Become American Lawyer Without JD or LSAT!!! Forum

[firemed]

Does anyone remember MysticalWheel? Verity is like her, but with fewer big words. I give it 3/5.

Never mention MW again. Please. I'm already having effing flashbacks just reading the name. Ugh... I think I might throw up.

[bport hopeful]

You honestly think UG is a waste of time? What did you major in? How often did you drink?

[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.

In addition, I'll add one final note that it wouldn't matter a jot to law firms (and this is the job-market part of the problem). The ABA and state bar assocs. would set the standards, and they would benefit either way. The school's prestige and the student's class rank would still be the two most important factors by far. Only difference is that costs would be lower for students, and at least two years are saved.

[firemed]

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.

But fun.

[kazu]

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.

I just want to point out that every non-citizen I've talked to in law school who's gone through the OCI process has said that the prospective visa process is not a deterrence at all to law firms. Firms want JDs, not American citizens holding LLBs. I also don't see how opening the gates and allowing even more potential lawyers into a system already glutted with unemployed JDs is going to help at all.

From what I can see OP's basic point is that you're angry about having to spend a couple more years in education than your foreign counterparts. Yes, you're dressing it up in various other ways, but those arguments aren't holding water and you're ignoring when other people are tearing them apart.

You keep saying that the U.S. is the only system that requires 4 years of unnecessary study before 3 years of actual legal training. That is, for the most part, true - but that's how the U.S. regulates the number of lawyers who are currently allowed to practice (and this mostly failing due to T4 schools, but that's another story). Each country has their own way of regulating how many people are allowed to practice law. The Chinese state bar exam has a passage rate of less than 10%, iirc, and people will study for years in order to pass, retaking several times - from what I hear this can be a lot more painful than 3 years of law school. In the UK, as someone stated previously ITT, in order to become a solicitor or a barrister you need to become employed first - which means they have a ton of unemployed law UG grads who choose not to become a lawyer, voluntarily or otherwise. So yes, "LLBs serve societies very well all over the world", but far fewer percentage of LLB holders actually become lawyers compared to JD degrees.

[firemed]

In the UK, as someone stated previously ITT, in order to become a solicitor or a barrister you need to become employed first - which means they have a ton of unemployed law UG grads who choose not to become a lawyer, voluntarily or otherwise. So yes, "LLBs serve societies very well all over the world", but far fewer percentage of LLB holders actually become lawyers compared to JD degrees.

There are apparently a lot of LLB holders who don't practice ever as solicitors or barristers. They get another degree, or work in business or what have you- as a lot of people with Bachelor's degrees do everywhere.

Hell, look at the downside of the Bachelor's level education of professionals in places like the UK: 6 years of medical education and then a fair number of them don't go on to practice- Graham Chapman springs to mind.

[WSJ_Law]

How often did you drink?

How often did you think? Grow up.

[kazu]

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.

Yes, expenses are getting out of hand, but just cutting down the years people need to study in order to qualify for the bar isn't going to help the legal industry either, especially the way it is now. Honestly I found OP's general sentiment to be more in "why the hell do we need to learn 4 years of crap when other countries don't?" direction, not "why is American education, especially law school, so freaking expensive?" - the former invites a lot more mocking than the latter.

[Verity]

I have friends like this: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=150923

She's not the only one. The system could use some reform, however meager.

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[areyouinsane]

But in economic, societal and philosophical terms, I cannot accept your rationale for barriers to entry. To me, it is inefficient and immoral. Barriers to entry, whether they be requiring a JD or a redicuously low bar passage rate or whatever, are only meant to protect the profession and keep wages high. But what is the result? Inflated prices for consumers, and in the case of law, that means limited access to justice.

Keep wages high? Most non Top 14/non biglaw grads would be better off managing an Applebees or learning a blue collar trade. Wages for non-biglaw lawyers are abysmal and getting lower all the time.

And in what way do most of the TTT grads vomited out by the diploma mills increase "access to justice"? Is a 'Bozo, Brooklyn or St. John's grad really going to put on a better defense than a layperson who has access to Google? Probably not.

Simply put, the best "solution" would be to keep the Top 14 schools around as Biglaw & prestigious clerkship feeders, and padlock the other 186 or so worthless diploma mills. State bars should drop the ABA law school requirement as a bar pre-req. and instead require apprenticeships for non Top 14'ers.

