Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A number of ABA law schools offer part time programs. As for your last sentence, sorry, but ABA schools are the ONLY ones that matter and for good reason. Are you a proponent of DeVry and all those for-profit "universities" too? There are plenty of ABA-approved schools that are of crappy quality and don't properly prepare their students for the profession, so I don't want to even imagine what the non-ABA schools are like.
ABA schools are not the only ones that matter. Bar passers matter and they come from all law schools, period. Doesn't concern me in the least that you disagree. I suggest you join the reality that is modern times.
Non-ABA schools exist for a reason. Before criticizing them, get informed about them. You obviously know nothing about them, so your comments on them are pretty irrelevant.
I am a proponent of for-profit schools and feel they have their place. I'm not pompous or short-sighted enough to feel that the only type of education that is worthy is that from an elite school. Educational opportunities should be available to all, even in non-traditional formats. You disagree? Who cares?
To the OP, check out some of the bonehead things that ABA graduates do to get disbarred. It supports my contention that it's about the individual, not the school.
California Bar Journal (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/July2007&MONTH=July&YEAR=2007&sCatHtmlTitle=Discip line&sJournalCategory=YES#d1 - broken link)
Last edited by LexusNexus; 04-30-2010 at 06:05 PM..
ABA schools are not the only ones that matter. Bar passers matter and they come from all law schools, period. Doesn't concern me in the least that you disagree. I suggest you join the reality that is modern times.
Non-ABA schools exist for a reason. Before criticizing them, get informed about them. You obviously know nothing about them, so your comments on them are pretty irrelevant.
I am a proponent of for-profit schools and feel they have their place. I'm not pompous or short-sighted enough to feel that the only type of education that is worthy is that from an elite school. Educational opportunities should be available to all, even in non-traditional formats. You disagree? Who cares?
To the OP, check out some of the bonehead things that ABA graduates do to get disbarred. It supports my contention that it's about the individual, not the school.
California Bar Journal (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/July2007&MONTH=July&YEAR=2007&sCatHtmlTitle=Discip line&sJournalCategory=YES#d1 - broken link)
Agreed, and I'm not looking for a fight here, but in this job market and for the foreseeable future there are not enough jobs for all lawyers who want one. You can't really fall back on the old "Well, I'll just hang my shingle" because solos aren't making it either.
Where you go to law school means a heck of a lot today. If you can get in and somehow get it paid for, first-tier law schools will give you the kind of advantage that makes the other schools look like a bad high school in a poor neighborhood.
The original question seemed to be about pass/fail rates based on accreditation. Answer - it doesnt matter - a Barbri course well applied solves that - I think it speaks more to the latter issue - the commitment to learning of the student and the school and yes, where you go to school does matter - I would examine those choices and worry about the bar later.
ABA schools are not the only ones that matter. Bar passers matter and they come from all law schools, period. Doesn't concern me in the least that you disagree. I suggest you join the reality that is modern times.
Non-ABA schools exist for a reason. Before criticizing them, get informed about them. You obviously know nothing about them, so your comments on them are pretty irrelevant.
I am a proponent of for-profit schools and feel they have their place. I'm not pompous or short-sighted enough to feel that the only type of education that is worthy is that from an elite school. Educational opportunities should be available to all, even in non-traditional formats. You disagree? Who cares?
To the OP, check out some of the bonehead things that ABA graduates do to get disbarred. It supports my contention that it's about the individual, not the school.
California Bar Journal (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/July2007&MONTH=July&YEAR=2007&sCatHtmlTitle=Discip line&sJournalCategory=YES#d1 - broken link)
"Join the reality?" Since when are non-ABA schools suddenly seen as credible? Just because a few states let people from those schools take the bar doesn't mean that the graduates will be held in high esteem as attorneys, assuming they manage to pass the bar.
I know a lot of attorneys here where I live are not busy, no one is walking through their doors.
Just curious. What would be a recession proof area of law to specialize in?
I'm sure attorneys are making a mint off doing loan modifications if their good at it. I had to go out of area to find one to work with on my modification and my phone book is FULL of lawyers practicing in this county. But I couldn't find one doing modifications. I was told by a person at the firm, that they are doing around 170 modification a month at $3500 a pop.
I know a lot of attorneys here where I live are not busy, no one is walking through their doors.
