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 - Maintain FL 350
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52  54 55 56 57 58 ... 85
« on: January 03, 2013, 12:03:06 AM »
I agree with the above posters. Since there is no real penalty for retaking the test, he's got nothing to lose. I'd advise taking a prep course if possible, and treating the LSAT like a job: be absolutely disciplined, follow a routine, and don't procrastinate. The LSAT is a weird test, but it is learnable if you can put in the time to figure it out. I think he probably stands an excellent chance of improving his score.
BTW, I thought Liberty University was a traditional brick & mortar school? Do they also offer an online degree?
« on: January 02, 2013, 08:50:21 PM »
What do you mean by "bombed"? What was his actual score?
The decision of whether or not to retake should be based on whether the taker has reason to believe they can do better. If he only studied for a week, he can probably improve.
My question would be this: if you have a 3.89 GPA, you clearly understand the value of studying. Why, then, did you blow off the LSAT? Does he actually want to go to law school?
« on: January 02, 2013, 06:52:27 PM »
I was looking for alternatived to naot have to dish out 100k+ for a JD degree. I'm aware that a MJ degree won't allow me to practice and/or be licensed, but I was more less wondering what I can do with it in the legal industry.
Right, I understand. I don't think you can do very much at all in the legal field with just an MJ.
The "legal field" is essentially comprised of attorneys, paralegals, legal secretaries, arbitrators, law professors, and few others. Without a JD you're (obviously) limited to the non-attorney positions like paralegal. The problem is, I don't think an MJ would help there either. Paralegals and legal secretaries don't typically have a master's. Experience is what's required for those jobs. Arbitrators and mediators are usually (though not always) lawyers or retired judges. Again though, you have to have significant experience to get those jobs, an MJ alone won't cut it.
One possibility might be expert witness. With your engineering background you might be able to provide expert testimony in engineering related cases. An MJ is not required to be an expert witness, but if you could tailor an MJ to compliment your engineering knowledge it might help.
I am a practing lawyer and I honestly don't know what an M.J is I just googled it and it appears to be a degree dealing with health regulations. Perhaps this could help you land some administrator job at a hospital, but it will not allow you to represent clients in court.
My understanding is that an MJ is sort of like an LL.M, but it's designed for non-attorneys. They're typically marketed as degrees that will enhance the individuals understanding of the law. They might have some use for people who work in heavily regulated areas (like healthcare). I believe there are different MJ programs focusing on different types of law.
I really question the degree's utility on a cost/benefit basis. I suppose if you work and field where you regularly interact with attorneys the MJ might help you understand the law and processes better. Is that worth the cost of tuition? Maybe, maybe not. It reminds me of the "Executive JD" that a few schools offer.
« on: January 02, 2013, 11:16:26 AM »
Well, I'm not exactly sure what you'd do with an engineering degree and an M.A. in jurisprudence. I'm not trying to be overly negative, but I don't think many jobs are looking for that unusual combination.
I'll tell you what you can't do: practice law. Most jurisdictions require a J.D. in order to be eligible to take the bar exam (California has a few unique exceptions). Most of the higher paying jobs in the legal field (those equivalent to what you probably already make as an engineer) are going to require a J.D. and bar membership.
Something like an M.A. in jurisprudence might help with landing job in law enforcement or as a paralegal, but even then some field-specific experience is going to be required (paralegals get trained and licensed, law enforcement go to the academy, etc). Personally, I wouldn't care one whit if a paralegal had an M.A. (or even a B.A.), as long as they had experience and good references. I suspect most employers wouldn't care, either. It's also possible that the degree has some academic value if you wanted to teach, but you'd still need a J.D. regardless.
Frankly, I'm suspicious of degrees like the M.A. in jurisprudence. I think they're primarily vanity degrees, which is fine if you have the time and money and want to hang another degree on the wall. I think the potential real world benefits of such a degree, however, accrue to very few people. Bottom line, if you're willing to spend two years and a bunch of money on an M.A. you might want to go for the gold and get a J.D. It is much more difficult, expensive and time consuming, but the payoff is better. With you engineering background you can do patent law, a very lucrative field.
« on: January 02, 2013, 12:37:11 AM »
which Law Schools do I have a chance of getting accepted to.
Do you have an LSAT score yet, or at least a practice score?
Without an LSAT score it's impossible to say where you should apply to, beyond pure speculation. If you don't have a score yet, focus for now on keeping your grades up. Get the highest GPA possible. As soon as you can start practicing for the LSAT. Take a prep course if possible, and devote as much time to it as you can. Your LSAT score, in my opinion, is more important than your GPA. A very high LSAT score can work magic that a high GPA alone can't.
One thing I think you might want to consider is do you need that dual degree? A lot of times dual degree programs aren't worth the extra investment for a lot of people. A lot of schools offer JD/MBA programs for instance, but the MBA isn't much help in the actual practice of law.
I agree. An additional graduate degree is almost never worth the added expense if you want to practice law. There might be a few situations in which an M.A. or Ph.D might help, but I think that those benefits accrue to a very small number of people who are seeking very specific types of employment. For example, if you wanted to practice natural resources law I suppose an M.S. in environmental science or geology might help you understand the subject matter better, and therefore make you more marketable. Even then I'm not sure. The vast majority of legal jobs only care about the J.D., and an M.A. in some random unrelated field is unnecessary.
« on: December 28, 2012, 11:21:08 PM »
This isn't about standards, it is about diveristy. Non ABA schools offer people who would not normally have a chance at being lawyers, a shot at the bar. What is wrong with that? People who don't pass the bar don't factor into anything, so this is nothing but an attack on those who might pass the bar without the ABA imprimatur.
