FreshlyMinted, I can't decide whether you truly don't understand what we wrote or you are a very good, subtle troll. I'm hoping for the latter for you personally, even though it wouldn't be great for the board.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Let the LLM programs decide that for themselves. I know some state bars don't even care about undergrad (crazy but true) as long as you have the JD for example. The LLM (when not being used for a license) still might hurt an ABA grads feelings to see a nonaccredited grad get accepted into, but you either are good enough to pass or you are not. If they can cut muster, let them. If they barely make it, easier curve for the rest of us. I honestly say let that be between them and the LLM program.
Plus if an admissions committee is opening the flood gates that easy to let people in, that strikes me as them needing to clean their own home before asking others to clean theirs.
This strikes me as an internal affair. If they need to make it an external affair, ask the ABA to pass a ruling on it.
Personally it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they let people with no prior education at all into the LLM as long as the school knew what they were doing when they did it(and if not, the fault is on the school IMHO)
I think that http://www.bppe.ca.gov/ would have the best grounds for a suit since in theory they control who can and can't be legally a "school" operating in CA. The Marshall Islands argument might come up, but I think "International Shoe" would be a winning counter argument to that.
The complaint said a Novus grad launched a frivolous lawsuit against Touro, when Touro would not honor their bogus degree. So Touro had to pay legal fees because Novus was falsely telling grads they had a "foreign law degree" and all they had to do is enroll for a LLM to qualify for the bar.
Lastly, I have heard things like an MA, MS, MBA, etc. are not helpful for getting into law school. I find this to be a silly conclusion when you look at certain scenarios. Student A holds a 3.9 GPA and 170 LSAT score, but has no graduate studies, nor have they ever lived outside of the general area which they were raised. Student B holds a 3.9 GPA, 169 LSAT score, an MA, and has studied in the Pacific Northwest, the South (North Carolina- boondocks land) and abroad. According to many, the thought proceeds that student A will still be more valuable to the university that both A and B applied to. If it were to come down to only A or only B being accepted, is A really going to win that battle?
Student B is also 22, not that I think that is a very important factor. Obviously, this is all theoretical.