University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effects of accreditation on the passing rates of the California bar exam

(USC Thesis Other)

The effects of accreditation on the passing rates of the California bar exam

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 1

THE EFFECTS OF ACCREDITATION ON THE PASSING RATES OF THE CALIFORNIA
BAR EXAM

by

Nathan J. Barlow

A Dissertation Presented to the
THE FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Nathan J. Barlow

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 2

Acknowledgements
As I put this work forward as a capstone to my studies at the University of Southern
California, I wish to thank those that have surrounded and supported me throughout this process.
I am grateful to the faculty at Rossier School of Education for their preparation, teaching and
scaffolding. Their help has been indispensable to me. I would like to thank my fellow classmates.
Their drive, expertise and insights have blessed my learning, and their friendships have blessed
my life.
I am indebted particularly to the faculty and students in my thematic group. I wish to
thank Dr. Patricia Tobey and Dr. P.J. Woolston for their support and sound direction. I especially
owe much to my dissertation chair, Dr. Robert Keim, whose wisdom, perspective and help with
statistics have made this dissertation possible. I thank Ben Dimapindan, Dinesh Payroda,
Jennifer Barczykowski, Richard May, Win Shih, Deborah Hall Kinley, Kristopher Tesoro, Rufus
E. Cayetano and Jill Richardson for their parts in this dissertation. They are all wonderful
colleagues to work with and are an inspiration to me.
I thank my wonderful children, Josh, Mack, Ella, Julie and Calvin for their support and
for their understanding that their dad had lots of work to do. They are amazing! Most importantly
I thank my wife and sweetheart Sarah for her unfailing love and support! She is my inspiration
in this and every other endeavor in my life! I am grateful for all the blessings and tender mercies
that I have received from seen and unseen hands as I have accomplished this work.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 3

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 5

Abstract 6

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7

Accreditation Process and Goals in Higher Education 8

Argument for the Study 9

Statement of the Problem 10

Purpose of the Study 11

Significance of the Study 11

Definitions and Use of Terms 12

Chapter Two: Literature Review 14

Authorship Note 14

Introduction 14

History of Accreditation 15

Timeline - History of Accreditation 15

Early Institutional Accreditation 17

Accreditation, 1920 to 1950 20

Accreditation, 1950 to Present 21

Current State of Accreditation 25

Effects of Accreditation 28

Trend Toward Learning Assessment 28

Framework for Learning Assessment 29

Benefits of Accreditation on Learning 31

Organizational Effects of Accreditation 32

Future Assessment Recommendations 33

Challenges to Student Learning Outcomes 34

Organization Learning Challenges 34

Lack of Faculty Buy-in 35

Lack of Institutional Investment 36

Difficulty with Integration into Local Practice 36

Outcome Equity 38

Tension Between Improvement and Accountability 38

Transparency Challenges 39

Cost of Accreditation 40

Critical Assessment of Accreditation 47

Alternatives to Accreditation 51

International Accreditation in Higher Education 54

Internationalization of Accreditation 56

Specialized Accreditation 58

Accreditation and Law Schools 60

National Legal Professional Accreditation 60

California Legal Professional Accreditation 61

Comparison Between ABA and CBA Standards 62

Unaccredited Law Schools in California 63

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 4

Regional Accreditation and Law Schools in California 63

Conclusion 65

Chapter Three: Methodology 66

The Purpose of This Study 66

Research Question 67

Population and Sample 67

California Law School Accreditation Categories 70

Instrumentation 75

Institutional Review Board 75

Chapter Four: Results 77

Introduction 77

Research Question 1 77

Finding: Research Question 1 79

Research Question 2 79

Finding: Research Question 2 80

Additional Variables 81

Chapter Five: Discussion 82

Accreditation and First-time Bar Passing Rates 83

Legal Accreditation 83

Regional Accreditation 84

Importance of Accreditation and Law Schools 85

Implications for Practice 87

Regional Accreditation 87

Legal Accreditation 88

Law School Admissions 88

Limitations 89

Future Research 89

Conclusion 90

References 91

Appendix Additional Tables 109

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 5

List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Law Schools by Accreditation Category 71

Table 2: California-educated First-time Bar Exam Takers (2009-2013) by
School Accreditation 71

Table 3: California Law Schools by Accreditation Category (Alphabetical Order) 72

Table 4: Calculated Mean of First-time Bar Passing Rates by Category 78

Table 5: Calculated Mean of First-time Bar Passing Rates by WASC or non-WASC Groups 80

Table 6: Covariate Independent Variables: Median LSAT scores and Median UGPA.
2009-2013 by Regional Accreditation Status Grouping 81

Table 7: Category 1 (ABA, WASC): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by
Law School (Alphabetical) 109

Table 8: Category 2 (ABA, non-WASC): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by
Law School (Alphabetical) 110

Table 9: Category 3 (CBA, non-WASC): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by
Law School (Alphabetical) 111

Table 10: Category 4 (CBA, WASC): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by
Law School (Alphabetical) 112

Table 11: Category 5 (Unaccredited): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by
Law School (Alphabetical) 113

Table 12: California Law Schools Ranked by First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) 115

Table 13: California Law Schools Ranked by Number of First-time Bar Passers (2009-2013) 118

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 6

Abstract
The motivation behind this study was to add to the body of academic knowledge regarding the
relationship between accreditation and student outcomes. This study contributed to
understanding whether accreditation as currently implemented is a worthwhile process that is
positively related to student learning and achievement. The institutions measured in this study
were the 64 law schools with different legal and regional accreditation statuses located in the
state of California. The first-time California State Bar Exam passing rates were the measured
student outcomes. The findings established, with strong reliability and large effect size, that, in
California, there were substantial differences in first-time bar passing rates between certain
accreditation categories for the five-year period of 2009 to 2013. Law schools that were jointly
accredited by ABA and WASC had a mean first-time bar passing rate 36.88% higher than those
not accredited by WASC. ABA law schools that were not accredited by WASC had a mean first-
time bar passing rate that was 27.5% higher than CBA law schools that were not accredited by
WASC. The mean first-time bar passing rate of all WASC accredited schools was 58.05%, while
the same measurement for the all law schools not accredited by WASC was 19.5%. Law schools
that met accreditation standards set by WASC and who met higher legal accreditation standards
had better student outcomes than did those that did not meet the same standards.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 7

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In the United States’ free market system of higher education, accreditation is the current
method used to assure standards of educational quality. Individual schools seek accreditation
from regional and/or national accrediting bodies so that they will have the status in the eyes of
the government and the public of being a quality institution wherein students will learn the
necessary skills they will need to be successful upon graduation. While institutions seek
accreditation, some challenged the effectiveness of the accreditation system regarding its ability
to properly ascertain whether a college or university adequately educates its students and
prepares its graduates with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed (Brown, 2013; Eaton,
2012).
Critics of accreditation point to the oft-shifting standards that accrediting bodies require
of their member institutions (Leef & Burris, 2002). Accrediting bodies began placing much more
emphasis on student outcome assessment, which is a solid, research-based practice (Kub &
Ikenberry, 2009), but one which remains controversial due to gaps in outcome equity among
diverse student populations (Dowd & Grant, 2006; WASC-ACCJC, 2011). Another criticism
about accreditation is cost. The push to maintain accreditation status (or obtain it) is a large
financial undertaking for accrediting bodies and institutions of higher learning. Institutions
collectively spent millions of dollars and expended hundreds of work hours annually to be
accredited (Woolston, 2012).
While there are weaknesses in the current accreditation system, there are also extant
benefits. As stated earlier, research of the current accreditation system demonstrated that
accreditation pushed institutions to pursue student assessment as a benchmark for success (Kub
& Ikenberry, 2009) which is linked to improved student learning outcomes in universities and
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 8

colleges (Cabrera, Colbeck & Terenzini, 2001; Volkwein, Lattuca, Harper & Domingo, 2007).
While costly and involved, accreditation in the U. S. is a much simpler process than the typical
government-centric process in other countries (Brittingham, 2009). Whether accreditation
continues as the system of institutional approval for higher education in the U.S. will depend on
further evidence that accreditation is a catalyst for institutional improvement and that it results in
better learning outcomes for students (National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and
Integrity [NACIQI], 2012).
Questions on the effectiveness of accreditation that overarch all American colleges and
universities are particularly acute among law schools where accreditation status is one of the
most important descriptors of the institution. Legal accreditation is vital to law schools because it
determines where graduates can take the Bar Exam and, by extension, receive a license to
practice law. Also, like all institutions of higher learning, law schools’ federal student financial
aid in the form of loans or grants is tied to accreditation status. Using California law schools’
accreditation status as a measuring tool, and using the first-time California State Bar Exam
passing rates as the student outcomes, this study identified a link between institutional
accreditation status and student outcomes. Specifically, this work explored the relationship
between first-time California State Bar Exam passing rates of law school graduates and the
accreditation status of the California law school they attended.
Accreditation Process and Goals in Higher Education
Accreditation is a process of external and internal quality review created and used by
higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities and programs for quality assurance and
quality improvement (Eaton, 2012). To earn and maintain accreditation, colleges and universities
must demonstrate to colleagues from peer institutions, or to state and national boards, that they
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 9

meet or surpass mutually agreed-upon standards (American Bar Association, 2014; California
Bar Association, 2013; Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2009).
Regional accrediting agencies are responsible for overseeing the accreditation processes
for institutions in a region, and for coordinating the efforts of peer institutions to engage in the
accrediting processes. However, specialized accreditation, such as legal education accreditation
for law schools, is not always done by peer review, but is done by national and/or state agencies
that are approved by state governments (American Bar Association, 2014; California Bar
Association, 2013).
In regards to law school accreditation, one of the specifically stated goals of the
accrediting body is to ascertain whether a law school follows “sound legal education principles”
(American Bar Association, 2013). Additionally, the American Bar Association (ABA) and the
California Bar Association (CBA) require each accredited institution to have a minimum bar
passing percentage of its graduates (ABA, 2014; CBA, 2013). This requirement ties accreditation
directly to student outcomes.
Argument for the Study
Accreditation in the United States’ higher education system evolved from a single self-
initiated peer review of Harvard University into the national system that it is today. Because of
the magnitude and dissention regarding the value of accreditation, it is, now more than ever,
incumbent upon the system of higher education to examine its progress on improving or
ascertaining institutional effectiveness (NACIQI, 2012). The tremendous amounts of money
spent and the large amounts of effort expended during the accreditation processes add urgency to
this examination.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 10

While some disagreed (Dowd & Grant, 2006), perhaps the most important measure of
educational effectiveness (and by extension the effectiveness of accreditation) is student
outcomes (Beno, 2004). Studies found student outcomes are directly associated with minimum
accreditation standards (Volkwein et al., 2007). This established whether there was a difference
between the student outcomes for law students who attend accredited schools and those of law
students who attend non-accredited schools or schools that meet a lower standard of
accreditation. The first-time passing rates of the California State Bar Exam were the student
outcome used to measure the effectiveness of the accreditation on the law schools.
Statement of the Problem
Financial considerations, including direct costs, work hours, and opportunity costs as well
as the all-important access to federal student aid made regional accreditation vital to all but a few
proprietary colleges and universities. As it relates to law schools, legal education accreditation
(such as the accreditation done by ABA or the CBA) also plays a large role as it determines the
ability of its graduates to take the Bar Exam, which is the gateway to practice law in each of the
United States. Although under special circumstances in California, it is not necessary to graduate
from a law school to take the Bar Exam, only law students who graduate from an ABA or CBA
accredited school can take the Bar Exam upon graduation.
Is regional accreditation an appropriate means of ascertaining the educational
effectiveness of an institution? Is the ABA or the CBA accreditation status an accurate indicator
for potential students or future employers to evaluate a law school education? With the high
costs that attending a CBA accredited law school brings and the even higher costs of attending a
California ABA law school, does the accreditation status merit the higher tuition? Does
accreditation improve student outcomes?
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 11

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the difference between the student outcomes of
schools from different accreditation categories. This study contributes to our understanding
regarding whether accreditation is a worthwhile process, and, therefore, worthy as an awarder of
status or as a federal financial access correlate. Specifically, the study sought to answer the
following questions:
1. Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between the different legal
accreditation categories in California law schools from 2009 to 2013?
2. Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between WASC accredited law
schools and law schools not accredited by WASC from 2009 to 2013?
Significance of the Study
Many questioned the effectiveness and value of accreditation of higher education in the
United States (Dickeson, 2006; Gruson, Levine, & Lustberg, 1979; Wriston, 1960), some having
called for federal control. As a way to add more empirical clarity to the political and educational
debates surrounding this issue, this study contributes evidence to support the ongoing academic
evaluation of accreditation and its impact on student learning outcomes. This contribution
happens through the introduction of new data regarding regional and legal accreditation status of
California law schools and first-time bar passing rates. Additionally, this study evaluated two
separate types of accrediting systems (legal and regional) and compared them to one another
regarding their relationship to student learning outcomes.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 12

Definitions and Use of Terms
Accreditation: A process overseen by regional or national accrediting bodies whereby an
institution demonstrates whether it maintains acceptable quality regarding administrative,
educational, and financial practices.
Accreditation category: A grouping of schools for the purpose of this study that have
been accredited by the same accrediting body or bodies.
Accrediting bodies: A governing organization that oversees and coordinates the
accreditation process for each institution in a geographical region or in a certain field of
specialization.
American Bar Association (ABA): The national association of legal professionals that
serves as the accrediting body over the law schools in the United States, and that sets the
standards for legal education.
Bar: The legal profession in the United States.
Bar exam: The test that law school graduates take to be admitted into the legal profession
California Bar Association (CBA): The association of legal professionals in the state of
California that serves as the accrediting body over the law schools in California that are not
accredited by the ABA.
First-time bar passing rate: The percentage of students that pass the Bar Exam on their
first attempt.
National Accreditation: An accreditation process that is overseen by a national
accrediting body rather than a regional accrediting body. National accrediting bodies typically
oversee professional or specialized educational programs.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 13

Non-WASC: The law schools in this study that are not accredited by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) or any other regional accrediting body.
Regional accreditation: The process of educational accreditation that utilizes peer review
to assess whether the institution maintains a set of predetermined educational standards. An
accrediting body that has jurisdiction over a certain geographical region of the United States
oversees this process. These regional accrediting bodies include Western Association of Schools
and Colleges (WASC), New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools (SACS) and others.
Professional accreditation: The process of accreditation that allows graduates of the
institution to take tests that grant permission to practice in specialized fields such as law,
medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy. Most professional accreditation is national and is specific to
the type of professional education being accredited. Professional accreditation does not use the
peer review system, but that is performed directly by the accrediting body.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC): The regional accrediting body that
has jurisdiction over the accreditation of the schools that are located within the states of
California and Hawaii.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 14

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Authorship Note
Under the direction and permission of the dissertation committee, this chapter includes
group authorship. The contributors who authored the content of the subheadings in this chapter
were part of the thematic dissertation group to which the author belonged. Richard May wrote
“International Accreditation in Higher Education”. Dinesh Payroda wrote “Specialized
Accreditation”. Ben Dimapindan and Win Shih wrote “Effects of Accreditation”. Jennifer
Barczykowski wrote “Costs of Accreditation”. “Critical Assessment of Accreditation” was
written Deborah Hall Kinley. Kristopher Tesoro wrote “Alternatives”. Jill Richardson did
“Current & Future” subheadings. Rufus Cayetano authored the section entitled “Accreditation,
1950 to Present”. The remainder of this chapter was the work of this dissertation’s author.
Introduction
Unlike the majority of other nations’ systems of higher education, the United States
government does not directly control the system of higher education (Brittingham, 2009, Ewell,
2008; Middaugh, 2012). It was developed and is maintained (varying degrees) as a free market
system, which includes state-supported and private institutions. The existence of this free market
system of colleges and universities, which differs substantially from the compulsory model of
education in grades one through twelve that exists in the United States, includes the development
of a peer-reviewed accreditation process that has continued throughout the history of higher
education. Accreditation, because of its organic history, and regional foci, is the subject of much
debate and external review due to unfavorable trends in student outcomes. There is much to
consider regarding the strengths, weaknesses, implications, and future of accreditation in the
United States.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 15

The following literature review represents the substance of the ongoing political and
educational debates surrounding accreditation and synthesizes the salient literature on the
subject. First, the current state of accreditation in the United States and the effects, trends and
challenges are explored in this chapter. Then, the literature regarding real cost of accreditation
and criticisms lead into a discussion about alternatives to the current accreditation system. Next,
general characteristics of international accreditation are explored for comparison to the U.S
system. Finally, a section on specialized accreditation leads to a review of the background and
status of legal accreditation which is the immediate context of this study.
History of Accreditation
Timeline - History of Accreditation
1642 Harvard initiated an external review of its courses by peers from British and
European Universities.
1784 New York Board of Regents was established as accrediting body for that state’s
educational institutions.
1867 Office (Department) of Education was established to collect data on institutions in
the U.S.
1885 New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) is founded.
1887 Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCSS) and Middle States
Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) were formed.
1892 Committee of Ten formed by university presidents to standardize practices and
establish a system of peer approbation.
1895 North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) and Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools were established.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 16

1901 MSCHE and MSCSS created College Entrance Examination Board
1909 NCA published its first set of standards for its members.
1910 Department of Education compiled a list of accredited colleges in the US that was
never published.
1917 The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) was founded.
1924 Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) was founded.
1938 Langer Case established the regional accrediting bodies as voluntary, but legitimate.
Joint Committee on Accrediting (JCA) was formed to regulate the accrediting agencies.
1949 JCA was taken over by the formation of the National Commission on Accrediting
(NCA).
1952 Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act required the U.S. Department of Education to
publish list of recognized accrediting bodies.
1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA) allocated of funding for fellowships and
college loans for veterans.
1963 Higher Education Facilities Act is passed by Congress requiring all institutions to be
accredited to receive federal student aid.
1964 Higher Education Act (HEA) broadened the scope of federal funding to a greater
number of accredited universities and colleges to encourage greater college
participation. Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education
(FRACHE) is formed from the old National Committee of Regional Accrediting
Agencies (NCRAA).
1967 NCA revoked accreditation for Parsons College for administrative issues including debt.
Courts upheld NCA’s action.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 17

