Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Taft or Concord Law School  (Read 12653 times)

Opie58

  • Guest
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #60 on: April 24, 2012, 02:55:44 PM »
Let me first address the red text above, because I believe it's pertinent to my answer below.  You're betting that you can pass the bar and make a life as an attorney.  If you're going to an online school or even most T3s and T4s, statistics show you're wrong.  This fact underscores the response below:

I don't have a problem with people chasing their dreams - as long as they take responsibility for their actions and and pay their debts in a timely manner.  However, when those graduates start using government money to chase rainbows and start asking for a direct bailout (or increasingly use IBR or the other various government bailout programs), I believe that the tax payers that will end up sholdering the rainbow chasers (i.e., burdens on society) have the right to hold those folks accountable for the poor decisions that they made.  If you're doing it with your own funds or on a scholarship then, by all means, go.  If you're chasing rainbows and have little shot at actually becoming an attorney, then you don't deserve the money.  The government shouldn't be in a position of doling out money to encourage losing propositions.  Our education system is quickly becoming the joke of the world.  It's really as simple as that.

Further, barriers to entry must be erected as lawyers are members of a profession.  As a professional, you will have direct access to client money and will be placed in a position to, essentially, "speak" on behalf of your clients.  Because attorneys are, by nature, in a position to be trusted by their clients, they owe fiduciary duties to their clients.  Thus, a different, arguably stricter, standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law applies to attorney conduct.  We simply can't afford to let anyone and everyone into the profession.  Not everyone can act ethically or competently.

And, in those words I shaded red to your response, lies my rub – the Government shouldn't be in the position of handing out money towards higher education – it should be a private, personal endeavor.  Otherwise, “big” Government than justifies their ability to dictate limitations & special rules for positions within our Government promoting exclusionism and elitism which was the WHOLE purpose behind the Revolution and making our Government of the People, not only for the selected few it has progressed to; thus, the people beginning to rise up against those in our Government demanding accountability and restraint.  I agree a person should pay their own way.  If people cannot come up with the funds to pay, oh well.  I paid for my own education by working hard for many years.  But, with the advent of the ABA, law schools have become way over priced forcing people to seek financial assistance, primarily from the Federal government, who can say “Do it our way, or no way;” counter to the principles of our Constitution it purports to uphold – limited government, not entitlement government.  Has progressivism over the past 100 years improved our overall way of life – sure, but at what cost?  A “them vs. us” mentality, greater class division, more people seeking entitlements demanding more taxation against those who have worked hard and prospered, as well as greater and greater national debt.  I can go on and on, but I agree, our education, mainly public, is become a joke – it has gotten worst the more the Federal government tries to control more of it – private continues to prosper – see a connection?  Also, while you are correct with the limitations imposed by the existence of the ABA, I see it duplicitous that now this organization limits, instead of promotes, people into law when, before its existence, the legal profession managed just fine and allowed greater opportunities to all people who sought it.

sollicitus

  • Guest
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #61 on: April 24, 2012, 03:12:16 PM »
what works for a small republic does not work for an empire. Factor in multiple centuries and other changes, things will change. That is why the Supreme Court is assinged to "interpret" the constitution. Think of them as a Pope for a God we know we made up.

Opie58

  • Guest
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #62 on: April 24, 2012, 03:23:57 PM »
what works for a small republic does not work for an empire. Factor in multiple centuries and other changes, things will change. That is why the Supreme Court is assinged to "interpret" the constitution. Think of them as a Pope for a God we know we made up.

And the Supreme Court has NEVER made a mistake, or changed a ruling??  Doesn't sound like their ABA-only education made them any better than the common joe.

