A Modest Proposal

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:50 pm

jayzon wrote:I'm laying 3:1 odds that this user is a previously-banned-and-somehow-proxying troll.

Laying 6:1 odds that it is Kant.


Only on TLS do people get offended enough about legitimate points of view to ban people.

For the record, I am not Kant, nor have I been previously banned. Indeed, if Kant is named after the philosopher, I can rightly say that I hate him with every fiber in my being.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:59 pm

jayzon wrote:I am not offended by your point of view; I am offended by the smarmy douchiness which accompanies it.


Step one: Read Atlas Shrugged
Step two: Embrace elitism
Step three: ???
Step four: Profittt!

User avatar
BC2010
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:40 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby BC2010 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:02 pm

NYU notes: Much too good for this TTT.

Was your motive for this thread to discuss a way of improving the situation of the legal profession, or to flex your intellectual nuts on the internet?

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:06 pm

-
Last edited by Veyron on Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BC2010
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:40 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby BC2010 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:07 pm

So to flex your nuts, then..

Yimbeezy
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Yimbeezy » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:07 pm

pmomnie wrote:
NYU notes: Much too good for this TTT.

Was your motive for this thread to discuss a way of improving the situation of the legal profession, or to flex your intellectual nuts on the internet?


Whoa. Wouldn't it be cool if you could flex your nuts?

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:09 pm

Yimbeezy wrote:
pmomnie wrote:
NYU notes: Much too good for this TTT.

Was your motive for this thread to discuss a way of improving the situation of the legal profession, or to flex your intellectual nuts on the internet?


Whoa. Wouldn't it be cool if you could flex your nuts?


Yes, unfortunately is not possible. I've tried :cry:

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Drake014 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:17 pm

Veyron wrote:
jayzon wrote:I am not offended by your point of view; I am offended by the smarmy douchiness which accompanies it.


Step one: Read Atlas Shrugged
Step two: Embrace elitism
Step three: ???
Step four: Profittt!


I never read Atlas shrugged. Does the book propose that psuedo government organizations decide to artifically fix how many people can enter certain trades in order to inflate income?

User avatar
84Sunbird2000
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby 84Sunbird2000 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:27 pm

Atlas Shrugged is a tiresome, boilerplate novel that asserts that the rich are rich because they are the creators and providers and the proles are useless chaff, or as Rand later asserted, "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it". Moreover, when the poor (through their awful democracy) keep "over"taxing the wealthy provider elite, the wealthy decide to destroy society by retreating to a mountain enclave and withholding their oh-so-necessary services. Oh, and they also literally swoop down and destroy necessary and already extant infrastructure, led by the ever-mysterious John Galt. If you ever go to a right-wing message board or website, all of the "Who is John Galt?" stuff comes from their worship of this novel....despite the fact that huge numbers of them are the very people Rand looks upon as useless and easily replaceable.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Drake014 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:28 pm

kwhitegocubs wrote:Atlas Shrugged is a tiresome, boilerplate novel that asserts that the rich are rich because they are the creators and providers and the proles are useless chaff, or as Rand later asserted, "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it". Moreover, when the poor (through their awful democracy) keep "over"taxing the wealthy provider elite, the wealthy decide to destroy society by retreating to a mountain enclave and withholding their oh-so-necessary services. Oh, and they also literally swoop down and destroy necessary and already extant infrastructure, led by the ever-mysterious John Galt. If you ever go to a right-wing message board or website, all of the "Who is John Galt?" stuff comes from their worship of this novel....despite the fact that huge numbers of them are the very people Rand looks upon as useless and easily replaceable.


Its the last part that makes me feel warm inside.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:32 pm

"Does the book propose that psuedo government organizations decide to artificially fix how many people can enter certain trades in order to inflate income?"

In spite of your sarcasm (or because of it) this is a good critique. However, I would argue that the book proposes that private organizations should be able to do whatever the fuck they want. Remember, we are not talking about restricting entry to the legal profession, only to ABA accredited law schools. One of the best litigators in CA never went to law school. He is a Randian hero. Since he was an amazing lawyer, he managed to rise to the top without the ABA's seal of approval. I merely proposed that the ABA not extend that approval to other TTT grads who would still be able to rise if they were truly exceptional. I guess for this to work, every state would have to adopt CA's licensing standards.