1968 Department of Education created the Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility Staff
(AIES) to review the processes and findings of accrediting bodies.
1975 NCA and FRACHE merged to become the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation
(COPA) which is made up of accrediting bodies that accredit all types of postsecondary
education.
1992 HEA reauthorization required each state to create a State Postsecondary Review Entity
(SPRE) to review institutions with high loan default rates. The National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) replaced AIES.
1993 Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) replaced COPA
on an interim basis.
1994 SPRE were abandoned due to lack of funding.
1995 National Policy Board (NPB) formed to help create a national accreditation
oversight organization.
1996 CORPA forms the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as the
accreditation oversight body. Spelling Commission indicates that current accreditation
model has serious shortcomings.
2006 Spelling report calls for more government oversight of accreditation
Early Institutional Accreditation
Accreditation has a long parentage among the universities and colleges of the United
States, dating back to the self-initiated external review of Harvard in 1642. This external review,
done only six years after Harvard’s founding, was intended to ascertain rigor in its courses by
peers from universities in Great Britain and Europe (Brittingham, 2009; Davenport, 2000). This
self-study was not only the first example in America of peer review in higher education, but it
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 18

also highlighted the need for self and peer regulation in the U.S. educational system due, in part,
to the lack of federal governmental regulation. The absence of federal government intervention
in educational institutions’ evaluation process was a determining factor in the way accreditation
developed in the U.S. (Brittingham, 2009).
While the federal government does not directly accredit educational institutions, the first
example of an accrediting body was through a state government. In 1784, the New York Board
of Regents was established as the first regionally organized accrediting organization. The Board
was set up like a corporate office with the educational institutions being franchisees. Each
college or university had to meet Board mandated standards in order to receive state financial aid
(Blauch, 1959).
Not only did Harvard pioneer accreditation in the U.S. with its early external review of its
own courses, but the president of Harvard University initiated a national movement in 1892
when he organized and chaired the Committee of Ten, which was an alliance formed among
educators (mostly college and university presidents) to seek standardization regarding
educational philosophies and practices in the U.S. through a system of peer approval (Davis,
1945; Shaw, 1993).
Around this same time, there began to be different associations and foundations that
undertook an accreditation review of educational institutions in the U.S. based on their own
standards and philosophical proximity to other schools. Associations such as the American
Association of University Women, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Association of American
Universities would, for a variety of different reasons, and clientele (e.g., gender equality,
professorial benefits), evaluate various institutions and generate lists of approved or accredited
schools. These associations responded to their constituents’ desire to have accurate information
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 19

regarding the validity and efficacy of the different colleges and universities (Orlans, 1975; Shaw,
1993).
Accreditation, 1885 to 1920
When these associations declined to broaden or continue their accrediting practices,
individual institutions united to form regional accrediting bodies to assess secondary schools’
adequacy in preparing students for college (Brittingham, 2009). Colleges were measured by the
quality of students they admitted based on standards at the secondary school level measured by
the accrediting agency. The regional accrediting agencies focused also on creating a list of
colleges that were good destinations for incoming freshmen. If an institution was a member of
the regional accreditation agency, it was considered an accredited college. More precisely, the
institutions that belonged to an accrediting agency were considered colleges while those that did
not belong were not (Blauch, 1959; Davis, 1932; Ewell, 2008; Orlans, 1974; Shaw, 1993).
Regional accrediting bodies were formed in the following years: New England
Association of Schools and Colleges in 1885, the Middle States Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools (MSCSS) and Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) in
1887, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) and the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) in 1895, the Northwest Commission on Colleges
and Universities (NWCCU) in 1917, and, finally, the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (WASC) in 1924 (Brittingham, 2009).
Regional accrediting associations created instruments for the purpose of establishing
unity and standardization in regards to entrance requirements and college standards (Blauch
1959). For example, in 1901 MSCHE and MSCSS created the College Entrance Examination
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 20

Board to standardize college entrance requirements. The NCA also published its first set of
standards for its higher education members in 1909 (Brittingham, 2009).
Although there were functioning regional accreditation bodies in most of the states, in
1910 the Department of Education created its own national list of recognized (accredited)
colleges. Because of the public’s pressure to keep the federal government from controlling
higher education directly, President Taft scuttled the work on the list before it could be
published. The Department of Education discontinued the active pursuit of accrediting schools,
and reestablished itself as a resource for the regional accrediting bodies in regards to data
collection and comparison (Blauch, 1959; Ewell, 2008; Orlans, 1975).
Accreditation, 1920 to 1950
With the regional accrediting bodies in place, the ideas of what an accredited college was
became more diverse (e.g., vocational colleges, community colleges, law schools, medical
schools). Out of the greater differences among schools in regards to school types and
institutional purposes, there arose a need to apply more qualitative measures and a focus on high
rather than minimum outcomes (Brittingham, 2009). Regional accreditors visited institutions that
showed signs of struggling and made recommendations based on the qualitative standards to
assist the schools with their improvement. The regional accrediting organizations measured
success (and, therefore, grant accredited status) on whether an institution met standards outlined
in its own mission rather than a predetermined set of criteria (Brittingham, 2009). In other words,
if a school did what it said it would do, it could be accredited. The accreditation process later
became a requirement for all member institutions. Volunteers from the institutional membership
of the different accrediting organizations began to offer “a new set of eyes” to their peer
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 21

institutions. Thus, practice of peer review became a standard part of the accreditation process
(Ewell, 2008).
Accrediting bodies began to be challenged as to their legitimacy in classifying colleges as
accredited or not. The Langer Case in 1938 is a landmark case that established the standing of
accrediting bodies in the United States. Governor William Langer of North Dakota lost a legal
challenge of the NCA’s denial of accreditation to North Dakota Agricultural College. This ruling
carried over to other legal cases that upheld the decision that accreditation was legitimate as well
as a voluntary process (Fuller & Lugg, 2012; Orlans, 1974).
In addition to the regional accrediting bodies, there arose other associations meant to
regulate the accrediting agencies themselves. The Joint Commission on Accrediting was formed
in 1938 to validate legitimate accrediting agencies and discredit questionable or redundant ones.
After some changes to the mission and the membership of the Joint Commission on
Accreditation, the name was changed to the National Commission on Accrediting in 1949
(Blauch, 1959).
Accreditation, 1950 to Present
The period 1950 to 1985 is coined the golden age of higher education and was marked by
increasing federal involvement in regulations and funding. During this period, key developments
in the accreditation process, such as self-study became standardized. Inter-collegiately,
colleagues from peer institutions performed site visits on a regular cycle (Woolston, 2013). With
the passage of the Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, the U.S. Commissioner of
Education was required to publish a list of recognized accreditation associations (Bloland, 2001).
This act provided for education benefits to veterans of the Korean War directly rather than to the
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 22

educational institution they attended, increasing the importance of accreditation as a mechanism
for recognition of legitimacy (Woolston, 2012).
A more “pivotal event” occurred in 1958 with the National Defense Education Act’s
(NDEA) allocation of funding for NDEA fellowships and college loans (Weissburg, 2008).
NDEA limited participating institutions to those that were accredited (Gaston, 2014). In 1963,
the U.S. Congress passed the Higher Education Facilities Act. This act required that higher
education institutions receiving federal funds through enrolled students be accredited. Arguably
the most striking expansion in accreditation’s mission coincided with the passage of the Higher
Education Act (HEA) in 1964 (Gaston, 2014). Title IV in this legislation expressed the intent of
Congress to use federal funding to broaden access to higher education. According to Gaston
(2014), having committed to this much larger role in encouraging college attendance, the federal
government found it necessary to affirm that institutions benefitting from such funds were
worthy of it. That same year, the National Committee of Regional Accrediting Agencies
(NCRAA) became the Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education
(FRACHE).
The Higher Education Act was first signed into law in 1965. That law strengthened the
resources available to higher education institutions and provided financial assistance to students
enrolled at those institutions. The law was especially important to accreditation because it forced
the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) to determine and list a much larger number of
institutions eligible for federal programs (Trivett, 1976). In 1967, the NCA revoked Parsons
College’s accreditation citing “administrative weakness” and a $14 million debt. The college
appealed, but the courts denied it on the basis that the regional accrediting associations were
voluntary bodies (Woolston, 2013).
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 23

The need to deal with a much larger number of potentially eligible institutions led the U.S
Commissioner of Education to create the Bureau of Higher Education and the Accreditation and
Institutional Eligibility Staff (AIES) as an advisory committee. The purpose of the AIES, which
was created in 1968, was to administer the federal recognition and review process involving the
accrediting agencies (Dickey and Miller, 1972). In 1975, the National Committee on Accrediting
(NCA) and FRACHE merged to form a new organization called the Council on Postsecondary
Accreditation (COPA). The newly created national accreditation association encompassed an
astonishing array of types of postsecondary education to include community colleges, liberal arts
colleges, proprietary schools, graduate research programs, bible colleges, trade and technical
schools, and home-study programs (Chambers, 1983).
Since 1985, accountability has become the issue of paramount importance in the field of
education. According to Woolston (2013), key developments in the accreditation process during
this period include higher education’s experiencing rising costs resulting in high student loan
default rates as well as accreditation enduring increasing criticism for a number of apparent
shortcomings, most ostensibly a lack of demonstrable student learning outcomes.
Accreditation is more formally and more often defended than in the past. For example,
congressional hostility reached a crisis in 1992 when Congress, in the midst of debates on the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, threatened to bring to a close the role of the
accrediting agencies as gatekeepers for financial aid. During the early 1990s, the federal
government grew increasingly intrusive in matters directly affecting the accrediting agencies
(Bloland, 2001). As a direct consequence, Subpart 1 of Part H of the Higher Education Act
amendments involved an increased role for the states in determining the eligibility of institutions
to participate in the student financial aid programs of the aforementioned Title IV. For every
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 24

state, this meant the creation of a State Postsecondary Review Entity (SPRE) that would review
institutions that the USDE secretary had identified as having triggered such review criteria as
high default rates on student loans (Bloland, 2001). The SPREs were short lived and, in 1994,
were abandoned largely because of a lack of adequate funding. The 1992 reauthorization also
created the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) to
replace the AIES.
For several years, the regional accrediting agencies entertained the idea of pulling out of
COPA and forming their own national association. Based on dissatisfaction with the
organization, regional accrediting agencies proposed a resolution to terminate COPA by the end
of 1993. Following a successful vote on the resolution, COPA was effectively terminated
(Bloland, 2001). A special committee, generated by the COPA plan of dissolution of April 1993,
created the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) to continue
the work of recognizing accrediting agencies (Bloland, 2001). However, CORPA was formed
primarily as an interim organization to continue national recognition of accreditation.
In 1995, national leaders in accreditation formed the National Policy Board to shape the
creation and legitimation of a national organization overseeing accreditation. The national
leaders in accreditation were adamant that the new organization should reflect higher education’s
needs rather than those of postsecondary education. Following numerous intensive meetings, a
new organization named the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) was formed in
1996 as the official successor to CORPA (Bloland, 2001). In 1996, the Spellings Commission
“on the future of higher education” delivered the verdict that accreditation “has significant
shortcomings” (USDE Test, 2006, p. 7) and accused accreditation of being both ineffective and a
barrier to innovation.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 25

Since the release of the Spellings Commission’s report, the next significant event on the
subject of accreditation came during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address on
February 12, 2013. In conjunction with the president’s address, the White House released a nine-
page document titled The President’s Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America. The
document stated that the president was going to call on Congress to consider value, affordability,
and student outcomes in making determinations about which colleges and universities receive
access to federal student aid, either by incorporating measures of value and affordability into the
existing accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative system of accreditation that
would provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to receive federal student aid
based on performance and results (White House, 2013).
Current State of Accreditation
Accreditation in higher education is at a crossroads. Since the 2006 Spellings Report
called for more government oversight of accreditation to ensure public accountability, the
government and critics began to scrutinize a system that had been nongovernmental and
autonomous for several decades (Eaton, 2012). The U.S. Congress is currently in the process of
reauthorizing the HEA, and it is expected to address accreditation head on. All the while, CHEA
and other accreditation supporters have been attempting to convince Congress, the academy, and
the public at-large of the current and future relevance of accreditation in quality higher
education.
In anticipation of the HEA’s reauthorization, NACIQI has the charge of providing the
U.S. Secretary of Education with recommendations on recognition, accreditation, and student aid
eligibility (NACIQI, 2012). The committee advised that accrediting bodies should continue their
gatekeeping role for student aid eligibility, but also recommended some changes to the
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 26

accreditation process. These changes included more communication and collaboration among
accreditors, states, and the federal government to avoid overlapping responsibilities; moving
away from regional accreditation and toward sector or mission-focused accreditation, creating an
expedited review process and developing more gradations in accreditation decisions; developing
more cost-effective data collection and consistent definitions and metrics; and making
accreditation reports publically available (NACIQI, 2012).
However, two members of the committee did not agree with the recommendations and
submitted a motion to include the Alternative to the NACIQI Draft Final Report, which
suggested eliminating accreditor’s gatekeeping role; creating a simple, cost-effective system of
quality assurance that would revoke financial aid to campuses not financially secure; eliminating
the current accreditation process altogether as means of reducing institutional expenditures;
breaking the regional accreditation monopoly; and developing a user-friendly, expedited
alternative for the re-accreditation process (NACIQI, 2012). The motion did not pass, and the
alternative view was not included in NACIQI’s final report. As a result, Hank Brown, the former
U.S. Senator from Colorado and founding member of the American Council of Trustees and
Alumni, drafted a report seeking accreditation reform and reiterating the alternatives suggested
above, because accreditation had “failed to protect consumers and taxpayers”. (Brown, 2013, p.
1).
The same year the final NACIQI report was released, the American Council of
Education’s Task Force on Accreditation released its own report that identified challenges and
potential solutions for accreditation (ACE, 2012). The task force made six recommendations: (a)
increase transparency and communication, (b) increase the focus on student success and
institutional quality, (c) take immediate and noticeable action against failing institutions, (d)
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 27

adopt a more expedited process for institutions with a history of good performance, (e) create
common definitions and a more collaborative process between accreditors, and (f) increase cost-
effectiveness (ACE, 2012). They also suggested that higher education “address perceived
deficiencies decisively and effectively, not defensively or reluctantly”. (ACE, 2012, p. 8).
President Obama also recently spoke out regarding accountability and accreditation in
higher education. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama asked Congress to “change the
Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges
receive certain types of federal aid” (Obama, 2013a, para 39). The address was followed by The
President’s Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America, which suggested achieving
the above change to the HEA “either by incorporating measures of value and affordability into
the existing accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative system of accreditation
that would provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to receive federal student
aid based on performance and results” (Obama, 2013b, p. 5). Furthermore, in August 2013,
President Obama called for a performance-based rating system that would connect institutional
performance with financial aid distributions (Obama, 2013c). Though accreditation was not
specifically mentioned in his plan, it is not clear if the intention is to replace accreditation with
this new rating system or utilize both systems simultaneously (Eaton, 2013b).
The president’s actions over the last year have CHEA and other supporters of
nongovernmental accreditation concerned. Some have expressed concern over the standardized
and increasingly regulatory nature of the federal government’s influence on accreditation (Eaton,
2012). Additionally, it is likely that if the U.S. government creates its own process for quality
control, the U.S. higher education system is in trouble, like the government-controlled, Chinese
higher education system (Astin, 2014)
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 28

Though many agree there will be an inevitable increase in federal oversight after the
reauthorization of the HEA, supporters of the accreditation process offered recommendations for
minimizing the effect. Gaston (2014) provides six categories of suggestions: stages for
implementation: consensus and alignment, credibility, efficiency, agility and creativity,
decisiveness and transparency, and a shared vision. The categories maintain the aspects of
accreditation that have worked well and that are strived for around the world, –
nongovernmental, peer review – as well as address the areas receiving the most criticism. Eaton
(2013a) adds that accreditors and institutions must push for streamlining of the federal review of
accreditors as a means to reduce federal oversight; better communicate the accomplishments of
accreditation and how quality peer review benefits students; and anticipate any further actions
the federal government may take.
While the HEA undergoes the process of reauthorization, the future of accreditation
remains uncertain. There have been many reports and opinion pieces on how accreditation
should change and/or remain the same, much of them with overlapping themes. Only time will
tell if the accreditors, states, and the federal government reach an acceptable and functional
common ground that ensures the quality of U.S. higher education into the future.
Effects of Accreditation
This section of the literature review examines the effects of accreditation, focusing
primarily on the assessment of student learning outcomes. Outcome assessment serves two main
purposes: quality improvement and external accountability (Bresciani, 2006; Ewell, 2009). Over
the years, institutions of higher education made considerable strides with regard to learning
assessment practices and implementation. Yet, despite such progress, key challenges still remain.
Trend Toward Learning Assessment
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 29

The shift within higher education accreditation toward greater accountability and student
learning assessment began in the mid-1980s (Beno, 2004; Ewell, 2001; Wergin, 2005, 2012).
During that time, higher education was portrayed in the media as “costly, inefficient, and
insufficiently responsive to its public” (Bloland, 2001, p. 34). The impetus behind the public’s
concern stemmed from two reasons: the perception that students were underperforming
academically, and second was the demand of the business sector (Ewell, 2001). Employers and
business leaders expressed their need for college graduates who could demonstrate high levels of
literacy, problem-solving ability, and collaborative skills in order to support the emerging
knowledge economy of the 21
st
century. In response to these concerns, institutions of higher
education started emphasizing student learning outcomes as the main process of evaluating
effectiveness (Beno, 2004).
Framework for Learning Assessment
Accreditation is widely considered to be a significant driving force behind advances in
both student learning and outcomes assessment. According to Rhodes (2012), in recent years,
accreditation has contributed to the proliferation of assessment practices, lexicon, and even
products such as e-portfolios, which are used to show evidence of student learning.
Kuh and Ikenberry (2009) surveyed provosts or chief academic officers at all regionally
accredited institutions granting undergraduate degrees, and found that student assessment was
driven more by accreditation than by external pressures such as government or employers.
Another major finding was that most institutions planned to continue their assessment of student
learning outcomes despite budgetary constraints. They also found that gaining faculty support
and involvement remained a major challenge — an issue examined in more depth later in this
section.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 30

Additionally, college and university faculty and student affairs practitioners stressed how
students must now acquire proficiency in a wide scope of learning outcomes to adequately
address the unique and complex challenges of today’s ever-changing, economically competitive,
and increasingly globalizing society. In 2007, the Association of American Colleges and
Universities published a report focusing on the aims and outcomes of a 21
st
century collegiate
education, with data gathered through surveys, focus groups, and discussions with postsecondary
faculty. Emerging from the report were four “essential learning outcomes”. These were (1)
knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world through study in science and
mathematics, social sciences, humanities, history, languages, and the arts; (2) intellectual and
practical skills, including inquiry and analysis, critical and creative thinking, written and oral
communication, quantitative skills, information literacy, and teamwork and problem-solving
abilities; (3) personal and social responsibility, including civic knowledge and engagement,
multicultural competence, ethics, and foundations and skills for lifelong learning; and (4)
integrative learning, including synthesis and advanced understanding across general and
specialized studies (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007 p. 12). With the
adoption of such frameworks or similar tools at institutions, accreditors can be well positioned to
connect teaching and learning and, as a result, better engage faculty to improve learning
outcomes (Rhodes, 2012).