So, what of all the lawyers, who sat in SCOTUS, and those others who prospered elsewhere, before the ABA, that learned law via self-taught, mentored, apprenticeship, etc., that are now presented as icons within our legal system; are they any less of a lawyer?  The only change has been the unquestioned acceptance of the ABA’s standards and their promotion for a brick & mortar school attendance as the only "true" way to learn the law.  Therefore, now, any other means of learning the law is unacceptable, substandard, shunned, and considered less competent, where some say “they must prove themselves,” as if the ABA B&M student is better and more competent, though several are disbarred every year, while a century ago, those means of learning the law was equally accepted across the board – why?  Most SCOTUS Justices, up until this past century, learned law the “unacceptable” way, but now it’s not good enough?

sollicitus

  • Guest
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #63 on: April 24, 2012, 03:27:28 PM »
Let me first address the red text above, because I believe it's pertinent to my answer below.  You're betting that you can pass the bar and make a life as an attorney.  If you're going to an online school or even most T3s and T4s, statistics show you're wrong.  This fact underscores the response below:

I don't have a problem with people chasing their dreams - as long as they take responsibility for their actions and and pay their debts in a timely manner.  However, when those graduates start using government money to chase rainbows and start asking for a direct bailout (or increasingly use IBR or the other various government bailout programs), I believe that the tax payers that will end up sholdering the rainbow chasers (i.e., burdens on society) have the right to hold those folks accountable for the poor decisions that they made.  If you're doing it with your own funds or on a scholarship then, by all means, go.  If you're chasing rainbows and have little shot at actually becoming an attorney, then you don't deserve the money.  The government shouldn't be in a position of doling out money to encourage losing propositions.  Our education system is quickly becoming the joke of the world.  It's really as simple as that.

Further, barriers to entry must be erected as lawyers are members of a profession.  As a professional, you will have direct access to client money and will be placed in a position to, essentially, "speak" on behalf of your clients.  Because attorneys are, by nature, in a position to be trusted by their clients, they owe fiduciary duties to their clients.  Thus, a different, arguably stricter, standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law applies to attorney conduct.  We simply can't afford to let anyone and everyone into the profession.  Not everyone can act ethically or competently.

And, in those words I shaded red to your response, lies my rub – the Government shouldn't be in the position of handing out money towards higher education – it should be a private, personal endeavor.  Otherwise, “big” Government than justifies their ability to dictate limitations & special rules for positions within our Government promoting exclusionism and elitism which was the WHOLE purpose behind the Revolution and making our Government of the People, not only for the selected few it has progressed to; thus, the people beginning to rise up against those in our Government demanding accountability and restraint.  I agree a person should pay their own way.  If people cannot come up with the funds to pay, oh well.  I paid for my own education by working hard for many years.  But, with the advent of the ABA, law schools have become way over priced forcing people to seek financial assistance, primarily from the Federal government, who can say “Do it our way, or no way;” counter to the principles of our Constitution it purports to uphold – limited government, not entitlement government.  Has progressivism over the past 100 years improved our overall way of life – sure, but at what cost?  A “them vs. us” mentality, greater class division, more people seeking entitlements demanding more taxation against those who have worked hard and prospered, as well as greater and greater national debt.  I can go on and on, but I agree, our education, mainly public, is become a joke – it has gotten worst the more the Federal government tries to control more of it – private continues to prosper – see a connection?  Also, while you are correct with the limitations imposed by the existence of the ABA, I see it duplicitous that now this organization limits, instead of promotes, people into law when, before its existence, the legal profession managed just fine and allowed greater opportunities to all people who sought it.

Not true. Regulation is a pain to you but helps (not hurt, helps) the consumer.
Want to blame someone? Blame bad ham. Literally. That is where heavy regulation began. The publishing of "the jungle" showing how horribly tainted and unclean our ham production was created a public outrage and demand for regulation which of course people soon pointed out that they also wanted safe and quality medical care, dental care, and legal represenatation.

The standard is a floor not a ceiling. Treat is as such.

Otherwise every yahoo with an internet search engine nowdays would be a "lawyer" for hire. It was disproportionatly disinfranchise the poor (and by the same token the non white races) who couldn't afford the properly trained attorney or who were uneducated enought to know how to find out the difference.

Regulations are there for a reason. To overcome them you have to prove to the govt regulators (and the public at large) that you meet or exceed the standard. If so, your proper marketing will result in winning your situation.

Above all else remember.....

