tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post7163836293393591111..comments2023-10-30T08:41:06.178-07:00Comments on Inside the Law School Scam: Getting to twoLawProfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-32570156234098474432012-10-24T13:43:15.453-07:002012-10-24T13:43:15.453-07:00I have to say to some extent I agree with the pro...I have to say to some extent I agree with the proposal to require some sort of work. I went into law school later in life after working full time for several years and spending some time in the legal field as a paralegal and a legal assistant. When I went to law school I just thought that everyone was going to be serious and like minded. I was disappointed to find a room full of 80 22-23 yr old fresh out of college kids that were more concerned about getting wasted on the weekends than anything related to school. I found it very disheartening. As you can imagine, many people dropped out with a semester or two or three of debt because they never wanted to be there to begin with or freaked out when they had their first legal job and realized it isn't all Law & Order or A Few Good Men. Real world experience helps the future employer and helps the student have a clear idea of reality. Jessica Dooganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14483726507996588522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-19019846213280859702012-10-23T21:04:26.680-07:002012-10-23T21:04:26.680-07:00So what?So what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-76969234941012502522012-10-22T19:00:25.573-07:002012-10-22T19:00:25.573-07:00"Or just get rid of attendance at an accredit..."Or just get rid of attendance at an accredited school as a requirement for becoming an attorney."<br /><br />California already has that, doesn't seem to help with much.<br /><br />"That's it. That's all. 170 or greater, or you're not accepted."<br /><br />Never happen, minority enrollment would fall off a cliff.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-57346806388484760082012-10-22T07:13:52.178-07:002012-10-22T07:13:52.178-07:00No - it would have been better if I had spent a fe...No - it would have been better if I had spent a few more years doing other things before going to law school.<br /><br />What I do not think is that K-JD is desirable, that is to say that anyone should go to law school who has no work or life experience outside school - period. To be blunt, you think it is a MacKism - I think (since it is evident) that you are a naïf who should not be giving anyone legal advice because you have no life experience to give the advice from. <br /><br />Moreover, making someone take two years out between college and law school means that they would have to make a more serious choice of law school versus another option it would seem to me that a naîf (like probably you) who has never held down a job saw no real career choice other than law school - what was your pre-law degree in? Pre-Law? Poli-Sci and English?<br /><br />I'm not big on virgin Bishops giving contraceptive advice either<br /><br />MacKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442386017204584747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-56616441283048116002012-10-22T06:31:29.500-07:002012-10-22T06:31:29.500-07:00In other words, only people like you should get in...In other words, only people like you should get into law schools and only people like you might make decent lawyers?<br /><br />Typical MacKism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-25063288363064855572012-10-22T05:40:47.071-07:002012-10-22T05:40:47.071-07:00Mid 20s - with 2 years of full time work, some leg...Mid 20s - with 2 years of full time work, some legal related - and a prior background in science - physics, chemistry, math.MacKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442386017204584747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-15040428668634407732012-10-21T21:13:18.180-07:002012-10-21T21:13:18.180-07:00Or just get rid of attendance at an accredited sch...Or just get rid of attendance at an accredited school as a requirement for becoming an attorney. Let the market take over the legal practice, and allow this disgusting "profession" to complete its slow and painful death. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-63937641077849307912012-10-21T18:18:27.814-07:002012-10-21T18:18:27.814-07:00I fully agree that most people in law school never...I fully agree that most people in law school never should have been admitted. They'll never be adequate lawyers, never mind good ones.<br /><br />Cutting admission is indeed necessary. It will, of course, mean the closure of plenty of law schools. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-50750303006605413862012-10-21T17:45:08.626-07:002012-10-21T17:45:08.626-07:00That's not Painter. Not his style. Might be ...That's not Painter. Not his style. Might be Brian? (Joke - not his style, either). Hell, it might have been me (but it wasn't).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-801382171865108662012-10-21T17:43:43.313-07:002012-10-21T17:43:43.313-07:00So, oh great white god MacK, how old were you when...So, oh great white god MacK, how old were you when you entered law school? Just curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-70228838918001099182012-10-21T17:36:17.111-07:002012-10-21T17:36:17.111-07:00Listen, folks, this is one very simple thing that ...Listen, folks, this is one very simple thing that would fix all the problems.<br /><br />Law school admissions require 170+ LSAT score.<br /><br />That's it. That's all. 170 or greater, or you're not accepted.