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 31

Benefits of Accreditation on Learning
Accreditation and student performance assessment have been the focus of various
empirical studies, with several pointing to benefits of the accreditation process. Ruppert (1994)
conducted case studies in 10 states – Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin – to evaluate different accountability
programs based on student performance indicators. The report concluded, “quality indicators
appear most useful if integrated in a planning process designed to coordinate institutional efforts
to attain stated priorities” (p. 155).
Furthermore, research also demonstrated how accreditation helps shape outcomes inside
college classrooms. Specifically, Cabrera et al. (2001) investigated classroom practices and their
relationship with the learning gains in professional competencies among undergraduate
engineering students. The study involved 1,250 students from seven universities. It found that the
expectations of accrediting agencies may be encouraging more widespread use of effective
instructional practices by faculty.
Volkwein et al. (2007) measured changes in student outcomes in engineering programs
following the implementation of new accreditation standards by the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology. Based on the data collected from a national sample of engineering
programs, the authors noted that the new accreditation standards were, indeed, a catalyst for
change, finding evidence that linked the accreditation changes to improvements in undergraduate
education. Students experienced significant gains in the application of knowledge of
mathematics, science, and engineering; usage of modern engineering tools; use of experimental
skills to analyze and interpret data; designing solutions to engineering problems; teamwork and
group work; effective communication; understanding of professional and ethical obligations;
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 32

understanding of the societal and global context of engineering solutions; and recognition of the
need for lifelong learning. The authors also found accreditation also prompted faculty to engage
in professional development-related activity. Thus, the study showed the effectiveness of
accreditation as a mechanism for quality assurance (Volkwein et al., 2006).
Organizational Effects of Accreditation
Beyond student learning outcomes, accreditation also has considerable effects on an
organizational level. Procopio (2010) noted that the process of acquiring accreditation influences
perceptions of organizational culture. According to the study, administrators are more satisfied
than are staff members– and especially more so than faculty – when rating organizational
climate, information flow, involvement in decisions, and utility of meetings. “These findings
suggest institutional role is an important variable to consider in any effort to affect organizational
culture through accreditation buy-in” (p. 10). Similarly, a study by Wiedman (1992) describes
how the two-year process of reaffirming accreditation at a public university drives the change of
institutional culture.
Meanwhile, Brittingham (2009) explains that accreditation offers organizational-level
benefits for colleges and universities. The commonly acknowledged benefits include students’
access to federal financial aid funding, legitimacy in the public, consideration for foundation
grants and employer tuition credits, positive reflection among peers, and government
accountability. However, Brittingham (2009) points out that there are “not-often recognized”
benefits as well (p. 18). For example, accreditation is cost-effective, particularly when
contrasting the number of personnel to carry out quality assurance procedures here in the U.S.
versus internationally, where it is far more regulated. Second, “participation in accreditation is
good professional development” because those who lead a self-study come to learn about their
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 33

institution with more breadth and depth (p. 19). Third, self-regulation by institutions – if done
properly – is a better system than government regulation. And fourth, “regional accreditation
gathers a highly diverse set of institutions under a single tent, providing conditions that support
student mobility for purposes of transfer and seeking a higher degree” (p. 19).
Future Assessment Recommendations
Many higher education institutions developed plans and strategies to measure learning
outcomes, and such assessments are already in use to improve institutional quality (Beno, 2004).
For future actions, CHEA, in its 2012 Final Report, recommends to further enhance commitment
to public accountability:
Working with the academic and accreditation communities, explore the adoption and
implementation of a small set of voluntary institutional performance indicators based on
mission that can be used to signal acceptable academic effectiveness and to inform
students and the public of the value and effectiveness of accreditation and higher
education. Such indicators would be determined by individual colleges and universities,
not government. (p. 7)
In addition, Brittingham (2012) outlines three developments that have the capacity to
influence accreditation and increase its ability to improve educational effectiveness. First,
accreditation is growing more focused on data and evidence, which strengthens its value as a
means of quality assurance and quality improvement. Second, “technology and open-access
education are changing our understanding of higher education” (p. 65). These innovations – such
as massive open online courses– hold enormous potential to open up higher education sources.
As a result, this trend will heighten the focus on student learning outcomes. Third, “with an
increased focus on accountability – quality assurance – accreditation is challenged to keep, and
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 34

indeed strengthen, its focus on institutional and programmatic improvement” (p. 68). This
becomes particularly important amid the current period of rapid change.
Challenges to Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment is critical to the future of higher education. As noted earlier, outcome
assessment serves two main purposes: quality improvement and external accountability
(Bresciani, 2006; Ewell, 2009). The practice of assessing learning outcomes is now widely
adopted by colleges and universities since its introduction in the mid-1980s. Assessment is also a
requirement of the accreditation process. However, outcomes assessment in higher education is
still a work in progress and there is still a fair amount of challenges (Kuh & Ewell, 2010).
Organization Learning Challenges
First, there is the organizational culture and learning issue. Assessment, as clearly stated
by the American Association for Higher Education (1992), is a means intended to improve the
institution. The process of assessment is not a means unto its own end. Instead, it provides an
opportunity for continuous organizational learning and improving (Maki, 2010). Too often,
institutions assemble and report sets of mountainous data just to comply with federal or state
accountability policy or accreditation agency’s requirements. However, after the report is
submitted, the evaluation team left, and the accreditation confirmed, there are few incentives to
act on the findings for further improvement. The root causes of deficiencies identified are rarely
followed up and real solutions are never sought (Ewell, 2005; Wolff, 2005).
Another concern pointed out by Ewell (2005) is that accreditation agencies tend to
emphasize the process of, rather than the outcomes, once the assessment infrastructure is
established. The accreditors are satisfied with formal statements and goals of learning outcomes,
but do not query further about how, the appropriateness, and to what degree these learning goals
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 35

are applied in the teaching and learning process. As a result, the process tends to be single-loop
learning where changes reside at a surface level, instead of a double-loop learning, where
changes are incorporated in the practices, belief, and norms (Bensimon, 2005).
Lack of Faculty Buy-in
Lack of faculty’s buy-in and participation is another hurdle in the adoption of assessment
practice (Kuh & Ewell, 2010). In a 2009 survey by the National Institute for Learning Outcomes
Assessment, two-thirds of all 2,809 surveyed schools noted that more faculty involvement in
learning assessment would be helpful (Kun & Ikenberry, 2009). According to Ewell (1993, 2002,
2005), there are several reasons that faculty is directly involved in the assessment process. First,
faculty views teaching and curriculum development as their domain. Assessing their teaching
performance and student learning outcomes by external groups can be viewed as an intrusion of
their professional authority and academic freedom. Second, faculty are deterred by the extra
efforts and time required for engaging in outcome assessment and the unconvincing added value
perceived. Furthermore, external bodies impose the compliance-oriented assessment
requirements and most faculty members are indirect participants in the process. They tend to
show a lukewarm attitude and leave the assessment work to administrative staff. In addition,
faculty might have a different view on the definitions and measures of “quality” than that of
institution or accreditors (Perrault, Gregory, & Carey, 2002, p. 273). Finally, the assessment
process incurs tremendous amount of work and resources. To cut costs, the majority of the work
is done by administration at the institution. Faculty consequently perceives that assessment is an
exercise performed by administration for external audiences, instead of embracing the process.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 36

Lack of Institutional Investment
Shortage of resources and institutional support is another challenge in the implementation
of assessment practice. As commented by Beno (2004), “[d]eciding on the most effective
strategies for teaching and for assessing learning will require experimentation, careful research,
analyses, and time” (p. 67). With continuously dwindling federal and state funding in the last two
decades, higher education, particularly at the public institutions, is stripped of resources to
support such an endeavor. A case in point is the recession in early 1990s. Budget cuts forced
many states to abandon the state assessment mandates originated in mid-1980s and switched to
process-based performance indicators as a way to gain efficiency in large public institutions
(Ewell, 2005). The 2009 National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment survey shows the
majority of the surveyed institutions undercapitalized resources, tools, and expertise for
assessment work. Twenty percent of respondents indicated they had no assessment staff and 65%
had two or fewer (Kuh & Ewell, 2010; Kuh & Ikenberry, 2009). Beno (2004) further describes
the resource issue:
A challenge for community colleges is to develop the capacity to discuss what the results
of learning assessment mean, to identify ways of improving student learning, and to make
institutional commitments to that improvement by planning, allocating needed resources,
and implementing strategies for improvement. (p. 67)
Difficulty with Integration into Local Practice
Integrating the value and institutionalizing the practice of assessment into daily
operations can be another tall order in many institutions. In addition to redirecting resources,
leadership’s involvement and commitment, faculty’s participation, and adequate assessment
personnel contribute to the success of cultivating a sustainable assessment culture and framework
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 37

on campus (Banta, 1993; Kuh & Ewell, 2010; Lind & McDonald, 2003; Maki, 2010).
Furthermore, assessment activities, imposed by external authorities, tend to be implemented as
an addition to, rather than an integral part of, an institutional practice (Ewell, 2002). Assessment,
like accreditation, is viewed as a special process with its own funding and committee, instead of
being part of regular business operations. Finally, the work of assessment, program reviews, self-
study, and external accreditation at institutional and academic program levels tends to be handled
by various offices on campus and coordinating the work can be another challenge (Perrault,
Gergory, & Carey, 2002).
Colleges also tend to adopt the institutional isomorphic approach by modeling themselves
after those peers who are more legitimate or successful in dealing with similar situation and the
practice widely used to gain acceptance (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). As reported by Ewell
(1993), institutions are prone to “second-guess” and adopt the type of assessment practice
acceptable by external agencies as a safe approach instead of adopting or customizing the one
appropriate to the local needs and situation (Ewell, 1993). Institutional isomorphism offers a
safer and more predictable route for institutions to deal with uncertainty and competition, to
confirm to government mandates or accreditation requirements, or to abide by professional
practices (Bloland, 2001). However, the strategy of following the crowd might hinder in-depth
inquiry of a unique local situation, as well as the opportunity for innovation and creativity.
Furthermore, decision makers may be unintentionally trapped in a culture of doing what
everyone is doing without carefully examining unique local situation, the logic, the
appropriateness, and the limitations behind the common practice (Miles, 2012).
Lack of assessment standards and clear terminology presents another challenge in
assessment and accreditation practice (Ewell, 2001). With no consensus on vocabulary, methods,
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 38

and instrument, assessment practice and outcomes can have limited value. As reported by Ewell
(2005), the absence of outcome metrics makes it difficult for state authorities to aggregate
performance across multiple institutions and to communicate the outcomes to the public. The
exercise of benchmarking is also impossible. Beesciani (2006) stressed the importance of
developing a conceptual definition, framework, and common language at the institutional level.
Outcome Equity
Outcome assessment that focuses on students’ academic performance while it overlooks
the equity and disparity of diverse student population as well as the student engagement and
campus climate issues is another area of concern. In discussing local financing of community
colleges, Dowd and Grant (2006) stressed the importance of including “outcome equity” in
additional to performance-based budget allocation. Outcome equity pays special attention to the
equal outcomes of educational attainment among populations of different social, economic, and
racial groups (Dowd, 2003).
Tension Between Improvement and Accountability
The tension between the equally important goals of outcomes assessment, quality
improvement and external accountability, can be another factor affecting outcome assessment
practice. According to Ewell (2008, 2009), assessment practice evolved over the years into two
contrasting paradigms. The first paradigm, assessment for improvement, emphasizes constantly
evaluating and enhancing the process or outcomes, while the other paradigm, assessment for
accountability, demands conformity to a set of established standards mandated by the state or
accrediting agencies. The strategies, the instrumentation, the methods of gathering evidence, the
reference points of these two paradigms tend to be at the opposite end of the spectrum (Ewell,
2008, 2009). For example, in the improvement paradigm assessment is mainly used internally to
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 39

address deficiencies and enhance teaching and learning. It requires periodic evaluation and
formative assessment to track progress over time. On the other hand, the accountability paradigm
assessment is designed to demonstrate institutional effectiveness and performance to external
constituencies and to comply with pre-defined standards or expectations. The process tends to be
performed on set schedules as a summative assessment. The nature of these two constraints can
create tension and conflict within an institution. Consequently, an institution’s assessment
program is unlikely to achieve both objectives. Ewell (2009) further asserted that “when
institutions are presented with an intervention that is claimed to embody both accountability and
improvement, accountability wins”. (p. 8)
Transparency Challenges
Finally, for outcome assessment to be meaningful and accountable, the process and
information need to be shared and open to the public (Ewell, 2005). Accreditation has long been
criticized as mysterious or secretive with little information to share with stakeholders (Ewell,
2010). In a 2006 survey, the Council of Higher Education Accreditation reported that only 18%
of the 66 accreditors surveyed provide information about the results of individual reviews
publicly; less than 17% of accreditors provide a summary on student academic achievement or
program performance; and just over 33% of accreditors offer a descriptive summary about the
characteristics of accredited institutions or programs (Council of Higher Education
Accreditation, 2006). In the 2014 Inside Higher Education survey, only 9% of the 846 college
presidents indicated that it is very easy to find student outcomes data on the institution’s website,
and only half of the respondents agree that it is appropriate for federal government to collect and
publish data on outcomes of college graduates (Jaschik & Ledgerman, 2014). With the public
disclosure requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, there is an impetus for higher
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 40

education and accreditation agencies to be more open to public and policy makers. It is expected
that further openness will contribute to more effective and accountable business practices as well
as the improvement of educational quality.
It has been three decades since the birth of the assessment movement in U.S. higher
education and a reasonable amount of progress has been made (Ewell, 2005). Systematic
assessment of student learning outcomes is now a common practice at most institutions. As
reported by two nationwide surveys, the 2009 National Institute for Learning Outcomes
Assessment shows that more than 75% of surveyed institutions adopted common learning
outcomes for all undergraduate students and most institutions conduct assessments at both the
instructional and program level (Kun & Ikenberry, 2009). The 2008 survey performed by the
Association of American Colleges and Universities also reported that 78% of the 433 surveyed
institutions have a common set of learning outcomes for all their undergraduate students and
68% of the institutions also assess learning outcomes at the departmental level (Hart Research
Associates, 2009).
As the public concern about the performance and quality of American colleges and
universities grows, it is more imperative than ever to embed assessment in the everyday work of
teaching and using assessment outcomes to further improve practice, to inform decision makers,
to communicate effectively with the public, and to be accountable for preparing the national
learners in the knowledge economy. With effort, transparency, continuous improvement and
responsiveness to society’s demands, higher education institutions will regain the public’s trust
Cost of Accreditation
Gaston (2014) discusses the various costs associated with accreditation. Institutions are
required to pay annual fees to the accrediting body. When an institution applies for initial
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 41

accreditation, it is required to pay an application fee as well as additional fees through the
process. The institution seeking accreditation also pays for any on-site reviews. In addition to
these “external” costs, there are internal costs that must be calculated as well. These internal
costs can include faculty and administrative time invested in the assessment and self-study,
volunteer service in accreditation activities, preparation of annual or periodic filings, and
attendance at mandatory accreditation meetings (p. 9).
Costs of initial accreditation can vary greatly from region to region; however, regardless
of the region, the costs are substantial. It can cost an institution $23,500.00 to pursue initial
accreditation through the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), regardless of whether pursuit is
successful. This does not require the costs associated with the three required on-site visits nor
does it include the dues that must be paid during the application and candidacy period. For
example, the applicant and candidacy fees for SACS are $12,500. (HLC Initial, 2012)
Shibley and Volkwein (2002) claim there is limited research on the costs of accreditation
within the literature. Calculating the cost can be very complex, as institutions must evaluate both
monetary and non-monetary costs. Reidlinger and Prager (1993) state there are two reasons
thorough cost-based analyses of accreditation have not been pursued. First, there is a belief that
voluntary accreditation is preferable to governmental control and that it accreditation is worth the
cost, despite the price. Second, it is difficult to relate perceived benefits of accreditation to an
actual monetary amount.
The CHEA first published an almanac in 1997, and continues to release a revised version
every two years. This almanac looks at accreditation practices across the United States on the
macro level, looking at data such as number of volunteers, number of employees, and unit
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 42

operating budgets of the regional accrediting organizations. Little, if any, information is provided
on costs incurred by individual institutions as they go through the accreditation process.
In 1998, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools completed a self-study,
on the perception of accreditation costs among the institutions within that region (Lee & Crow,
1998). The study revealed the variance of responses among institutional type. Research and
doctoral institutions were less apt to claim that benefits outweighed costs while also responding
less positively than did other types of institutions regarding the effectiveness and benefits of
accreditation. The study suggested that well-established research and doctoral institutions might
already have internal processes in place that serve the traditional function of the accreditation
process, in which case, a traditional audit system could serve as an appropriate alternative to the
formal process by the regional accreditation organization. Looking at the results of all
institutional types, the self-study found that 53% of respondents considered the benefits of
accreditation outweighed the costs. Approximately 33% of respondents considered benefits of
accreditation to be equal to the costs. The remaining 13% of the respondents believed that the
costs of accreditation outweighed the benefits. There have been similar case studies performed
by Warner (1977) on WASC and by Pigge (1979) on the Committee on Postsecondary
Accreditation. In both studies, cost was labeled as a significant concern of the accreditation
process. Budget allocations are also affected by accreditation results. Warner (1977) found that
approximately one-third of responding institutions changed budget allocations based on
accreditation results; however, there was no further exploration done. The majority of
respondents in the Warner (1977) and Pigge (1979) studies believed the benefits outweighed the
costs.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 43

There are three stages that institutions go through when preparing for accreditation.
Wood (2006) developed the model, which includes the release time required for the various
coordinators of the accreditation review, the monetary costs of training, staff support, materials,
and the site visit of the accreditation team. Each of these stages triggers cost for the institution.
Willis (1994) also examined these costs but differentiated between direct and indirect costs.
Direct costs include this such as accreditation fees, operating expenses (specific to the
accreditation process), direct payments to individuals who participate in the process, self-study
costs, travel costs, and site visit costs. Indirect costs measure things such as time. Willis (1994)
identified indirect costs as “probably many times greater than the direct costs due mainly to the
personnel time required at the institution” (p. 40). He suggests that caution be exercised when
evaluating these costs, and that they should not be underestimated. He states that many times the
normal tasks that cannot be completed by individuals with accreditation responsibilities are
distributed to other individuals who are not identified as participants in the accreditation process.
Kennedy, Moore, and Thibadoux (1985) attempted to establish a methodology for how
costs are determined, with particular interest in monetizing time spent on the accreditation
process. They looked at a time frame of approximately 15 months, from the time of initial
planning for the self-study through the presentation of the study. They used time logs to gather
data on time spent by faculty and administrative staff. There was a high return rate for the time
logs (79% were fully completed, with a 93% return rate overall). After reviewing the time logs,
they discovered that the time spent by faculty and administrative staff accounted for 94% of the
total cost of the accreditation review, over two-thirds of which as attributed to administrative
staff. These figures demonstrate the fact that the time required by both faculty and administrative
staff is the most significant cost involved in the accreditation process. The researchers concluded
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 44

that this cost was not excessive as there is a seven-year span between each self-study review
process.
Kells and Kirkwood (1979) conducted a study in the Middle States region, to examine the
direct costs of participating in a self-study. Almost 50% of the respondents reportedly spent
under $5,000.00 on the self-study, which was not defined as excessive. It was also determined
that there was maximum number between 100 and 125 of people directly involved in the self-
study. The majority of participants were faculty (41-50%), followed by staff (21-30%), and very
few students. The size of the institution and the cost of the self-study itself were believed to have
the greatest impact on the composition of the self-study committee.
Doerr (1983) used a case study to explore the direct costs of accreditation and to examine
the benefits received when university executives wish to pursue additional programmatic
accreditations. Both financial costs and opportunity costs of institutional accreditation granted by
SACS and four programmatic accreditations cultivated by the University of West Florida in the
1981-1982 term were examined. He assigned an average wage per hour to faculty and
administrative staff, while also adding in the cost of material supplies. It was estimated that the
total direct costs of accreditation for these reviews totaled $50,030.71. It was also projected that
there would be additional costs in the following years, particularly membership costs for the
accrediting organizations and those costs associated with preparing for additional programmatic
reviews. Doerr concluded by looking at the opportunity costs while examining alternative ways
this money might have been spent.
Shibley and Volkwein (2002) evaluated the benefits of a joint accreditation by
conducting a case study of a public institution in the Middle States region. This institution has
multiple accrediting relationships, including both institutional and programmatic reviews. They
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 45

confirmed what Willis (1994) suggested, “the true sense of burden arose from the time
contributed to completing the self-study process rather than from finding the financial resources
to support self-study needs” (Shibley & Volkwein, 2002, p.8). They found that the separate
accreditation processes had more benefits for individuals than did the joint effort; however, the
joint process was less costly and the sense of burden for participants was reduced.
There have been several studies on the expense of accreditation and its value to
institutions. Britt and Aaron (2008) distributed surveys to radiology programs without
specialized accreditation. These institutions reported expense of accreditation as the primary
factor in not pursuing accreditation. A secondary consideration was the time required to go
through the process. Many respondents indicated that a decrease in the expense would allow
them to consider pursuing accreditation in the future. Bitter, Stryker, and Jens (1999) and Kren,
Tatum, and Phillips (1993) looked at specialized accreditation for accounting. Both studies found
that non-accredited programs believed that costs outweighed benefits. Many programs claim they
follow accreditation standards; however, there is no empirical evidence to prove that this is true.
Since the programs do not go through the accreditation process, there is no way to verify if they
are actually meeting the established standards.
Cost is frequently cited as a factor as to why institutions have not pursued accreditation.
In addition to direct costs, things such as resources, time, energy and energy spent are also
included. The Florida State Postsecondary Planning Commission (1995) defined costs in a
variety of ways and only sometimes included indirect costs as part of their definition. Benefits
could potentially affect up to three groups: students, departments, and the institution. The
Commission recommended that institutions seeking accreditation balance the direct and indirect
costs of accreditation with the potential benefits to each group before deciding to pursue it.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 46

