(06-12-2013 04:46 AM)UH Law 97 Wrote: .
“Neither the world, nor my posts, revolve around you or are directed specifically at you Bubba...”
So you replied to my post while responding to other people's comments? And now you think that I need to get over myself because I thought that when you replied to my post, you were talking to me? If that's honestly the case, then I think there's a reason why you don't practice law anymore, "Bubba." I'll give you a helpful hint on the house: don't reply to one post with a response to another post that is completely unrelated.
“…most people get hired BEFORE they take the bar…”
And no, I have no idea what world you live on, but most law students do NOT have jobs coming out of school. In the last decade the number of JD's has increased by something like 84% and demand for JD's is down by about 20% (obviously this number is hard to measure). What was true during the .com boom of the 90's isn't true anymore.
Your argument that JD's might make someone more employable outside of the profession of law argument is only technically true. It's true in the sense that aliens might make first contact with Earth tomorrow, which is also technically true. It might happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It isn't rare for a student to make the same (or less) coming out of law school than they would have coming straight out of undergrad. So please enlighten me as to why someone would spend well in excess of $100,000 and dedicate three years of their life to being in small windowless rooms to obtain a degree that empowers them to enter a specific field unless they actually wanted to enter that specific field. I understand that not everyone does take the bar, but the people that don't enter the world of law generally either lucked into a better position during school that they would have gotten anyway, or are unable to pass the bar. I don't buy your pursuit of knowledge argument, but if that really is your case, then you should have seen "Goodwill Hunting" sooner. Inspiration and library cards are a LOT cheaper and just as eye-opening.
“Example: when I took the bar, subjects like Environmental Law, Intellectual Property, Admiralty, Bankruptcy, and Family Law weren't even on the TX bar exam…”
You do realize that contracts, torts, property, crim pro, crim law, civ pro, con law, legal writing, and (often) evidence are mandatory at virtually every (if not literally every) law school in the nation. You're a member of the TX bar, so let's talk about the TX bar itself:
*40% of the TX bar is crim law/pro, torts, contracts, evidence, real property, and con law.
*20% consists of TX Crim pro and crim evidence and TX civ pro and evidence
*40% consists of 12 essays two of the essays concern real property (again) and two of the essays concern contracts (again) the remaining 8 essays are: business structures (2), trusts and guardianships (1), wills (2), consumer rights (1), and family law (2)
http://www.themisbar.com/bar_exam_info_texas
So, 53.3333% of the Texas bar is directly covered by virtually every law students in America, if not literally every law student in America, and another 20% is indirectly covered by every law student in America. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to navigate law school without taking at least one class relevant to at least one of business structures (2), trusts and guardianships (1), wills (2), consumer rights (1), and family law (2). Heck, you even listed family law as an example of a class that you took when you were trying to dream up classes not on the Texas bar (it's actually at least 7% of the bar). Frankly, every student in America should be walking out of law school and into the bar familiar with 80% of the material on the bar. Given that you only need a 67.5% to pass TX (I think), your attempt to put all the blame on the students is astonishingly stupid. If a student is not competent in those areas of the law, then why did the school allow the students to pass the class?
“Answer: Simple. Because a person may want to go to law school simply because they want the legal education”
Let me help you out. I compared going to law school and then failing the bar to rubbing salt in an open wound. You then said that it wouldn’t be bad if they didn’t want to be a lawyer. After that I responded by asking why someone would take the bar but not want to go to law school. Finally you replied by hurling insults and saying “
because a person may want to go to law school simply because they want the legal education,
and may never plan to either take the bar, or practice.”
That statement, when combined with your statement that “[n]either the world, nor my posts, revolve around you or are directed specifically at you Bubba” pretty much speaks for your entire series of posts. You can see how saying that a person might go to law school but not want to take the bar has NOTHING to do with why someone might take the bar, right?
SIDE NOTE: Apparently this escapes you, but employment numbers aren’t relegated to just legal jobs, so when I say “And yes, I've heard the arguments about how achieving a JD proves a high level of dedication, good time management skills, strong critical thinking skills, and a solid work ethic, but I've also seen employment numbers and starting salaries, and they aren't pretty.” And you respond by saying “depends on which field they want to work in. A person may already have an established career when they enter law school, OR may be employable in another field (as I was)..................they're simply there for the legal education, which may enhance their lives/career in any number of ways, even though they may not want to work in the legal field, or plan to become licensed in it.” You are objectively wrong.
P.S. As a human being, I hope your military job doesn’t involve using weapons, and as an American taxpayer, I hope it doesn’t involve interacting with large amount of federal money.
