Become American Lawyer Without JD or LSAT!!! Forum

[Verity]

OP here. Wow, this thread really went to crap while I was asleep. You people really speak horribly to each-other, what a shame.

I want to pose a basic question. With respect to legal education and hiring practices, what do you think would happen if the state bars suddenly allowed American-training LLBs to sit the bar and become qualified lawyers in their respected states?

Most of these losers ITT have emotional problems.

I think if the ABA changed its tune w/r/t LLBs, eventually law firms would too. I think a 4-5 year LLB+LLM would be just as good if not better than BA/S+JD. The current paradigm is expensive, unnecessary, and nobody else in the world does it this way (unless I'm leaving out one or two third-world countries). You could say that the LSAT and UG filter "fucktards" all you want. Isn't that what the bar exam is for, though? There are other ways to vet lawyers than by forcing them to spend 4 years studying something else, and then mortgaging their futures even more so on another 3-years.

By the way, the ultimate power holders that dictate to law firms, the clients, are getting tired of the high costs that lawyers feel entitled to for all they've paid and studied. If you want to talk economic efficiency, the current model is not the most efficient for anyone. It does benefit schools, though.

[fanmingrui]

OP here. Wow, this thread really went to crap while I was asleep. You people really speak horribly to each-other, what a shame.

I want to pose a basic question. With respect to legal education and hiring practices, what do you think would happen if the state bars suddenly allowed American-training LLBs to sit the bar and become qualified lawyers in their respected states?

What happens to students who graduate from ABA credited schools like Cooley?

+1

[Patriot1208]

OP here. Wow, this thread really went to crap while I was asleep. You people really speak horribly to each-other, what a shame.

I want to pose a basic question. With respect to legal education and hiring practices, what do you think would happen if the state bars suddenly allowed American-training LLBs to sit the bar and become qualified lawyers in their respected states?

Most of these losers ITT have emotional problems.

That hurts, broseph

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[NYC Law]

Why have MDs go to 4 years of undergrad first? Why require general ed course requirements? It all comes down to fundamental American education theory that a well rounded and over expansive education as opposed to just a technical training education is a big plus to society, and our policies very clearly reflect this. Is it obtuse and can it be somewhat unnecessary? Maybe. But I think it's overall a positive since it provides a broad knowledge set so at least the 'educated' aren't merely otherwise ignorant specialists, and it provides a brief exposure to other fields and an opportunity to change career tracks before you're locked into something you don't truly enjoy (or have any idea what else is out there, or what your field of study even truly consists of).

[JKill01]

In all seriousness, after posting a flip reference, I have to agree with NYC Law. While I can understand the desire to do without the four years of "extraneous" classes and courses not directed towards your focus, I think we would be losing something if we didn't value the idea of learning, simply for the sake of bettering oneself. Yes, I think it would be possible to practice law or medicine simply by soley doing so. I'm sure some could do it very well. But I think with law, a discipline that is almost a mash up of literature, philosophy, politics, ethics, and one that touches on almost every area of life (religion, business, government, crime), there is something tangible to be gained by having a wide breadth of knowledge, interests that extend beyond your occupation. As I was sitting in my first law school class, getting to know my fellow students, I was blown away by the diversity of experience and the scope of employments, passions and hobbies they brought to the proverbial table. Our current system, whatever its flaws, may have something to do with that.

[bport hopeful]

OP here. Wow, this thread really went to crap while I was asleep. You people really speak horribly to each-other, what a shame.

I want to pose a basic question. With respect to legal education and hiring practices, what do you think would happen if the state bars suddenly allowed American-training LLBs to sit the bar and become qualified lawyers in their respected states?

Most of these losers ITT have emotional problems.