As a result of the concerns of the higher education community and the research on costs,
both NACIQI and ACE published reports in 2012. These reports call for a cost-benefit analysis
of the accreditation process in an attempt to reduce excessive and unnecessary costs. NACIQI
recommends that data gathering be responsive to standardized expectations and that it would
only seek out information that is useful and that cannot be found elsewhere (NACIQI Final,
2012). The ACE task force calls for an evaluation of required protocols such as the self-study,
the extent and frequency of on-site visits, expanded opportunities for the use of technology,
greater reliance on existing data, and the evaluation of potential duplication of requirements
imposed by different agencies and the federal government (ACE, 2012). The cost of
accreditation can be defined in many ways, including both time and money. Schermerhorn,
Reisch, and Griffith (1980) indicated that the time commitment required by institutions to
prepare for accreditation was one of the most significant barriers of the entire process.
Due to the limited amount of research in the area on the cost-benefit analysis of the
process, Woolston (2012) distributed a survey to the primary regional Accreditation Liaison
Officer (ALO) at all baccalaureate-granting regionally accredited institutions in the United
States. The survey targeted four primary areas: demographic information, direct costs, indirect
costs, and an open-ended section allowing for possible explanation for the costs. Results showed
that one of the most complicated things is to determine the monetary value of the time associated
with going through the accreditation process. Through analysis of the open-ended response
questions, ALOs indicated that two of the biggest benefits of going through accreditation were
self-evaluation and university improvement. There were other themes that emerged, such as:
campus unity, outside review, ability to offer federal financial aid, reputation, sharing best
practices, celebration, and fear associated with not being accredited. While it was agreed that
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 47

costs are significant and excessive, many ALOs believe that the costs are justified and that the
benefits of accreditation outweigh both the direct and indirect costs.
Critical Assessment of Accreditation
Accreditation, it seems, evolved from simpler days of semi-informal peer assessment into
a burgeoning industry of detailed analysis, student learning outcomes assessment, quality and
performance review, financial analysis, public attention, and all-around institutional scrutiny
(Bloland, 2001; Burke & Minassians, 2002; McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006; Zis, Boeke, &
Ewell, 2010). Public demand of institutions to establish their worth, along with their contribution
to student learning, and a progressively regulated demand for institutional proof of success in the
forms of evidence and assessment, changed accreditation and created a vacuum of knowledge
about how accreditation works in practice (Commission on the Future of Higher Ed, 2006;
Dougherty, Hare, and Natow, 2009; Leef and Burris, 2002). WASC-ACCJC’s recent history has
demonstrated profound changes in practices (e.g., updated standards for accreditation and a
rising rate of institutional sanctions) and the need for more information concerning the
relationship of accreditation to institutional data (Baker, 2002). Initial data collection found that
55% of all California community colleges have been sanctioned once since 2002 (Moltz, 2010).
Measures of inputs, outputs, local control versus governmental review, performance
funding versus institutional choice, rising demands, and institutional costs make a difficult task
of understanding trends and movement of regional accreditation in the United States, but
nevertheless have a great influence upon actual implementation of accreditation standards to
real-world institutions (Leef & Burris, 2002). There have been calls for increased public
transparency of accreditation findings and actions, including full publication of reports by the
commission and by the institutions in question. For example, some institutions are sanctioned for
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 48

deficiencies and may be given a detailed list of reporting deadlines to show compliance and
ongoing quality review for those areas noted to be lacking. Some correspondence between
accreditation commissions and the institutions are public, whereas others are private. Therefore,
this semi-public nature to accreditation is a point of contention in the literature on accountability
and assessment (Eaton, 2010; Ikenberry, 2009; Kuh, 2010).
WASC-ACCJC has been “at the center of controversies” during the past ten years due to
its enlarged emphasis upon student learning outcomes compliance (WASC, 2002; WASC-
ACCJC 2011). There is much debate on whether student learning outcomes are the best measure
and appropriate to education, and whether they violate the purview of faculty members, or are
truly in the best interest of students, best practices and learning (Eaton, 2010).
In addition, accreditation evoked emotional opposition since its inception and much was
expressed in very colorful language. Accreditation is accused of “[benefitting] the small, weak,
and uncertain” (Barzun, 1993, p. 60). It is a “pseudo-evaluative process, set up to give the
appearance of self-regulation without having to suffer the inconvenience” (Scriven, 2000, p.
272). It is a “grossly unprofessional evaluation” (p. 271), and “it is scarcely surprising that in
large areas of accreditation, the track record on enforcement is a farce” (p. 272). Accreditors
“[make] the accreditation process a high-wire act for schools” (American Council of Trustees
and Alumni, 2007, p. 12). The system of accreditation is “structured in such a way as to
subordinate the welfare of the educational institution as an entity and of the general public to the
interest of groups representing limited institutional or professional concerns” (American Medical
Association, 1971, p. F-3). It was stated that “accreditation standards have already fallen to the
lowest common denominator” (American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 2007, p. 16), and
accreditation is responsible for the “homogenization of education” and the “perseverance in the
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 49

status quo” (Finkin, 1973, p. 369). “It is an impossible game with artificial counters” which
ignores the student (Learned & Wood, 1938, p. 69). It is “a crazy-quilt of activities, processes
and structures that is fragmented, arcane, more historical than logical, and has outlived its
usefulness” (Dickeson, 2006, p. 1). It “seeks not only to compare apples with grapes, but both
with camels and cods” (Wriston, 1960, p. 329). “As a mechanism for the assurance of quality,
the private voluntary accreditation agencies are a failure” (Gruson, Levine, & Lustberg, 1979, p.
6). It is “to be tolerated only as a necessary evil” (Blauch, 1959, p. 23). “While failing to protect
the taxpayer and the consumer from being ripped off by irresponsible institutions, it has also
quashed educational diversity and reform” (Finn, 1975, p. 26). At the same time (and according
to the same author) it constitutes a system of “sturdy walls and deep moats around... academic
city-states” (Carey, 2009, para. 28), and it is a “tissue-thin layer of regulation” (Carey, 2010, p.
166). “The word ‘accreditation’ is so misunderstood and so abused that it should be abandoned,”
(Kells, 1976). According to Gillen, Bennett, and Vedder (2010), “the inmates are running the
asylum” (p. i).
The renewal of the Higher Education Act in 1992 came during a time of heightened
government concern over increasing defaults in student loans. Again concerned about the lack of
accountability demonstrated by accreditation, this legislation established a new institution: the
State Postsecondary Review Entity or SPRE (Ewell, 2008). The creation of these agencies was
intended to shift the review of institutions for federal aid eligibility purposes from regional
accreditors to state governments. This direct threat to accreditation led to the dissolution of the
COPA and the proactive involvement of the higher education community resulting in the
creation of the CHEA. It was the issue of cost that ultimately led to the abandonment of the
SPREs when legislation failed to provide funding for the initiative (Ewell, 2008). Governmental
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 50

concern did not dissipate however, and in 2006 the U.S. Department of Education released a
report from the Spellings Commission criticizing accreditation for being both ineffective and a
barrier to innovation (Eaton, 2012b; Ewell, 2008).
Other concerns are evident. It is problematic that accreditation is considered a chore to be
accomplished as quickly and painlessly as possible rather than an opportunity for genuine self-
reflection for improvement, and institutional self-assessment is ineffectual when there is faculty
resistance and a lack of administrative incentive (Bardo, 2009; Commission on Regional
Accrediting Commissions, n.d.; Driscoll & De Norriega, 2006; Rhodes, 2012; Smith & Finney,
2008; Wergin, 2012). One of the greatest stresses on accreditation is the tension between
assessment for the purpose of improvement and assessment for the purpose of accountability,
two concepts that operate in irresolvable conflict with each other (American Association for
Higher Education, 1997; Burke & Associates, 2005; Chernay, 1990; Ewell, 1984; Ewell, 2008;
Harvey, 2004; National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, 2012;
Provezis, 2010; Uehling, 1987b), although some argue that the two can be effectively
coordinated for significant positive results (Brittingham, 2012; El-Khawas, 2001; Jackson,
Davis, & Jackson, 2010; Walker, 2010; Westerheijden, Stensaker, & Rosa, 2007; Wolff, 1990).
Another concern involves the way that being held to external standards undermines institutional
autonomy, which is a primary source of strength in the American higher education system
(Ewell, 1984).
The Spellings Commission’s report detailed a new interest from the U.S. Department of
Education in critiquing the status quo of regional accreditation commissions (Commission on the
Future of Higher Education, 2006). Ewell (2008) describes the report as a scathing rebuke of
inability of regional accreditors to innovate and a hindrance to quality improvement. Others have
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 51

called for an outright “end…. to the accreditation monopoly” (Neal, 2008). There have been
increasing calls within the last several years to reform or altogether replace accreditation, as it is
currently known (American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 2007; Gillen, Bennett, & Vedder,
2010; Neal, 2008). The American Council on Education (2012) recently convened a task force of
national leaders in accreditation to explore the adequacy of current practices. They recognized
the difficulty of reaching a consensus on many issues but recommended strengthening and
reinforcing the role of self-regulation in improving academic excellence. The Spellings
Commission’s report signaled federal interest in setting the stage for new accountability
measures of higher education, raising the worst fears of some defenders of a more autonomous,
peer-regulated industry (Eaton, 2003). Accreditation’s emphasis on value and the enhancement
of individual institutions with regional standards was pressed to achieve accountability roles for
the entire sector of US higher education (Brittingham, 2008).
Alternatives to Accreditation
As the role of accreditation is thrust into the public spotlight within the United States, it is
important to review the alternatives to the current system proposed in previous years. Generally
speaking, past alternatives to accreditation proposed by scholars or administrators revolved
around the common theme of increased government involvement (either at the state or federal
government level). To illustrate this notion, Orlans (1975) described the development (at the
national level) of a Committee for Identifying Useful Postsecondary Schools that would allow for
accrediting agencies to focus on a wider range of schools. This committee was part of Orlan’s
greater overall idea that there be an increase in the amount of competition among accrediting
agencies in order to further the advancement of education (Orlans, 1975). Trivett (1976)
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 52

demonstrated that there was a triangular relationship between accrediting agencies, state
governments, and federal governments. Trivett said:
In its ideal form, the states establish minimum legal and fiscal standards, compliance with
which signifies that the institutions can enable a student to accomplish his objectives
because the institution has the means to accomplish what it claims it will do. Federal
regulations are primarily administrative in nature. Accrediting agencies provide depth to
the evaluation process in a manner not present in either the state or federal government’s
evaluation of an institution by certifying academic standards. (p. 7)
Trivett’s statement speaks to the ever-present relationship between accreditation agencies, state
governments, and federal governments.
Harcleroad (1976; 1980) identified six different methods for accreditation; three vouched
for an expansion of responsibility for state agencies, one called for an expansion of federal
government responsibility, and the remaining two asked for a modification of the present system
(by increasing staff members or auditors) or keeping the present system in place. Harcleroad
(1980) wrote that:
A combination of the second (present system with modifications) and third options
(increased state agency responsibility without regional and national associations) seems
the most likely plan for the near future. This possibility will become even more viable if
both regional and national associations continue refinements in their process and increase
the objectivity of an admittedly subjective activity. (p. 46)
These methods proposed by Harcleroad clearly demonstrate a preference for increased state
government involvement within the accreditation process. Harcleroad (1976) also spoke of the
use of educational auditing and accountability as an internal review to increase both external
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 53

accountability and internal quality. This concept is modeled after the auditing system developed
by the Securities and Exchange Commission that was used to accredit financial organizations
(Harcleroad, 1976).
Another example of internal and external audits was demonstrated by the proposals in the
essay produced by three scholars (Graham, Lyman, and Trow, 1995). The essay (also known as
the Mellon report) was the result of a grant funding the study of accountability of higher
education institutions to their three major constituencies: students, government, and the public
(Bloland, 2001). This essay emphasized the notion that accountability has both an internal and
external aspect and the authors suggested that institutions conduct internal reviews (primarily
within their teaching and research units) every 5 to 10 years (Bloland, 2001). Once this internal
review was completed, an external review would be conducted in the form of an audit on the
procedures of the internal review (Bloland, 2001). Specifically, this external audit would be
conducted by regional accrediting agencies while institutional accrediting agencies were
encouraged to pay close attention to the internal processes in order to determine if the institution
has the ability to learn and address its weaknesses (Bloland, 2001). These concepts surrounding
auditing were later explored by other authors and, most recently, were linked to discussions
regarding the future of higher education accreditation (Bernhard, 2011; Burke & Associates,
2005; Dill, Massy, Williams, & Cook, 1996; Ewell, 2012; Ikenberry, 2009; WASC, 1998; Wolff,
2005).
In examining alternatives to accreditation, it is important to note the alternative programs
established by regional accreditors as enhancements to current accreditation processes. For
example, the Higher Learning Commission (an independent commission within the NCACS)
established, in 2000, an alternative assessment for institutions that were already accredited: the
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 54

Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP). According to Spangehl (2012), this process
instilled the notion of continuous quality improvement through the processes that would
ultimately provide evidence for accreditation. An example of AQIP offering continuous
improvement for higher educational institutions is its encouragement of institutions to implement
the use of various categories (i.e., the Helping Students Learn, category allows for institutions to
continuously monitor their ongoing program and curricular design) to stimulate organizational
improvement (Spangehl, 2012).
Another example of an alternative program is the use of the Quality Enhancement Plan
(QEP) by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (Jackson et al., 2010; Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools, 2007). QEP was adopted in 2001 and defined as an
additional accreditation requirement that would help guide institutions to produce measurable
improvement in the areas of student learning (Jackson et al., 2010). A few common themes of
student learning utilized by institutions (through the use of QEP) are student engagement,
critical thinking, and promoting international tolerance (Jackson et al., 2010).
This section offered a glimpse into the alternatives to accreditation proposed and
implemented in the past. It is important to note that, while accreditation is criticized, the general
thoughts of many is that it is a critical piece of academia and vital to accomplishing the goal of
institutional quality assurance and accountability (Bloland, 2001).
International Accreditation in Higher Education
The United States developed a unique accreditation process (Brittingham, 2009). The
most obvious difference between the U.S. and other countries is in the way education is
governed. In the U.S., education is governed at the state level, whereas ministries of education of
often govern the institutions in other nations (Ewell, 2008; Middaugh, 2012). Dill (2007)
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 55

outlined three traditional models of accreditation. These include “the European model of central
control of quality assurance by state educational ministries, the US model of decentralized
quality assurance combining limited state control with market competition, and the British model
in which the state essentially ceded responsibility for quality assurance to self-accrediting
universities” (p. 3). These models were used in some form by other nations in South America,
Africa, and Asia. Historically, direct government regulation (the European model) of higher
education is the most prevalent form of institutional oversight outside of the United States
(Dickeson, 2009).
Unfortunately, the low level of autonomy historically granted to postsecondary
institutions limited their ability to effectively compete against institutions in the United States
and other countries (Dewatripont, et al, 2010; Jacobs & Van der Ploeg, 2006; Sursock & Smidt,
2010). Overall, European institutions “suffer from poor governance, are insufficiently
autonomous and offer often insufficient incentives to devote time to research,” (Dewatripont et
al., 2010, p. 3). Many European countries, such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, have a
“very centralized” system of higher education (Van der Ploeg & Veugelers, 2008). In addition,
the level of governmental intervention inhibits European universities from innovating and
reacting quickly to changing demands (Van der Ploeg and Veugelers, 2008).
Institutions in Europe with low levels of autonomy have historically had little to no
control in areas including hiring faculty, managing budgets, and setting wages (Aghion et al.,
2008). Thus, it is difficult for universities with low autonomy to attract and retain the faculty
needed to compete for top spots in global ranking indices (Jacobs & Van der Ploeg, 2006;
Aghion et al., 2008; Dewatripont et al., 2010). However, some European nations, including
Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom conducted serious reform to their
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 56

higher education systems. Not surprisingly, universities with high autonomy in these countries
have higher levels of research performance compared to European countries with low levels of
institutional autonomy (Dewatripont et al., 2010). This sentiment is echoed by Aghion et al.
(2008), who argue research performance (which has an impact on academic prestige and
rankings) is negatively impacted by less institutional autonomy.
While research on accreditation’s direct impact on student learning outcomes is sparse,
Jacobs and Van der Ploeg (2006) argue the European system of greater regulation has some
benefits. They concluded that institutions in continental Europe had better access for students
with lower socioeconomic status, better outcomes in terms of student completion, and even
lower spending per student.
Internationalization of Accreditation
Due to globalization, there is an increased focus on how to assure quality of standards in
higher education across nations. Assessment frameworks are initiated and modified to meet these
increased demands for accountability (World Bank, 2002). Recent studies tried to compare these
assessment trends across multiple countries.
Bernhard (2011) conducted a comparative analysis of such reforms in six countries
(Austria, Germany, Finland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada). Stensaker and
Harvey (2011) identified a growing trend that nations rely on forms of accreditation distinctly
different from the U.S. accreditation processes. Specifically, they identified the academic audit
as an increasingly used alternative in countries such as Australia and Hong Kong. Yung-chi Hou
(2014) examined challenges the Asia-Pacific region faces in implementing quality standards that
cross national boundaries.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 57

Another outcome of globalization is the internationalization of the quality assurance
process itself. Rather than each nation setting its own assessment frameworks, international
accords are attempting to bridge academic quality issues between nations. Student mobility
across national borders has driven this need for “international mutual accreditation networks”
(Van Damme, 2000, p. 17).
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) began
the discussion on guidelines for international best practices in higher education (UNESCO,
2005). The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education
(INQAAHE) is a network of quality assurance agencies aimed to help ensure cross-border
quality assurance measures. Public-policy-led initiatives in Europe include the establishment of
the “European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in higher education (ESG) in the
framework of the Bologna Process” (Cremonini et al., 2012, p. 17). The CHEA International
Quality Group (CIQG) provides a forum to discuss quality assurance issues in an international
context.
In conclusion, the U.S. system of accreditation served as a model for higher education
assessment worldwide. Nonetheless, there is considerable difference in how other nations govern
quality assurance. While internationalization of the higher education accreditation process will
increase, the precise frameworks used to achieve cross-national quality standards remains
undetermined. For the immediate future, nations continue to use their own frameworks for
accreditation. International accreditation processes may eventually supersede these existing
frameworks, but not anytime soon