Edit- Looks like every forum is talking about that LA times article.
--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Drake014 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:35 pm

Veyron wrote:"Does the book propose that psuedo government organizations decide to artificially fix how many people can enter certain trades in order to inflate income?"

In spite of your sarcasm (or because of it) this is a good critique. However, I would argue that the book proposes that private organizations should be able to do whatever the fuck they want. Remember, we are not talking about restricting entry to the legal profession, only to ABA accredited law schools. One of the best litigators in CA never went to law school. He is a Randian hero. Since he was an amazing lawyer, he managed to rise to the top without the ABA's seal of approval. I merely proposed that the ABA not extend that approval to other TTT grads who would still be able to rise if they were truly exceptional. I guess for this to work, every state would have to adopt CA's licensing standards.


If you strip the government of enough powers, such as the power to break up monopolies, private organizations become psuedo governments, infringing on the very same freedoms the libertarian minded are constantly afraid of the government infringing on.

There seems to be some silly childish notion that is long as an organization isn't the government, its okay for it to infringe on people's rights because it should have the freedom to restrict the freedom of others. As far as I'm concerned, any huge organization can turn into a government-like entity.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:38 pm

For it to be a psudo government entity though, wouldn't it have to have the ability to forceably restrict entry into the profession?

Also, what about the ABA's right to choose who it sanctions, should the lawyers who make up the ABA (all who have freely chosen to join) be forced to make decisions for the greater good? If your answer is "yes" because some of what the ABA does is recognized by state governments, then isn't this more an argument for stripping the ABA of recognition by the states than for saying that they should approve every TTT that comes down the pike?

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Renzo » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:43 pm

jayzon wrote:I'm laying 3:1 odds that this user is a previously-banned-and-somehow-proxying troll.

Laying 6:1 odds that it is Kant.

You're right about the previously banned troll, but not Kant. Kant wasn't as effective a troll, he was to nonsensical. This joker is making just enough sense to keep the trolling rolling.

User avatar
Fancy Pants
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Fancy Pants » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:43 pm

Veyron wrote:Indeed, if Kant is named after the philosopher, I can rightly say that I hate him with every fiber in my being.


Seriously?

I do have a real question for you, though.

You say that you are more than happy with the cruddylaw jobs being done by non-lawyers. My question is this: If people going to TTT law schools are not as good of lawyers as those going to top programs, why do you care about them? If your assumption is true, then it's not like you or anyone else who might graduate from a top program has to worry about being in direct competition with TTT grads for jobs.

The only real reason I can think that you have for your idea (and everyone else who proposes stupid stuff like this) is that you don't like the idea that you have to share the title "lawyer" with people who you think are inferior. Is your self-esteem really so shaky that you need to completely change the way the legal market works so that you can feel better about yourself? And do you really think that your self-esteem is important enough to institute such a drastic and otherwise unnecessary change?

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7118
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby los blancos » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:44 pm

Perhaps bringing back the LLB would be a solution?

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Drake014 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:45 pm

Veyron wrote:For it to be a psudo government entity though, wouldn't it have to have the ability to forceably restrict entry into the profession?


Depends on your view of things. Realistically, if the ABA implemented your type of plan the following would result:
In the short run: The number of lawyers would probably decrease because many would not pursue the law without being able to attend an ABA accredited school.
In the long run: the ABA would lose power and authority as other organizations would pop up to fill the void created by the ABA's attempted control of the market. The ABA's fall from power would of course be ugly, resulting in numerous lawsuits as it attempts to block the rise of sister organizations. Nonetheless, it would lose in the end, making your proposal useless in the long run.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:49 pm

Except, my dear captain, monopolies tend to endure when left alone without government interference SEE: Standard Oil.

On the LLB proposal: TITCR.

Fancy pants: I clearly don't care about TTTrs (outside of my friends at TTTs). Just pointing out our mutual interests in order to convince you to support a policy beneficial to me. I've always been under the impression that downward pressure on wages at the bottom of a market tends to depress wages at the top of the market, even if there is little overlap in hiring. Perhaps an econ major can correct me if I am wrong.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby flcath » Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:43 pm

Renzo wrote:
flcath wrote:Maybe, but come on, that salary info is purely exploitative. It's grandma's responsibility to be smart enough to not give her credit card number to the friendly young gentleman who calls her about donating to charity, but we still protect her.