I think if the ABA changed its tune w/r/t LLBs, eventually law firms would too. I think a 4-5 year LLB+LLM would be just as good if not better than BA/S+JD. The current paradigm is expensive, unnecessary, and nobody else in the world does it this way (unless I'm leaving out one or two third-world countries). You could say that the LSAT and UG filter "fucktards" all you want. Isn't that what the bar exam is for, though? There are other ways to vet lawyers than by forcing them to spend 4 years studying something else, and then mortgaging their futures even more so on another 3-years.

By the way, the ultimate power holders that dictate to law firms, the clients, are getting tired of the high costs that lawyers feel entitled to for all they've paid and studied. If you want to talk economic efficiency, the current model is not the most efficient for anyone. It does benefit schools, though.

This is full of fail....

Why have MDs go to 4 years of undergrad first? Why require general ed course requirements? It all comes down to fundamental American education theory that a well rounded and over expansive education as opposed to just a technical training education is a big plus to society, and our policies very clearly reflect this. Is it obtuse and can it be somewhat unnecessary? Maybe. But I think it's overall a positive since it provides a broad knowledge set so at least the 'educated' aren't merely otherwise ignorant specialists, and it provides a brief exposure to other fields and an opportunity to change career tracks before you're locked into something you don't truly enjoy (or have any idea what else is out there, or what your field of study even truly consists of).

While this is full of win.


Also, my point was just that things arent necessarily successful just because the ABA credits them

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[Danteshek]

As seen in this thread, JD students are already too immature. LLB would only make it worse. I think law schools should only accept those with 4 years of professional work experience.

[TaipeiMort]

OP, I am ending this.

I have friends from China at my T6 who are going the LLB/LLM route. After graduation, they are in very high demand for Chinese firms, and even some US firms in China. However, they are struggling to find any type of job right now in the US.

I have one friend who graduated first in her LLB class of 1,500 in China, rocked as four-year top senior associate at China's top firm, has led M&A projects for 5+ Fortune 500 firms, has almost perfect English. She absolutely dominated the 2Ls and 3Ls at my ultra-rigorous T6 and probably got top-ten percent grades overall among 2Ls and 3Ls. She is outgoing, smart, funny, and not ugly.

She has so far been shut-out in the US. They all have been shut-out. Those that want to practice in the US bail and get a JD (like WUSTL or NU's convertible LLM JD program).

The reality is that LLMs, unless holding great connections, have little to no chance of beating out a T1 grad in the US domestic legal market.

Here are four paths for you (I'm assuming based upon your syntax that Chinese, not English is your first language):
US-based firm: T14 education (170 LSAT).
Chinese domestic: US LLM, 关系.
Chinese international firm: T6 JD (172 LSAT), 关系, and Great English.

[bport hopeful]

As seen in this thread, JD students are already too immature. LLB would only make it worse. I think law schools should only accept those with 4 years of professional work experience.

Judging one's maturity level based on their semi anonymous forum posts is egregious.

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[Danteshek]

As seen in this thread, JD students are already too immature. LLB would only make it worse. I think law schools should only accept those with 4 years of professional work experience.

Judging one's maturity level based on their semi anonymous forum posts is egregious.

Why? I think anonymous posts are more probative of maturity than live discussions.

[bport hopeful]

As seen in this thread, JD students are already too immature. LLB would only make it worse. I think law schools should only accept those with 4 years of professional work experience.

Judging one's maturity level based on their semi anonymous forum posts is egregious.

Why? I think anonymous posts are more probative of maturity than live discussions.

Can you tell my why you think these things are the same?

A million inappropriate things pop into my head everyday, Im mature(ish) because I have a filter. Here, I dont need it.

[Danteshek]

As seen in this thread, JD students are already too immature. LLB would only make it worse. I think law schools should only accept those with 4 years of professional work experience.

Judging one's maturity level based on their semi anonymous forum posts is egregious.

Why? I think anonymous posts are more probative of maturity than live discussions.

Can you tell my why you think these things are the same?

A million inappropriate things pop into my head everyday, Im mature(ish) because I have a filter. Here, I dont need it.

You are immature because you enjoy putting other people down. HTH.