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 58

Specialized Accreditation
Specialized accreditation agencies focus on the specialized training and knowledge
needed for professional degrees and careers. Some of these agencies are the Accreditation
Council for Pharmacy Education, the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass
Communications, the Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs, the
Council on Social Work Education Office of Social Work Accreditation, and the Teacher
Education Accreditation Council, Inc. These are noted by CHEA, which is associated with 3,000
degree-granting colleges and universities and recognizes 60 institutional and programmatic
accrediting organizations (CHEA, 2014). Programmatic accreditation is granted and monitored
by national organizations unlike regional accrediting organizations like WASC, SACS, and
NCACS, which are associated regionally (Adelman & Silver, 1990; Eaton, 2009; Hagerty &
Stark, 1989). The continued self-study is the cornerstone in establishing and keeping
programmatic accreditation and ensures the institution keeps the best interest of the profession,
while providing the necessary learning, leadership, qualified instructors, and facilities to keep the
professional learning goals of the profession represented by the specialized accreditation body
(Bloland, 2001; Gaston & Ochoa, 2013).
As noted by the Global University Network for Innovation’s publication (2007),
institutional accreditation bodies must focus on academic programs to be effective. While on the
same note, programmatic accreditation bodies have to support overall institutional accreditation
goals in meeting its objectives, thus working hand-in-hand for overall institutional success
(Global University Network, 2007). Professional guidance through program accreditation
protects the profession as incompetency might do more damage, thus standards from the start are
maintained to benefit practitioners and protect the public (Gaston & Ochoa, 2013). Coordinating
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 59

institutional accreditation efforts where possible can be cost effective, since overlap exists
between the process of both regional and programmatic accreditation. However the review
process and resource allocations can become complicated as overwhelming as it is (Shibley &
Volkwein, 2002; WASC, 2009).
Programmatic accrediting organizations recognized by CHEA affirm that the standards
and processes of the accrediting organization are consistent with the academic quality,
improvement and accountability expectations that CHEA has established (CHEA, 2014).
Institutions acknowledge the pressure of meeting institutional accreditation, but the strain of
specialized accreditation of individual programs is also felt (Bloland, 2001). Specialized program
accreditation distinctively carries institutional quality assurance importance because differences
between individual programs within a single institution can be greater when compared to the
entire institution. The credibility of program accreditation review is to strengthen on the basis of
its achievement, where its more focused on particular area of studies and carried out by
colleagues from peer institutions who are specialists in specific disciplines (Ratcliff, 1996).
Research on program accreditation suffers from the same lack of volume and rigor as
research on institutional accreditation, and strong faculty involvement and instruction is linked to
individual program accreditation (Cabrera et al., 2001; Daoust, Wehmeyer, & Eubank, 2006).
While studies on student outcomes in terms of measuring competencies find that program
accreditation does not provide enough support for student success (Hagerty & Stark, 1989),
program accreditation outlines the parameters of professional education (Ewell, Wellman, &
Paulson, 1997; Hagerty & Stark, 1989) and upholds national professional standards (American
Accounting Association, 1977; Bardo, 2009; Floden, 1980; Raessler, 1970). This situation calls
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 60

for further empirical research on specialized accreditation given its importance on students’
educational and professional achievement.
Accreditation and Law Schools
The most important agency that regulates specialized legal education in the United States
is the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA was established in New York in 1878 by 75
lawyers from various states to create uniformity in subject matter and rigor for American legal
education, to provide opportunities for pro bono work, and to provide an organization for
practicing attorneys and legal professionals (ABA, 2014).
National Legal Professional Accreditation
The ABA is a national organization that, among other things, accredits law schools in the
U.S. The ABA organized its overall mission into four goal statements and eleven objectives.
Only one of those statements, as follows, explicitly relates to the accreditation of law schools:
“Promote the highest quality legal education” (ABA, 2014, p.1). Anyone who graduates from an
ABA accredited law school is eligible to take the Bar Exam of any U.S. state. There are
currently 203 law schools accredited by the ABA, including three that are provisionally
accredited (ABA, 2014).
As explained by the ABA (2014), the mission, as it regards accreditation, requires that its
member institutions “must provide an educational program that ensures that its graduates:
(1) understand their ethical responsibilities as representatives of clients, officers of the
courts, and public citizens responsible for the quality and availability of justice;
(2) receive basic education through a curriculum that develops:
(i) understanding of the theory, philosophy, role, and ramifications of the law and
its institutions;
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 61

(ii) skills of legal analysis, reasoning, and problem solving; oral and written
communication; legal research; and other fundamental skills necessary to
participate effectively in the legal profession;
(iii) understanding of the basic principles of public and private law; and
(3) understand the law as a public profession calling for performance of pro bono
legal services”. (p. iv)
Each state has a bar committee that administers the Bar Exam, and each exam differs
according to the laws of each state. In order to become a licensed attorney, a law student must
pass the Bar Exam of the state in which he or she wishes to practice law. For example, if a law
student attended a law school in Minnesota, but wanted to take the Bar Exam for and practice
law in California upon graduation, he or she would have to attend a law school that was
accredited by the ABA.
A few states offer additional state accreditation to law schools that are not accredited by
the ABA: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Tennessee, and the territory of Puerto Rico.
California has more state accredited schools than the other four combined (ABA, 2014).
California Legal Professional Accreditation
As with many other professional degrees, there is the national specialized accrediting
body for law schools (ABA). However, a few states, such as Tennessee and California, have
their own accrediting bodies that will accredit schools as well. For example, WASC allows
national and state (California and Hawaii) accredited schools to apply for regional accreditation.
In California, many of the law schools are ABA accredited schools, but some are not. A
law school that does not meet the ABA accreditation standards may still be accredited by the
California Bar Association (CBA), provided it conforms to those standards. The standards
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 62

regarding the Law School Entrance Exam (LSAT), professorial staff, size of the law library and
curriculum differ, and generally are less stringent than for CBA accreditation than the ABA
requirements (American Bar Association, 2014; California Bar Examiners, 2014).
A law student from a CBA accredited school can take the California state bar, but is not
able to take other states’ bar exams immediately upon graduation. A graduate from a CBA
school has no reciprocity whereby to take the bar in the following twenty-two states: Alabama,
Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee (California Bar Examiners, 2014).
The following states allow CBA law school graduates to take their Bar Exam after
graduation and predetermined years of practicing law and/or additional classes from an ABA
institution: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Missouri,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington,
West Virginia and Wisconsin (California Bar Examiners, 2014).
Comparison Between ABA and CBA Standards
Some examples of the disparity of standards between the ABA (2015) and the CBA
(2015) that may affect first-time bar passing rates were:
1) The ABA has a more comprehensive requirement for the volumes that are to be part
of the law library than the CBA. This gives ABA students greater access to resources
necessary for success.
2) The admissions standards of the CBA require only two years of college for its
admitted applicants, while ABA schools require at least a bachelor’s degree.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 63

3) All courses taught at ABA accredited schools are required to have both formative and
summative assessments, and there is no CBA equivalent.
4) If an ABA school falls below a bar passing rate of 75% (not first-attempt only, but
multiple sittings are taken into account), it must show cause or action (e.g.,
extenuating circumstances, a trend of improvement, or what actions were taken to
raise the percentage, etc.) in order to remain accredited. The CBA has no similar
requirement during the years in question. However, the CBA has adopted a 40%
minimum bar pass rate that took effect essentially in 2014.
Unaccredited Law Schools in California
The state of California is also unique in that it registers and recognizes “brick and
mortar” (or traditional), correspondence, and online schools that are not state or ABA accredited.
The students who attend these schools must pass a first-year law school exam and then complete
the remaining two to three years of law courses in order to take the California State Bar Exam.
California also allows prospective lawyers to study under the supervision of a judge or lawyer.
They must also take the first-year law school exam and then pass the Bar Exam in order to
practice law. It is important to note that potential California lawyers who graduate from a non-
accredited law school, state only-accredited law school, or independent study can only take the
CBE (California Bar Examiners, 2014).
Regional Accreditation and Law Schools in California
The regional body that accredits schools (including law schools) in California is the
WASC. The WASC (2015) mission statement defines their view of accreditation as follows:
The accreditation process is aimed at: Assuring the educational community, the general
public, and other organizations and agencies that an accredited institution has
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 64

demonstrated it meets the Commission’s Core Commitments to Institutional Capacity
and Educational Effectiveness, and has been successfully reviewed under Commission
Standards; Promoting deep institutional engagement with issues of educational
effectiveness and student learning, and developing and sharing good practices in
assessing and improving the teaching and learning process; Developing and applying
Standards to review and improve educational quality and institutional performance, and
validating these Standards and revising them through ongoing research and feedback;
Promoting within institutions a culture of evidence where indicators of performance are
regularly developed and data collected to inform institutional decision making,
planning, and improvement; Developing systems of institutional review and evaluation
that are adaptive to institutional context and purposes, that build on institutional
evidence and support rigorous reviews, and reduce the burden and cost of accreditation;
Promoting the active interchange of ideas among public and independent institutions
that furthers the principles of improved institutional performance, educational
effectiveness, and the process of peer review. (p. 1)
While there is potential overlap, this statement shows the general academic mission of
WASC in contrast to the professional legal missions of the ABA and CBA. With the exception
of four law schools, all the WASC accredited schools were accredited as part of the larger
university. For example, because it is part of the University of Southern California, Gould Law
School is WASC accredited, although the main responsibility for achieving and maintaining that
status belongs to the overall university. In contrast, the administrators and faculty of the four law
schools that are not part of a larger institution have to take on the entire burden of WASC
accreditation. When it comes to law schools, WASC will only accredit schools that are already
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 65

accredited by the ABA or CBA (WASC, 2014). Therefore, it can be asserted that WASC
standards for law schools include all the standards of the legal accrediting body either ABA or
CBA.
Conclusion
This chapter outlined the history of accreditation in higher education and how it has come
to be understood, implemented, and perceived, in the United States as well as some of its
strengths and weaknesses. Specialized and regional accreditation is subject to political pressures
and new directions in educational policy. Legal accreditation status (ABA, CBA or unaccredited)
in the state of California was introduced. A brief look at of the WASC mission statement was
presented to give background regarding the role of regional accreditation in law schools. As the
U.S. system of accreditation changes and evolves, there are many opportunities to examine
where it works and where it does not work. This study adds to the discussion and the
examination of the purported benefits of accreditation by introducing new data in this area.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 66

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The Purpose of This Study
Accreditation, among other things, serves as an external accountability mechanism that
ensures an institution of higher learning can and does educate students well enough to warrant
the time, effort and money he or she spent (Ewell, 2009). Accreditation is considered such a
reliable indicator of educational quality that the United States government uses it as the means of
approving federal financial student loans and aid (Brown, 2013). In many professional fields,
graduates from accredited institutions are favored over graduates of non-accredited schools when
it comes to post-educational employment (Bailey, 2014). National and regional accreditation
bodies set standards for accreditation, and they also perform the assessments of each institution.
As institutions worked with the regional or national accrediting bodies, large amounts of staff
and faculty hours, and money were spent to attain or maintain accreditation (Woolston, 2012).
While schools may consider accreditation an important benchmark, the U.S. government,
employers, and potential students, the question of whether or not attending an accredited school
actually plays a significant role in student achievement remains to be definitively answered
(ACE, 2012).
The purpose of this study was to discover whether student outcomes are different based
on the accreditation categories of institutions. Specifically, this study looked into the difference
between the outcomes of those who attended a nationally- or regionally-accredited institution of
higher learning versus those of students who attended an institution that did not hold either
accreditation status.
In this chapter, the research question and a brief background are presented. Then, the
rationale for choosing the population and sample is set forth as it lays out important background
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 67

regarding the research question and the instrumentation. The research design is explained and
followed by information regarding the instrumentation of the study, the data collection
techniques and sources.
Research Question
Generally speaking, the effects of accreditation on student outcomes in higher education
are in question. Law schools make up a small percentage of all the institutions of higher learning
in the United States, but there are 64 law schools in California alone (ABA, 2014). The aim of
this study was to bring new and relevant information to the general accreditation efficacy
discourse by collecting and analyzing data on more than 30,000 law students who studied in
California law schools and took the California State Bar Exam for the first time over the last five
years (2009 to 2013). This quantitative study compared first-time bar passing rates of law school
graduates based on the different accreditation statuses of the schools they attended. The specific
research questions that guide this research were:
1. Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between the different legal
accreditation categories in California law schools from 2009 to 2013?
2. Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between WASC accredited law
schools and law schools not accredited by WASC from 2009 to 2013?
Population and Sample
Effectively assessing whether or not accreditation positively affects student outcomes
may present some challenges. The questions surrounding what student outcomes should be
measured, which institutions should be compared, and which criteria should be used in selecting
those institutions deserved attention. In order to conduct a meaningful comparison study, it is
important to compare similar institutions with similar goals. Conducting a comparative study
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 68

involving student outcomes requires that the schools have similar educational goals and have
similar assessments to measure student outcomes. While the aforementioned similarities are key
to providing a meaningful comparison of the effects of accreditation, there needs to be a diversity
of accreditation categories.
Law schools in the United States provide the conditions necessary for a strong
comparative study designed to measure the effects of accreditation on student outcomes, as they
prepare students for the professional practice of law upon graduation (ABA, 2014). Since all law
schools have a similar mission, they can serve as a source for a comparison study. After
graduating from three to five years of education where law students take mandatory core classes,
as well as specialty classes, each student is eligible to take the Bar Exam or a comprehensive test
that assesses a student’s understanding and ability to apply the law in a legal practice (California
Bar Examiners, 2014). In order to practice law in any state in the United States, a student must
complete law school (or its equivalent) and pass the Bar Exam (ABA, 2014). Each state has its
own Bar Exam based on the laws and procedures of that state (ABA, 2014). The Bar Exam will
serve as the uniform measure by which to assess student outcomes. However, because the Bar
Exam is different for each state, to conduct a study of the law schools in a single state ensures
that the Bar Exam is a truly uniform assessment. While comparing similar institutions using a
uniform measure strengthens a comparative study, different categories are needed to actually
have something to compare. Since there are different accreditation categories in law schools, it is
possible to compare schools of different status.
While U. S. law schools provide a good population for a study, California law schools,
specifically, represent a unique and substantial opportunity to examine the effects of
accreditation on student outcomes. This opportunity is that California provides a large number of
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 69

institutions with similar missions, an across-the-board measurement, as well as multiple
accreditation categories to provide for comparison. With its 65 law schools, California has 50
more law schools than the state with the second most, New York, which has 15 (ABA, 2014),
and this provides a good population to study. California provides the largest possible single-state
population size. Perhaps the strongest appeal to choosing California as the state for the study is
that California’s legal governing board, the CBA, allows students who attend schools with
different accreditation status to take the bar. It is the only state that has five accreditation
categories for a comparison of law schools.
This study focused only on first-time test takers’ passing rates for a few reasons. The
reason passing rates were used rather than actual test scores is that test scores are not reported in
general nor to the test-taker. The Bar Exam is either passed or failed (State Bar of California,
2007). Only first-time passing rates were considered in this study because California does not
publish how many times one has attempted the Bar Exam. The CBA categorizes test attempts in
only two categories: “first-time” and “repeater” (California Bar Examiners, 2014). Therefore, a
repeater might be a second-timer or a fourth-timer, but there is no published information on
which attempt resulted in passing. Additionally, with each subsequent attempt, many students
take additional study courses aimed at helping law graduates pass the bar. The use of additional
courses by test takers lessens the relationship of passing the exam to the education received from
the law school. Because this study measured the differences in student outcomes between
schools that fall into differing accreditation categories, narrowing to first-time CBE takers is
important to maintain an applicable, uniform measurement standard.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 70

California Law School Accreditation Categories
The different California law school accreditation categories shaped the design of this
study. The nationally recognized agency that regulates legal education in the United States is the
ABA. The ABA (2014) has as part of its overall mission the stated goal to “Promote the highest
quality legal education” (p.1). Anyone who graduates from an ABA accredited law school is
eligible to take the Bar Exam of any U.S. state. There are currently 203 law schools accredited
by the ABA, including three that are provisionally accredited (ABA, 2014).
ABA accredited California-located law schools are all accredited by the CBA as well,
based on standards regarding the Law School Admission Test, professorial staff, size of the law
library and curriculum (ABA, 2014). The CBA has its own accreditation standards based on
criteria which are similar to that of the ABA, but which, generally, are less stringent (California
Bar Examiners, 2014). Because of this, a California law school that does not meet the ABA
accreditation standards may still be accredited by the CBA provided it conforms to the lesser
CBA standards (California Bar Examiners, 2014). A law student from a CBA accredited school
can take the California State Bar Exam, but not those of other states, immediately upon
graduation. However, some states offer “reciprocity” after five or seven years of law practice in
California (California Bar Examiners, 2014). California also registers and recognizes traditional,
correspondence, and online schools that are not state or ABA accredited (CBA, 2013).
In addition to law school accreditation, the recognized regional academic accrediting
body over the state of California is the WASC. Of the 64 law schools in California, 20 are
WASC accredited. Many of the WASC accredited law schools are accredited as part of a larger
university, while some law schools are independent and are accredited directly (WASC, 2013).
In order for any California law school to be accredited by WASC, it must be CBA or ABA
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 71

accredited first (WASC, 2013). The breakdown of all the accreditation categories of all law
schools located in and recognized by the CBA is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Number of Law Schools by Accreditation Category

ABA
Accredited
CBA
Accredited
Recognized,
with No Bar
Accreditation
Totals
WASC
Accredited
17 3 0 20
Non-WASC
Accredited
4 14 26 44
Totals 21 17 17 64

Table 2 shows the same categories, but with the number of California law students who
took the California State Bar Exam for their first time over the last five years. The students who
took the California State Bar Exam over the last five years constituted the sample used in this
study (N=30,219). The population of the study was the same as the sample because N represents
every student who studied in a California law school and took the California State Bar Exam for
their first time between 2009 and 2013.
Table 2
California-educated First-time Bar Exam Takers (2009-2013) by School Accreditation

ABA
Accredited
CBA (not
ABA)
Accredited
Recognized,
with No Bar
Accreditation
Totals
WASC
Accredited
21,736 699 0 22,435

Non-WASC
Accredited
4,892 1,667 1,225 7,784
Totals 26,628 2,366 1,225 30,219
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 72

Tables 1 and 2 present five specific categories: WASC + ABA, Non-WASC + ABA,
WASC + CBA, Non-WASC + CBA and Non-WASC + Recognized, with no bar accreditation. It
is important to note that “ABA” in this study means that the school is accredited by both the
ABA and the CBA, and that “CBA” means that the school is accredited by the CBA and not the
ABA. The CBA accredits all California ABA schools. There are no schools or students in the
“WASC + Recognized, no bar accreditation category”, because, as stated earlier, WASC will
only accredit a law school if it is already accredited by the CBA or ABA. Table 3 shows the
schools that belong to each category.
Table 3
California Law Schools by Accreditation Category (Alphabetical Order)
Accreditation California Law Schools
Category

Category 1:
WASC + ABA

Chapman University School of Law
Golden Gate University School of Law
Loyola Law School - Los Angeles
Pepperdine University School of Law
Santa Clara University School of Law
Stanford Law School
UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall)
UC Davis (King Hall)
UC Hastings College of the Law
UC Irvine Law School
UCLA Law School
University of Laverne College of Law
University of the Pacific (McGeorge)
University of San Diego School of Law
University of San Francisco School of Law
University of Southern California (Gould)
Whittier Law School

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 73

Table 3, continued
Category 2:
Non-WASC +
ABA
California Western School of Law
Southwestern University School of Law
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Western State University College of Law

Category 3:
non-WASC +
CBA

Cal Northern Law School
Empire College School of Law
Glendale University College of Law
Lincoln Law School of Sacramento
Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Monterey College of Law
San Francisco Law School
Santa Barbara College of Law
Southern California Institute of Law - Santa Barbara
Southern California Institute of Law - Ventura
Trinity Law School
University of West Los Angeles - San Fernando Valley
University of West Los Angeles - West Los Angeles

Category 4:
WASC + CBA

Humphrey’s College School of Law
John F. Kennedy University School of Law
San Joaquin College of Law

Category 5:
Non-WASC +
Recognized, no
bar accreditation

American International College of Law
California Southern University
Newport University College of Law
Northwestern California Univ. School of Law
Oak Brook College of Law and Government Policy
Southern California University for Professional Studies-Law
West Coast School of Law
Taft Law School
Abraham Lincoln University
American Heritage University School of Law

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 74

Table 3, continued
Category 5:
Non-WASC +
Recognized, no
bar accreditation

California School of Law
Concord Law School
American College of Law
California Midland School of Law
California Southern Law School
Inland Valley University College of Law
Irvine University College of Law
John William University School of Law
Larry H. Layton School of Law
Pacific Coast University School of Law
Pacific West College of Law
Peoples College of Law
University of San Luis Obispo School of Law
University of Silicon Valley
University of Northern California Lorenzo Patino School of Law
Western Sierra Law School

The California Bar passing rates of the students in each category were collected,
recorded, and measured to examine the mean passing rates by category. This showed which
accreditation levels yielded the best student outcomes. However, in order to understand the
association of accreditation with student outcomes, it is important to first understand the inputs.
If the measured outcome was the first-time bar passing rates, the caliber of students who attended
the institutions in each accreditation category and prepared themselves for the Bar Exam (the
input) would also need to be measured. Accounting for the input, or caliber of student, was done
by taking into account the Undergraduate Grade-point Average (UGPA) and the Law School
Admissions Test (LSAT) scores of the students; the higher the UGPA and LSAT, the higher the
likelihood of success in law school (LSAT, 2013). For a fair comparison, the passing rates
(outcomes) were adjusted by accounting for the UGPA and LSAT scores (input).

