Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: July 09, 2014, 07:53:04 PM 
Started by ShonMI - Last post by Citylaw
In response to ShonMi yes going to law school, because you like to argue or think it is like the movies is not a good reason to attend law school.

Doing anything because you see it on T.V. is likely to lead to disappointment. I work with police officers all the time and a substantial part of their time is writing reports and getting ridiculous phone calls not full on swat team raids like the movies make it out to be.

The law is no different than any other profession it has it's pros and cons, but I think law school unlike other professions makes people think all they have to do is get a degree and then people will fight over them, but that is far from the case if you graduate and pass the bar you are minimally competent to practice law. Being minimally competent in any profession does not result in $100,000 salaries and a cush office, you have to earn it.

 92 
 on: July 09, 2014, 07:36:02 PM 
Started by CA Law Dean - Last post by NewlyMinted
I actually think attrition is a good thing and despite rumors no school anywhere would impose a mandatory kick out rate. I have heard rumors about a number of schools that are required to  kick out 25% of the first class, but that makes no sense why would a school want to kick out paying students? The answer is they don't, but they do have some ethical obligation to dismiss a student they know has no chance of passing the bar.

There are documented cases of schools with GPA curves and academic probation policies that are certain to fail out students each year. A student has expended significant time and money to attend the first year of law school, without mentioning opportunity costs. Those programs should only accept students that have a chance at passing the bar, but they accept more and have mandatory attrition to increase income.

It's a dodge to blame academic attrition on a supposed ethical obligation to discontinue the studies of those who have no chance at passing the bar when the law school should have known before admitting the student that the student had no chance at passing the bar.
wouldn't that require shutting down pretty much every online law school?

 93 
 on: July 09, 2014, 07:34:33 PM 
Started by NewlyMinted - Last post by NewlyMinted
No, as they are seeking to change a statute of general applicability that will no more affect Hobby Lobby or a specific religion than RFRA itself.

While I'm no constitutional scholar, it's my recollection that bills of attainder would potentially violate other constitutional rights, not statutory rights, like RFRA. It's important to remember that SCOTUS decided Hobby Lobby based on RFRA, not the Constitution.

On the MBE any question where they say they are targeting one person or one group and you do not mark it as attainder, you get it wrong

 94 
 on: July 09, 2014, 07:03:02 PM 
Started by NewlyMinted - Last post by Groundhog
No, as they are seeking to change a statute of general applicability that will no more affect Hobby Lobby or a specific religion than RFRA itself.

While I'm no constitutional scholar, it's my recollection that bills of attainder would potentially violate other constitutional rights, not statutory rights, like RFRA. It's important to remember that SCOTUS decided Hobby Lobby based on RFRA, not the Constitution.

 95 
 on: July 09, 2014, 06:56:43 PM 
Started by CA Law Dean - Last post by Groundhog
I actually think attrition is a good thing and despite rumors no school anywhere would impose a mandatory kick out rate. I have heard rumors about a number of schools that are required to  kick out 25% of the first class, but that makes no sense why would a school want to kick out paying students? The answer is they don't, but they do have some ethical obligation to dismiss a student they know has no chance of passing the bar.

There are documented cases of schools with GPA curves and academic probation policies that are certain to fail out students each year. A student has expended significant time and money to attend the first year of law school, without mentioning opportunity costs. Those programs should only accept students that have a chance at passing the bar, but they accept more and have mandatory attrition to increase income.

It's a dodge to blame academic attrition on a supposed ethical obligation to discontinue the studies of those who have no chance at passing the bar when the law school should have known before admitting the student that the student had no chance at passing the bar.

 96 
 on: July 09, 2014, 06:20:45 PM 
Started by NewlyMinted - Last post by NewlyMinted
http://news.yahoo.com/dems-strike-back-hobby-lobby-case-not-bosss-182210871--abc-news-politics.html

They OPENLY say it is to target a specific group (hobby lobby) sounds like a bill o attainder to me if it were an MBE question

 97 
 on: July 09, 2014, 05:03:34 PM 
Started by CA Law Dean - Last post by NewlyMinted
I actually think attrition is a good thing and despite rumors no school anywhere would impose a mandatory kick out rate. I have heard rumors about a number of schools that are required to  kick out 25% of the first class, but that makes no sense why would a school want to kick out paying students? The answer is they don't, but they do have some ethical obligation to dismiss a student they know has no chance of passing the bar.

I think part of the problem today is everyone is to nice and nobody wants to dismiss an poor performing student. These poor performers in law school unsurprisingly often do not pass the bar or squeak by the bar, but are just not employable as attorneys. I am sure anyone of us that attended law school can think of a few classmates that you would not trust to feed your cat your let alone represent you in an important legal matter.

Here is an interesting article posted by Maintain FL on the subject http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/02/what-has-happened-to-law-school-attrition.html.
Doesn't change my point

 98 
 on: July 09, 2014, 05:02:13 PM 
Started by ShonMI - Last post by NewlyMinted
There is rarely a right answer applying this to your post what filed instead of law what should this family member pursue?

I would recommend a general business degree, accounting, engineering, or a medical/healthcare field.  Lots of these fields have the potential for high income, depending on what area you go in, how long you practice, and other factors; but their main advantage is a greater chance of employability over a long period of time.
fine, if all the cool kids are poking the troll, let's do this thing.

There is an undergrad requirement to get into law school. You don't just show up.
THAT is where people get the degrees you mentioned.

 99 
 on: July 09, 2014, 03:46:36 PM 
Started by ShonMI - Last post by Maintain FL 350
I don't think the stats are lying, I just think you have to understand how they're derived in order to make sense of them.

For example, my class graduated in May and began immediately preparing for the July bar exam. No one was looking for a job between May and August. Bar exam results are not released until November, and most grads aren't very employable until they have a license to practice law. So when the employment surveys were sent out in January, people had only had 7 or 8 weeks to really look for a job. As a result, the employment stats didn't look too good. I can't remember exactly, but I think something like 60-70% were employed as attorneys.

Two years later, I'd say it's close to 100%.

Not all attorneys are making big money, but they aren't exactly the working poor either. Based on purely anecdotal evidence I'd say that most attorneys I know/work with who have 10+ years experience are earning an upper middle class income. A few are rich, and I don't really know any who are struggling. Again, I'm talking about lawyers with experience, not new grads.   

 100 
 on: July 09, 2014, 02:05:20 PM 
Started by ShonMI - Last post by ShonMI
Employment statistics have to be viewed in context. They are usually a snapshot taken nine months after law school graduation, when most grads have only just passed the bar a couple of months earlier and are looking for work. It's not a very good metric for gauging long term prospects.

Yes, statistics lie too often. I am going by people I know who have law degrees, friends and friends-of-friends. Most of them go through long periods of unemployment, or don't work in a legal field at all. As for high earning potential? Well, most of them fall squarely into the middle class.

And there has to be a reason the ABA is now seeming to advise against law school. And when someone makes the decision to go based on television, movies and books they've read....that's not really a good reason to go at all. However, for those who aren't stuck in some fantasy world, then maybe they know what they are doing. I also don't think law school is a good idea for people who say they "like to argue", even argue with a brick wall as the old saying goes.  I know people like this, and they need therapy, not law school.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]