All Intensive Purposes

This is incredible:

In the last 18 California bar exams, administered over nine years, just two graduates of the unaccredited Irvine University College of Law have passed the exam, neither on the first try.

And several other unaccredited law schools aren't doing much better. Why would people pay for an education from these schools?

Maybe part of the problem is false advertising. Irvine claims:

Irvine University College of Law first opened its doors in the Winter of 1993. Since that time, Irvine University College of Law has fostered the development of a legal education of many professionals. Among the alumni are judges, practicing lawyers, people that hold political office, international personages, successful administrators and business owners.

Since California's bar exam is held twice yearly, the statistics referenced above would appear to relate to the period from 1997 through 2006. If Irvine opened its doors in 1993, and based on its reported performance, it's hard to believe that many Irvine alumni passed the bar before 1997. (Note that Irvine apparently has no tie to the University of California at Irvine, which does not have a law school.) Unless Irvine graduates find a way to practice in other states -- unlikely, since most states do not permit graduates of unaccredited schools to sit for the bar exam -- the claim that Irvine's alumni include "judges" sounds hard to believe. The claim that they include "practicing lawyers" might be literally true, at best (i.e., both the graduates who passed the bar are still practicing).

Many people go to law school and then opt to do something other than practice law. But surely Irvine is not the school of choice for students who know they would rather be an "international personage" or a "successful administrator." Why would anyone spend their money on Irvine University tuition?