Liberty, Regent or Ave Maria

[$Bill]

Again, I would think most southern or bible belt schools would have both a conservative and religious club, plus undoubtedly a bible study.

[Ninja1]

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. 

You can read the sig, right? I'm not a 3L, and I don't need to be one to tell you, again, that all law school curriculum is basically the same (sans the religious crazies). I've spent the better part of the last year and a half looking into this. If you don't believe it, do like I did and order catalogs from about 100 schools and read them. After about 20, you'll see what I'm talking about. Further, the ABA mandates that law schools cover a certain curriculum that eats up around a year to a year and a half worth of classes.

On AM's particular curriculum, like I said in my previous post, they and some other schools in their vein have a slightly different take on what law school curriculum should cover, as you also point out (you do realize that you're reinforcing my points as you go on, right?). They believe, incorrectly, that morality has anything to do with the law. It doesn't. The law (good law, anyway) is amoral and that's why it works so well. But whatever the case, they modify their curriculum to suit their agenda. Of course you won't find garbage like this at Boalt, and that's one reason that Boalt is a good school while AM is not.

Again, AM has nothing going for it. Their board is not prestigious simply because it is tied to such a dumpy school. Your concept of prestige is seriously flawed. I do agree that having a SCOTUS Justice or two help out is a positive, but if most everything else is still a net negative, then the school is still going nowhere fast and has nothing going for it.

[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. 

You can read the sig, right? I'm not a 3L, and I don't need to be one to tell you, again, that all law school curriculum is basically the same (sans the religious crazies). I've spent the better part of the last year and a half looking into this. If you don't believe it, do like I did and order catalogs from about 100 schools and read them. After about 20, you'll see what I'm talking about. Further, the ABA mandates that law schools cover a certain curriculum that eats up around a year to a year and a half worth of classes.

On AM's particular curriculum, like I said in my previous post, they and some other schools in their vein have a slightly different take on what law school curriculum should cover, as you also point out (you do realize that you're reinforcing my points as you go on, right?). They believe, incorrectly, that morality has anything to do with the law. It doesn't. The law (good law, anyway) is amoral and that's why it works so well. But whatever the case, they modify their curriculum to suit their agenda. Of course you won't find garbage like this at Boalt, and that's one reason that Boalt is a good school while AM is not.

Again, AM has nothing going for it. Their board is not prestigious simply because it is tied to such a dumpy school. Your concept of prestige is seriously flawed. I do agree that having a SCOTUS Justice or two help out is a positive, but if most everything else is still a net negative, then the school is still going nowhere fast and has nothing going for it.

Oh, so you are a clueless 0L, who really does not know what law school curriculum covers, because you have not even started 1L yet. I guess if you knew and understood law school curriculum, you wouldn't need to attend classes 1L or prep for the bar, you could just walk in and take exams and then the bar. 

[Stuart]

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.

Hmm. On this we seem to agree. The only person on this thread who looks like a fool is you.

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.

There's the problem. Either it's only "as far as [you're] concerned," in which case, honestly, why are you posting about it on this thread? Or else you think there's a real case to be made for the idea that a religious school can't have anything going for it according to standards broader than your own bigotry, in which case, you are at fault for failing to present any argument beyond angst.

I consider religiosity the rate-limiting factor in any equation.

That's very likely to be untrue, of course (one hopes that there are some irreligious statements that you find irrational), but that you even make the preposterous claim is symptomatic of anything but a desire to engage in "coherent argument."

Your later post, laboriously distinguishing "ad hominem" from ideological bigotry, of course, was much more refined in tone, but not in content. The proffered reason for rejecting Mavrodes's theory was no better supported than anything else you've said.

And of course, we're all very impressed with your GPA and your fine intellectual qualifications. I know I am.

Stuart

[snickersnicker]

There's the problem. Either it's only "as far as [you're] concerned," in which case, honestly, why are you posting about it on this thread? Or else you think there's a real case to be made for the idea that a religious school can't have anything going for it according to standards broader than your own bigotry, in which case, you are at fault for failing to present any argument beyond angst.

I stated that "[AM's] ideological position and curriculum render all of that null and void (as far as I'm concerned, and as far as anyone who values a nominally 'balanced' education free from a questionable agenda should be concerned)." I think that stands. AM, Liberty, Regent, et al all have a specific aim in their curriculum:  to combine fundamental theology with the practice of law. The practice of law is constitutionally separated from religion. Others in this thread have noted the more-than-highly-questionable nature of divine natural law, which I take (and correct me if I'm wrong) these schools hold true.

Your later post, laboriously distinguishing "ad hominem" from ideological bigotry, of course, was much more refined in tone, but not in content. The proffered reason for rejecting Mavrodes's theory was no better supported than anything else you've said.

