Wednesday, November 15, 2006

UC Law 1998

UC Law 1998

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/11/what_constitute.html

A take on minimal standards for law school "success." I disagree with the assertions. If trained monkeys can pass the bar, why is that at all relevant to a law school's success? It would be better if Harvard grads. regularly failed. Then there would be general agreement the bar is an inane metric. Ask Moose, whose secretary is a more effective lawyer than I am.

The world should be thisly: like mental health counselors who pass some test and are able to put you on a couch, the minimum criteria for practicing law should be passing the bar. But anybody smart enough can do it. Then, law school provides you a credential that NOT everybody has. So in competition with the world of hack lawyers out there, we all call ourselves "UCLaw1998, J.D." And we command a premium for that credential just like psychologists or psychiatrists command a premium over "counselors."

Max

3 Comments:

At Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:57:00 PM, Blogger UCLaw98 said...

This post reminded me why our tax code is so confusing. Tax lawyers can't simply say "bar passage is the only thing that equally measures everyone". Everything else in Max's post was confusing, which is probably why I failed the bar exam.

 
At Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:24:00 PM, Blogger michael budelsky said...

I don't agree with your first point (at least I think it's your point) that a bar passage rate is not an indicator of a successful law school. That's really all you can ask of law schools. It doesn't matter what kind of brilliant thinkers a school spits out if they can't get their tickets to practice.

I don't think any postgraduate degree program is in the business of ensuring that their students succeed in the real world. What the law should have is some sort of 1-2 year "training period" (think post docs for PhDs or residencies for MDs) for the learning of how to actually be an effective lawyer.

Despite the fact that "thisly" is not a word, I actually sort of agree with your last point. There is no reason why you should have to go to a law school if you can satisfy the state's requirements for general legal knowledge (ie, pass the bar exam). It would be another level of prestige (much like a Harvard JD is premium credential over a UC JD).

In Washington, they have a "Law Clerk Program" where you basically shadow a lawyer or judge for 4 or more years and do a minimum amount of "studying" each month, and then you can sit for the bar. No law school -- a dim thought when you realize how much drinking and golf we would have missed out on.

 
At Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you have the resume for Geta Gaduate, please pass it on. She will do well in NC.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home