Law School Discussion

Show Posts

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 - Cher1300

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13
I think the student is required to take the FYLSE after the first year (or after the first 1 1/2 years, since they're part-tme). If they pass they can continue on to the second year. The CA bar requires the online/unaccredited school to certify that the student has completed something like 864 hours of instruction, divided into specific categories: a certain number of hours in torts, contracts, etc. This is the same requirement for applicants who study with an attorney or in judges' chambers.

After that, the requirements are the same as any other applicant: pass the MPRE, positive C&F determination, pass the bar.

BTW, the FYLSE is not typically required for students at CA accredited law schools unless they fail classes. Some (maybe all?) CA ABA schools require the FYLSE for re-admission if a student has been academically disqualified. If you look on the Calbar website you'll see a number of students from ABA schools taking the exam, but I don't know if that's required by the Calbar or if certain individual schools make it a requirement for re-admission.

Anyone who has more specific info, please feel free to correct me!

That is correct.  You only have to take the FYLSE if you are attending a non-accredited law school after your first year in order to continue on to 2L.  For Cal accredited and ABA accredited schools, the baby bar is not required.  Some ABA schools, including my own, may require you to take the baby bar if you do not have a cum gpa of 2.0 after your first year and are seeking readmission or requesting readmission on a probationary status.  I'm not sure how many ABA schools allow this, but the same is true for some state accredited schools also.   

What is similar for non-accredited and Cal Bar approved is that you cannot take the bar in any other state until you have practiced law in California for about 3-5 years depending on the state and their requirements.  In my opinion, if you only plan on practicing in California, state approved may be one of the best ways to go because it is about half the price of ABA, FYLSE is not required, and it still has state accreditation.  The bar pass rates aren't great and I wouldn't recommend it if you have big law plans, but if you just plan on hanging a shingle or working as a public defender, etc. I see no reason why one shouldn't.   

Bar Exam / Re: Do you have to go to law school?
« on: July 11, 2012, 01:43:11 PM »
I believe California does too.  If you work for a lwyer for five years you can take the bar.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Obamacare upheld
« on: July 09, 2012, 06:53:00 PM »
but incentive buy insuance clearly there.  why pay $2k for nothing rather than buy insurance?  even after $2k, there going be medical bills, especially if children.

some not buy insurance, to be sure.  but many will, and that whole idea.

Perhaps.  We'll have to see how this goes.  A lot of folks who won't buy insurance were getting pretty big checks for refundable tax credits, anyway.  The two will probably offset. 

The main problem I have is that for most people, they COULD buy insurance today, but don't because it's too expensive.  Yes, this will make things much less expensive for high-risk folks, but will make things much more expensive for healthy folks.  I was without insurance for a few years in my 20s.  The cost of it far outweighed the potential downside.  Lots of people make that calculation.  Some percent of them gamble and lose. 

Trouble is, now, everybody is compelled to buy the insurance or pay the fine.  If we couldn't afford it before, and it'll actually get MORE expensive if you're healthy, this is a huge step backwards for a lot of folks.

It's not that I don't support health reform.  I think it's one of the most important things in the country right now.  However, we have to address cost and Obamacare really doesn't do that in any meaningful way.  It just tries to share the costs across a broader pool.  But let's face it, the folks with money pretty much already had health insurance.  The uninsured either won't have to pay for their insurance, or can't afford it. 

Until we have single payer and are not paying 100% more for the same drugs that England buys, we won't have a solution to this problem.  I think everybody realizes that.  Where I differ is that I am not entirely sure this is a meaningful first step.

You are correct in that it is probably not a meaningful first step.  So many people are under the impression that this plan gives healthcare to "everyone."  It does not.  The costs of insurance hasn't gone down for healthy people or small business owners in Massachusetts.  That is why they'd rather pay the penalty.  Since it is taken out of your tax return, it doesn't feel as bad as making the monthly payment. 

I didn't have insurance for 9 years from about 25 to 34.  I would just pay for office visits as needed.   I was young and healthy, so I didn't run up any medical bills.  Scary not to have insurance?  Probably, but I don't think this is the solution.  It would be great if we could get socialized medicine or if Congress could regulate the insurance companies or pharmaceudical costs like you said, but there's just too much money in it.   

I'll keep my fingers crossed, but based on how the plan has operated in Mass, I don't think it will be very successful.   The rich already have insurance.  Most poor people are covered through state medicaid, and the elderly have medicare.  The burden will be, as usual, on working lower-middle class people struggling to keep their homes or to get by.  My boyfriend, for instance is self-employed.  He lost his job a few years ago and has been getting by with jobs that last a few months here and there.  Sometimes he works as a carpenter on a TV show that is non-union for a few weeks or months, or he works on people's homes.  Because he owns a house, he will not qualify for free healthcare, but will be required to buy health insurance.  These are the people that will not buy the insurance, and there are soooo many people out there like him.  Their unemployment has run out and they are doing everything they can to get buy, but can't afford health insurance because they don't know how much income they'll bring in from month to month.   When you are healthy, have a mortgage to pay or utility bills that are consistently rising, that will take priority over health insurance.

So while I believe something needs to be done, the majority of healthy folks that can't afford insurance now, still won't be able to afford it unless the job market improves.  It hardly seems fair to make healthy - not wealthy - people carry the burden of regulating health insurance If nothing else, the timing is bad. 

