Is the quality of education different at different tiers? Forum

[laanngo]

I mean look, it's an unaccredited school, it offers only a part-time evening program, its entire purpose is to increase minority representation in the law. It's not measuring itself by the same standard as accredited schools. I'm sure the school wants its grads to get jobs, but they're not competing with the vast majority of schools out there; if it wanted to do that, it would start taking the LSAT and trying to get higher scoring applicants, but that's clearly not what it's about.

(But also... Wikipedia doesn't say they had 13 people graduate last year.)

5+8 first time bar examinees last year. You're right, someone might have forgotten to sign up, changed career paths, or been a bot.

[nixy]

I mean no, they’re not reporting bots. It’s just not clear that first time takers all necessarily graduated that year. It’s not a conventional law school population.

But in any case, this seems like way more attention than Miles deserves.

[RandomInternetPerson]

I mean no, they’re not reporting bots. It’s just not clear that first time takers all necessarily graduated that year. It’s not a conventional law school population.

But in any case, this seems like way more attention than Miles deserves.

Plus, wouldn't NON first time takers have to be NOT graduates of that year as well (can't repeat unless you sat before, and can't have sat before unless you already qualified to sit before, which means graduated previously)
EVEN IF we assumed that all first time takers were graduates from that year, wouldn't that be 8 and not 13?

[laanngo]

But in any case, this seems like way more attention than Miles deserves.

I was joking about bots.

But in any case, this seems like way more attention than Miles deserves.

It's all negative attention though. Why should someone attend a law school where (close to) no one can

Plus, wouldn't NON first time takers have to be NOT graduates of that year as well (can't repeat unless you sat before, and can't have sat before unless you already qualified to sit before, which means graduated previously)
EVEN IF we assumed that all first time takers were graduates from that year, wouldn't that be 8 and not 13?

The bar exam is offered twice a school year. A school on the semester system offers 2 opportunities a year to graduate.

[nixy]

Never said anyone should attend Miles and said at least twice that probably no one should.

[RandomInternetPerson]

But in any case, this seems like way more attention than Miles deserves.

I was joking about bots.

But in any case, this seems like way more attention than Miles deserves.

It's all negative attention though. Why should someone attend a law school where (close to) no one can

Plus, wouldn't NON first time takers have to be NOT graduates of that year as well (can't repeat unless you sat before, and can't have sat before unless you already qualified to sit before, which means graduated previously)
EVEN IF we assumed that all first time takers were graduates from that year, wouldn't that be 8 and not 13?

The bar exam is offered twice a school year. A school on the semester system offers 2 opportunities a year to graduate.

We know that you were joking about bots, I don't anyone was really worried about skynet taking over the exam.

As for multiple times per year, yeah, I know..........doesn't change what I wrote. Repeaters are repeating. Not all always from the same class. I'll be fully honest, I didn't look deep into this to know if we are talking about a July or Feb exam. If it's a July exam, then yes ALL repeaters are from prior year graduating classes (and if that large of a percent are first time takers, I suspect that is the case) If the Feb exam.....I honestly have no idea, but bar pass rate for repeaters goes down statistically so likely still at least some mutli-repeaters.

EDIT: I didn't see your point at first about multiple points to graduate. An extra wrinkle sure, but other than my July math, the rest all still applies.

And if Feb and the July would be same academic year but different calendar years...........this swamp math could still get muddy quick depending on definition(s) of choice.

Not that it really matters obviously. Maybe someday one of them will be their states Attorney General. More power to them. I dunno. Meh.

[RandomInternetPerson]

Since we are comparing/contrasting legal education quality, anyone have thoughts on those going full Kim Kardashian with the "reading the law" internship instead of school to sit their states bar exam. I know CA allows it, and to some level other states like NY let people do a year or so of the JD and then do it an alternative to the Degree.

Would there be pro's to this? Anyone know anyone who has done it that they know in real life?

[nixy]

The only attorney I know of who did this was an absolute idiot.

[laanngo]

Since we are comparing/contrasting legal education quality, anyone have thoughts on those going full Kim Kardashian with the "reading the law" internship instead of school to sit their states bar exam. I know CA allows it, and to some level other states like NY let people do a year or so of the JD and then do it an alternative to the Degree.