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 75

Instrumentation
To learn whether there is a difference in first-time California State Bar Exam passing
rates between the different accreditation status categories, the mean California Bar passing rates
of all students were organized into the five categories based on the accreditation status of the law
school they graduated from before taking the California State Bar Exam for the first time. The
mean passing rate of each category was compared to the other categories’ mean passing rates.
The accreditation categories were ranked from best to worst with the highest mean passing rate
showing the best student outcomes. For the purposes of this study, the independent variable was
the accreditation category and the dependent variable is the mean passing rate.
The first-time bar passing rates of the different categories were tested for normal
distribution through, Q-Q plots and the Shapiro-Wilk test. Validity and reliability were
established. The results were analyzed using an ANOVA, based on a General Linear Model
(GLM) with between and within group effects.
Data Collection
The first-time California State Bar Exam data (number of tests taken and number of tests
passed) were collected by school and by year from reports published on the CBA website. The
mean UGPA and mean LSAT scores were collected from the website that of the organization
that administers the LSAT, which was searchable by school and by year. Bar Exam data, and the
UGPA and LSAT information from 2009 to 2013 were collected. The information regarding the
accreditation status was gathered from WASC, ABA, and CBA.
Institutional Review Board
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California
determined that the methods of inquiry used in this study did not directly affect the privacy or
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 76

wellbeing of individual human subjects. Not Human Subjects Research (NHSR) approval for the
study was obtained August 2014. The results of this NHSR study are found in Chapter Four.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 77

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to gauge what association accreditation has on student
outcomes. This study used the first-time bar passing rates of all students who attended law
schools in California and took the California State Bar Exam between 2009 and 2013 as a
measurement indicator of student outcomes. The research questions were:
1. Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between the different legal
accreditation categories in California law schools from 2009 to 2013?
2. Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between WASC accredited law
schools and law schools not accredited by WASC from 2009 to 2013?
There are three types of legal accreditation status and two types of regional accreditation
status in California. The three types of legal accreditation status are ABA accredited, CBA
accredited and non-accredited, but CBA recognized. WASC is the regional accrediting agency
for academic institutions in California, and each law school in California has a status of either
WASC accredited or non-WASC accredited.
Research Question 1
Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between the different legal
accreditation categories in California law schools from 2009 to 2013? Three types of legal status
and two types of regional status exist in law school accreditation in California. The three types of
legal accreditation status are ABA accredited, CBA accredited and non-accredited, but CBA
recognized. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges is the regional accrediting agency
over academic institutions in California, and, for this study, each of the law schools in California
was given a status of either WASC accredited or non-WASC accredited. These legal and
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 78

regional accrediting bodies create five different accrediting categories: (1) ABA and WASC; (2)
ABA, non-WASC; (3) CBA, non-WASC; (4) CBA, WASC; and (5) Unaccredited. Table 4
shows the first-time bar passing rates of the five categories.
Table 4
Calculated Mean of First-time Bar Passing Rates by Category
Category Mean N Std. Deviation
1 (ABA, WASC) 62.88% 17 9.27%
2 (ABA, non-WASC) 53.50% 4 9.98%
3 (CBA, non-WASC 26.00% 14 12.33%
4 (CBA, WASC) 30.67% 3 13.87%
5 (Unaccredited) 10.77% 26 12.48%

When the data were analyzed, categories four and five were excluded as separate
accreditation categories because of the small number of members of category four (N=3), and the
high rate of in-group variability in category 5.
In order to answer the first research question with the collected data, testing for normal
distribution was performed. The results of initial histograms, Normal Q-Q plots and the Shapiro-
Wilk tests indicated the data were normally distributed on each of the dependent variables. The
Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances test was used to compare the level of variance within
each category to the other categories. The results showed that there was no significant difference
between categories regarding variances since the significance was greater than the .05 standard
for variance: Sig. = .370.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 79

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to explore the
association of accreditation status with first-time bar passing rates. The passing rates from the
three included accreditation status categories were (1) ABA, WASC; (2) ABA, non-WASC; (3)
CBA, non-WASC. There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level for the
three accreditation categories: F (2, 32) = 46.6, p = .00. While reaching statistical significance,
the difference in mean scores between groups was large in two cases. The effect size, calculated
using eta squared, was .79. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey LSD test indicated that the
mean scores for Category 1 (M = 64.1%, SD = 9.11%) and Category 2 (M = 53.5%, SD = 9.98%)
were significantly different from those of Category 3 (M = 27.8%, SD = 12.02%). Category 2 did
not significantly differ from Category 1.
Finding: Research Question 1
The data indicated that, yes, there are differences in the first-time bar passing rates among
the different legal accreditation categories in California law schools from 2009 to 2013.
Categories 1 and 2 (which are both ABA accredited categories) had passing rates that were
significantly higher than category 3, which is a CBA accredited category.
Research Question 2
Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between WASC accredited law schools
and law schools not accredited by WASC from 2009 to 2013? In regards to regional
accreditation, the law schools in the state of California are either accredited by WASC or not
(non-WASC). To test specifically for the difference between WASC and non-WASC, categories
1 and 4 were combined as the WASC group and categories 2, 3 and 5 were placed in the non-
WASC group. Table 5 shows the first-time bar passing rates of the WASC and non-WASC
groups.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 80

Table 5
Calculated Mean of First-time Bar Passing Rates by WASC or non-WASC Groups
Group Mean N Std. Deviation
WASC 58.05% 20 3.40%
non-WASC 19.50% 44 2.66%
WASC: Categories 1 and 4; non-WASC: Categories 2, 3 and 5.
A one-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the association of
regional accreditation status with first-time bar passing rates. The two regional accreditation
status groups were (1) WASC (categories 1 and 4 combined) and (2) non-WASC (categories 2, 3
and 5 combined). There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level for the three
accreditation categories: F (1, 62) = 71.28, p = .00. While reaching statistical significance, the
difference in mean scores between groups was good. The effect size, calculated using eta
squared, was .54. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the bar passing rates
for the WASC and non-WASC categories. There was a significant difference in scores for
WASC (M = 58.05%, SD = 15.22%) and non-WASC (M = 19.50%, SD = 17.63%; t (62) = 8.4, p
= .00, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = 38.55%,
95% CI: 29.42% to 47.68%) was large (eta squared = .54). Group 1 (WASC) did significantly
differ from group 2 (non-WASC).
Finding: Research Question 2
The data show that, yes, there are differences in first-time bar passing rates among the
WASC accredited law schools and law schools not accredited by WASC from 2009-2013. The
WASC grouping had passing rates that were significantly higher (38.55%) than the non-WASC
grouping.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 81

Additional Variables
In the attempt to account for the past history of law school-related success, the LSAT and
UGPA scores of the students were measured. Table 6 outlines the covariates and their values in
regards to the WASC/non-WASC comparison.
Table 6
Covariate Independent Variables: Median LSAT scores and Median UGPA. 2009-2013 by
Regional Accreditation Status Grouping
IV: WASC/non-WASC
IV (covariate):
median LSAT of
Test Takers
IV (covariate):
Median UGPA of
Test Takers
DV: 2009-2013
students 1
st
time
passed (rate)
WASC 160 3.50
13183 students
passed out of 17262
(76.3)
Non-WASC 151 3.12

4286 students passed
out of 7950 (65.7)

A two-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to learn whether there was any
effect of the median LSAT and median UGPA scores on the bar passing rates in each category
(1-4) or on the WASC/non-WASC groups. The effect of the median LSAT scores on the bar
passing rates of either the categories or the groups were not statistically significant F (3, 28) =
.164, p = .688. There was also no significant effect of median UGPA on passing rates F (3, 28) =
2.45, p = .129.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 82

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Regional and professional accreditation in the United States are recognized by the federal
and state governments as the de facto means of ascertaining the legitimacy of institutions of
higher learning since the early twentieth century (Blauch, 1959). This unofficial acceptation of
accreditation as the ultimate means of institutional assessment comes in the form of federal and
state loans and financial backing made available only to those schools that are accredited by
recognized regional and professional accrediting bodies. The purpose of this study was to
identify whether accreditation is statistically adequate as a means of gauging the legitimacy of
the educational prowess of an institution. To this end, this study measured the rate of specific
student outcomes and compared them among accreditation categories
Narrowing in a on a group of regionally homogenous schools that fall under the
jurisdiction of the same regional accrediting body helps to control the study so that institution
types and outcome measurements are comparable. Having a couple of professional accrediting
bodies under which all the same schools are assessed creates an effective matrix of varying
accreditation statuses. Also, looking for a single, simple measure of educational effectiveness of
these institutions provides the opportunity to yield meaningful data. Such a matrix is created
from measuring the first-time bar passing rates of the students that attended the 64 law schools in
the state of California over a recent five-year period (2009 to 2013) organizing them into five
different groups based on the combination of each school’s regional and legal education
accreditation status. As the analysis progressed, category 5 was excluded due to high internal
variability, which brought the number of institutions included in this study to 38. Furthermore,
category four was not included because it only has three schools in it. However, when the
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 83

categories are grouped into the WASC/non-WASC groupings categories four and five were
included.
The bulk of this chapter centers on the questions that propelled the research of this
study. The two guiding research questions are:
1. Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between the different legal
accreditation categories in California law schools from 2009 to 2013?
2. Is there a difference in first-time bar passing rates between WASC accredited law
schools and law schools not accredited by WASC from 2009 to 2013?
The first two sections directly discuss how the data help to answer these two questions.
The third section addresses the importance of accreditation and law schools. The fourth section
explores some of the implications for practice. Then some of the limitations of this study are
mentioned, followed by a discussion about possible future studies.
Accreditation and First-time Bar Passing Rates
Legal Accreditation
The results of this study appear instantly like predictions an advocate of accreditation
might make. Schools that adhere to the more stringent legal accreditation standards have the
higher first-time bar passing rates. Categories one and two have a mean passing rate of 63% and
54%, respectively and both are ABA accredited while the CBA accredited category three has a
mean passing rate of 26%. Both ABA categories have a bar passing rate more than 100% better
than the CBA accredited category 3. This differential was statistically significant and had a large
effect size.
Perhaps the most relevant finding in this regard is the difference between categories two
and three because both are non-WASC. These two categories are also similar since the vast
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 84

majority of the schools in these two categories are “stand-alone” law schools, rather than law
schools that are a part of a university like almost all of the schools in category one are. These
“stand-alone” law schools have to absorb all the cost and work associated challenges that come
with accreditation while the schools that are a part of a university have a simpler path to
accreditation because of their greater resources and manpower to measure and assure adherence
to accreditation requirements (Global University Network for Innovation, 2007). This
comparison shows that, all other things being equal, the ABA accredited schools had better first
time bar passing rates than CBA accredited schools.
With these findings comes the realization that a student who attends an ABA accredited
school is more likely to pass the Bar Exam the first time than does a student who attends a CBA
school. This coincides with the view that professional accreditation is essential to hold up
national professional practice standards as measured by professional standardized tests (Bardo,
2009). Additionally, it shows that the national professional accreditation body (ABA) is
associated with significantly higher first-time bar passing rates than the state professional
accreditation body (CBA). Since the ABA standards are considered more stringent than those of
the CBA, a positive association is demonstrated between accreditation standards and student
outcomes.
Regional Accreditation
WASC is the regional accrediting body in California that undertakes the institutional
accrediting processes for the not-for-profit institutions of higher learning in that state. Through
the duration of the five years covered by this study (2009-2013), twenty law schools held WASC
accreditation while 44 did not. The twenty WASC accredited schools had significantly higher
passing rates than did those that did not. This demonstrates that schools that met the standards of
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 85

the general nature of the regional accreditation also were associated with higher student
outcomes than were those institutions that did not maintain those academic standards. This
indicates there is a benefit to implementing and being responsible for maintaining the specific
standards included in WASC accreditation.
Importance of Accreditation and Law Schools
Over the past few years, requests were made of the U.S. Department of Education to
revoke the ABA’s status as the sole accrediting body for the nation’s law schools; some cited
that the ABA is too heavy-handed and does not offer continuing education or foster innovation
or that regional accrediting bodies can do the task more efficiently and effectively (Olson, 2013).
However, Ratcliff (1996) explains that the credibility of a specialized program comes from the
reviews performed by experts in that specialized field and not solely through regional
educational peer review. This study gives strong evidence to support the idea that specialized
accrediting bodies such as the ABA are, in fact, important to programmatic accreditation given
that ABA accreditation accounts for nearly 80% of the differences of the first-time bar passing
rates between the accreditation categories.
The mission of a regional accreditation body such as WASC is much broader and generic
to education than a specialized accrediting body like the ABA. Though generally and
academically focused, adherence to the regional accreditation standards was a benefit to the
WASC accredited law schools. In the context of these statements, this study shows that better
student outcomes are associated with regional accreditation when compared to the schools that
are not regionally accredited.
However, this study indicates that legal accreditation is more strongly associated with
significantly better outcomes than is regional accreditation. The precise and specific nature of the
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 86

professional ABA standards demonstrates a different type of focus than the general academic
WASC aims. It is clear they are more zeroed in on preparing students specifically for practicing
law than the more general regional aims. The urgency with which the ABA pursues legal
competency produces competent professionals who will aid the public rather than be a liability to
it (Gaston & Ochoa, 2013). To remove the oversight of a specialized accrediting agency like the
ABA in favor of a regional, generic focus would be to minimize the educational precision of the
specialized training received in the institutions, and as a result the readiness of future
practitioners.
Legal accreditation makes a greater difference on bar passing rates than does regional
accreditation, yet the results show that combining the effects of both regional and legal
accrediting bodies yields the highest results. Accreditation category one, which is the category
that is accredited by WASC and ABA, is associated with the highest first-time bar passing rates
of the study. While there may some be a call to remove the ABA as an accrediting body, and
there may be a feeling in the administrations of some California law schools to not attempt to
obtain WASC accreditation, the schools with the best student outcomes, as measured by this
study, come from the jointly accredited institutions. This finding gives strong evidence to
support the assertion made by Shibley and Volkwein (2002) that meeting both regional and
specialized accreditation standards is worth the effort if it is done in a coordinated manner by the
institution and law school. Because of the benefit of coordinating a dual accreditation, it is no
wonder that the schools that consistently have the highest average bar passing rates are law
schools that are attached to universities rather than stand-alone law schools that are responsible
for paying for and conducting the studies required by both regional and legal accreditation. The
law schools that have the top five passing rates over the last five years (Stanford, USC, Berkeley,
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 87

UCLA, and Pepperdine) all fall into this category. With only one exception (UC Hastings), the
next five schools (Loyola, UC Davis, UC Hastings, Chapman and Santa Clara) also are laws
schools whose parent institutions are WASC accredited. These law schools benefit from the
educational measures put in place by their parent institutions, but are largely left free from the
pressures of attaining and maintaining regional accreditation so they can excel in meeting the
ABA standards (Shibley & Volkwein, 2002).
As has been called for by many, this study gives the required demonstrable evidence that
accreditation is a useful institutional assessment tool (NACIQI, 2012; Dougherty, Hare, &
Natow, 2009; Leef and Burris, 2002). ABA, CBA and WASC accrediting bodies require that
member institutions meet minimum standards. These minimum standards are positively
associated with better student outcomes.
Implications for Practice
Regional Accreditation
Notwithstanding the pushback against both the legal and regional accreditation systems
(Olson, 2013; Scriven, 2000), the findings of this study indicate that shaping an institution to
conform with current accreditation standards positively separates them from unaccredited peer
institutions. This separation between the institutions is measured by student outcomes. The
difference in student performance leads to some possible implications for practice.
While many schools touted their accreditation status as a badge of honor, many may have
engaged in the processes reluctantly. Because the requirements of accreditation may seem
redundant, unnecessary, or costly, it is too easy for an institution to see them as necessary evils
(NACIQI Final, 2012; Brit & Aaron, 2008; Shibley & Volkwein, 2002). Institutional officers can
help create a culture that sees accreditation as part of their work rather something that detracts
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 88

from it or interferes with it. This culture can be created choosing the ALOs, instructors, and
organizational heads that embrace and are able to define the challenges and accountability that
come with the accreditation process (Ewell, 2009; Ewell 2008; Bresciani, 2006). Showing that
accreditation is associated with higher student outcomes could also play a large role in teacher
and administrator buy-in (Dougherty, Hare, and Natow, 2009; Leef and Burris, 2002).
Legal Accreditation
One implication for practice is for the CBA accrediting body to take a closer look at the
differences in specific accreditation standards between ABA and CBA. Because the students
who study at CBA accredited schools typically have lower student outcomes than do ABA
students, it would be interesting to see which standards could be borrowed from the ABA
without causing a significantly increased burden on CBA schools. One example of this that was
recently tried is having a minimum bar passing rate (CBA, 2014). A minimum bar passing rate of
40% (compared to the ABA’s 75% standard) was implemented by the CBA in 2013, and the bar
passing rates associated with this change will likely be available beginning this year (2015).
Law School Admissions
Using the LSAT and UGPA as the determinant factors in law school admissions among
accredited schools is a long-standing practice (LSAT, 2014). There are studies that support this
practice (LSAT, 2011) and those that challenge the use of LSAT and UGPA as accurate
predictors of law school success (Sloan, 2011). This study showed there was no measureable
difference in bar passing rates when accounting for the median UGPA and LSAT scores of the
test-takers. The implication is that it could be beneficial for law schools to explore a more
relevant means to determine potential student admission standards (Sloan, 2011).

