Liberty, Regent or Ave Maria

[Ninja1]

No it doesn't (and it never did). Just because you can name drop doesn't mean that you don't suck. Big deal. Two very conservative justices stopped by for a little while at a very conservative school. That doesn't make a law school not garbage.

Assisting in the development of curriculum is far from, "stopping by for a while," and if you don't think the involvement of justices in the development of curriculum or teaching, increases the stature of any school, you are wrong, period. That is like saying the faculty of a law school has no bearing on the quality of education received by students.

No, my  fellow poster, you are wrong. If Scalia helping to develop the curriculum helped to increase the stature of the school, why is AM still regarded as one of the worst law schools in America? Unless I completely misunderstand the concept of "stature", the only possible explanation is that without Scalia, AM would have already went under.

All law school curriculum is basically the same. In fact, the first year and chunks of the next two years are basically standardized across the board. Well, that's not entirely true. The curriculum used by AM (and Liberty and Regent, and maybe a few others) is a wee bit on the crazy, fundamentalist, "let's cross the line separating religion and state" side of things. Beyond that, it's just what electives are offered, and even then there seems to be a pretty standard basic set of classes offered with some extra bells and whistles depending on your particular school.

Anyway, the faculty does matter, and of course they effect the quality of the education received, but even then, it's a bunch of T14 people with a few stragglers from other schools and the home school mixed in. BFD. It's lawyers teaching people how to be lawyers. On average, professors at one school shouldn't be much better or worse than professors at another school unless a given school can't keep competent professors for some reason (AM has this problem right now). The quality of the students seems to be the most important factor in how good the school's education really is. Smart people make good students which tend to make good schools, dumb people make for poor students which tend to make bad schools. It's a bit circular, but that's how a lot of things play out in the world.

In short, I think that you're grossly overestimating the impact that one person, even a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, can have on the overall quality of a law school. Scalia might still be "working" at AM through the curriculum that he apparently helped design, but the school still blows and that's a pretty widely known fact.

[Ninja1]

No it doesn't (and it never did). Just because you can name drop doesn't mean that you don't suck. Big deal. Two very conservative justices stopped by for a little while at a very conservative school. That doesn't make a law school not garbage.

Assisting in the development of curriculum is far from, "stopping by for a while," and if you don't think the involvement of justices in the development of curriculum or teaching, increases the stature of any school, you are wrong, period. That is like saying the faculty of a law school has no bearing on the quality of education received by students.

No, my  fellow poster, you are wrong. If Scalia helping to develop the curriculum helped to increase the stature of the school, why is AM still regarded as one of the worst law schools in America? Unless I completely misunderstand the concept of "stature", the only possible explanation is that without Scalia, AM would have already went under.

All law school curriculum is basically the same. In fact, the first year and chunks of the next two years are basically standardized across the board. Well, that's not entirely true. The curriculum used by AM (and Liberty and Regent, and maybe a few others) is a wee bit on the crazy, fundamentalist, "let's cross the line separating religion and state" side of things. Beyond that, it's just what electives are offered, and even then there seems to be a pretty standard basic set of classes offered with some extra bells and whistles depending on your particular school.

Anyway, the faculty does matter, and of course they effect the quality of the education received, but even then, it's a bunch of T14 people with a few stragglers from other schools and the home school mixed in. BFD. It's lawyers teaching people how to be lawyers. On average, professors at one school shouldn't be much better or worse than professors at another school unless a given school can't keep competent professors for some reason (AM has this problem right now). The quality of the students seems to be the most important factor in how good the school's education really is. Smart people make good students which tend to make good schools, dumb people make for poor students which tend to make bad schools. It's a bit circular, but that's how a lot of things play out in the world.

In short, I think that you're grossly overestimating the impact that one person, even a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, can have on the overall quality of a law school. Scalia might still be "working" at AM through the curriculum that he apparently helped design, but the school still blows and that's a pretty widely known fact.

[DontQuestionMe]

I currently have a 4.00 GPA while double majoring in philosophy (with a focus on ethics and religious philosophy) and political science (with a focus on international issues and classical liberal theory), and minoring in history (focus on the contemporary Middle East).

I hope you enjoy delivering pizzas. 

[$Bill]

I currently have a 4.00 GPA while double majoring in philosophy (with a focus on ethics and religious philosophy) and political science (with a focus on international issues and classical liberal theory), and minoring in history (focus on the contemporary Middle East).

I hope you enjoy delivering pizzas. 

I lol'd

[DontQuestionMe]

All law school curriculum is basically the same.

In short, I think that you're grossly overestimating the impact that one person, even a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, can have on the overall quality of a law school.

You are what, 3L? You have such a deep understanding of law school curriculum. :: please note sarcasm ::

Beyond that, I seek to help students appreciate how the practice of law might be informed and enriched by an understanding of the Catholic intellectual tradition. ~ Patrick Quirk, Associate Professor of Law, Ave Maria

From Ave Maria's Website:

Integrating Religion, Ethics, and the Law

Ave Maria recognizes that law and morality are inherently intertwined. In both required and elective courses, students are encouraged to consider how the unchanging moral imperatives of the natural law should affect a lawyer's approach to the practice of law. This approach to the study of law provides students with a deep appreciation for the origins of law and an understanding of moral and intellectual principles germane to the American legal system, including unalienable rights, federalism, and separation of powers.