I agree, and that's why I have mixed feelings on the subject. I think it's extremely important to offer alternative routes to bar admission for working adults. However, it's also important to have meaningful standards for legal education, since an attorney should possess knowledge beyond that which is required to pass the bar exam.
Here's my question Jon:
Aren't schools like Concord and Taft already providing that alternative route, along with decent bar pass rates? Both schools consistently post the highest pass rates, are accessible to working adults, and offer a real shot at bar admission. Other unaccredited schools, however, seem to be taking peoples' money without actually producing any lawyers. I think there's a distinction to be made, and I'd hate to see the baby thrown out with the bath water.
I think we'll probably see a compromise. Perhaps only registered
unaccredited schools will qualify for bar admission, and some minimum bar pass rate will be required in order to gain "registered" status. Or perhaps CBE accreditation will be extended to distance learning schools, after all.
As I've said before, the unaccredited schools are going to have to meet Calbar halfway. If a school is consistently posting bar and FYLSE pass rates in the 0-10% range year after year, it's legitimate to question the school's policies. That's not purely snobbery (although elitism plays an ugly role in this matter), it's also basic consumer protection.
It also appears that about four CBE schools posted 0% pass rates in July. If Calbar were to adopt bar pass rates as part of the CBE accreditation process (as I've heard they're considering), perhaps we'd see the number of CBE schools decrease, too.
« on: December 28, 2012, 09:46:22 PM »
I really have mixed feelings on this topic. As Livinglegend said, I tend to think that if someone has met the moral character requirements and can pass the bar exam, why not admit them? Much of the opposition to unaccredited schools is simply based on snobbery.
On the other hand...
The statistics don't lie. Several unaccredited schools posted bar pass rates for July 2012 that were zero. Others were in the single digits, and a few were in the 25% range. Keep in mind, that's after a significant number of underperformers have already been weeded out by the FYLSE. These schools are unaccredited for a reason, and it's because they haven't met either the CBE or ABA standards.
FYLSE and bar pass rates that are so low indicate that either 1) the school's admission standards are insufficient, 2) the academic program is not rigorous enough, or 3) both. I suspect it's the last one. There is an issue of consumer protection to be addressed here, too. If a school has either a low single digit or zero bar pass rate, and has had that rate for a while, should they be permitted to take people's money by claiming to offer a quality legal education? I'm not really a fan of the "nanny state" mentality either, however. Thus my mixed feelings.
Statistics on the last bar exam in Jun 2012 state the passage rate percentage for CA Accredited was 31% for first time takers, repeaters 10% and all takers 19%. For all takers in the unaccredited category - 15%, not much difference between CA Accredited and the Unaccredited and the repeaters for unaccredited was 12% HIGHER than the accredited 10%.
California ABA schools averaged a 77% first time pass rate this last July, 31% for CBE accredited. Even the lowest performing California ABA school (Thomas Jefferson) was 52%, not bad at all considering the difficulty of the CA bar. If you look at the CBE schools, they tend to vary quite a bit more than the ABA schools. Some were 0% passing, others were around 50% or higher, but the numbers of takers tend to be much smaller than ABA schools.
A few unaccredited schools acheived decent pass rates, but again, the numbers of takers tended to be very small. San Luis Obispo posted a 67% pass rate, but only three people took the exam. Concord and Taft seem to be the most consistent performers, and are often in the 25% range. These schools are the exceptions, however. Most of the unaccredited schools posted pass rates in the 0-20% range, with repeat takers scoring about the same.
« on: December 28, 2012, 02:02:04 AM »
According to Calbar's website, the state bar's Task Force on Admission Regulation and Reform will meet in January to discuss, among other things, whether admission to the California bar should be limited to ABA and CBE graduates.
Such a restriction could have significant consequences. California is one of only a handful of states that allows non-ABA grads to sit for the bar, and has traditionally been the jurisdiction of choice for graduates of unaccredited law schools. The concern seems to be the very low pass rates (often in the single digits), and the ethical issue of allowing a school to take tuition from students who have such a statistically low chance of passing.
I assume that the Task Force would issue some kind of report or recommendation, which would then be considered by the bar. As far as I'm aware there is no real movement among the legal community to so limit admission, but it probably wouldn't be opposed either. Interesting, we'll see what happens.
« on: December 22, 2012, 11:53:45 AM »
Very true. I must note that you shouldn't disregard those X State University students.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disregard those students one bit. There are plenty of powerhouse state research universities (Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, etc) that offer incredible educational opportunities and have reputations that are at least as good (if not better) than many Ivies. Every year a number of people from those highly regarded public institutions get accepted at the most elite law schools. My only point is that elite law schools tend to be snobby, whether they admit it or not, and an undergrad degree from Harvard or Yale probably gooing to help.
Here's another possibility: the LSAT score spread might be unevenly distributed, with a much higher percentage of top scorers coming from elite undergrad institutions. Although I've never seen any data on this topic, it would seem to make sense that an academic superstar who got into Harvard or Caltech as an undergrad would have a statistically better shot at scoring high on the LSAT as opposed to the guy who had mediocre grades and SATs.
« on: December 21, 2012, 11:28:44 PM »
Better yet, why not have a national bar exam? Some people will say "Oh, but if you don't pass a particular state's exam then you haven't demonstrated knowledge of that state's laws." Well, lots of states currently have reciprocity agreements that allow a person admitted in one state to be admitted in the other without such a demonstration of knowledge. It doesn't seem to cause any problems.
Can you imagine the plummeting bar pass rates, however, if we adopted a national bar exam based on the California bar's format?
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52  54 55 56 57 58 ... 85