Legend is correct in getting you to ask about keeping your scholarships.  I have not heard of any school that allows you to keep your scholarship with just a 2.0 gpa.   If that were the case, everyone would be able to keep them.  My school that is just a T4 requires a 2.8 to keep a scholarship, but good academic standing to stay in school is a 2.0. Call them and find out for sure!     

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Obamacare upheld
« on: July 06, 2012, 01:20:33 PM »

I think I'm cool with the opinion, except I don't really understand what this means:

The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies.  §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes.  §5000A(e). Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius,  No. 11–393, at *8 (2012).

This just says the government can't put a lien on someone's property or put them in jail for not having insurance.  They will just be required to pay the penalty.

Does that not basically kill the "super creditor" status of the IRS? Other than withholding tax refunds, it seems like there's not much that the IRS can do to enforce the penalty. I'm probably completely wrong, though. There are probably other methods the government can use to entice people to pay the penalty (or buy insurance!).

You are correct - there really isn't much the IRS can do other than penalize you on your tax returns.  The way it works in Massachusetts, (my parents still live there), is you have to show proof of insurance on your tax return or you pay the penalty.  This is why the plan hasn't really worked as far as decreasing insurance rates.  Since 2006, the health care costs have not declined much in Massachusetts.  The rates actually increased for the first two years.  Although most of the state is insured, many small businesses are struggling because insurance companies are hiking their rates for them knowing they have to provide insurance to their employees.  It has helped the medicare costs a bit because younger people that have to get insurance are helping to cover the costs for the oler sicker residents.   But for people who still can't afford the insurance, it is cheaper for them to just pay the penalty and go without insurance. 

Find out first what you need to do to keep the scholarships.  Some schools require that you be in the top 40% vs. top 20% vs. top 60% or keep a cumulative gpa of a 2.8 - 3.0, etc.  I say this because most incoming 1Ls have no idea how hard it will be to keep their money. 
Second, since you don't know where you want to practice, do you know what type of law you want to do?  Biglaw?  then T1,  crimlaw?  Or if you already have contacts?  take all the money at the T3...just my two cents.  Not sure the difference between the schools other than their ranks.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Obamacare upheld
« on: July 05, 2012, 05:05:21 PM »
Wow... :o

Glad to hear it's been provisionally accredited.  I figured it wouldn't take them too long.  :)

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Obamacare upheld
« on: July 05, 2012, 04:13:50 PM »
What I want to know is why is Roberts' opinion the one that matters most?  Wasn't there two majority opinions upholding it for different reasons?

I also imagine that this could potentially limit the power of the commerce clause.  Anyone have thoughts on that?

And something tells me that Roberts did this in hopes to stay out of partisan politics but still give the GOP a way to get rid of Obamacare through reconciliation in the Senate (if the right is able to win the senate).  Wouldn't they need Romney to win the presidential election as well in order to not have Obama veto the Senates decision?

From what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Supreme Court ruled the mandate could not be placed under the commerce clause because the penalty for not purchasing insurance is a tax.  If citizens are required to buy insurance under the commerce clause to regulate the industry, it would mean Congress can mandate citizens to purchase anything to help regulate any other industry, which would be unconsitutional.  The commerce clause allows Congress to regulate industries, but it's not supposed to be done by making American people purchase within the industries needing regulation.  This is how I understand it.    If it is deemed a tax, then it is constitutional. 

And yes, Romney would need to win the presidential election.  It will be interesting to see what he says about it, since it's basically the same plan passed in Massachusetts when he was governor.

I think I'm cool with the opinion, except I don't really understand what this means:

The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies.  §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes.  §5000A(e). Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius,  No. 11–393, at *8 (2012).

This just says the government can't put a lien on someone's property or put them in jail for not having insurance.  They will just be required to pay the penalty.

I have to agree with everything that has been said.  Although some say the socratic method is antiquated, I think it keeps you on your toes - especially your first year.  There's nothing like the humiliation of not being prepared when called upon to discuss why someone was not considered a public figure in a defamation case, etc. Or if you are struggling for the right answer while everyone sits quietly awaiting your response.  The interaction is helpful because, at least for me, I learned from students who were wrong about certain issues just as much as I learned from the students who were spot on with them.  B&M schools also allow interaction iwth your professors to go over practice exams.  In an on-line school, that type of interaction just isn't available.   

I attend a tier 4 in California.  While there is certainly some truth to LSAT/UGPA in relation to law school success, the ones that aren't cut out for law school will be weeded out after their first year anyway.  The mottos at most tier fours are "easy to get in, hard to graduate from..."  So far, my experience has been that many of the top students in my class weren't necessarily the smartest, but they worked really hard.   Would they have this type of sucess at Yale?  Maybe not, but who knows for sure.

The LSAT is a standardized test that can be mastered with some practice or courses.   Law school exams test your actual knowledge of a subject.  The bar exam does also.   I'm not sure how online schools test their students, but that could also be a big issue.   Most B&M's have closed book, timed exams similar to the bar.  Does anyone know how online schools test for finals?   I've only heard of students flying out to take the FYLSE or Bar Exam.  So if the students are tested at home and allowed to use notes, that could be a big reason.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13