argues the paper, “Tele-Lawyering And The Virtual Learning Experience: Finding The Silver Lining For Remote Hybrid Externships & Law Clinics After The Pandemic.”
“As the legal profession moves towards acceptance of a hybrid work model where attorneys have the flexibility to work from home part of the time and work in the office or attend court hearings the other half of the time, it makes sense for schools to adapt their educational programming to embrace this model as well.”
In other ABA news, the accrediting body decided to nix the controversial effort to strengthen the ABA’s diversity and inclusion standard. Some worried the change was a de facto quota system, forcing law schools to hire more diverse faculty. The ABA denied that was the case.
However, the amendment was withdrawn, with the ABA saying more discussion was warranted.