"Merda taurorum animas conturbit"

sollicitus

  • Guest
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #64 on: April 24, 2012, 03:28:40 PM »
what works for a small republic does not work for an empire. Factor in multiple centuries and other changes, things will change. That is why the Supreme Court is assinged to "interpret" the constitution. Think of them as a Pope for a God we know we made up.

And the Supreme Court has NEVER made a mistake, or changed a ruling??  Doesn't sound like their ABA-only education made them any better than the common joe.

So, what of all the lawyers, who sat in SCOTUS, and those others who prospered elsewhere, before the ABA, that learned law via self-taught, mentored, apprenticeship, etc., that are now presented as icons within our legal system; are they any less of a lawyer?  The only change has been the unquestioned acceptance of the ABA’s standards and their promotion for a brick & mortar school attendance as the only "true" way to learn the law.  Therefore, now, any other means of learning the law is unacceptable, substandard, shunned, and considered less competent, where some say “they must prove themselves,” as if the ABA B&M student is better and more competent, though several are disbarred every year, while a century ago, those means of learning the law was equally accepted across the board – why?  Most SCOTUS Justices, up until this past century, learned law the “unacceptable” way, but now it’s not good enough?

exactly. Now imagine how F'd up it would be withought the set minimal standard? There you go.

Opie58

  • Guest
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #65 on: April 24, 2012, 07:34:23 PM »
Or not.  Seems pretty crappy now by those who think they know best, especially from those of the likes of Minority Speaker and her Dem cronies who want to amend the First Amendment.  The same people who say if they had to do it over again, they would write a different Constitution.  Really???

http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/sites/default/files/Peoples%20Rights%20Amendment.pdf

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20120424pelosis_war_on_constitution/srvc=home&position=recent

http://youtu.be/yUBGsJ5-jfI

Scary stuff.

"Merda taurorum animas conturbit" - ditto   ::)

jonlevy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #66 on: April 24, 2012, 08:57:54 PM »
The states are stupid regulators, they have proven that with the insurance industry.  They do little better with lawyers, California has perhaps the toughest bar, no reciprocity, numerous non ABA schools of dubious quality, and is the only state that initially recognizes online and correspondence degrees. for the bar exam.  DC on the other hand has a tough bar but reciprocity with every other jurisdiction after 5 years practice.  Florida is known for protectionism due to fear retiree lawyers from up north will take away business. Each federal court has its own set of standards varying widely.  It would be interesting to know if  a national mandatory bar would violate the 10th amendment?

john4040

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #67 on: April 25, 2012, 03:59:13 AM »
But, with the advent of the ABA, law schools have become way over priced forcing people to seek financial assistance

I really don't think the ABA has much to do with the cost of tuition.  Non-ABA schools are often just as expensive as ABA schools.  I think it has more to do with prospective students being able to get easy money from the government.  A secondary driver of tuition costs is probably the USNWR rankings.

sollicitus

  • Guest
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #68 on: April 25, 2012, 02:56:00 PM »
Or not.  Seems pretty crappy now by those who think they know best, especially from those of the likes of Minority Speaker and her Dem cronies who want to amend the First Amendment.  The same people who say if they had to do it over again, they would write a different Constitution.  Really???

http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/sites/default/files/Peoples%20Rights%20Amendment.pdf

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20120424pelosis_war_on_constitution/srvc=home&position=recent

http://youtu.be/yUBGsJ5-jfI

Scary stuff.

"Merda taurorum animas conturbit" - ditto   ::)

who would you prefer be in charge? Should each court case be decided by live tv vote like american idol? Should anarchy rule?

Sandhya

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Taft or Concord Law School
« Reply #69 on: June 06, 2012, 10:08:31 PM »
I looked into both options and applied at St. Francis, but I'm not sure if I'll get in.  During the interview, I was informed that their acceptance rate can be as low as one in three.

If I don't get into St. Francis, then I'm planning on waiting a semester and re-applying and then if I still can't make the cut, I'm going to try Taft.  Concord didn't seem worth the premium to be, but I'd be curious to hear if the format at Concord is worth such an expensive tuition rate.