- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
So they’re lowering the bar, then?
You can put it in as a link with an exclamation point to imbed the GIF. ! [Description] (Link) without the spaces
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
After law school, candidates will spend 675 hours working under the supervision of an experienced attorney and create a portfolio of legal work that bar officials will grade as an alternative to the traditional bar exam.
So, still basically a test, but now more like 4 months of underpaid/free labor.
The bar I took cost something like $2000 including two months of prep classes on top of law school. Then more money for a hotel stay so I could take a two day test. I would have preferred 4 months apprenticeship paid or no.
You think travelling to and from unpaid work for four months is better than paying $2k and a hotel for one night?
Average 21 working days a month, commute at $10 a day which is a very low estimate for the US, and its $840 + 2 months of lost wages.
At minimum wage that’s $2320 before tax… but we’re talking (hopefully) intelligent people who can earn significantly more.
At $20/h we’re looking at $6400 in lost wages by comparison to the old system you have described.
This is bad for workers as its putting a greater financial barrier on entering the profession.
I gave you my opinion, from my experience . If you’ve taken a bar and that’s your opinion, fine.
The primary barrier to entry into the legal profession is law school, not the licensing exam.
4 months of legal apprenticeship with a side gig isn’t bad. However, I would imagine that most applicants will be doing 4 months of paid clerkship with enough extra unpaid hours to meet the bar’s criteria.
I would think 4 months would also help your resume. But then again, not sure if not having the bar exam could hurt your resume? Curious your opinion.
Removed by mod
A practicum is required for some professions, like professional engineering. The standard for engineering is four years with a bachelor’s degree and passing two tests. You can read engineering in a couple of states without going to college, but it takes 15 years experience and you still need to pass one of the tests.
If you’re referring to the FE and PE tests as being required. They are required to be able to get the extra cert, but not to be am engineer. Most engineers are not PEs, and you don’t have to pass the FE exam to be an engineer.
You do to become a stamping engineer, and the stamping privilege is the difference between and engineering graduate and a professional engineer.
I specified Professional Engineer, which is different from engineers that work on products covered by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
I get that you can have engineers in fields that don’t need licensure.
Even in civil/archE, most of 'em don’t have their PE.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Lol, that’s cute, say doctors everywhere. With the 8 years of post secondary education and 3-8 years plus of 80 hours a week apprenticeship after that. They figured out doing both long ago. And grad students well on their way too with post doc positions.
Removed by mod
Engineers too. A 4-5 year degree, then an exam to get engineer in training status, then a few years apprenticeship, then another exam to get a license that allows them to sign off on projects. Although, a friend of mine never bothered taking the last exam, he just has to work under another engineer.
Don’t we have proof that you can’t learn while sleep deprived? And that doctors spend years learning on 4 hours of sleep?
Sounds like they spend the same amount of time learning.
No way that could ever go sideways… 🤦
Guess I can start a new career next year!
\I’m a lawyer!\
Lionel Hutz was a man before his time.
What wrong with that, they’re just “practicing” law!
I lawled!
deleted by creator
Was that a swipe at the new Supreme Court majority?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That’s a weird attitude to take. Do you specifically hate poor people?
I took it more as a calling out that most public defenders do just churn out plea deals, not as praising them for doing so.
I had a public defender once and they pushed hard to take a plea, like hard hard. If I had the money for a real lawyer, it would have been in my favor.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I believe it. Reading comprehension is not great overall. Couple that with folks that like being angry, and you’ll have people responding to whatever interpretation makes them angry, even if it isn’t close to what was said.
I’m convinced it was sarcasm
deleted by creator
Almost like tone doesn’t come across in written form for all the people reading it, maybe we should develop a form of tonal punctuation to show satire in forums like this.
The interrobang is purportedly for indicating sarcasm, though I and other people generally only use it as a silly “?!” ligature.
Personally, I still believe that if satire can’t be detected, either it’s shitty satire, or your audience is too dense to understand it even if they recognized it.
Huh. Must just be me remembering things that never happened, then.
deleted by creator
Here’s an idea I just invented, let’s end any satire with “/s” so everyone who reads it can be in on the fun and so controversial things aren’t encouraged by the confusion!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If we want a reasonable effort from them, we might want to not overwork them so hard. Maybe just, y’know, hire more.
Frankly though, if we’re going to make them basically do paid residencies now, why don’t we make them work as public defenders? Would solve our problem, and they’re young, fresh grads, so you don’t have to pay them as much yet anyway.
