<p>Interesting discussion. In Canada, law schools have always accepted some students who have yet to complete an undergrad degree. Not the same thing as directly from high school, but somewhat similar. However, in recent years, more and more schools have dropped this availability for students who do not have a degree. I think in Ontario there are only two left and those very few students who end up being admitted in this way are definitely the cream of the crop. From what I understand, the increase in the average age of law school students in recent years is the main reason for this change.</p>
<p>Lawyers here are probably older, in general, as there is a one year articling requirement following LS graduation, and then usually a six month Bar Admissions course prior to being called to the Bar and being able to practice. I would imagine that there would be many reasons for reluctance by the legal community to the possibility of making law school an undergraduate program, not the least of which might be client reaction.</p>
You must have a very strange definition of reading indeed (unless you are using some kind of bizarro language where everything you say has the opposite of its meaning), for I’ve even emphasized the point multiple times that lawyers should study law–even when the idea of apprenticeships were brought up, with the exception of skilled labor I think they’re too archaic for their own good.</p>
<p>I am not sure if I should be sarcastic and tell you that you desperately need to work on your reading comprehension, be forgiving and explain my position to yet another person who has obviously not even read my posts for the umpteenth time or be concerned about any possible medication combinations you may be taking that would be interfering with your ability to comprehend “law = should be undergraduate program of study, prospective lawyers study law in 4 years and get an LLB like the rest of the world, have option of 1-year LLM for specialist designations.”
I think apprenticeship in the modern world could be viewed as entry-level work, where you are slowly immersed in the culture of any given group and taught how to operate correctly within that apparatus. A more formal apprenticeship program is probably warranted for law (and most professional fields, really), but I don’t think we’re severely lacking now.</p>
<p>I’ll ignore the fact that psychologists oftentimes have even more important advisory roles than lawyers, and that all the fields I’ve listed previously (CPA, CFA, actuary, claims adjuster, paramedic, soldier, series 65 or 66 investment advisor) require either a bachelors or just a high school diploma and instead I will say that the idea of maturity is entirely nebulous. 3 additional years of graduate schooling, in a field that almost no matter what is going to be completely different than what an undergraduate will have studied (thus effectively not utilizing 4 years of a collegiate education at all), cannot teach someone judgment.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that on a normal distribution chart set for age that if you were to somehow measure “judgment” the middle 50% for people aged 45 would be rated higher in “judgment” than the middle 50% for people aged 25. I also do not doubt that you have colleagues who are immature, undisciplined and insensitive–because that’s a normal thing to have, across any age group and any profession.</p>
<p>Trying to tack three years onto the age an average attorney is licensed to practice is just doing it out of hope that the additional years will somehow make him more “ready” for the world–but the reality is that those who are not ready after a 4 year, intensive college degree in law will most likely not be ready at all, and the bar exam sets a practical barrier post-college to weed-out those who were not weeded-out at the undergraduate level, as Greybeard has said.</p>
<p>3 years cannot quantify maturity. Nothing can quantify maturity, and spending 3 more years in academia of all places is not something any sane person could say would better prepare someone for the realities of life. I cannot accept the idea of something that is inherently nebulous being arbitrarily decided by those with power and wealth within a profession and forced upon an entire country and profession–especially when the decision shows no demonstrably true benefits (with the exception of limiting the population in a field that is overpopulated at the top), especially when it is not the way it is done in other democratic, fully-functioning countries. It is antithetical to justice.</p>
<p>As I noted previously, there are seven states where it’s still possible to qualify for the bar exam by studying under the supervision of a lawyer in a law office. One reason that fewer than 100 members of the California Bar have availed themselves of this route is that it’s very labor intensive for the supervising attorney. If the supervising attorney contributed 500 otherwise billable hours to the task of educating an aspiring lawyer one-on-one, and customarily charged a fairly modest $250 per hour, the opportunity cost would equal $125,000.</p>
I always forget about this. I guess it’s since 150 is still (relatively) recent in NY and that’s where my CPA and the accountants for any place I’ve worked has sourced work to, but you’re right, I’m wrong about that one.</p>
<p>It’s not impossible to do it in 4 years. And this is not equivalent of 4 years of one totally unrelated degree and 3 years of graduate school, so you’re either drawing inaccurate parallels or pointing out a solitary, relatively minuscule mistake I made to serve a purpose that I cannot comprehend.</p>
<p>
Other than this being a moderately interesting aside, I don’t see what this has to do with the debate on whether or not law should be an undergraduate field of study.</p>
Actually, it can. In particular 3 years in the early 20’s. What we might refer to generally as “judgment” or “maturity” is an intellectual function which is largely a function of the operation of the prefrontal cortex - which is the last part of the brain to develop, and typically is still physiologically unmatured into the mid-20’s. This is not a phenomenon which is novel; recent research simply confirms long time observations. Why do you suppose the Constitution requires a Congressman to be 25, a Senator 30, President 35?</p>
<p>Younger people excel at learning facts and concepts - that’s a brain function which declines with age. But “the so-called “executive” functionsplanning, setting priorities, organizing thoughts, suppressing impulses and weighing the consequences of one’s actions” are things which are generally not fully developed until one is - well, roughly the minimum age at which most people complete law school.</p>
<p>As for how it’s done in other countries, I suspect that in most developed nations an individual is not certified to perform all of the functions a licensed US attorney is licensed to perform at an earlier age than is true here. The mechanism may be apprenticeship, tiered qualifications, etc. - but I suspect that full qualification along the lines of bar admission here does not occur until the mid-20’s elsewhere as well.</p>
That’s an undergraduate minor that’s a bunch of history of law + cj courses.
Experienced neuroscientists would disagree, as our understanding of brain development is still in its infancy.
