Quote from: Ninja1 on May 31, 2008, 12:01:37 AMNo 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 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.
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).
Quote from: snickersnicker on June 01, 2008, 11:08:12 PMI 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.
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.
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
Integrating Religion, Ethics, and the LawAve 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.
Interestingly enough, basing the validity of a person's argument on that person's LSAT score is an ad hominem argument. Good job.
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.
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.
The school has nothing going for it by virtue of its being an ardently religious institution.
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.
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.
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.