RE: Ranking the AAC Law Schools.
"Once again though, passing the bar exam is an individual responsibility, NOT the school's responsibility."
It isn't the school's responsibility in the sense that it isn't the school's responsibility to teach their students. In other words, it absolutely is the school's responsibility.
NONSENSE!!!! It's the school's job to teach students to approach/think about the law the way that a good lawyer might, NOT prepare them for the bar exam. That's on the student. And guess what? I knew people that never took any 2nd and 3rd year subjects that were on the bar. They still passed the bar, NOT because of what the school taught them, but rather, because they paid attention in the bar review course, and PREPARED ON THEIR OWN. It was NOT because of what the school taught them, nor should it have been, necessarily. It wasn't the school's responsibility, it was the student's
Like I said, it's THE STUDENTS' INDIVIDUAL responsibility to prepare for the bar and pass it, NOT the school's.
A student who passes shouldn't be THAT ill-prepared for the working world/being qualified to participate in the working world. And yes, I know that JD's from ANY school aren't "plug and play," but that just highlights the shortcomings of the American legal education system, not the students.
"If a school's bar passage rate is truly 100% (something I doubt, but I'll play along)..."
What do you mean "you'll play along?" It's your hypo. I never said anything about any school having a 100% bar passage rate.
But other people did. First of all, I didn't say that YOU said it Bubba. It was ANOTHER POSTER ON THIS SAME STRING than said it, and it was against HIM that that comment was directed, NOT you. It wasn't a "hypo" in that regard. My post wasn't about YOU specifically Bubba, so if you're under the impression that it was, then get over yourself!!! That part of my post was an answer to a poster named "transit" who posted THIS:
Quote: Last I checked, Memphis is the only law school in the state to have had a 100% pass rate in the bar for a particular year.
I simply responded to that by saying that 1) I seriously doubt that their pass rate was 100%, and 2) even if it was, it wouldn't mean that the law school was necessarily better than the others; only that it primarily, as I said, TEACHES TO THE TEST while de-emphasizing other aspects of legal education that are also very important; that's NOT necessarily a good thing.
Please learn to read the entire string with a bit more detail and comprehension before incorrectly assuming that my comment was directed at you and falsely labelling it a "hypo." It was a legit response to an assertion made by another poster.
Either way, reverse your example, and assume that a school has a weak bar passage rate. That suggests that A) the school didn't cover enough of the relevant information and the student/graduate had to cram too much between May and the end of July, B) the school incorrectly taught information, and/or C) that the information wasn't covered in enough depth and the student missed out on the nuances tested on the bar that weren't necessarily hammered home in bar prep, which tends to be somewhat of a survey.
Most of the time, schools with very poor bar passage rates have that problem not for the reasons that you stated, but simply because they admit a lot of really poor candidates as students with a low probability of success on the bar (such as TSU). But if a school has a very high bar passage rate (one poster here claimed that Memphis' was 100%; I doubt that, but I'll assume it's right, and PLAY ALONG, as I said), it doesn't necessarily mean either that their school is better, or its students are better. It simply means that that school primarily TEACHES TO THE TEST.
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. To the best of my knowledge, they're not on the DC bar either (and those are two of the nation's three largest mandatory bar associations). That hardly makes them "irrelevant" from either a legal education, or a practice perspective. A school might very well emphasize, it its curriculum, those subjects which ARE on the bar exam (Evidence, Bus Org., Commercial Transactions, Procedure, etc), and have few or even no course offerings in some of those other areas. As a result, graduates from a school like that might very well have a higher bar passage rate than those from another school where students have a lot more 2nd/3rd year elective options on their plate...........options which may not be on the bar exam, but are still VERY relevant to both legal education and the practice of law, and which they may choose OVER the subjects that are on the bar.
It does NOT..................NECESSARILY mean that the school didn't prepare them for the nuances of the bar (actually, when I took the TX bar years ago, that's what the bar review course was for; it wasn't a mere "survey," although times may have changed), it doesn't necessarily mean that the school didn't go over "relevant" subject matter, etc. It may simply mean that one school's curriculum emphasizes topics that are on the bar rather than other subjects which aren't, but which nonetheless are also very important and for which a student may have an interest in studying and/or practicing.