This sounds appealing, until you think it through. You are saying that the government should prohibit some people from trying to engage in a trade they wish to attempt, not for consumer-protection reasons (such as licensing requirements) but because those people are presumably unable to make good career decisions for themselves . This ONLY happens in state-run Communist economies.
This is a very exaggerated characterization of many European nations.

Renzo wrote:Yes, there are too many lawyers. Yes, law school is a bad idea for a lot of the people who enroll. But it is exactly the same as people who move to Hollywood/Nashville/NYC to make it big--it is statistically a very bad idea, but part of the beauty of a capitalist economy is that people who want to dream big can give it a shot, and no one has to pay for it but them.
Yeah, but that's a non-ideal situation as well, and the type of government intrusion required to "protect" those people from their stupidity far exceeds what we are talking about here (tightening of existing accreditation standards and/or revocation of federal loan subsidization/guarantee).

My main question (and this seems to be the only--albeit incomplete--remedy that might actually transpire) is this: why doesn't the ABA regulate and require accurate employment and salary data? I have yet to hear a solid reason (and the idea that mandating LS graduates fill out a questionnaire [truthfully] is an unreasonable burden is NOT a solid reason).

User avatar
rw2264
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:59 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby rw2264 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:48 pm

Veyron wrote:The ABA should act like the AMA errr... the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). and severely restrict the schools that it accredits. States should be aloud one law school with an enrollment cap of 1500-2000 for every 2.5 million of population. Half of the people who apply to law school should be rejected everywhere they apply (as is the case with med school). This would have several positive effects:

Many unqualified people use law school as a fallback option wasting 3 years and 200k on a useless degree. This will increase the caliber of lawyers and the public's perception of them generally.

Since this would mean that the country now had less lawyers of a higher average quality, there would be upward pressure on salaries.

More people would go into economically productive professions instead of law.

Thoughts

edit: I understand that this is not a new idea but I still want to see if there is some way of justifying our current system which appears unsustainable to me. Literally everyone I know is either applying or planning on applying to LS.



you lost me at "aloud."

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:54 pm

I think rational discourse lost you long before that. Enjoy GW.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby flcath » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:02 pm

Veyron wrote:The ABA should act like the AMA errr... the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). and severely restrict the schools that it accredits. States should be allowed one law school with an enrollment cap of 1500-2000 for every 2.5 million of population. Half of the people who apply to law school should be rejected everywhere they apply (as is the case with med school).
I don't know what the "rules" of this debate are, and I understand that--as we on TLS are not the ones actually making the policy--this debate is inherently academic/theoretical, but I still think it's fair to dock points from your proposition on the grounds that it would never, ever be implemented, even if it was a good idea.

Your proposition also effectively makes the student bodies of UTexas and (presumably) UBerkeley ENORMOUS.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:18 pm

Oh, idk, stranger things have happened. Why would the student bodies be enlarged?

Lulz at this debate having "rules."
Last edited by Veyron on Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
84Sunbird2000
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby 84Sunbird2000 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:23 pm

flcath wrote:
Veyron wrote:The ABA should act like the AMA errr... the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). and severely restrict the schools that it accredits. States should be allowed one law school with an enrollment cap of 1500-2000 for every 2.5 million of population. Half of the people who apply to law school should be rejected everywhere they apply (as is the case with med school).
I don't know what the "rules" of this debate are, and I understand that--as we on TLS are not the ones actually making the policy--this debate is inherently academic/theoretical, but I still think it's fair to dock points from your proposition on the grounds that it would never, ever be implemented, even if it was a good idea.

Your proposition also effectively makes the student bodies of UTexas and (presumably) UBerkeley ENORMOUS.


For example, Cooley's incoming classes are around 2,000. If there were one California school, it would be somewhere between 7,500 and 10,000 for each incoming class.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:25 pm

Which is why the proposal includes an enrollment cap.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media, ohhellocharmedimsure and 12 guests