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[Verity]

Simply put, the best "solution" would be to keep the Top 14 schools around as Biglaw & prestigious clerkship feeders, and padlock the other 186 or so worthless diploma mills. State bars should drop the ABA law school requirement as a bar pre-req. and instead require apprenticeships for non Top 14'ers.

I relate to the sentiment, though this is much further from what I had in mind. Saying T14 or bust is wrong too, because a lot of T1 schools are great too. I also don't know what exact effect this would have on tuition and scholarships at T14.

[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).

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.

In addition, I'll add one final note that it wouldn't matter a jot to law firms (and this is the job-market part of the problem). The ABA and state bar assocs. would set the standards, and they would benefit either way. The school's prestige and the student's class rank would still be the two most important factors by far. Only difference is that costs would be lower for students, and at least two years are saved.

If UG is an economic burden, you're doing it wrong.

[PDaddy]

If you really want to try an obtuse and ridiculous idea to circumvent the fact you suck at the LSAT just go to CA, VT, VA, or WA and take the bar after studying under a judge/lawyer, skipping law school altogether. At least you'll save money.

I know someone who did this. He became an attorney at about 48 years old, which is actually impressive. It takes a lot of energy to go to law school or study as a Rule-6 Attorney (i.e., someone who apprenticed and then took the bar).

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98101-wa- ... 44561.html

[Blessedassurance]

Do you think it's fair that tuition in general has outpaced inflation nearly five-fold?

Couldn't it be argued that the rise is merely a consequence of supply and demand? "Fairness" is tricky and takes us into the philosophical realm in which answers will simply reflect personal beliefs etc. Is it "fair" that diamonds, Jaguars etc cost what they cost?

The argument that Federal loans must be reformed to influence the supply of labor is legitimate. I think it's not exclusive to legal education and is even more useful at the undergraduate level. Then again, the trade-off is denying people equal opportunity or the "pursuit of happiness" argument the OP was trying to hint at.

To OP: The AMA does a significantly better job at controlling supply of labor than the ABA does. It is very easy to get a JD and the ABA is not particular adept at denying opportunity. Additionally, there are other ways to be a lawyer without a JD. Your argument seems to revolve around finding a roundabout way into BigLaw. The path you are advocating exists, not just for BigLaw (for many people, at least). It's like complaining certain firms only hire T14 graduates when others outside the T14 are receiving equally valuable (or better) education outside the T14 and proposing a boycott of T14 schools to force firms to hire outside the T14.

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[Blessedassurance]

Is it fair that legal education costs are so high? I see fair as being what the market forces provide for, and the antithesis being that which people bring about through the manipulation of markets. It is probably unfair that legal fees, and thus everything legal-related, are so high, mainly because people (lawyers in this case) manipulate markets by imposing excessively high barriers to entry.

The current cost is what the "market forces provide for". If people were "overpaying" for legal education costs, there would be a reduction in people willing to pay which will reduce the price to a new equilibrium lower than what had hitherto existed.

Really? I am looking for a round-about way into BigLaw? Actually, I never even mentioned BigLaw, although other people in this thread did. I only mentioned a faster and possibly cheaper alternative to the JD route, with the result being a qualified US lawyer.

You mentioned that we all "want to make big bucks", I assumed you meant BigLaw. Did you have other ideas?

[Blessedassurance]

I don't know where people get these notions that all schools but the T14 should be demolished. If that happened, where would all your small-town divorce, probate, estate, small business, non white-collar crime lawyers come from? BigLaw works with Big Business, but your family is not big business, your local mom and pop store is not big business, so who is supposed to serve this large large part of our society and economy when all the T14 grads are off on Wall Street? We need the TTT and TTTT schools because we need small-town lawyers

Most people don't advocate an abolition of all but the T14. 200 is however, a bit much. Especially considering the demand for lawyers. The small town angle has been covered. An Emory professor advised students to move to Nebraska during a commencement speech.

[reepS]

I've been lurking this thread from the start, and the visualization I get of OP from the start is a little kid who is obsessed with star trek/Spock/Vulcan logic and tries to argue everything accordingly. Or a 16 year old drama/emo/goth kid who just read the communist manifesto.


Also my favorite recent OP comment is how he is philosophically against force. That's amazing. Isn't one of the basic foundations of law to force people to not use violence to resolve disputes? Like you sue someone instead of killing them? Or forcing someone to pay a fine?

Anyways carry on OP, goooo LLB! Screw the system! Down with JD's! Fight the white man whose keeping us down!

[reepS]

Also with the t14 or bust concept, Im rooting for team t1 or bust.

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[CaveatLector]

deleted post