In the end, a student at a school with those other options might very well take them. If said student does so, then it is still THEIR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY to take the bar review course, and prep on their own..........as I mentioned above. And if they fail the exam, it's on them, NOT the school.
That's why I always point out that there's a helluva lot more to legal education than merely the bar exam, and that bar passage rate is HARDLY a good indicator of a law school's overall academic quality and reputation. It's simply one relatively small factor in the equation.
"In any event, I don't know many people out there that would rather have a Memphis law degree than a Vandy law degree"
No kidding. This is a COMPLETE straw-man argument. I never said, or even implied anything to the contrary, ....................
But OTHER PEOPLE, as I said, seemed to be attempting to make that case, using Memphis' bar passage rate as the cornerstone of their argument. EPIC FAIL!!! It's primarily THOSE people that I was addressing. Once again, if you think that my post was all about you, then get over yourself. Neither the world, nor my posts, revolve around you or are directed specifically at you Bubba.
"To answer the question above, if a person spent those big bucks to go to Vandy and didn't pass the bar, it would likely be a blow to the person involved, assuming, of course, that being a licensed attorney is what the individual wanted..."
In your hypo, if the individual didn't want to be an attn'y, then why would they put themselves through taking the bar?
Answer: Simple. 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. A legal education is good to have REGARDLESS of whether you ever intend to practice or even intend to earn/have the right to practice, and I say that as someone that hasn't practiced in over 15 years, although I have the "right" to. I knew several people from my law school that fit that exact mold of a person who wanted a legal education but never intended to practice, and as a result, could have cared less about taking the bar and earning the "right" to practice. They didn't take the bar. That's why I said, ASSUMING that a person went to Vandy with the intention of taking the bar and becoming a lawyer (which is NOT true of ALL law students...........they may very well be like the students I mentioned above), it would be a big blow if they spent those big bucks and failed the exam. That's a CORRECT statement, so I'm not sure what you're arguing about. Maybe you're arguing with yourself; don't ask me why! You sure are doing a good job of misreading/misinterpreting what I wrote. Better luck next time!
Anyway, given that JD degrees aren't even especially valuable after someone has taken the bar, why would anyone want a JD degree without the right to practice law?
Answer: Because they want the legal education. Legal education, like all forms of education is valuable and an asset, even if the person receiving it doesn't want to practice, or have a license, and when I say "valuable," I don't even mean valuable from a "getting a job" perspective. I technically have the "right" to practice (active licenses in TX and DC), although I haven't practiced in 15 years. Guess what? That legal education was still valuable to me, and it would have been even if I had never taken a bar exam, never practiced, never intended to practice, and never intended to earn the right to practice, simply because a legal education is a good education in how the world works, and how to think.
A JD w/o bar membership is almost entirely worthless.
Disagree for the reasons stated above.
Based on the people I knew from law school that never took the bar and likewise still benefitted from the legal education in terms of how it taught them about the way the world works, and how to think, I respectfully disagree.
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.
It 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.
"The prestige attached to that Vandy law degree, regardless of that school's bar passage rate, is worth big bucks to a lot of people."
I agree, but this isn't even close to being relevant to anything that I said.
But it is relevant to what OTHER POSTERS on this string said. My posts are directed at everyone that posted on this string, NOT JUST YOU, and especially, my posts were directed at those who were trying to make the case that Memphis was somehow a better choice than schools like Vandy on the basis of the school's bar passage rates, as it appeared that a few were.
I thought that was obvious, and I believe it was to everyone here EXCEPT you. That speaks volumes, if you ask me.
Once again, my post wasn't necessarily about you and your arguments. It was a response to everything that had been posted on this string, not just your stuff.
NEXT!!!
[/color]
[/quote]
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 10:13 AM by UH Law '97.)
|