[bport hopeful]

You are immature because you enjoy putting other people down. HTH.

who did I put down? How is this immature?

[Verity]

Why have MDs go to 4 years of undergrad first? Why require general ed course requirements? It all comes down to fundamental American education theory that a well rounded and over expansive education as opposed to just a technical training education is a big plus to society, and our policies very clearly reflect this. Is it obtuse and can it be somewhat unnecessary? Maybe. But I think it's overall a positive since it provides a broad knowledge set so at least the 'educated' aren't merely otherwise ignorant specialists, and it provides a brief exposure to other fields and an opportunity to change career tracks before you're locked into something you don't truly enjoy (or have any idea what else is out there, or what your field of study even truly consists of).

This basically implies that the American system of legal education is superior to every other one in the world (including all of Western Europe), which I think is blatantly arrogant and ignorant. We don't necessarily produce the best lawyers, and even if we do it's not necessarily because of our educational system.

I'd also argue against the assumption that such well-roundedness has to be taught in UG, and then you go to law school. Seriously, law schools could offer a 5-year LLB/LLM, and include a certain basic curriculum toward this effect. And law schools wouldn't necessarily be opposed to this, since their students would matriculate for 5 years instead of 3. From an enrollment standpoint, that seems pretty good for law schools.

We don't have exposure to foreign lawyers very much, but we know that as a nation, we don't have a monopoly on highly-skilled and talented foreign doctors (who have learned under this educational model). Maybe if law was as constant across borders as the human body, more people would realize that there are just as many, if not more foreign lawyers who are just as highly-skilled and talented.

The point is that expenses have gotten out of hand. Clients are finding alternative ways to cut legal expenses. Both prospective and current law students should do the same w/r/t their educational costs, which are almost indefensibly high for most people. So I don't think OP's overall sentiment is misguided. I'm frankly shocked that nobody ITT gives that much of a shit. I don't know each of your personal circumstances, but costs of education are a major problem in our society, and I was expecting more progressive thinking from law students who eventually have to pay the bills. I don't know what the catty attitude is about, but I hope you all don't react this way in real life.

[piccolittle]

OP, I am ending this.

I have friends from China at my T6 who are going the LLB/LLM route. After graduation, they are in very high demand for Chinese firms, and even some US firms in China. However, they are struggling to find any type of job right now in the US.

I have one friend who graduated first in her LLB class of 1,500 in China, rocked as four-year top senior associate at China's top firm, has led M&A projects for 5+ Fortune 500 firms, has almost perfect English. She absolutely dominated the 2Ls and 3Ls at my ultra-rigorous T6 and probably got top-ten percent grades overall among 2Ls and 3Ls. She is outgoing, smart, funny, and not ugly.

She has so far been shut-out in the US. They all have been shut-out. Those that want to practice in the US bail and get a JD (like WUSTL or NU's convertible LLM JD program).

The reality is that LLMs, unless holding great connections, have little to no chance of beating out a T1 grad in the US domestic legal market.

Here are four paths for you (I'm assuming based upon your syntax that Chinese, not English is your first language):
US-based firm: T14 education (170 LSAT).
Chinese domestic: US LLM, 关系.
Chinese international firm: T6 JD (172 LSAT), 关系, and Great English.

You are missing one component of my message. I am talking about the LLB +LLM route for American citizens (born, raised, and native English speakers), not foreign nationals. The former don't suffer the disadvantage of the latter - being a non-citizens. So, firms won't have to go through the rediculously complicated work visa process. Also, there is the non-native English issue, which is critical in the wordy profession of law.

So, while I fully accept the LLB + LLM route suffers a huge disadvantage in the job market when compared with the JD, it is not accurate to compare foreigners to American citizens.

<--- US citizen, LLB, lawyer (didn't need an LLM, but know Americans who got them). I have been telling you the job market for LLMs is crappy for us too. This thread is dumb.

