Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=124205
I'm sure some are for more than 4 years. Just not schools worth going to. It is necessary to have everyone on the same time frame for class rank and grading curves, etc. And schools allow for leaves of absence in limited cases. Also, there are a few 2 year programs out there (Northwestern, Kansas, ?).qualster wrote:Why is it 3 jam packed years, or four if you're a part timer? Why can't one just take the classes at his/her own pace once admitted? Now, I'm not saying that it should be this way, but why not?
Renzo wrote:The better question is why they make it three years, when the third year is basically just a big useless time-waste.
disco_barred wrote:Renzo wrote:The better question is why they make it three years, when the third year is basically just a big useless time-waste.
mallard wrote:disco_barred wrote:Renzo wrote:The better question is why they make it three years, when the third year is basically just a big useless time-waste.
I agree with that.Renzo wrote:I'd like to see it chopped to two years, or even three semesters, and then require an on-the-job apprenticeship before you can sit for the bar. Something similar to a medical residency. Not only would new lawyers not be completely incompetent, employers would have something beyond grades by which to judge applicants--they could see actual work-product.
True. If one goes off track, he or she would basically give up a true class rank. However, it wouldn't be hard for estimated class rankings to be computed for these people. It would simply be an approximation based on where the graduate finished in each of his/her individual classes. Or maybe that's just stupid.sumus romani wrote:I'm sure some are for more than 4 years. Just not schools worth going to. It is necessary to have everyone on the same time frame for class rank and grading curves, etc. And schools allow for leaves of absence in limited cases. Also, there are a few 2 year programs out there (Northwestern, Kansas, ?).qualster wrote:Why is it 3 jam packed years, or four if you're a part timer? Why can't one just take the classes at his/her own pace once admitted? Now, I'm not saying that it should be this way, but why not?
mallard wrote:disco_barred wrote:Renzo wrote:The better question is why they make it three years, when the third year is basically just a big useless time-waste.
lol, wtf? People take leaves of absence and stuff all the time. I have no idea what's going on in this thread.qualster wrote:True. If one goes off track, he or she would basically give up a true class rank. However, it wouldn't be hard for estimated class ranks to be computed for these people. It would simply be an approximation based on where the graduate finished in each of his/her individual classes. Or maybe that's just stupid.sumus romani wrote:I'm sure some are for more than 4 years. Just not schools worth going to. It is necessary to have everyone on the same time frame for class rank and grading curves, etc. And schools allow for leaves of absence in limited cases. Also, there are a few 2 year programs out there (Northwestern, Kansas, ?).qualster wrote:Why is it 3 jam packed years, or four if you're a part timer? Why can't one just take the classes at his/her own pace once admitted? Now, I'm not saying that it should be this way, but why not?
So, how do they rank those people?mallard wrote:lol, wtf? People take leaves of absence and stuff all the time. I have no idea what's going on in this thread.qualster wrote:True. If one goes off track, he or she would basically give up a true class rank. However, it wouldn't be hard for estimated class ranks to be computed for these people. It would simply be an approximation based on where the graduate finished in each of his/her individual classes. Or maybe that's just stupid.sumus romani wrote:I'm sure some are for more than 4 years. Just not schools worth going to. It is necessary to have everyone on the same time frame for class rank and grading curves, etc. And schools allow for leaves of absence in limited cases. Also, there are a few 2 year programs out there (Northwestern, Kansas, ?).qualster wrote:Why is it 3 jam packed years, or four if you're a part timer? Why can't one just take the classes at his/her own pace once admitted? Now, I'm not saying that it should be this way, but why not?
underachiever wrote:mallard wrote:disco_barred wrote:Renzo wrote:The better question is why they make it three years, when the third year is basically just a big useless time-waste.
No idea, but I don't think there's an ABA Task Force on ranking people who take time off or anything like that; it's not a huge issue.qualster wrote:So, how do they rank those people?
Gotcha. Sorry for the stupid questions.mallard wrote:No idea, but I don't think there's an ABA Task Force on ranking people who take time off or anything like that; it's not a huge issue.qualster wrote:So, how do they rank those people?
Well, now I feel bad.qualster wrote:Gotcha. Sorry for the stupid questions.mallard wrote:No idea, but I don't think there's an ABA Task Force on ranking people who take time off or anything like that; it's not a huge issue.qualster wrote:So, how do they rank those people?
