JCougar wrote:You still have to learn a lot of material to be a competent doctor. And certain specialties, especially surgeons, learn specific skills.
Lawyers basically do research and write about it. Every legal issue is slightly different, so nothing in school is going to help you. You basically have to teach yourself the law on every case, because even cases that are very similar may have a few minor twists and procedural hurdles you need to look up.
MDs get both though. They learn academic stuff mostly for medical school and then have to do residency, where they are working under someone's supervision and guidance.
PhDs too...because they will be learning academic stuff the first few years and then have to pass a candidacy/field exam before benig able to begin their research phase. But during that research phase, they team up with a mentor who oversees their work personally and also guides them.
There's a kind of fusion or combination of the theory and practice side of things.
I get what your'e saying in that you don't have a set body of knowledge to master in law before going out and doing stuff with it. Every case will have its nuances and it's going to be tough to teach students everything they will need to know to go out and practice.
But isn't law school teaching a way of modeling the thought processes behind good legal thinking? Elie Mystal from ATL (Harvard Law and then biglaw dropout), says that law school doesn't teach you what you need to know to practice the law, it just messes with your thinking.
But doesn't the "messing with your thinking" portion serve as a method of modeling for you good vs. bad legal thinking? In other words, you may still have to learn a lot and do alot on your own, but isn't the value of law school to at least give you some idea of generally how to do that to make things easier for you?