[bport hopeful]

Why have MDs go to 4 years of undergrad first? Why require general ed course requirements? It all comes down to fundamental American education theory that a well rounded and over expansive education as opposed to just a technical training education is a big plus to society, and our policies very clearly reflect this. Is it obtuse and can it be somewhat unnecessary? Maybe. But I think it's overall a positive since it provides a broad knowledge set so at least the 'educated' aren't merely otherwise ignorant specialists, and it provides a brief exposure to other fields and an opportunity to change career tracks before you're locked into something you don't truly enjoy (or have any idea what else is out there, or what your field of study even truly consists of).

This basically implies that the American system of legal education is superior to every other one in the world (including all of Western Europe), which I think is blatantly arrogant and ignorant. We don't necessarily produce the best lawyers, and even if we don't it's not necessarily because of our educational system.

I'd also argue against the assumption that such well-roundedness has to be taught in UG, and then you go to law school. Seriously, law schools could offer a 5-year LLB/LLM, and include a certain basic curriculum toward this effect. And law schools wouldn't necessarily be opposed to this, since their students would matriculate for 5 years instead of 3. From an enrollment standpoint, that seems pretty good for law schools.

We don't have exposure to foreign lawyers very much, but we know that as a nation, we don't have a monopoly on highly-skilled and talented foreign doctors (who have learned under this educational model). Maybe if law was as constant across borders as the human body, more people would realize that there are just as many, if not more foreign lawyers who are just as highly-skilled and talented.

The point is that expenses have gotten out of hand. Clients are finding alternative ways to cut legal expenses. Both prospective and current law students should do the same w/r/t their educational costs, which are almost indefensibly high for most people. So I don't think OP's overall sentiment is misguided. I'm frankly shocked that nobody ITT gives that much of a shit. I don't know each of your personal circumstances, but costs of education are a major problem in our society, and I was expecting more progressive thinking from law students who eventually have to pay the bills. I don't know what the catty attitude is about, but I hope you all don't react this way in real life.

The kind of change you are talking about that still produces well rounded citizens is not feasible. Also, who wants to be Chinese anyway.

Heres as good a reason to keep the status quo as any, UG is fun. People want to have fun before they begin their adult lives.

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[Verity]

The kind of change you are talking about that still produces well rounded citizens is not feasible. Also, who wants to be Chinese anyway.

Heres as good a reason to keep the status quo as any, UG is fun. People want to have fun before they begin their adult lives.

I only have to watch Campus PD to know that UG is a total waste of time and money for most kids (i.e., their parents).

Did you wonders, apparently.

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[bport hopeful]

The kind of change you are talking about that still produces well rounded citizens is not feasible. Also, who wants to be Chinese anyway.

Heres as good a reason to keep the status quo as any, UG is fun. People want to have fun before they begin their adult lives.

I only have to watch Campus PD to know that UG is a total waste of time and money for most kids (i.e., their parents).

Did you wonders, apparently.

Were you home schooled or what?

You obviously have no idea what kind of fun UG can be if you are judging UG off of the actions of the police department. And because you dont know fun, you dont know what fun can do for a persons growth. What are you even working for if youre never going to be happy you robot?

[Verity]

The kind of change you are talking about that still produces well rounded citizens is not feasible. Also, who wants to be Chinese anyway.

Heres as good a reason to keep the status quo as any, UG is fun. People want to have fun before they begin their adult lives.

I only have to watch Campus PD to know that UG is a total waste of time and money for most kids (i.e., their parents).

Did you wonders, apparently.

Were you home schooled or what?

You obviously have no idea what kind of fun UG can be if you are judging UG off of the actions of the police department. And because you dont know fun, you dont know what fun can do for a persons growth. What are you even working for if youre never going to be happy you robot?

I've had plenty of fun in my life without wasting it the way I've seen countless other kids waste it (and money) in UG. Besides burying my argument among your stupid derailments, you continue on with this odd little personal growth lesson.