Just curious. What would be a recession proof area of law to specialize in?
I'm sure attorneys are making a mint off doing loan modifications if their good at it. I had to go out of area to find one to work with on my modification and my phone book is FULL of lawyers practicing in this county. But I couldn't find one doing modifications. I was told by a person at the firm, that they are doing around 170 modification a month at $3500 a pop.
Bankruptcy is doing pretty good and international law is strong. Family law (divorces, etc.) is relatively recession proof, but it does drop off some. I think M&A is getting ready to crank back up pretty soon.
Collection work is really going to go ballistic in the next year or two. Companies are being set up right now to go after debtors on a volume basis.
Guys who have general practices that rely on wills, PI, doc review, small business representation, a little bit of this, a little bit of that, are hurting and will continue to hurt.
There are few types of law that fare well both in recession and out of recession. As previous posters have said, there are several types of law that do well in recession. The fields that come to mind are bankruptcy, credit/collections and foreclosure. However, that work may slow down considerably when the economy is healthy. When the economy is healthy there's lots of work for corporate, securities and transactional attorneys. The areas of law that I would think would be the most consistent (without doing any research on the question) would be criminal, employment, tax and estate planning.
Some intangible factors that affect the numbers. Many ABA schools are comprised of younger students with no responsibilities, people who can submerge themselves full-time within the protective law school environment.
Any data to back this up? From my understanding, law schools attract a wide range of students from varying backgrounds, education levels, and ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
Many non-ABA schools are part-time schools, where adults with families, jobs, businesses attend at night. Numbers are likely to be lower just simply because of the difference in opportunity to prepare properly for the bar the first time.
And many ABA approved schools offer part-time programs. By the way, a JD degree takes three years going full-time, a part-time track is considered to take four years, and according to the US Dept. of Labor Statistics, one out of every ten students who graduated from an ABA accredited school attended part time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
Same reason affects preparation for the LSAT to get into law school. Working adults with responsibilities may not have time to adequately prepare for the exam, and ABA law school admission officers don't care about this.
Uh, the LSAT does not test knowledge of law. What it does test is reading ability, comprehension, logic/reasoning, and writing skills. All of which any reasonably educated adult should possess, and all of which do not require a college education to learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
A 40 year-old medical doctor decides he wants to go to law school but doesn't have enough time to prepare for the LSAT and gets an average score. ABA admissions officers will likely reject him because his score is not competitive with that of little 23 year-old Suzy, who majored in English and lives with her parents, and had a higher LSAT score. Suzy will go on to graduate and pass the bar on the first try. The doctor will go to a CA-accredited school and attend school at night while maintaining his practice. He will graduate a year later than Suzy and pass the bar on the second try because he had to study AND maintain his practice. I don't downgrade the doctor because his path to becoming a lawyer didn't go through the ABA.
Law school admissions are competitive, but if you seriously believe that the 40 year old doctor would get passed up for 23 yo Suzy, well, that's insane. Anyone who made it through med. school definitely would be the more attractive candidate.
It is possible that your scenario has happened to at least one person, but it seems ridiculous to consider, unless of course the doctor you mention received his MD through the University of Phoenix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
There are some criteria that disqualifies non-ABA schools from being ABA that have nothing to do with the quality of education. One is that the ABA requirement that its member schools have impressive environment in terms of facilities and buildings. A small, storefront-looking law school just doesn't pass muster.
Nothing in the ABA standards say that a school needs to have an 'impressive' environment, but yet one suitable for the education of students in an on-going matter and capable of possible future growth and that it has an adequate research library. But, do I need to ask; why would anyone want to attend law school that was housed in a store front?
Another is the requirement that its professors be full-time. Can't happen at part-time schools.
Yes, a professor can teach full-time at a part-time college. Generally, a professor is considered full-time if that professor teaches a minimum of four courses per semester.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
Another is that the law libraries of member schools must be huge, have millions of volumes. A small school that doesn't have these facilities can't be an ABA school.