In the required curriculum, students enroll in four courses focused specifically on law and ethics: Moral Foundations of the Law; Jurisprudence; Professional Responsibility; and, Law, Ethics, and Public Policy. These courses explore the philosophy of law and the foundations of democracy in America. Students also learn the interrelationship between law, ethics, and Catholic moral and social principles, and how to apply these principles.

Faculty members also address and explore moral and ethical issues in substantive law courses, such as Criminal Law and Constitutional Law. In Criminal Law, for example, the professor might discuss the Catholic teaching on capital punishment. In Constitutional Law, the professor might reference the Catholic teaching on human rights, society's responsibility to the poor, and the culture of life.

Moral Foundations of the Law is taken by all first-year students.   Moral Foundations of the Law, as well as three other required courses, provides students with an appreciation for the origins of law and an understanding of moral and intellectual principles germane to the American legal system, including unalienable rights, federalism, and separation of powers.

Yeah, I bet the same things are taught at Boalt. 

AM has had more than one justice involved and their board is very prestigious. These are things that are positives, in AM's favor. I disputed the claim, "AM has nothing going for it." Even if only one justice was involved in creating their curriculum, that still constitutes having something positive going for the law school. 

[DontQuestionMe]

Interestingly enough, basing the validity of a person's argument on that person's LSAT score is an ad hominem argument. Good job.

No, I believe your low LSAT score will be a direct reflection of your inability to understand how a school being ardently religious does not mean it has nothing going for it.

[snickersnicker]

I currently have a 4.00 GPA while double majoring in philosophy (with a focus on ethics and religious philosophy) and political science (with a focus on international issues and classical liberal theory), and minoring in history (focus on the contemporary Middle East).

I hope you enjoy delivering pizzas. 

Of course, don't address the content of anything in my last post. That doesn't make you look like a floundering fool or anything. Your username makes a lot of sense, given your inability to put together a coherent argument.

Regarding most recent posts:  I stated that a religious school can have anything going for it, but it is all made null and void by virtue of being a religious school, as far as I'm concerned.

[DontQuestionMe]

Of course, don't address the content of anything in my last post. That doesn't make you look like a floundering fool or anything. Your username makes a lot of sense, given your inability to put together a coherent argument.

Regarding most recent posts:  I stated that a religious school can have anything going for it, but it is all made null and void by virtue of being a religious school, as far as I'm concerned.

As long as you keep on posting, you make my case for me, why should I address anything you say? Your responses:

Doibhilin hit the nail on the head. Though, I would contend that religious belief, particularly proponents natural religion and the "religious right," is excluded from the stratum of critical thinking.

So you are "excluding" Justice Scalia from the "stratum of critical thinking?"

The school has nothing going for it by virtue of its being an ardently religious institution.

This contradicts your most recent post. Either it can or it cannot have anything going for it. 

You tell the OP, he/she is close-minded, for attending a religious law school.

I'll go along with most in the rest of this thread and say that limiting yourself to these institutions is a terrible move, and pretty narrow-minded as well.

But then you state:

God forbid anyone would ever want to go to a school where their beliefs and assumptions about the world would be challenged.

If anything, you should be seeking out an institution which will require you to think more critically in your work by challenging your ideology, instead of coddling everything because it goes along with their view of the world.

So anyone who is liberal would get a better education attending Liberty, Ave Maria or Regent, because it would challenge their beliefs? 

You are making the assumption that the OP does not want to attend Liberty, Ave Maria or Regent, because they will test his beliefs.

If someone is very liberal, attending Liberty, Ave Maria or Regent, would be positive because these schools would challenge their ideology? So this another thing these schools have going for them, their ability to challenge people's ideology.

Please, do not work on the innocence project as a 1L. I would hate for any innocent person to have their life in your hands. 

[confusedatquinnipiac]

Dont know much about those schools but might want to look into going to George Mason... not religious but pretty conservative and high ranked... I thought about going there myself for a while... even got an invitation to apply... too bad its far away so i decided against it

[snickersnicker]

Someone would get the best education attending a school which is the best they can get into for their particular area. However, attending a university in which the professors are generally of a different ideological bent means that you're more likely to have the basic assumptions of your political outlook challenged, and thus develop better critical reasoning and argumentation skills. Someone (IE, a professor) who bases their ideology wholly in religion and tries to criticise the positions and outlook of another (whose basis is not in religion) will be challenging on a basis which is, again, dubious at best. Being able to counter such crticisms (those founded upon the basis of religion) doesn't require much thought, though. I would hope any rational person heading to law school would already have that capability, but given the existence of schools like Liberty, Ave Maria, etc, that probably isn't the case.

You are making the assumption that the OP does not want to attend Liberty, Ave Maria or Regent, because they will test his beliefs.

No I'm not. I'm stating quite the opposite -- he or she is seeking out schools with a similar ideology, thus not testing his or her beliefs.

If someone is very liberal, attending Liberty, Ave Maria or Regent, would be positive because these schools would challenge their ideology? So this another thing these schools have going for them, their ability to challenge people's ideology.

If you actually consider 'theoligical reasoning' to be a legitimate challenge to any rational person's ideology, I suppose that's the case. Given the issues inherent in the doctrines and stories of the Christian religion (and I'm not going to go into these), I don't think they stand much of a chance. Again, I shouldn't put too much faith in anyone.