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 89

Limitations
This study does not seek to find specific accreditation measures responsible for student
outcomes. Only accreditation status at the macro level was considered, but any specified actions
taken by the individual schools to improve student outcomes were left unexplored. Therefore,
there is only general association and no specific causal relationships discovered between student
outcomes and elemental standards of accreditation. This lack of specificity limits the types of
implications for practice that can be suggested.
This study was limited to looking at differences among accreditation categories. To
further this study, one could look for correlation between passing rates and accreditation status.
Additionally, odds ratios could be explored to better understand the likelihood of passing the bar
based on accreditation.
Although strong results were found, this study was limited to the categorical comparisons
that could be made because two categories were excluded from the study. Therefore, the study of
the effectiveness of CBA accreditation was limited because the unaccredited schools were all
removed from being statistically relevant. Additionally, the strength of the sample size (N=64)
was diminished with the statistical “loss” of the 26 unaccredited schools. If there were a way to
establish validity for all the accreditation group results, this same study would potentially shed
more light on the entire legal education system in the state of California.
Future Research
This study was limited to the years 2009 to 2013 and to the law schools in California
because the legal and regional accrediting systems gave the opportunity to make comparisons in
a way no other state could. Because the CBA recently introduced a 40% minimum bar passing
rate for accredited institutions (California Bar Association, 2013), continuing this study into the
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 90

future could show the effect of a minimum passing standard. Would the 40% minimum correlate
with higher passing rates, or a higher rate of institutions that lose CBA accreditation? Another
idea to expand the study is to examine all law schools in the United States and find the
differences between the Bar Exam passing rates of the regionally accredited law schools and
those of the schools that are not regionally accredited
Expanding the study to include the monetary and labor costs of accreditation could also
help provide information to help determine if the accreditation processes are cost effective for
the legal institutions. Such a study would also be enhanced if there were a cost-benefit analysis
comparing cost of attending law school (tuition, books, room and board) compared to the
average salaries of the law school graduates. Each accreditation category could then be evaluated
against the others to determine the overall (monetary, opportunity cost, effort) value of each
institution’s law degree.
Conclusion
The accreditation system in place in the United States has been evolving since before the
founding of this country. Many critics labeled the current state of accreditation as problematic,
inadequate and outdated. This study found that law schools in California that are accredited by
the ABA have better bar passing rates than those accredited by the less-demanding CBA. The
law schools accredited by the CBA have better bar passing rates than those that are unaccredited.
WASC accredited law schools have better bar passing rates than law schools that are not.
Notwithstanding the criticisms and the call for systematic overhaul or governmental takeover of
higher education oversight, the simple findings of this study show that legal and regional
accreditation as they exist today are associated with better student outcomes.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 91

References
Adelman, C., & Silver, H. (1990). Accreditation: The American experience. London, England:
Council for National Academic Awards.
Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C. M., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher
aspirations: An agenda for reforming European Universities. Brussels: Bruegel.
American Accounting Association, Committee on Consequences of Accreditation. (1977).
Report of the Committee on Consequences of Accreditation, 52, 165, 167- 177.
American Association for Higher Education. (1992). 9 principles of good practice for assessing
student learning. North Kansas City, MO: American Association for Higher Education.
American Association for Higher Education. (1997). Assessing impact: Evidence and action.
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
American Council of Trustees and Alumni. (2007). Why accreditation doesn’t work and what
policymakers can do about it. Washington, DC: American Council of Trustees and
Alumni. Retrieved from https://www.goacta.org/publications/
downloads/Accreditation2007Final.pdf
American Council on Education. (2012). Assuring academic quality in the 21st century: Self-
regulation in a new era: A report of the ACE National Task Force on institutional
accreditation. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved from
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Government_
Relations_and_Public_Policy&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm& ContentID=45275

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 92

American Council on Education, Task Force on Accreditation. (2012). Assuring Academic
Quality in the 21
st
Century: Self-regulation in a New Era. Retrieved from
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Accreditation-TaskForce-revised-
070512.pdf
American Medical Association. (1971). Accreditation of health educational programs. Part I:
Staff working papers. Washington, DC: American Medical Association.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007). College Learning for the New Global
Century. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved
from: http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf
Astin, A.W. (2014). Accreditation and autonomy. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/02/18/accreditation-helps-limit-government-
intrusion-us-higher-education-essay
Baker, R. L. (2002). Evaluating quality and effectiveness: Regional accreditation principles and
practices. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 3-7.
Banta, T. W. (1993). Summary and conclusion: Are we making a difference? In T. W. Banta
(Ed.), Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher education (pp.
357-376). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bardo, J. W. (2009). The impact of the changing climate for accreditation on the Individual
college or university: Five trends and their implications. New Directions for Higher
Education, 145, 47-58.
Barzun, J. (1993). The American university: How it runs, where it is going. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 93

Beno, B. A. (2004). The role of student learning outcomes in accreditation quality review. New
Directions for Community College, 236, 65-72.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99-111.
Bernhard, A. (2011). Quality assurance in an international higher education area: A case study
approach and comparative analysis. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Blauch, L. E. (1959). Accreditation in higher education. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/
pt?id=mdp.39015007036083;view=1up;seq=1
Bloland, H. G. (2001). Creating the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
American Council on Education, Phoenix, AZ. ORYX Press.
Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are?
New Directions for Higher Education, 145, 7-27. Doi:10.1002/he.331
Brown, H. (2013, September). Protecting Students and Taxpayers: The Federal Government’s
Failed Regulatory Approach and Steps for Reform. American Enterprise Institute, Center
on Higher Education Reform. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/files/2013/09/27/-
protecting-students-and-taxpayers_164758132385.pdf
Bloland, H. G. (2001). Creating the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Bresciani, M. J. (2006). Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review: A
compilation of institutional good practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 94

Brittingham, B. (2008). An uneasy partnership: Accreditation and the federal government.
Change, (September/October) 32-38.
Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are?
New Directions for Higher Education, 145, 7-27.
Brittingham, B. (2012). Higher education, accreditation, and change, change, change: What’s
teacher education to do? In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence,
and excellence: The promise and practice of quality assurance (59-75). Washington, DC:
Teacher Education Accreditation Council.
Burke, J. C. & Associates. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing
public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H. P. (2002). The new accountability: From regulation to results.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 2002(116), 5-19.
Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Developing performance indicators for
assessing classroom teaching practices and student learning: The case of engineering.
Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 327-352.
Carey, K. (2009, September/October). College for $99 a month. Washington Monthly. Retrieved
from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com
Carey, K. (2010). Death of a university. In K. Carey & M. Schneider (Eds.),
Accountability in American higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chambers, C. M. (1983). “Council on Postsecondary Education”. P. 289-314 in
Understanding Accreditation, edited by K. E. Young, C. M. Chambers, and H. R. Kells.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 95

Chernay, G. (1990). Accreditation and the role of the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
Washington, DC: Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (2006).A Test of Leadership: A Report of the
Commission Appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Washington DC:
US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/
bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2006). CHEA survey of recognized accrediting
organizations: Providing information to the public. Washington, DC: Author.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2012). The CHEA initiative final report.
Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved from:
http://www.chea.org/pdf/TheCHEAInitiative_Final_Report8.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2014). 2013-2014 Directory of CHEA-Recognized
Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/2013-
2014_Directory_of_CHEA_Recognized_Organizations.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2014). Degree Mills. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.chea.org/degreemills/default.htm
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (n.d.). A guide for institutions and evaluators.
Retrieved from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/handbooks/ GuideForInstitutions.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cremonini, L., Epping, E., Westerheijden, D., & Vogelsang, K. (2012). Impact of Quality
Assurance on Cross-Border Higher Education. Enschede, Netherlands: Center for Higher
Education Policy Studies.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 96

Daoust, M. P., Wehmeyer, W., & Eubank, E. (2006). Valuing an MBA: Authentic outcome
measurement made easy. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from
http://www.momentumbusinessgroup.com/resourcesValuingMBA.pdf
Davenport, C. A. (2000). Recognition chronology. Retrieved from http://www.aspa-
usa.org/documents/Davenport.pdf
Davis, C.O. (1932). The North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools: Aims,
organization, activities. Chicago, IL: The Association. Retrieved from http://
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031490645;view=1up;seq=15
Davis, C. O. (1945). A history of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools 1895-1945. Ann Arbor, MI: The North Central Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools. Retrieved from http://library.usc.edu/uhtbin/
cgisirsi/x/0/0/5?Searchdata1=1175460{CKEY}
Dewatripont, M., Sapir, A., Van Pottelsberghe, B., & Veugelers, R. (2010). Boosting innovation
in Europe. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2010/06.
Dickeson, R. C. (2006). The need for accreditation reform. Issue paper (The Secretary of
Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education). Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture /reports/dickeson.pdf
Dickeson, R. (2009). Recalibrating the accreditation-federal relationship. Washington, D.C.:
University of Northern Colorado.
Dickey, F., & Miller, J. (1972). “Federal involvement in nongovernmental Accreditation”.
Educational Record 53, No. 2 (Spring): 139.
Dill, D. (2007). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Practices and Issues. University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 97

Dill, D. D., Massy, W. F., Williams, P. R., & Cook, C. M. (1996, September/October).
Accreditation and academic quality assurance: Can we get there from here? Change
28(5), 16-24.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-
160.
Dougherty, K. J., Hare, R., & Natow, R. S. (2009). Performance accountability systems for
community colleges: Lessons for the voluntary framework of accountability for
community colleges. Community College Research Center. Columbia University, NYC:
Teachers College.
Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission of the
community college. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
586, 92-119.
Dowd, A. C., & Grant, J. L. (2006). Equity and efficiency of community college appropriations:
The role of local financing. The Review of Higher Education, 29(2), 167-194.
Driscoll, A., & De Noriega, D. C. (2006). Taking ownership of accreditation: Assessment
processes that promote institutional improvement and faculty engagement. Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing.
Eaton, J. S. (2003a). Is accreditation accountable? The continuing conversation between
accreditation and the federal government. Washington, DC: Council for Higher
Education Accreditation.
Eaton, J. S. (2009). Accreditation in the United States. New Directions for Higher Education,
145, 79-86. doi:10.1002/he.337
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 98

Eaton, J. S. (2010). Accreditation and the federal future of higher education. Academe, 96(5), 21-
24.
Eaton, J.S. (2012, April-June). The future of accreditation: Can the collegial model flourish in
the context of the government’s assertiveness and the impact of nationalization and
technology? How? Society for College and University Planning. 8-15.
Eaton, J. S. (2012b). What future for accreditation: The challenge and opportunity of the
accreditation – federal government relationship. In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden
(Eds.), Inquiry, evidence, and excellence: The promise and practice of quality assurance
(77-88). Washington, DC: Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Retrieved from
http://www.teac.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/ 03/Festschrift-Book.pdf
Eaton, J.S. (2013a, June 13). Accreditation and the next reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act. Inside Accreditation with the President of CHEA, 9(3). Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/ia/IA_2013.05.31.html
Eaton, J.S. (2013b, November-December). The changing role of accreditation: Should it matter
to governing boards? Trustee. Retrieved from
http://agb.org/trusteeship/2013/11/changing-role-accreditation-should-it-matter-
governing-boards
El-Khawas, E. (2001). Accreditation in the USA: Origins, developments and future prospects.
Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Ewell, P. T. (1984). The self-regarding institution: Information for excellence. Boulder, CO:
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 99

Ewell, P. T. (1993). The role of states and accreditors in shaping assessment practice. In T. W.
Banta (Ed.), Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher
education (pp. 339-356). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (2001). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A proposed point of
departure. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/award/StudentLearning Outcomes2001.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2002). An emerging scholarship: A brief history of assessment. In T. W. Banta
(Ed.), Building a scholarship of assessment (pp. 3-25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (2005). Can assessment serve accountability? It depends on the question. In J. C.
Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands (pp. 78-105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (2008). Assessment and accountability in America today: Background and context.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 2008(S1), 7–17.
Ewell, P. T. (2008). U.S. accreditation and the future of quality assurance: A tenth anniversary
report from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Washington, DC: Council
for Higher Education Accreditation.
Ewell, P. T. (2009). Assessment, accountability, and improvement: Revisiting the tension.
Champaign, IL: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/Peter Ewell_005.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2010). Twenty years of quality assurance in higher education: What’s happened
what’s different? Quality in higher education, 16(2), 173-175.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 100

Ewell, P. T. (2012). Disciplining peer review: Addressing some deficiencies in U.S.
accreditation practices. In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence,
and excellence: The promise and practice of quality assurance (89- 105). Washington,
DC: Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Retrieved from http://www.teac.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-Book.pdf
Ewell, P. T., Wellman, J. V., & Paulson, K. (1997). Refashioning accountability: Toward a
coordinated system of quality assurance for higher education. Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States.
Finkin, M. W. (1973). Federal reliance on voluntary accreditation: The power to recognize as
the power to regulate. Journal of Law and Education, 2(3), 339-375.
Finn, Jr. C. E. (1975, Winter). Washington in academe we trust: Federalism and the universities:
The balance shifts. Change, 7(10), 24-29, 63.
Floden, R. E. (1980). Flexner, accreditation, and evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 2(2), 35-46. doi:10.3102/01623737002002035
Fuller, M. B., & Lugg, E. T. (2012). Legal precedents for higher education accreditation Journal
of Higher Education Management 27(1). Retrieved from
http://www.aaua.org/images/JHEM_-_Vol_27_Web_Edition_.pdf#page=53
Gaston, R.L. (2014). Higher education accreditation: How it’s changing, why it must. Stylus
Publishing: Sterling, VA.
Gillen, A., Bennett, D. L, & Vedder, R. (2010). The inmates running the asylum? An analysis of
higher education accreditation. Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and
Productivity. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Accreditation.pdf
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 101

Global University Network for Innovation. (2007). Higher education in the world 2007:
Accreditation for quality assurance: What is at stake? New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Graham, P. A., Lyman, R. W., & Trow, M. (1995). Accountability of colleges and universities:
An essay. New York, NY: Columbia University.
Gruson, E. S., Levine, D. O, & Lustberg, L. S. Issues in accreditation, eligibility and
institutional quality. Cambridge, MA: Sloan Commission on Government and Higher
Education.
Hagerty, B. M. K., & Stark, J. S. (1989). Comparing educational accreditation standards in
selected professional fields. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(1), 1-20.
Harcleroad, F. F. (1976). Educational auditing and accountability. Washington, DC: The Council

on
Postsecondary
Accreditation.

Harcleroad, F. F. (1980). Accreditation: History, process, and problems. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Harvey, L. (2004). The power of accreditation: Views of academics. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 207-223.
Hart Research Associates. (2009). Learning and assessment: Trends in undergraduate education
(A survey among members of the Association of American College and Universities).
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/
membership/documents/2009MemberSurvey_Part1.pdf
Ikenberry, S. O. (2009). Where do we take accreditation? Washington, DC: Council for Higher

Education
Accreditation.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 102

Jackson, R. S., Davis, J. H., & Jackson, F. R. (2010). Redesigning regional accreditation: The
impact on institutional planning. Planning for Higher Education, 38(4), 9-19.
Jacobs, B. & Van der Ploeg, F. (2006, July). How to reform higher education in Europe.
Economic Policy, 535-592.
Jaschik, S., & Ledgerman, D. (2014). The 2014 Inside Higher Ed survey of college & university
presidents. Washington, DC: Inside Higher Ed.
Kells, H. R. (1976). The reform of regional accreditation agencies. Educational Record, 57(1),
24-28.
Kuh, G. D. (2010). Risky business: Promises and pitfalls of institutional transparency. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(5), 30-35.
Kuh, G. D., & Ewell, P. T. (2010). The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United
States. Higher education management and policy, 22(1), 1-20.
Kuh, G., & Ikenberry, S. (2009). More than you think, less than we need: Learning outcomes
assessment in American higher education. Champaign, IL: National Institute for Learning
Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/niloafullreportfinal2.pdf
Learned, W. S., & Wood, B. D. (1938). The student and his knowledge: A report to the Carnegie
Foundation on the results of the high school and college examinations of 1928, 1930, and
1932. New York, NY: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Leef, G. C., & Burris, R. D. (2002). Can college accreditation live up to its promise?
Washington, DC: American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Retrieved from
https://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/CanAccreditationFulfillPromise.pdf
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 103

Lind, C. J., & McDonald, M. (2003). Creating and assessment culture: a case study of success
and struggles. In S. E. Van Kollenburg (Ed.), A collection of papers on self-study and
institutional improvement, 3. Promoting student learning and effective teaching, pp.21-
23. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 476 673). Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476673.pdf#page=22
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins
and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24.
Moltz, D. (2010). Redefining community college success. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/06/u_s_panel_
drafts_and_debates_measures_to_gauge_community_college_success.
Maki, P. L. (2010). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the
institution (2nd ed.). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Miles, J. A. (2012). Jossey-Bass business and management reader: Management and
organization theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Middaugh, M. F. (2012). Introduction to themed PHE issue on accreditation in higher education.
Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 6-7.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. (2012). Higher education
accreditation reauthorization policy recommendations. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-dir/naciqi_draft_final_report.pdf
Neal, A. D. (2008). Dis-accreditation. Academic Questions, 21(4), 431-445.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 104

Obama, B. (2013a, February 12). State of the Union Address. The White House. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/president-barack-obamas-state-
union-address
Obama, B. (2013b, February 12). The President’s Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong
America. The White House. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/sotu_2013_blueprint_embargo.pdf
Obama, B. (2013c, August 22). Fact Sheet on the President’s Plan to Make College More
Affordable: A Better Bargain for the Middle Class. The White House. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/22/fact-sheet-president-s-plan-
make-college-more-affordable-better-bargain
Olson, K. (2013). Commentary: ABA insider fails to make case for ABA accreditation. National
Jurist. Retrieved from http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/commentary-aba-insider-
fails-make-case-aba-accreditation
Orlans, H. O. (1975). Private accreditation and public eligibility. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath
and Company.
Perrault, A. H.; Gergory, V. L.; & Carey, J. O. (2002). The integration of assessment of student
learning outcomes with teaching effectiveness. Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 43(4), 270-282.
Procopio, C. H. (2010). Differing administrator, faculty, and staff perceptions of organizational
culture as related to external accreditation. Academic Leadership Journal, 8(2), 1-15.
Provezis, S. J. (2010). Regional accreditation and learning outcomes assessment: Mapping the
territory (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign).
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 105