I have read the requirements for accreditation at the ABA website, I don't recall on their own website mention of a potential school's library consisting of millions of volumes. They do say that the library must be adequately staffed in a professional manner for its size. http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standa...t/Chapter6.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
To me, passing the CA Bar is the equalizer. Anyone who passes it is qualified no matter where they went to school. ABA schools are considered the most legitimate of course, and many fine lawyers emerge from them. They also are places that spit out many people with a great false sense of superiority. Non-ABA schools are legitimate law schools and a great option depending on one's circumstances. I applaud the state of CA for being ahead of the country in this regard, making a legal education accessible to almost anyone. Don't be a superficial sucker who thinks that only ABA law schools matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
ABA schools are not the only ones that matter. Bar passers matter and they come from all law schools, period. Doesn't concern me in the least that you disagree. I suggest you join the reality that is modern times.
Some states offer their own accreditation, but most state bar association's require applicants to have attended an ABA accredited school, and some states offer their own accreditation to satisfy that particular state's Bar that only allow students from non-ABA accredited schools to take the Bar in that particular state. California is the most notable example of a state that will allow graduates from non-ABA accredited colleges from other states to take the California Bar Exam, but many states will only accept students who passed the California Bar that graduated from non-ABA accredited schools to sit on the Bar in their particular state only after the person in question practices Law in the State of California for a number of years first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
Non-ABA schools exist for a reason. Before criticizing them, get informed about them. You obviously know nothing about them, so your comments on them are pretty irrelevant.
Well, you do not appear to know what you are talking about, either, and saying that someone's comments are irrelevant is a childish way to dismiss what they are saying without having to offer any explanation yourself.
You might as well have said I know you are but what am I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
I am a proponent of for-profit schools and feel they have their place. I'm not pompous or short-sighted enough to feel that the only type of education that is worthy is that from an elite school. Educational opportunities should be available to all, even in non-traditional formats. You disagree? Who cares?
Who cares? Apparently, you do. Not all ABA accredited schools are considered 'elite', just that they meet the conditions set forth by ABA accreditation. The Thomas M. Cooley Law School, for example, is accredited by the ABA, is considered Tier 4, and offers part-time evening courses. In fact, the ABA refuses to participate in, nor support, law school rankings. And, the School of Law at University of Southern Maine is nowhere near 'elite'.
Why not just throw your money down on the craps table? You'd get a better return.
Would you go to a doctor that hadn't been to a real medical school but still managed to pass the exam? Or would you prefer a doctor from Harvard med?
Non-ABA schools are worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
Law school admissions are competitive, but if you seriously believe that the 40 year old doctor would get passed up for 23 yo Suzy, well, that's insane. Anyone who made it through med. school definitely would be the more attractive candidate.
Actually, the 40-year-old may not have as much luck because the school will be very curious about the motivation behind the change. Nothing set in stone, but you'd be surprised.
Actually, the 40-year-old may not have as much luck because the school will be very curious about the motivation behind the change. Nothing set in stone, but you'd be surprised.
I am assuming that the medical doctor in the previous scenario is a licensed practitioner who attended a legitimate medical school. Like law school, there really is not a specific track required for acceptance into a program, although some students are pre-law and pre-med (that just means that they know for certain that they want to ultimately pursue a career in these fields and they take the appropriate courses in undergrad to prepare them).
Now, med school is no joke (once again, this is assuming that the MD went to a legitimate med school). It is a pretty rigorous program to go through and chances are that someone who went through med school would have the capability of handling law school since there is one key similarity between the two fields. Law students spend an enormous amount of time reading case files. They are then expected to draw conclusions from the evidence and play out the case in a mock trial (the mock trial is major component of ABA accreditation). That is why the LSAT focuses on reading comprehension and logic/reasoning skills and not actual knowledge of law.
Medical doctors are required to possess a similar skill; they are expected to look over a patient, diagnosis symptoms, and make rational, correct, judgements for treatments based on those symptoms, patients history, and knowledge of similar medical cases.
That is what would potentially make the 40 year old MD the better candidate over the 23 year old.
Motivation for change? That is based on the individual, but perhaps the 40 year old MD wants to combine his knowledge of medicine with knowledge of law and become a malpractice lawyer. Maybe he wants to move up into the higher positions of hospital management and wants a degree in law to help run, protect, and make decisions for the hospital. Maybe he is just sick of the blood and guts, insurance companies, whiny patients who think they know more the he does, etc.
It is not as uncommon as you might think. I would hazard a guess that at lest one MD enters law school each year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
