G. T. L., for youJG Hall wrote:there aren't law schools in other countries...
Why don't US firms require articling? Forum
- James Bond
- Posts: 2344
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am
Re: Why don't US firms require articling?
- AreJay711
- Posts: 3406
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm
Re: Why don't US firms require articling?
I think that making law an undergrad degree would be best not only so firms could try graduates out but also to keep legal services cheap for regular consumers.G. T. L. Rev. wrote:Nobody is, to my knowledge, claiming that "law schools don't exist outside of America." At least I'm not. What I am saying is this: Conroy tried to compare the US system to that in England, and in doing so, he committed an epic fail.James Bond wrote:The idea that I am unaware of how law works in England is as ridiculous as the idea that graduate level law schools don't exist outside of America.
Not even getting into more complex situations in countries, both Canada and Australia have law schools.
On the other hand I slacked off in high school and worked really hard in college. I think one of the good things about the U.S. law school system is that the effects of how you were raised and the decisions you made as a child are less relevant to your future with it being a grad degree than an undergrad degree.
- General Tso
- Posts: 2272
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm
Re: Why don't US firms require articling?
pull yahself up by them bootstraps, boy, just like them middle aged rich folks before us. they chopped wood to put themselves through law school!G. T. L. Rev. wrote:Fine, whatever -- I didn't read every single post. That notwithstanding, please explain why my point is somehow inaccurate. When doing so, please also explain why OP's question couldn't simply be re-framed as follows: "Why don't US law schools cost 75% less?"
- James Bond
- Posts: 2344
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am
Re: Why don't US firms require articling?
I have no idea what your point even was, which is compounded by the fact that you edited your post. Even better, I wasn't arguing with you.G. T. L. Rev. wrote:Fine, whatever -- I didn't read every single post. That notwithstanding, please explain why my point is somehow inaccurate. When doing so, please also explain why OP's question couldn't simply be re-framed as follows: "Why don't US law schools cost 75% less?"
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login