Follow us!

    Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD

    Posted by Victoria Weaver on 4/19/09

    Depends on what you are comparing it against. I think it is, considering that many DL law
    students get what they put in to online education. What you get at a school like Concord is
    bells and whistles. Concord always brags that students who get a B+ average in thier
    program pass the bar with flying colors (like 80% of the time, I think). If a student
    actually does the studying at NWCU Law, then yes, they will pass.

    They have been around a lot longer, and one year they even beat some ABA schools on the bar
    exam (in terms of percentage passing rate).

    Victoria Weaver

    On 4/18/09, Karen wrote:
    > According to the State Bar stats, for the past two years less than one in four of NWCU
    > graduates have passed the bar on the first attempt. Is this considered pretty good?
    >
    > On 4/17/09, Victoria Weaver wrote:
    >> What do you base that on? Certainly not baby bar or bar passage rate. If you were to
    >> base it on those, you would have to concede that Concord or Oakbrook are at the top of
    >> the curve, but you pay through the nose at Concord and Oakbrook requires an in-
    >> residence requirement. NWCU has pretty good baby bar and bar passage rates, and is
    > half
    >> the price of a lot of the other schools. I chose to transfer to NWCU because of the
    >> good pass rates, the price, and the fact it has been around for a long time.
    >>
    >> ALU has high tuition and the bar pass rates are less than stellar. If you were to
    >> actually give some reasons, then perhaps we might consider agreeing with you. I am not
    >> one who advocates DETC accreditation, but that is actually another thing against ALU
    >> (because Taft and Concord have that designation).
    >>
    >> Victoria Weaver
    >>
    >>
    >> On 4/17/09, Mel wrote:
    >>> The only good school is Abraham Lincoln University School of Law.
    >>>
    >>> On 4/16/09, Li nda wrote:
    >>>> A good example of what I was writing follows:
    >>>>
    >>>> Question
    >>>> I have read the general rule of no deduction for law school, but I haven't read
    >>>> anything for my particular situation. I am a registered patent agent with the
    >>>> United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). My point is that there is
    >>>> nothing a patent attorney can do with the USPTO with patents that I cannot do as a
    >>>> patent agent. I have written patents since 2005, I became a registered patent
    >>>> agent in 2008, and am now in law school for one reason: increase my earnings
    >>>> potential.
    >>>>
    >>>> When I am finished with law school I am going to be in the same industry and trade
    >>>> I was before law school. I realize that law school could generally "qualify me
    >>>> for a new trade or business" but at the same time, law school is not qualifying me
    >>>> anymore than I am already to work with the USPTO. The USPTO doesn't really care
    >>>> if I am an agent or an attorney. Both can have clients, both can write the patent
    >>>> applications, both can file the patent apps with the USPTO, and both can prosecute
    >>>> the patent apps through several office actions until the application is dropped or
    >>>> published as a patent.
    >>>>
    >>>> So in your opinion, do I have a shot at a legitimate deduction?
    >>>>
    >>>> Answer:
    >>>> Thanks for your question.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, you cannot deduct your law school costs. It does qualify you for a new trade
    >>>> or business whether you ever pursue that or not. The IRS has ruled specifically
    >>>> in such situations.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hope this helps.
    >>>>
    >>>> John Stancil, CPA
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On 4/16/09, Li nda wrote:
    >>>>> First, please excuse the typos. Some, but not all are because the Board
    >>>>> apparently won't allow some words. I have no reason why but on average one in
    >>>>> three of my posts go through.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I wasnít referring to Section 162. But since you brought it up, law school
    >>>>> expenses are never deductible under 162 because it qualifies a person for a new
    >>>>> profession. There are dozens if not hundreds of cases in this area and the
    >>>>> taxpayer always loses. Donít trust me, research it. Or ask NWCU to give you
    >>>>> some cases. I did and they couldnít.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The tax credits are only available to students enrolled in schools that are
    >>>>> accredited, as defined by the Department of Education. You can view the Taf t
    >>>>> website for more specific details.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As I wrote earlier, I don't think the NWCU is a bad option for some. But they,
    >>>>> and you, need to get some facts straight.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The fact that they continue to give incorrect tax info is worrisome.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On 4/16/09, Res Ipsa Loco wrote:
    >>>>>> NWCU is accredited in the sense that it is "registered" with the CBE. (LOL)It is
    >>>>>> not "accredited" in the sense which you are speaking, but it does not matter.
    >>> (Except if you want an accredited degree)
    >>>>>> Do you now (spelled correctly) see my point. The tuition can still be deducted
    >>>>>> for tax purposes--here is the info from the website:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Tax Deduction
    >>>>>> A tax deduction may be allowed for expenses undertaken to: Maintain or improve
    >>>>>> skills required in one's employment, trade or business, or Meet specific
    >>>>>> requirements of an employer or a law imposed as a condition to retention of