<br /><br />Done.LSAT as gatekeepernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-48335682247135321082012-10-21T15:41:15.770-07:002012-10-21T15:41:15.770-07:00I just see this Master Degree as avoiding the basi...I just see this Master Degree as avoiding the basic problem - there are too many kids (and I mean kids) going to law school who have no business doing so. Most will not and would not make good lawyers even if they were to get a legal job straight out of law school - and a good few are coming out of the T5.<br /><br />The vast over-recruitment of law matriculants, the belief that becoming a lawyer is an automatic key to the upper middle class - the idea that 3 years in law school and "hey-presto" $160,000 to start - is the source of the problem. <br /><br />Cutting law school places by 50-60% is the only solution. MacKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442386017204584747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-57025458242842773212012-10-21T14:00:44.100-07:002012-10-21T14:00:44.100-07:00Again, the first year of law school is not equival...Again, the first year of law school is not equivalent to a master's degree so awarding one is just printing a diploma for the student who drops out. <br /><br />If you want to give them a degree after the first year just give the student the degree of M.J.D. Minimus juris doctorate.... Hell, they may have paid up to $55,000 for this fine degree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-22538114349139994202012-10-21T12:21:24.201-07:002012-10-21T12:21:24.201-07:00"I instead think the objective might be accom..."I instead think the objective might be accomplished by giving first year students a paralegal or legal assistant or legal secretary certification w/ a legal studies degree."<br /><br /><br />I'm sorry but you don't seem to have a clue what a paralegal or legal secretary does. What you propose is worthless in that regard.I`m sorry but you seem clueless...noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-7014444095994740972012-10-21T11:51:24.193-07:002012-10-21T11:51:24.193-07:00Call them "para-lawyers" after the DeVit...Call them "para-lawyers" after the DeVito character Deck Schifflet in Rainmaker.Here`s what you call a recipient of the worthless MAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-42824299700857456922012-10-21T11:33:11.061-07:002012-10-21T11:33:11.061-07:00I'm thinking a little differently from DJM. W...I'm thinking a little differently from DJM. While I recognize the benefit of students getting something at the end of first year (which would encourage them to drop out if they didn't want to pursue a JD), I agree w/ others who have pointed out that having yet another meaningless degree would do little to solve the problem and probably wouldn't be the incentive some hope it would be. And if a JD is currently meaningless, I doubt that an MA in the same study area is going to be more meaningful. In fact, it will mean less because it will signal that the person did not even finish law school. So, you still have the problem of the individual being unable to get employment, which still results, then, in the person having lost a lot due to his or her 'investment.'<br /><br />But thinking along the lines of DJM and realizing the value of having something at the end of the first year (or first year and a half, as I propose later), I instead think the objective might be accomplished by giving first year students a paralegal or legal assistant or legal secretary certification w/ a legal studies degree. <br /><br />First, the employment trend right now is towards hiring those w/ practical skills and this would fulfill that need. So practical certification would help these students get employed much better than a MA w/ an impractical application. The first year of law school wouldn't be a complete waste because these students would actually graduate w/ something that would help them get a job. Also, it would force law schools to have to teach some practical skills, like how to file motions, etc., something that is sorely needed. These students would actually have an advantage in the job market, because they would know practical skills as well as some of the legal theory behind those skills - a unique combination. They would be a combination between a paralegal and a lawyer. Perhaps the program could be a year and a half as opposed to one year to accomodate learning the additional skills.<br /><br />And those that go on to get the JD would also benefit because should they decide to continue to become an attorney, they will also have much needed practical skills in addition to lawyering skills, which many will end up needing because they will probably have to go solo and will be unable to afford secretaries or legal assistants. And the lawyers that can do both skills would have an advantage in the hiring market I would think. I have already seen evidence of this when a recent employer asked if I knew how to file motions, etc. He was looking for someone who could write like a lawyer and do the lawyerly stuff while still having a knowledge of the technical stuff that he didn't know how to do because he had been practicing his whole life.<br /><br />I realize that the biggest downfall to this plan is that many people who go to law school to take their place in upper middle class society or to fulfill their parents' dream of being a lawyer will not like to think that they are learning skills that will allow them to become a legal secretary. But trust me, when they graduate, whether it be after a year and a half or three years and are fighting in the job market, they will quickly come to see the use of having such skills and will be grateful. And these don't have to be billed as legal secretary or paralegal skills - they could be billed as practical skills. So perhaps the theoretical MA could be a Masters of practical legal skills w/ paralegal certification. <br /><br />As for the common suggestion bandied about about reducing law school to two years, that would never really solve the problem. If law school tuition continues to escalate and we do not address that, then cutting law school down to 2 years just means that w/in 5 to 10 years, everyone would be paying the same for 2 years of law school that they are currently paying for 3, except they would now be getting less. Nothing solved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-74383014970632555562012-10-21T11:15:49.372-07:002012-10-21T11:15:49.372-07:00Great points. Great points. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-82724655168463485252012-10-21T09:05:54.364-07:002012-10-21T09:05:54.364-07:00I can't figure out from DJM's post what va...I can't figure out from DJM's post what value the MA would really add besides the psychological bookend that is a "degree". If anything, this would flood the market with even more people who want to "try out" law school, and would increase competition for lawyerish jobs that don't require bar admittance. In a world where there are already too few bar-required jobs to go around, the MA holder would be at a disadvantage to unemployed JD holders who also compete for those jobs.<br /><br />Let's not get distracted from the real problems at hand: there are too many new lawyers and law school costs too much. Unless the MA drastically reduces the number of people chasing lawyer jobs (a dubious proposition at best, and I can imagine scenarios where the opposite could occur - for example, think of a world where the MA degree significantly increases 1L classes and then a large number of students who originally only wanted the MA choose to pursue the JD as they discover job opportunities for the MA are even worse than a JD and now they're already $50K in the hole for tuition), this is proposal is just rearranging more deck chairs. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-85879539485370583112012-10-21T07:37:37.014-07:002012-10-21T07:37:37.014-07:00The "bar leaders" referenced by DJM want...The "bar leaders" referenced by DJM want law schools to use the first year to sort students into the percentage they plan to hire, which generously is at most half, and the percentage they have no plan of hiring. They then want the law schools to train all the students during the second two years, so that the half they plan to hire are trained at the expense of all the students, including the half they do not plan to hire, regardless of how well they do during the second two years. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-90568087059968053162012-10-21T02:20:58.031-07:002012-10-21T02:20:58.031-07:00I like the way LawProf is a bomb thrower, while DJ...I like the way LawProf is a bomb thrower, while DJM is an incrementalist. Good contrast.<br /><br />But, as much as DJM's ideas make sense and are realistic, I believe that change will only come if the law schools face an existential threat.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-38696090782113689802012-10-20T21:11:29.744-07:002012-10-20T21:11:29.744-07:00A lot of law students stay in law school after 1L,...A lot of law students stay in law school after 1L, whether they should or not, because they figure what the heck else am I going to do. I don't see the MA really changes that. Maybe if the MA was good enough to get a job like document review making $30 hr more people would drop out after first year. This would give them the opportunity to work a decent job while they could think about what they wanted to do next in life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-3708157938513960442012-10-20T21:09:03.855-07:002012-10-20T21:09:03.855-07:00Great find, anon.
Another thing of note are the...Great find, anon. <br /><br />Another thing of note are the concurrences, where the first judge says he doesn't want to admit non-ABA grads because it might harm the U. of Montana by sending the wrong message to the legislature and the other judge and a second judge agree with him.<br /><br />Protectionism and abnegation of their duty in just a few pages. Great profession. At least the dissenter knew the gig was up 10 years ago.Docnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-16425767404591913542012-10-20T20:10:32.639-07:002012-10-20T20:10:32.639-07:00Also you don't have to take the LSAT.Also you don't have to take the LSAT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-9743628568103860602012-10-20T18:44:28.863-07:002012-10-20T18:44:28.863-07:00Loser Painter.Loser Painter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-64838437886466600082012-10-20T17:59:31.720-07:002012-10-20T17:59:31.720-07:00Can a state tell the ABA to go jump in a lake? Yes...Can a state tell the ABA to go jump in a lake? Yes. See the discussion in <i>In Re Culver</i>, from Montana, notably Trieweiler J's dissent:<br /><br />http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/Minutes/Senate/Exhibits/jus28a15.pdf<br /><br />Select quotes:<br /><br />"why the legislature would give a tinker's dam [<i>sic</i>] whether we required graduation from an ABA-certified law school as a condition to taking the bar exam is beyond me"<br /><br />He characterizes the ABA as a "national trade organization" and criticizes its "arbitrary standards".<br /><br />"Apparently, the states of New Hampshire, Maine and Wisconsin have found alternatives to requiring ABA accreditation. Certainly, in the interest of fairness, the members of this Court should be no less up to the challenge."<br /><br />Solving the problem of access to justice is not "possible based on the arbitrary straight jacket [<i>sic</i>] in which the American Bar Association, a mere professional trade organization, has placed legal education".<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com