I doubt that.mallard wrote:Well, now I feel bad.qualster wrote:Gotcha. Sorry for the stupid questions.mallard wrote:No idea, but I don't think there's an ABA Task Force on ranking people who take time off or anything like that; it's not a huge issue.qualster wrote:So, how do they rank those people?
Don't feel bad. Thanks for the info. No big deal.mallard wrote:Well, now I feel bad.qualster wrote:Gotcha. Sorry for the stupid questions.mallard wrote:No idea, but I don't think there's an ABA Task Force on ranking people who take time off or anything like that; it's not a huge issue.qualster wrote:So, how do they rank those people?
Well I assume 5 years would be part time. Part time law school in the way its set up now is stupid. You do 3/4's the work as a full time student. How the hell can you work a fulltime job and do that?legalease9 wrote:The longer LS takes, the more lost income. So yes, if anything law school should be faster not slower.
Exactly. That's why it should be a 5 year part time program. That would allow one to graduate with virtually no debt. A 4 year program allows one to work part time, but debt will still mount up unless scholarships are heavy and the part time gig pays well.Desert Fox wrote:Well I assume 5 years would be part time. Part time law school in the way its set up now is stupid. You do 3/4's the work as a full time student. How the hell can you work a fulltime job and do that?legalease9 wrote:The longer LS takes, the more lost income. So yes, if anything law school should be faster not slower.
I would have done NU's AJD if it was more established.
That's exactly the reason why I expect to be near the midpoint in my class rather than closer to the top. Working an 8 to 10 hour gig plus 12 credits a semester just seems like an absolutely crushing load, and I just can't imagine doing either one well. A five-year schedule, with fewer credits per semester, seems more manageable.Desert Fox wrote:Well I assume 5 years would be part time. Part time law school in the way its set up now is stupid. You do 3/4's the work as a full time student. How the hell can you work a fulltime job and do that?legalease9 wrote:The longer LS takes, the more lost income. So yes, if anything law school should be faster not slower.
I would have done NU's AJD if it was more established.
The idea for part-time law school wasn't that you'd work, graduate, and get an entry-level biglaw gig. Rather, it was that you'd work, graduate, and continue in the same field where you were already experience in a new role (like returning to your reporter job as a legal correspondent, or doing patent work in a field you know, etc), so class rank wouldn't be as meaningful. Granted, it in no way resembles that anymore, but that was the theory.qualster wrote:Exactly. That's why it should be a 5 year part time program. That would allow one to graduate with virtually no debt. A 4 year program allows one to work part time, but debt will still mount up unless scholarships are heavy and the part time gig pays well.Desert Fox wrote:Well I assume 5 years would be part time. Part time law school in the way its set up now is stupid. You do 3/4's the work as a full time student. How the hell can you work a fulltime job and do that?legalease9 wrote:The longer LS takes, the more lost income. So yes, if anything law school should be faster not slower.
I would have done NU's AJD if it was more established.
Another big +1 to Rezno. I know several people for whom that's exactly what their part time LS program was. The hypercomeptitive market that currently exists now though... I feel like it's more and more common for people to do PT because of lowered requirements and to either do nothing else or just do an internship, then try to jump on the big law bandwagon.Renzo wrote:The idea for part-time law school wasn't that you'd work, graduate, and get an entry-level biglaw gig. Rather, it was that you'd work, graduate, and continue in the same field where you were already experience in a new role (like returning to your reporter job as a legal correspondent, or doing patent work in a field you know, etc), so class rank wouldn't be as meaningful. Granted, it in no way resembles that anymore, but that was the theory.qualster wrote:Exactly. That's why it should be a 5 year part time program. That would allow one to graduate with virtually no debt. A 4 year program allows one to work part time, but debt will still mount up unless scholarships are heavy and the part time gig pays well.Desert Fox wrote:Well I assume 5 years would be part time. Part time law school in the way its set up now is stupid. You do 3/4's the work as a full time student. How the hell can you work a fulltime job and do that?legalease9 wrote:The longer LS takes, the more lost income. So yes, if anything law school should be faster not slower.
I would have done NU's AJD if it was more established.