Congratulations! What made your experience unique?
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.
Messages - Groundhog
There are private student loans I think, plus (in theory) scholarshipsOne cannot join the U.S. military unless one is already a permanent resident or citizen.
A few questions for OP:
Why the US? How will you finance your education, given non-US citizens aren't eligible for financial aid?
Frankly, even assuming admissions were no problem, many law students in the US have trouble financing their education. You'd then be a US JD graduate, but not be eligible to work here. What is your eventual goal?
I think that if we're using Scalia's "originalism," we'd look at the Founders and realize they were deists, who didn't believe God intervenes at all after setting the world into motion. So, I don't think it would be a huge stretch according to his actual theory that they would be just as happy with agnosticism or atheism or pastafarianism. Pastafarianism would certainly seem to be a good way to "practice" atheism with 1st amendment protection, but I wonder about the MOVE series of cases where they added the sincerely held element to the test.Had to research the pasta thing, I also looked up MOVE but found something that I doubt is what you were talking about (crazy *&^% though-and started as religious based all the same)
Not sure if that's it or I am misremembering case name. It was a somewhat controversial philosophy, like MOVE, that many adherents claimed was a religion. Then there was a decision where the Supreme Court said it had to be sincerely held, equivalent to a religion, but not necessarily exactly a religion...eh, I don't have time to research the case names today but those were the general issues.
I think that if we're using Scalia's "originalism," we'd look at the Founders and realize they were deists, who didn't believe God intervenes at all after setting the world into motion. So, I don't think it would be a huge stretch according to his actual theory that they would be just as happy with agnosticism or atheism or pastafarianism. Pastafarianism would certainly seem to be a good way to "practice" atheism with 1st amendment protection, but I wonder about the MOVE series of cases where they added the sincerely held element to the test.
Realistically, it seems pretty clear that the current Court and some in the past would read the Free Exercise clause as benefitting religion over non-believers/non-practicers.
This is somewhat reflective of a larger tension between the Free Exercise and the Establishment clauses.
Nice comparison of his cushy and powerful job on the Supreme Court to the journey to Mt. Doom.
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.
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.
Those students admitted to LLM programs are, as JonLevy said, admitted based on a misrepresentation or a mistake. Any student at an ABA school knows he or she has an affirmative duty to correct such mistakes. Novus to an ABA LLM is at best unethical, at worst illegal, and bad for the profession regardless. It is bad for the profession because there are too many attorneys, particularly in states with looser licensing requirements, like California, and making it easier isn't going to help. In my opinion, at least, it is bad for the profession if these students with no real legal training other than a year-long LLM and a bar prep course attempt practicing law. Law school teaches one much more than how to pass the bar, and conversely, I don't think simply being able to pass the bar makes one a good attorney. A smart undergrad could probably pass the bar with a few more months to study.
The admissions committee of any individual school is geared towards maximizing their profits and prestige, so yes, I do partially blame the schools. They don't have the best interests of the law, the student, or the profession in mind.
I do think the ABA could do more, but the ABA probably already has a rule about what qualifies as a foreign law school. I doubt Novus counts under their rules as a bona fide foreign law school.
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.
International Shoe is about jurisdiction. The issue here is if the 2009 statute that re-created the BPPE even covers online schools or how California or any state can regulate them. It does not appear to do so. As you said, it appears that Novus is based in the Marshall Islands, not in California as was suggested.
I don't know what's worse: the fact that some of these students spent years and thousands of dollars thinking they could become an attorney...or that they actually did. “Novus graduates often apply and are erroneously accepted to American Bar Association-accredited programs,” Touro charged.
California is notorious for having almost no statutory authority to regulate degree mills and for-profit institutions. Also, as Novus does not claim to offer degrees that are approved by the California Bar, I don't see what the Bar would have to do with it.
You are correct, but I mean that the State Bar isn't generally an accreditation agency.
I haven't seen anywhere currently where Novus Law School fraudulently claims they allow California or any other bar admission besides DC without attorney study, so I'm not sure on what grounds the California AG could sue. Novus may have claimed something different in the past, but Ms. Harris has only been in office a few years.
It does appear to be a degree mill, but I don't see anything fraudulent about it. It sounds like the facts in the past in the Touro v. Novus case were different.