Mavrodes' theory boils down to nothing more than the traditional divine command theory, except failing as a prescriptive doctrine in cases where dissonance arises between a person's knowledge of 'the character of god' and what they believe to be ordered by god. If you're familiar with the divine command theory (which you seem to be), I'm sure you realise the many problems it poses. It's one of the oldest subjects in philosophy, dating back to Socratic times (and probably earlier); there is no use recounting the issues here, one of which is its basis in theology, when it was simply the first thing that popped into my mind to use as an example. A sceptical tone toward religion, including the worth of religious doctrines in a modern legal system, which underlies everything I've stated in this thread, is backed up by centuries of philosophical and political though. To bring all that out would be completely unnecessary, and would eventually turn into one big case of begging the question.

Just a note:  bigotry implies intolerance. I tolerate the right of anyone to practice whatever religion they want. I will not infringe upon their ability to practice their beliefs, but I will not blindly respect nor encourage their choice. This is not bigotry; it is strong scepticism and treating critically a belief system completely deserving of scepticism.

[kilroy55]

Wow, I am amazed at all the 0Ls giving so much advice on something they no little about.  Go where you want and look up stuff for yourself.  I would ignore the advice of people who have never worked a day as an attorney.  Good luck to you!

[Ninja1]

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. 

You can read the sig, right? I'm not a 3L, and I don't need to be one to tell you, again, that all law school curriculum is basically the same (sans the religious crazies). I've spent the better part of the last year and a half looking into this. If you don't believe it, do like I did and order catalogs from about 100 schools and read them. After about 20, you'll see what I'm talking about. Further, the ABA mandates that law schools cover a certain curriculum that eats up around a year to a year and a half worth of classes.

On AM's particular curriculum, like I said in my previous post, they and some other schools in their vein have a slightly different take on what law school curriculum should cover, as you also point out (you do realize that you're reinforcing my points as you go on, right?). They believe, incorrectly, that morality has anything to do with the law. It doesn't. The law (good law, anyway) is amoral and that's why it works so well. But whatever the case, they modify their curriculum to suit their agenda. Of course you won't find garbage like this at Boalt, and that's one reason that Boalt is a good school while AM is not.

Again, AM has nothing going for it. Their board is not prestigious simply because it is tied to such a dumpy school. Your concept of prestige is seriously flawed. I do agree that having a SCOTUS Justice or two help out is a positive, but if most everything else is still a net negative, then the school is still going nowhere fast and has nothing going for it.

Oh, so you are a clueless 0L, who really does not know what law school curriculum covers, because you have not even started 1L yet. I guess if you knew and understood law school curriculum, you wouldn't need to attend classes 1L or prep for the bar, you could just walk in and take exams and then the bar. 

I'm rapidly becoming convinced that you're either a poor flame or borderline retarded. Either way, I'm done responding to you after this post unless you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion.

I've never worked at the Federal Reserve and I wasn't a finance or econ major, but I still understand how the monetary system works. I'm not a physicist, but I still understand how nuclear weapons work. I don't own stock, but I can tell you how the market functions. I've never been to Africa, but I can still tell you 200 reasons not to go there. You can actually learn things without doing them. It's called research. It's a pretty fundamental part of a decent education and something that should have came up once or twice during your time in UG. Additionally, I, like a good number of the people here, have several friends in law school and know a few attorneys. This isn't exactly an uninformed opinion that I've developed.

I never claimed to fully understand law school curriculum, especially to the point that I don't need to go to classes and I could pass the bar right now. For any number of reasons, that's absurd.  All that I said (several times) is that the curriculum is going to basically be the same from one school to the next (sans the nut jobs). Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

I am pleased to see that you are no longer contending that AM is something besides a train wreck. You're making strides as a person.

[dsetterl]

Wow this thread is crazy. It is like watching the strippers on Rock of Love fight for Brett, but this time it is a bunch of uppity, know-it-alls fighting for self-affirmation. You should ask me everything. I once wrote a paper on it and made an A.

[Ninja1]

Wow, I am amazed at all the 0Ls giving so much advice on something they no little about.  Go where you want and look up stuff for yourself.  I would ignore the advice of people who have never worked a day as an attorney.  Good luck to you!

I fail to see how working a day as an attorney has anything to do with determining that the OP is shooting himself in the foot by deliberately going to a school that he is way overqualified for and that will likely handcuff his longterm career prospects.

Really, he should probably ignore our advice and do what he thinks is best. It is his life and making decisions that can potentially harm you is a part of life. But, he asked for it, and we're giving it. You don't exactly post on this board because you want a lot of sound advice, just advice.

[Ninja1]

Wow this thread is crazy. It is like watching the strippers on Rock of Love fight for Brett, but this time it is a bunch of uppity, know-it-alls fighting for self-affirmation. You should ask me everything. I once wrote a paper on it and made an A.

It does make for some good reading when nothing is on TV. And since Rock of Love is between seasons right now, there is nothing good on TV.