    >>>>>> employment, job status or rate of compensation. (See Treasury Regulation 1.
    >>>>> 162-
    >>>>>> 5.) (My tax man is H & R Boock)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Do your research, and learn how to spell. I understand that an occasional
    >>>>> stray
    >>>>>> key may be hit, but you are incorrectly spelling way too many words in a
    >>>>> single
    >>>>>> sentence. It is irritating.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Res Ipsa Loco
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On 4/16/09, Li nda wrote:
    >>>>>>> Tree but NWCU is NOT accredited. Do you know see my point.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 4/15/09, Res Ipsa Loco wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Tax credits can be used from any accredited school. There are no strong
    >>>>>>>> points in your argument. NWCU Law is the best around in terms of quality
    >>>>>>>> and price.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Res Ipsa Loco
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 4/15/09, L inda wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> I stand corrected with respect to con cord. But T aft is not three
    >>>>>>>>> times and factoring in tax credits the difference is not all that much
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> On 4/14/09, GET NEW INFORMATION wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/09, Linda wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> Based on information I received from all three school, the bar pass
    >>>>>>>>>>> rate over the past five years is lower at NWCU than the other two
    >>>>>>>>>>> accredited schools. And according to the websites, the tuition is
    >>>>>>>>>>> not three times as much.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Linda
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> NWCU is 2850 a year for starters, Concord is 9k+, so I your right....
    >>>>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>>>>> is more than 3 x's as much and as far as bar passage rates again you
    >>>>>>>>> are
    >>>>>>>>>> wrong especially w/ regard to the FYLSE... go to calbar.org
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/09, Linda wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> You could do worst than Northwestern but I suggest that you also
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> check out the other schools, particularly COn cord and Taf t.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Both offer Federal student aid.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/09, questions wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am considering Northwest California Law School for a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance learning Law degree. I can not move at this
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, I can not quit my job, I have a family who needs me
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> home. I live in Maine and I am about 6 hours from the law
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> school. Has anyone gone/going to NWCULAW? I understand it
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unaccredited with the ABA and I understand all I must
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do to pass the bar and practice law later. Any help would
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be great thanks so much.

    Posts on this thread, including this one
  • Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/11/09, by questions.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/11/09, by Maryanne.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/12/09, by questions.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/12/09, by Linda.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/13/09, by prezcott.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/13/09, by Linda.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/14/09, by GET NEW INFORMATION .
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/15/09, by L inda.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/15/09, by Res Ipsa Loco.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/16/09, by Li nda.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/16/09, by Res Ipsa Loco.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/16/09, by Li nda.
  • Re: Distance law school Northwest California NWCULAW, 4/16/09, by Li nda.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/17/09, by Mel.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/17/09, by Victoria Weaver.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/18/09, by Karen.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/19/09, by Victoria Weaver.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/19/09, by Li nda.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/19/09, by Victoria Weaver.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/19/09, by Linda.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/20/09, by Victoria Weaver.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/20/09, by Linda.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/20/09, by Go pay more....
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/20/09, by Mel.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/21/09, by ....
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/21/09, by whatever.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/21/09, by Linda.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/21/09, by head in the sand.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/21/09, by Taxboy.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/21/09, by Linda.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/21/09, by Laurence.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/21/09, by Linda.
  • Re: NWCULAW IS NO GOOD, 4/21/09, by wanna be CPA.


  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.