Would there be pro's to this? Anyone know anyone who has done it that they know in real life?

Practicing a lawyer without the 3 year time and tuition commitment of law school would absolutely be a great idea if we didn't already have a huge surplus of lawyers in this country

The only attorney I know of who did this was an absolute idiot.

What was the reasoning behind their choice? Are they an idiot at legal reasoning, or a general dumbass?

[nixy]

No idea what their motivation was, I found out that they read the law from someone else. TBF to reading the law, yes, I think this person was just a general dumbass and would have been just as bad a lawyer if they'd gone to law school. It wasn't about gaps in their knowledge, but inability to understand what was in front of them.

[RandomInternetPerson]

laango, the "we have too many lawyers" argument is kind of moot though isn't it? If the person in question is going to be (in this hypothetical at least) getting to the destination in question irregardless of which path they take to get there, saying "that path would sweet if not for there being too many at this destination" doesn't really change that they are still there no matter what right? Be it with/without debt, a degree, etc.

Unless you thought that I was proposing expanding it to all locations, then I could see that being a valid point. To be clear though, that's not what I was trying to propose at this point. Just wondering about people who have already done so.

Nixy, I was about to ask for follow-up but the LDS computer overlord tells me that you already defacto answered my would be follow-up inquiry prior to my clicking the submit on it.

[laanngo]

No idea what their motivation was, I found out that they read the law from someone else. TBF to reading the law, yes, I think this person was just a general dumbass and would have been just as bad a lawyer if they'd gone to law school. It wasn't about gaps in their knowledge, but inability to understand what was in front of them.

That's just a single data point, but makes me really doubt why you are required to go to law school for 3 years to be a lawyer as opposed to, for example, having 3 years of paralegal experience under your belt.

[laanngo]

laango, the "we have too many lawyers" argument is kind of moot though isn't it? If the person in question is going to be (in this hypothetical at least) getting to the destination in question irregardless of which path they take to get there, saying "that path would sweet if not for there being too many at this destination" doesn't really change that they are still there no matter what right? Be it with/without debt, a degree, etc.

Unless you thought that I was proposing expanding it to all locations, then I could see that being a valid point. To be clear though, that's not what I was trying to propose at this point. Just wondering about people who have already done so.

Nixy, I was about to ask for follow-up but the LDS computer overlord tells me that you already defacto answered my would be follow-up inquiry prior to my clicking the submit on it.

more precisely, what I meant was, too many people have law degrees relative to the amount of well-paying or enjoyable lawyer jobs.

[RandomInternetPerson]

laango, the "we have too many lawyers" argument is kind of moot though isn't it? If the person in question is going to be (in this hypothetical at least) getting to the destination in question irregardless of which path they take to get there, saying "that path would sweet if not for there being too many at this destination" doesn't really change that they are still there no matter what right? Be it with/without debt, a degree, etc.

Unless you thought that I was proposing expanding it to all locations, then I could see that being a valid point. To be clear though, that's not what I was trying to propose at this point. Just wondering about people who have already done so.

Nixy, I was about to ask for follow-up but the LDS computer overlord tells me that you already defacto answered my would be follow-up inquiry prior to my clicking the submit on it.

more precisely, what I meant was, too many people have law degrees relative to the amount of well-paying or enjoyable lawyer jobs.

So an unrelated comment, that's fine. As to your other comment about letting paralegals become lawyers, I could see the merritt there but I think that there would be substantial differences between studying under a lawyer in an organized apprentice program vs working for one in general. Albeit most non attorney court clerk's THINK they know more than lawyers anyways. I would like to see them required to pass the bar to do their job, even if not as a "full" lawyer. Might weed out a few of the Kim Davis ones out.

[nixy]

No idea what their motivation was, I found out that they read the law from someone else. TBF to reading the law, yes, I think this person was just a general dumbass and would have been just as bad a lawyer if they'd gone to law school. It wasn't about gaps in their knowledge, but inability to understand what was in front of them.

That's just a single data point, but makes me really doubt why you are required to go to law school for 3 years to be a lawyer as opposed to, for example, having 3 years of paralegal experience under your belt.

Paralegals don't practice law and being a paralegal doesn't teach you law. Which isn't to say that a lot of paralegals couldn't learn to be lawyers pretty easily - they could - or that anyone necessarily *needs* to go to law school for three years, but that's what the ABA has decided lawyers need to do.

Also, just because the lawyer in question was a bad lawyer for reasons apart from having read the law, doesn't mean that law school is useless.

[RandomInternetPerson]

As far as a lawyer who didn't go to law school being bad having ANY connection to law school itself being bad.....not sure how one would make that logic leap. As far as paralegals "practicing" law.....that's a definition issue. An imaginary line we draw in the sand . There are some obvious no go zones like being filing attorney or making an in court appearance but they often do more lawyerish stuff than people who we would let say they are "practicing" law. I know that this next thought is even a step further but it is interesting how in America we combine into one license vs other nations seperate distinctions between solicitor, barrister, etc.

[laanngo]

So an unrelated comment, that's fine. As to your other comment about letting paralegals become lawyers, I could see the merritt there but I think that there would be substantial differences between studying under a lawyer in an organized apprentice program vs working for one in general. Albeit most non attorney court clerk's THINK they know more than lawyers anyways. I would like to see them required to pass the bar to do their job, even if not as a "full" lawyer. Might weed out a few of the Kim Davis ones out.

I only meant 3 years of paralegal/patent agent experience to substitute for law school, not for having to pass the bar.

[RandomInternetPerson]

So an unrelated comment, that's fine. As to your other comment about letting paralegals become lawyers, I could see the merritt there but I think that there would be substantial differences between studying under a lawyer in an organized apprentice program vs working for one in general. Albeit most non attorney court clerk's THINK they know more than lawyers anyways. I would like to see them required to pass the bar to do their job, even if not as a "full" lawyer. Might weed out a few of the Kim Davis ones out.

I only meant 3 years of paralegal/patent agent experience to substitute for law school, not for having to pass the bar.

So basically diploma privilege, but minus the diploma? There needs to be SOME sort of litmus to filter through beyond just showing up enough times in a row. Otherwise the incompetence and nepotism cocktail that would create...... dear lord. I immediately think of the living in basement at 30 kids and spouse secretaries who already think they are whatever their spouse is just by (osmosis seems like a censored way to word this)......a novel idea for theory but I wouldn't want to see it in practice.

[RandomInternetPerson]

I just noticed the patent agent part. That is a totally seperate math since it has degree and license requirements, albeit not a JD. And also essentially does limited practice, but not needing any lawyer supervision or guidance to do so. The law is a broad spectrum. It's why there are limited licenses for specialists and I fully encourage and support that, but I wouldn't want to hand out automatic CDL rights to someone no matter HOW many decades they mastered a moped, not even if they are the best person at it in the world.

[laanngo]

So basically diploma privilege, but minus the diploma? There needs to be SOME sort of litmus to filter through beyond just showing up enough times in a row. Otherwise the incompetence and nepotism cocktail that would create...... dear lord. I immediately think of the living in basement at 30 kids and spouse secretaries who already think they are whatever their spouse is just by (osmosis seems like a censored way to word this)......a novel idea for theory but I wouldn't want to see it in practice.

One of the big problems right now is that too many people are going to law school. There aren't enough jobs to go around. If a bunch of law schools closed up shop or slashed class sizes, then some people could find their way gainfully employed as a lawyer by distinguishing themselves at overlapping tasks as a paralegal and then passing the bar. Right now nearly all of those people will be filtered out because they don't have a law degree, when many of those degree holders probably aren't that much smarter than the mentioned idiot.

I wouldn't want to hand out automatic CDL rights to someone no matter HOW many decades they mastered a moped, not even if they are the best person at it in the world.

That's why they would still have to pass the bar, which you usually only have 2-6 attempts at. I'm not saying that anyone who apprentices = anyone with a law degree. Obviously the person who went to Yale will be better respected and connected and have a clear baseline of knowledge on all legal subjects. I've read many times about how law schools are too plentiful and some should close shop or reduce their class sizes. Minnesota, a reasonably respected law school, had the acumen to do the latter as opposed to lower their standards to keep up class sizes. I think it's interesting to discuss what that kind of future looks like - probably like the 40s (?) like Truman (?) merely studied the law to become the lawyer, but was much more notable for his accomplishments in the battlefield and oval office.

[RandomInternetPerson]

So basically diploma privilege, but minus the diploma? There needs to be SOME sort of litmus to filter through beyond just showing up enough times in a row. Otherwise the incompetence and nepotism cocktail that would create...... dear lord. I immediately think of the living in basement at 30 kids and spouse secretaries who already think they are whatever their spouse is just by (osmosis seems like a censored way to word this)......a novel idea for theory but I wouldn't want to see it in practice.

One of the big problems right now is that too many people are going to law school. There aren't enough jobs to go around. If a bunch of law schools closed up shop or slashed class sizes, then some people could find their way gainfully employed as a lawyer by distinguishing themselves at overlapping tasks as a paralegal and then passing the bar. Right now nearly all of those people will be filtered out because they don't have a law degree, when many of those degree holders probably aren't that much smarter than the mentioned idiot.

You seem a bit all over the place. So now require the bar (before you clarified that not being a qualifier) And if too many grads (possibly true as a stand alone argument) that doesn't get you to the conclusion that you think it does. For starters almost every JD requires clinics and internships or externships to graduate, plus literally just showing up to work file in that experience Gap as well. I support the internship idea if done properly plus the bar exam, but you seem to be confused on or perhaps conflating a few things with all of this.

[nixy]

One of the big problems right now is that too many people are going to law school. There aren't enough jobs to go around. If a bunch of law schools closed up shop or slashed class sizes, then some people could find their way gainfully employed as a lawyer by distinguishing themselves at overlapping tasks as a paralegal and then passing the bar. Right now nearly all of those people will be filtered out because they don't have a law degree, when many of those degree holders probably aren't that much smarter than the mentioned idiot.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

How did you get from someone "reading" the law to working as a paralegal? Those aren't at all the same thing. Why are you worrying about whether paralegals can get jobs as lawyers?

Also, believe me, every law grad I've met is much smarter than the lawyer I was referencing.

[RandomInternetPerson]

I believe that some Canadian Provinces require a year apprenticeship post graduation to get fully licensed. But that is more combining the Degree, bar exam , and apprenticeship than substituting and for the other. If there are any Canadians here interested in chiming in on that part feel free. EDIT: The rule mentioned above might only be for ABA grads going to Canada and not applied to their local Grads. I'm not sure on that part.

[laanngo]

You seem a bit all over the place. So now require the bar (before you clarified that not being a qualifier) And if too many grads (possibly true as a stand alone argument) that doesn't get you to the conclusion that you think it does. For starters almost every JD requires clinics and internships or externships to graduate, plus literally just showing up to work file in that experience Gap as well. I support the internship idea if done properly plus the bar exam, but you seem to be confused on or perhaps conflating a few things with all of this.

I was never against having to take the bar. Obviously someone with a degree will be seen as much more qualified - that speaks to the market saturation right now.

How did you get from someone "reading" the law to working as a paralegal? Those aren't at all the same thing. Why are you worrying about whether paralegals can get jobs as lawyers?
Also, believe me, every law grad I've met is much smarter than the lawyer I was referencing.

Those are definitely different in practice, but in preparation, are they different in quality of preparation as a lawyer?

Also, believe me, every law grad I've met is much smarter than the lawyer I was referencing.

Any humorous anecdotes?

[RandomInternetPerson]

So an unrelated comment, that's fine. As to your other comment about letting paralegals become lawyers, I could see the merritt there but I think that there would be substantial differences between studying under a lawyer in an organized apprentice program vs working for one in general. Albeit most non attorney court clerk's THINK they know more than lawyers anyways. I would like to see them required to pass the bar to do their job, even if not as a "full" lawyer. Might weed out a few of the Kim Davis ones out.

I only meant 3 years of paralegal/patent agent experience to substitute for law school, not for having to pass the bar.

Upon re-read I see that I misread your position on the bar. My mistake .