National Law School

[Quail!]

Not to add any fuel to the fire, but...

Doug,
If you did indeed attend law school, then either it must have been pretty bad, you must have been a poor student, or a combination thereof.  You lack the ability to write even cohesive and sensical sentences, let alone arguments.  It does not surprise me from what I've seen that you are working for a shady institution like National "Law".

Second, you ignore the fact that practicing law is not a RIGHT.  It takes much studying and effort to break into the practice of law, and certain skills/abilities are needed.  Those who do not possess the basic abilities or motivation to work, are simply not fit to become attorneys.  Period.  Perhaps law school is a bit too "guarded" financially, however academic "guards" are necessary to ensure that only those who are fit to practice law are allowed to do so (or even learn how to do so).

In conclusion, perhaps you should peddle your (relatively) useless wares elsewhere.  You won't find much sympathy here.

[redemption]

S-dub:

So, you think that more than half of practicing lawyers come out of the top schools?

[redemption]

Not to add any fuel to the fire, but...

Doug,
If you did indeed attend law school, then either it must have been pretty bad, you must have been a poor student, or a combination thereof.  You lack the ability to write even cohesive and sensical sentences, let alone arguments.  It does not surprise me from what I've seen that you are working for a shady institution like National "Law".

Second, you ignore the fact that practicing law is not a RIGHT.  It takes much studying and effort to break into the practice of law, and certain skills/abilities are needed.  Those who do not possess the basic abilities or motivation to work, are simply not fit to become attorneys.  Period.  Perhaps law school is a bit too "guarded" financially, however academic "guards" are necessary to ensure that only those who are fit to practice law are allowed to do so (or even learn how to do so).

In conclusion, perhaps you should peddle your (relatively) useless wares elsewhere.  You won't find much sympathy here.

This is a rubbish post.

[John Galt]

Not to add any fuel to the fire, but...

Doug,
If you did indeed attend law school, then either it must have been pretty bad, you must have been a poor student, or a combination thereof.  You lack the ability to write even cohesive and sensical sentences, let alone arguments.  It does not surprise me from what I've seen that you are working for a shady institution like National "Law".

Second, you ignore the fact that practicing law is not a RIGHT.  It takes much studying and effort to break into the practice of law, and certain skills/abilities are needed.  Those who do not possess the basic abilities or motivation to work, are simply not fit to become attorneys.  Period.  Perhaps law school is a bit too "guarded" financially, however academic "guards" are necessary to ensure that only those who are fit to practice law are allowed to do so (or even learn how to do so).

In conclusion, perhaps you should peddle your (relatively) useless wares elsewhere.  You won't find much sympathy here.

This really adds nothing to the discussion and only makes you look silly. While I agree with SC that the OP is coming off as kind of toolish, there is no need for insults. Perhaps you should remember that educational pedigree doesn't guarantee what type of attorney you will be.

[redemption]

The lowest-paid lawyers may be the ones that work in government and in non-profits, where salary is a poor proxy for career/job-satisfaction or advancement. It's possible to imagine that the average immigration solo-practicioner earns less than a public defender, but i wouldn't count on it.

i think that the schools that account for the upper half of the law student population probably account for more than half of practicing lawyers.

This sounds evasive.

[redemption]

so you honestly believe that the country could use MORE lawyers? 

or do you really just believe that the average person could use more knowledge about how the legal system works?

Neither. I believe that the number and types of people who could usefully become lawyers is greater and broader than the system currently allows for.

law isn't a special profession, it just another job/career. The way the system is currently set up, it favors the privileged and grasping over the under-privileged and public interest-oriented. Why should that remain so?

[Quail!]

Perhaps you should remember that educational pedigree doesn't guarantee what type of attorney you will be.

I never said it did.  Hard work is required regardless of what school you go to - the name surely does not make the attorney.  However, without a proper legal education, it will be extremely difficult at best to become a decent attorney.

I've never been one to "T2-4"-bash, nor would I ever.  However, this reeks of a scam that only dilutes the profession of law (and there's enough of that out there already).

As for my "insults," perhaps my post was too harshly-worded.  However, when an administrator from a law school cannot form coherent sentences and arguments, it says something about the school.  That is all I was trying to put out there.

[H4CS]

law isn't a special profession, it just another job/career. The way the system is currently set up, it favors the privileged and grasping over the under-privileged and public interest-oriented. Why should that remain so?

It shouldn't but your argument has nothing to do with either the OP or the resultant criticism.  There needs to be innovative and experimental approaches to broaden the field and looking at the application process is one of many places to start (C&F reform being another obvious one, which I know is something you support).  Yet National Law School is merely wrapping itself (poorly) in this rhetoric of breaking barriers to (poorly) mask what is ultimately a scam.

Look, there needs to be lobbying reform in DC and there is definitely a political class of well-connected fatcats that feed off the public.  Yet when someone dressed in a suit covered with dollar-bills starts advertising on late-night television that you too can receive government grants if you send him $99 for his book, I would hope everyone would recognize that it has nothing to do with real reform. 

Reform will come from educationalists and social planners who are dedicated to creating viable solutions not hacks like this.

[redemption]

law isn't a special profession, it just another job/career. The way the system is currently set up, it favors the privileged and grasping over the under-privileged and public interest-oriented. Why should that remain so?

It shouldn't but your argument has nothing to do with either the OP or the resultant criticism. 

There needs to be innovative and experimental approaches to broaden the field and looking at the application process is one of many places to start (C&F reform being another obvious one, which I know is something you support). 

Yet National Law School is merely wrapping itself (poorly) in this rhetoric of breaking barriers to (poorly) mask what is ultimately a scam.

Look, there needs to be lobbying reform in DC and there is definitely a political class of well-connected fatcats that feed off the public.  Yet when someone dressed in a suit covered with dollar-bills starts advertising on late-night television that you too can receive government grants if you send him $99 for his book, I would hope everyone would recognize that it has nothing to do with real reform. 

Reform will come from educationalists and social planners who are dedicated to creating viable solutions not hacks like this.

I was responding to Swats rather than to the OP in that post.

You and I agree except on two points: [1] I'm not absolutely certain that NLS is a scam, although it certainly looks that way from the manner in which it is presented (I favor, as I have indicated to the OP, transparency over evasive marketing language); and [2] I think that private sector solutions of this kind can work -- I have much, much less faith than you do in "educationalists and social planners".

[H4CS]

You and I agree except on two points: [1] I'm not absolutely certain that NLS is a scam, although it certainly looks that way from the manner in which it is presented (I favor, as I have indicated to the OP, transparency over evasive marketing language); and [2] I think that private sector solutions of this kind can work -- I have much, much less faith than you do in "educationalists and social planners".

1) The hallmarks of a scam are all here.  It's not just transparency that I'm looking for but an ability to respond to criticism, and a demonstration that NLS is actually dedicated to these issues and is actively charting this course, opposed to trying to get people to sign up and pay first, with answers to come.  Without any reputation, and with the history of scams (like the one previously referenced) I think NLS would have a vested interest in proving legitimacy.  I don't see it.

2) I never said anything about public/private here and I think that the private sector will most likely have to lead the way.  Social planners and educationalists are often in the private sector in addition to the not-for-profit sector (like the law schools that you, I, and just about everyone else on this board will be attending).  However, these are not the private sector actors you are looking for.