Raessler, K. R. (1970). An analysis of state requirements for college or university accreditation
in music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(3), 223-233.
Ratcliff, J. L. (1996). Assessment, accreditation, and evaluation of higher education in the US.
Quality in Higher Education, 2(1), 5-19.
Rhodes, T. L. (2012). Show me the learning: Value, accreditation, and the quality of the degree.
Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 36-42.
Scriven, M. (2000). Evaluation ideologies. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan
(Eds.), Evaluation models (250-278). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shaw, R. (1993). A backward glance: To a time before there was accreditation. North Central
Association Quarterly, 68(2), 323-335.
Shibley, L. R., & Volkwein, J. F. (2002). Comparing the costs and benefits of re- accreditation
processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional
Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June.
Sloan, K. (2011). Who needs the LSAT anyway? The National Law Journal, 33(22). Retrieved
from http://zb5lh7ed7a.search.serialssolutions.com/
Smith, V. B., & Finney, J. E. (2008, May/June). Redesigning regional accreditation: An
interview with Ralph A. Wolff. Change, 18-24.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. (2007). The quality enhancement plan. Retrieved
from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/QEP%20Handbook.pdf
Spangehl, S. D. (2012). AQIP and accreditation: Improving quality and performance. Planning
for Higher Education, 40(3), 6-7.
Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2006). Old wine in new bottles? A comparison of public and private
accreditation schemes in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 19, 65-85.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 106

Sursock, A. & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European higher
education. Brussels: European University Association.
Trivett, D. (1976). Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility. ERIC/Higher Education Research
Report No. 9. Washington, D. C.: American Association for Higher Education.
Uehling, B. S. (1987a). Accreditation and the institution. North Central Association Quarterly,
62(2), 350-360.
UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education. Paris:
UNESCO.
USDE Test. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of US higher education. A report of
the commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Washington,
DC: USDE. Accessed from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/-
reports/final-report.pdf.
Van Damme, D. (2000). Internationalization and quality assurance: Towards worldwide
accreditation? European Journal for Education Law and Policy, 4, 1-20.
Van der Ploeg, F. & Veugelers, R., (2008). Towards evidence-based reform of European
universities. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(2), 99‒120.
Volkwein, J. F., Lattuca, L. R., Harper, B. J., & Domingo, R. J. (2007). Measuring the impact of
professional accreditation on student experiences and learning outcomes. Research in
Higher Education, 48(2), 251-282.
Walker, J. J. (2010). A contribution to the self-study of the postsecondary accreditation protocol:
A critical reflection to assist the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Paper
presented at the WASC Postsecondary Summit, Temecula, CA.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 107

Weissburg, P. (2008). Shifting alliances in the accreditation of higher education: self-regulatory
organizations. Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI-A 70/02, August 2009.
ProQuest ID 250811630.
Wergin, J. F. (2005). Waking up to the importance of accreditation. Change, 37(3) 35-41.
Wergin, J. F. (2012). Five essential tensions in accreditation. In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D.
Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence, and excellence: The promise and practice of quality
assurance (27-38). Washington, DC: Teacher Education Accreditation Council.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (1998). Eight perspectives on how to focus the
accreditation process on educational effectiveness. Oakland, CA: Accrediting
commission
for
Senior
Colleges
and
Universities
WASC.

WASC (2002). Guide to using evidence in the accreditation process: A resource to support
institutions and evaluation teams. Retrieved from
www.wascweb.org/senior/Evidence_Guide.pdf
Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC) (2011). Retrieved from http://www.accjc.org.
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Quality assurance in higher
education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
White House. (2013, February 12). The president’s plan for a strong middle class and a Strong
America. Accessed from http://www.whitehouse.gov/th e-press-
office/2013/02/12/president-s-plan-strong-middle-class-and-strong-america.
Wiedman, D. (1992). Effects on academic culture of shifts from oral to written traditions: The
case of university accreditation. Human Organization, 51(4), 398-407.
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 108

Wolff, R. A. (1990, June 27-30). Assessment 1990: Accreditation and renewal. Paper presented
at The Fifth AAHE Conference on Assessment in Higher Education, Washington, DC.
Wolff, R. A. (2005). Accountability and accreditation: Can reforms match increasing demands?.
In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands (pp. 78-105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Woolston, P. J. (2012). The Costs of Institutional Accreditation: A study of direct and indirect
costs (Doctoral Dissertation. University of Southern California).
World Bank (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wriston, H. M. (1960). The futility of accrediting. The Journal of Higher Education, 31(6), 327-
329.
Yung-chi Hou, A. (2014). Quality in cross-border higher education and challenges for the
internationalization of national quality assurance agencies in the Asia-Pacific region: the
Taiwanese experience. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1). 135-152.
Zis, S., Boeke, M., & Ewell, P. (2010). State policies on the assessment of student learning
outcomes: Results of a fifty-state inventory. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems (NCHEMS).

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 109

Appendix
Additional Tables
Table 7
Category 1 (ABA, WASC): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by Law School
(Alphabetical)
Law School

Took Passed Passing Rate
Chapman University School of Law 985 621 63%
Golden Gate University School of Law 1079 554 51%
Loyola Law School - Los Angeles 2304 1553 67%
Pepperdine University School of Law 1084 760 70%
Santa Clara University School of Law 1670 1028 62%
Stanford Law School 674 512 76%
UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall) 1372 1005 73%
UC Davis (King Hall) 1112 741 67%
UC Hastings College of the Law 2340 1522 65%
UC Irvine Law School 177 103 58%
UCLA Law School 1792 1291 72%
University of Laverne College of Law 530 220 42%
University of the Pacific (McGeorge) 1656 965 58%
University of San Diego School of Law 1734 1053 61%
University of San Francisco School of Law 1174 699 60%
University of Southern California (Gould) 1159 853 74%
Whittier Law School 894 444 50%
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 110

Table 8
Category 2 (ABA, non-WASC): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by Law School
(Alphabetical)
Law School Took Passed Passing Rate
California Western School of Law 1466 905 62%
Southwestern University School of Law 1764 925 52%
Thomas Jefferson School of Law 1152 463 40%
Western State University College of
Law
510 306 60%

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 111

Table 9
Category 3 (CBA, non-WASC): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by Law School
(Alphabetical)
Law School Took Passed Passing Rate
Cal Northern Law School 54 22 41%
Empire College School of Law 123 48 39%
Glendale University College of Law 93 31 33%
Lincoln Law School of Sacramento 203 81 40%
Lincoln Law School of San Jose 120 32 27%
Monterey College of Law 101 30 30%
San Francisco Law School 92 26 28%
Santa Barbara College of Law 129 52 40%
Southern California Institute of Law -
Santa Barbara
28 1 4%
Southern California Institute of Law -
Ventura
78 7 9%
Trinity Law School 221 31 14%
University of West Los Angeles - San
Fernando Valley
139 24 17%
University of West Los Angeles - West
Los Angeles
176 27 15%
Ventura College of Law 110 30 27%

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 112

Table 10
Category 4 (CBA, WASC): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by Law School
(Alphabetical)
Law School Took Passed Passing Rate
Humphrey’s College School of Law 189 35 19%
John F. Kennedy University School of
Law
257 70 27%
San Joaquin College of Law 253 117 46%

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 113

Table 11
Category 5 (Unaccredited): First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013) by Law School
(Alphabetical)
Law School Took Passed Passing Rate
Abraham Lincoln University 173 29 17%
American College of Law 5 1 20%
American Heritage University School of
Law
5 1 20%
American International College of Law 2 0 0%
California School of Law 5 0 0%
California Midland School of Law 1 0 0%
California Southern Law School 71 11 15%
California Southern University 22 4 18%
Concord Law School 494 121 24%
Inland Valley University College of Law 1 0 0%
Irvine University College of Law 13 1 8%
John William University School of Law 2 0 0%
Larry H. Layton School of Law 1 0 0%
Newport University College of Law 1 0 0%
Northwestern California Univ. School of
Law
159 35 22%
Oak Brook College of Law and
Government Policy
69 36 52%
Pacific Coast University School of Law 29 2 7%
Pacific West College of Law 6 1 17%
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 114

Peoples College of Law 25 2 8%
Southern California University for
Professional Studies-Law
2 0 0%
Taft Law School 73 20 27%
University of San Luis Obispo School of
Law
15 2 13%
University of Silicon Valley 1 0 0%
University of Northern California -
Lorenzo Patino School of Law
24 0 0%
West Coast School of Law 1 0 0%
Western Sierra Law School 25 3 12%

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 115

Table 12
California Law Schools Ranked by First-time Bar Passing Rates (2009-2013)
Law School Cat. Took Pass Rate Rank
Stanford Law School 1 674 512 75.96% 1
University of Southern California (Gould) 1 1159 853 73.60% 2
UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall) 1 1372 1005 73.25% 3
UCLA Law School 1 1792 1291 72.04% 4
Pepperdine University School of Law 1 1084 760 70.11% 5
Loyola Law School - Los Angeles 1 2304 1553 67.40% 6
UC Davis (King Hall) 1 1112 741 66.64% 7
UC Hastings College of the Law 1 2340 1522 65.04% 8
Chapman University School of Law 1 985 621 63.05% 9
California Western School of Law 2 1466 905 61.73% 10
Santa Clara University School of Law 1 1670 1028 61.56% 11
University of San Diego School of Law 1 1734 1053 60.73% 12
Western State University College of Law 2 510 306 60.00% 13
University of San Francisco School of Law 1 1174 699 59.54% 14
University of the Pacific (McGeorge) 1 1656 965 58.27% 15
UC Irvine Law School 1 177 103 58.19% 16
Southwestern University School of Law 2 1764 925 52.44% 17
Oak Brook College of Law and Government
Policy
5 69 36 52.17% 18
Golden Gate University School of Law 1 1079 554 51.34% 19
Whittier Law School 1 894 444 49.66% 20
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 116

San Joaquin College of Law 4 253 117 46.25% 21
University of Laverne College of Law 1 530 220 41.51% 22
Cal Northern Law School 3 54 22 40.74% 23
Santa Barbara College of Law 3 129 52 40.31% 24
Thomas Jefferson School of Law 2 1152 463 40.19% 25
Lincoln Law School of Sacramento 3 203 81 39.90% 26
Empire College School of Law 3 123 48 39.02% 27
Glendale University College of Law 3 93 31 33.33% 28
Monterey College of Law 3 101 30 29.70% 29
San Francisco Law School 3 92 26 28.26% 30
Taft Law School 5 73 20 27.40% 31
Ventura College of Law 3 110 30 27.27% 32
John F. Kennedy University School of Law 4 257 70 27.24% 33
Lincoln Law School of San Jose 3 120 32 26.67% 34
Concord Law School 5 494 121 24.49% 35
Northwestern California Univ. School of Law 5 159 35 22.01% 36
American Heritage University School of Law 5 5 1 20.00% 37T
American College of Law 5 5 1 20.00% 37T
Humphrey’s College School of Law 4 189 35 18.52% 39
California Southern University 5 22 4 18.18% 40
University of West Los Angeles - San Fernando
Valley
3 139 24 17.27% 41
Abraham Lincoln University 5 173 29 16.76% 42
Pacific West College of Law 5 6 1 16.67% 43
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 117

California Southern Law School 5 71 11 15.49% 44
University of West Los Angeles - West Los
Angeles
3 176 27 15.34% 45
Trinity Law School 3 221 31 14.03% 46
University of San Luis Obispo School of Law 5 15 2 13.33% 47
Western Sierra Law School 5 25 3 12.00% 48
Southern California Institute of Law - Ventura 3 78 7 8.97% 49
Peoples College of Law 5 25 2 8.00% 50
Irvine University College of Law 5 13 1 7.69% 51
Pacific Coast University School of Law 5 29 2 6.90% 52
Southern California Institute of Law - Santa
Barbara
3 28 1 3.57% 53
American International College of Law 5 2 0 0.00% 54-T
Newport University College of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
Southern California University for Professional
Studies-Law
5 2 0 0.00% 54-T
West Coast School of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
California School of Law 5 5 0 0.00% 54-T
California Midland School of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
Inland Valley University College of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
John William University School of Law 5 2 0 0.00% 54-T
Larry H. Layton School of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
University of Silicon Valley 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
University of Northern California Lorenzo Patino
School of Law
5 24 0 0.00% 54-T
Cat. = Law School Accreditation Category.

ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 118

Table 13
California Law Schools Ranked by Number of First-time Bar Passers (2009-2013)
Law School Cat. Took Pass Rate Rank
Loyola Law School - Los Angeles 1 2304 1553 67.40% 1
UC Hastings College of the Law 1 2340 1522 65.04% 2
UCLA Law School 1 1792 1291 72.04% 3
University of San Diego School of Law 1 1734 1053 60.73% 4
Santa Clara University School of Law 1 1670 1028 61.56% 5
UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall) 1 1372 1005 73.25% 6
University of the Pacific (McGeorge) 1 1656 965 58.27% 7
Southwestern University School of Law 2 1764 925 52.44% 8
California Western School of Law 2 1466 905 61.73% 9
University of Southern California (Gould) 1 1159 853 73.60% 10
Pepperdine University School of Law 1 1084 760 70.11% 11
UC Davis (King Hall) 1 1112 741 66.64% 12
University of San Francisco School of Law 1 1174 699 59.54% 13
Chapman University School of Law 1 985 621 63.05% 14
Golden Gate University School of Law 1 1079 554 51.34% 15
Stanford Law School 1 674 512 75.96% 16
Thomas Jefferson School of Law 2 1152 463 40.19% 17
Whittier Law School 1 894 444 49.66% 18
Western State University College of Law 2 510 306 60.00% 19
University of Laverne College of Law 1 530 220 41.51% 20
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 119

Concord Law School 5 494 121 24.49% 21
San Joaquin College of Law 4 253 117 46.25% 22
UC Irvine Law School 1 177 103 58.19% 23
Lincoln Law School of Sacramento 3 203 81 39.90% 24
John F. Kennedy University School of Law 4 257 70 27.24% 25
Santa Barbara College of Law 3 129 52 40.31% 26
Empire College School of Law 3 123 48 39.02% 27
Oak Brook College of Law and Government
Policy
5 69 36 52.17% 28
Northwestern California Univ. School of Law 5 159 35 22.01% 29-T
Humphrey’s College School of Law 4 189 35 18.52% 29-T
Lincoln Law School of San Jose 3 120 32 26.67% 31
Glendale University College of Law 3 93 31 33.33% 32-T
Trinity Law School 3 221 31 14.03% 32-T
Monterey College of Law 3 101 30 29.70% 34-T
Ventura College of Law 3 110 30 27.27% 34-T
Abraham Lincoln University 5 173 29 16.76% 36
University of West Los Angeles - West Los
Angeles
3 176 27 15.34% 37
San Francisco Law School 3 92 26 28.26% 38
University of West Los Angeles - San Fernando
Valley
3 139 24 17.27% 39
Cal Northern Law School 3 54 22 40.74% 40
Taft Law School 5 73 20 27.40% 41
California Southern Law School 5 71 11 15.49% 42
Southern California Institute of Law - Ventura 3 78 7 8.97% 43
ACCREDITATION AND BAR EXAM PASS RATES 120

California Southern University 5 22 4 18.18% 44
Western Sierra Law School 5 25 3 12.00% 45
University of San Luis Obispo School of Law 5 15 2 13.33% 46-T
Peoples College of Law 5 25 2 8.00% 46-T
Pacific Coast University School of Law 5 29 2 6.90% 46-T
American Heritage University School of Law 5 5 1 20.00% 49-T
American College of Law 5 5 1 20.00% 49-T
Pacific West College of Law 5 6 1 16.67% 49-T
Irvine University College of Law 5 13 1 7.69% 49-T
Southern California Institute of Law - Santa
Barbara
3 28 1 3.57% 49-T
American International College of Law 5 2 0 0.00% 54-T
Newport University College of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
Southern California University for Professional
Studies-Law
5 2 0 0.00% 54-T
West Coast School of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
California School of Law 5 5 0 0.00% 54-T
California Midland School of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
Inland Valley University College of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
John William University School of Law 5 2 0 0.00% 54-T
Larry H. Layton School of Law 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
University of Silicon Valley 5 1 0 0.00% 54-T
University of Northern California Lorenzo Patino
School of Law
5 24 0 0.00% 54-T
Cat. = Law School Accreditation Category.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The motivation behind this study was to add to the body of academic knowledge regarding the relationship between accreditation and student outcomes. This study contributed to understanding whether accreditation as currently implemented is a worthwhile process that is positively related to student learning and achievement. The institutions measured in this study were the 64 law schools with different legal and regional accreditation statuses located in the state of California. The first-time California State Bar Exam passing rates were the measured student outcomes. The findings established, with strong reliability and large effect size, that, in California, there were substantial differences in first-time bar passing rates between certain accreditation categories for the five-year period of 2009 to 2013. Law schools that were jointly accredited by ABA and WASC had a mean first-time bar passing rate 36.88% higher than those not accredited by WASC. ABA law schools that were not accredited by WASC had a mean first-time bar passing rate that was 27.5% higher than CBA law schools that were not accredited by WASC. The mean first-time bar passing rate of all WASC accredited schools was 58.05%, while the same measurement for the all law schools not accredited by WASC was 19.5%. Law schools that met accreditation standards set by WASC and who met higher legal accreditation standards had better student outcomes than did those that did not meet the same standards.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An evaluation of nursing program administrator perspectives on national nursing education accreditation

PDF

Perspectives on accreditation and leadership: a case study of an urban city college in jeopardy of losing accreditation

PDF

An examination of the direct/indirect measures used in the assessment practices of AACSB-accredited schools

PDF

Institutional student loan cohort default rates by institution type

PDF

The costs of institutional accreditation: a study of direct and indirect costs

PDF

Learning outcomes assessment at American Library Association accredited master's programs in library and information studies

PDF

A descriptive analysis focusing on similarities and differences among the U.S. service academies

PDF

The goals of specialized accreditation: A study of perceived benefits and costs of membership with the National Association of Schools of Music

PDF

Assessment, accountability & accreditation: a study of MOOC provider perceptions

PDF

The benefits and costs of accreditation of undergraduate medical education programs leading to the MD degree in the United States and its territories

PDF

Priorities and practices: a mixed methods study of journalism accreditation

PDF

An exploratory, quantitative study of accreditation actions taken by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges' Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Since 2002

PDF

States of motivation: examining perceptions of accreditation through the framework of self-determination

PDF

Teachers’ role in improving advanced placement exam scores: a gap analysis

PDF

Accreditation and accountability processes in California high schools: a case study

PDF

Defining values in smaller college athletic programs: athletics effect on graduation rates

PDF

Input-adjusted transfer scores as an accountability model for California community colleges

PDF

The practice and effects of a school district's retention policies

PDF

Assessment and accreditation of undergraduate study abroad programs

PDF

The effect of traditional method of training on learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and performance orientation in comparison to evidence-based training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

Asset Metadata

Creator Barlow, Nathan J. (author)

Core Title The effects of accreditation on the passing rates of the California bar exam

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/08/2015

Defense Date 03/10/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Aba,accreditation,American Bar Association,California Bar Association,California bar exam,law schools,LSAT,OAI-PMH Harvest,passing rates,UGPA,WASC,Western Association of Schools and Colleges

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Keim, Robert G. (committee chair), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee member), Woolston, Paul J. (committee member)

Creator Email barlowna@gmail.com,njbarlow@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-542886

Unique identifier UC11297887

Identifier etd-BarlowNath-3252.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-542886 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BarlowNath-3252.pdf

Dmrecord 542886

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Barlow, Nathan J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA