Top Law Schools

Sounds like they've figured out the root of the problem:

Law schools also need to do more to heed the legal profession's calls for more skills training and experiential learning, the task force says.

So when law schools are churning out too many lawyers, the solution is to lower bar requirements? Got it

Tiago Splitter wrote:Sounds like they've figured out the root of the problem:

Law schools also need to do more to heed the legal profession's calls for more skills training and experiential learning, the task force says.

This is the biggest canard. What do you want law schools to do, teach you to e-file and draft mindless crap like subpoenas and document requests? Anyone can learn that on the job. And none of this will make more jobs magically appear.

blsingindisguise wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Sounds like they've figured out the root of the problem:

Law schools also need to do more to heed the legal profession's calls for more skills training and experiential learning, the task force says.

This is the biggest canard. What do you want law schools to do, teach you to e-file and draft mindless crap like subpoenas and document requests? Anyone can learn that on the job. And none of this will make more jobs magically appear.

Why should law schools exist at all then?

dr123 wrote:

blsingindisguise wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Sounds like they've figured out the root of the problem:

Law schools also need to do more to heed the legal profession's calls for more skills training and experiential learning, the task force says.

This is the biggest canard. What do you want law schools to do, teach you to e-file and draft mindless crap like subpoenas and document requests? Anyone can learn that on the job. And none of this will make more jobs magically appear.

Why should law schools exist at all then?

Fewer of them should exist.

And I think it's arguable that we should go to a British model -- make law an undergrad subject, maybe even with an extra year tacked on, and then have internship/apprenticeship years. While I'm all for "experiential learning", I don't think anyone should be paying tuition to do it when they don't need to.

blsingindisguise wrote:And I think it's arguable that we should go to a British model -- make law an undergrad subject, maybe even with an extra year tacked on, and then have internship/apprenticeship years. While I'm all for "experiential learning", I don't think anyone should be paying tuition to do it when they don't need to.

Exactly. You really don't need more than 4-5 years of schooling, or 2 years on top of an undergrad (maybe even 1 year), to have a BASIC understanding of the law, which is all law school is ever going to teach you.

4 year undergrad or 2 year grad + 1 year apprenticeship would save money and make better lawyers.

JJ123 wrote:

blsingindisguise wrote:And I think it's arguable that we should go to a British model -- make law an undergrad subject, maybe even with an extra year tacked on, and then have internship/apprenticeship years. While I'm all for "experiential learning", I don't think anyone should be paying tuition to do it when they don't need to.

Exactly. You really don't need more than 4-5 years of schooling, or 2 years on top of an undergrad (maybe even 1 year), to have a BASIC understanding of the law, which is all law school is ever going to teach you.

4 year undergrad or 2 year grad + 1 year apprenticeship would save money and make better lawyers.

Plus if you combined it with undergrad you could add some non-law requirements that might be useful to lawyers, like a couple of basic business/finance courses, maybe a course in persuasive writing.

What I really dislike is the trend of pushing kids to do more "internships" for credit while in school. Then you're basically paying tuition to work.

This was a 2-hour conference call discussion in my remote summer class this week. Probably 2/3 of the class (and the prof) were arguing that the poor don't have access to adequate legal representation, so we need more lawyers. I tried to state the obvious (there are plenty of lawyers; they just can't afford to work for peanuts representing poor people because LAW SCHOOL IS TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE) but it mostly got passed over. So I muted my mic and dozed off for the middle half of class.

And nobody in the class (not even the prof) is even a boomer!

blsingindisguise wrote:

JJ123 wrote:

blsingindisguise wrote:And I think it's arguable that we should go to a British model -- make law an undergrad subject, maybe even with an extra year tacked on, and then have internship/apprenticeship years. While I'm all for "experiential learning", I don't think anyone should be paying tuition to do it when they don't need to.

Exactly. You really don't need more than 4-5 years of schooling, or 2 years on top of an undergrad (maybe even 1 year), to have a BASIC understanding of the law, which is all law school is ever going to teach you.

4 year undergrad or 2 year grad + 1 year apprenticeship would save money and make better lawyers.

Plus if you combined it with undergrad you could add some non-law requirements that might be useful to lawyers, like a couple of basic business/finance courses, maybe a course in persuasive writing.

What I really dislike is the trend of pushing kids to do more "internships" for credit while in school. Then you're basically paying tuition to work.

In accounting, we don't put up with that "internship for credit" bullshit. You gotta pay us. A lot.

To which the internet replied to the ABA, "No shit, Sherlock."

rinkrat19 wrote:This was a 2-hour conference call discussion in my remote summer class this week. Probably 2/3 of the class (and the prof) were arguing that the poor don't have access to adequate legal representation, so we need more lawyers. I tried to state the obvious (there are plenty of lawyers; they just can't afford to work for peanuts representing poor people because LAW SCHOOL IS TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE) but it mostly got passed over. So I muted my mic and dozed off for the middle half of class.

And nobody in the class (not even the prof) is even a boomer!

Aren't you?

guano wrote:

rinkrat19 wrote:This was a 2-hour conference call discussion in my remote summer class this week. Probably 2/3 of the class (and the prof) were arguing that the poor don't have access to adequate legal representation, so we need more lawyers. I tried to state the obvious (there are plenty of lawyers; they just can't afford to work for peanuts representing poor people because LAW SCHOOL IS TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE) but it mostly got passed over. So I muted my mic and dozed off for the middle half of class.

And nobody in the class (not even the prof) is even a boomer!

Aren't you?