Oh, boy. Is this going to be the equivalent of that thing people sometimes use where they say “well, you’re not technically done developing until your late 20s, therefore you’re not an adult until then”? Forgetting, of course, that synapses growth never really ends, and it’s just the creation of new neurons that are limited.</p>
<p>Immature brain structure does not preclude sophisticated behavior. It’s not as easy as counting synapses, and this is a danger of looking to neuroscience, especially cognitive neuroscience, which while fascinating is not a field that has been well-explored (and is almost entirely reliant on technological advances made in the last 50 years). There’s a reason some people you work with are idiots, and there is a reason some 22 year olds are idiots. I wouldn’t look to brain structure to try and solve the riddles of human behavior if I were you.</p>
<p>Using the Constitution is a pretty significantly flawed example as well, as somehow I find it unlikely they were doing neuroimaging on brains in the late 18th century. The fact that the age requirements go by 5 makes it pretty blatant that scientific thought wasn’t at the forefront of the decision made and it is an entirely human designation. Running for office presupposes you already have a resume to support you, which means someone would have had to done something of significance prior to 25 to run successfully for office.</p>
<p>
Final myelination does not complete until the mid-30s, but grey matter reaches adult levels prior to the end of adolescence (10-19). So called “executive functions” peak in the mid-20s (and apparently continue at that level for a decade), not “fully develop.” There is a difference. Beyond the 30s executive functions decline, so using your train of logic people should only be allowed to practice law from the ages of 25 to 45, at which case forced retirement and removal of accreditation ought to be the norm.</p>
<p>You agree, of course?
Not really? I’m not aware of any massive qualification barriers (there are the specialist kind of things and continuing education, but that exists in every profession everywhere) in most “first world” countries.</p>
A quick Google reveals that becoming a solicitor or barrister in England requires a sequence of studies and apprenticeship which takes several years to complete post-bachelor’s degree, even for those who studied “law” in college. Again, I suspect that similar systems are in place in the rest of the “first world.”</p>
<p>The Constitution’s framers didn’t have to do neuroimaging to observe the difference in judgment between 20 year olds and older people. It’s a readily observable fact of life - to people over 35, anyway. As much as you might (understandably) not like it, there’s a valid reason for minimum age requirements (both express and functional) for being granted authority to perform various functions. And those minimums are based on experience and trade-offs, even if they may not be entirely “fair” to each individual. Some people can handle alcohol when they’re 16, others never can. But the minimum drinking age is 21 for everyone. </p>
<p>And the de facto minimum lawyering age is about 25, give or take. You may not like it, but it’s the product of many years of experience.</p>
What!? These people teach law at an undergraduate level, to the unclean masses!? And then, if they want to work as lawyers, they follow a process of specialist studies and an apprenticeship that do not result in a crippling financial burden… My God, these people are clearly savages.
What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms; in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding.*</p>
<p>Defensive attribution is something that is very well documented. As a younger man, it is natural for me to not be overly fond of the fact that if a war requiring a draft were to occur you would debate it while I would die in it. It’s also natural for me to feel that you are out of touch, which I suppose on this issue we all technically are since no one in this thread studies education for a living. As older men, you are predisposed to believe that you are correct, based on life experiences that are largely not attributable to this discussion–but hubris does not diminish with age, it only consolidates and matures. It knows to be quiet. I would greatly enjoy some kind of reality show based on an arrogance comparison between practicing attorneys and 18 year olds. The only difference I’ve ever seen between every young man who has a shred of intelligence and every old man who has a shred of intelligence is that the young man hasn’t had a chance to be wrong enough yet, but the idea that being incorrect causes someone to grow and “evolve” as a human being when they are not studying the subject they are wrong about is largely disproven by… well, people.</p>
<p>The advantage you have over me is life experience (I’m speaking in generalities of young v. old here, I have no idea what your actual life experiences are), which is very true, and very applicable to many things in life–which is an open system. An understanding of a closed system does not benefit from this without study of that system, though, so you’re reaching if you believe that an increase in age correlates with an increase in understanding of all subjects.
The problem is that there is nothing special about 25. It is a construct of timing, nothing else. It is a result of an academic subject requiring a bachelors degree that should not require a bachelors degree. I don’t have a problem with apprenticeships. I don’t even have a problem with most people starting the actual practice of law at 25, if they’re going through certifications or specialist studies–I have a problem with the fact that the preexisting process cannot apparently be justified by anyone, and is based entirely on an assumption of efficacy that is only a result of that fact that it exists. This is a less than terrific train of thought.</p>
<p>I have a problem, and any person who considers themselves capable of rational thought should also have a problem, with using some kind of pseudo-graduate school as an introduction to a subject. A graduate school awarding what in practicality is perceived as the equivalent of a masters–which are almost impossible to receive scholarships and aid for, propagating a dynastic classist system that is the opposite of capitalism and democracy, and even though the content is equivalent to a bachelors. An MBA is beneficial to the understanding one has of business, but one can also study business at the undergraduate level, and there is no reason for one to preclude the other–and there are still professional designations that require more study, or specific study, or specific experience. Neither field requires prerequisite study in X, only general skills.</p>
<p>There is no reason today for law school to be a 3 year postgraduate program of study, and if a discussion with three lawyers who cannot elucidate a reason without bouncing between conjecture, pop neuroscience and “experience” (deformation professionnelle yay French) in a field that does not at all relate to education should be taken into account, there has never been and will never be a reason at any time throughout the entire course of man. With the exception, of course, of it existing as a protectionist measure for a profession.
It’s not, and as a lawyer I have to believe you understand the difference between purchase and consumption.
Oh, but only if this one was. There is no actual logic basis for any of this ********, really, and I think you know it. Especially since we had LLBs in this country to begin with, and postgraduate law schools only flourished as a result of needing separate buildings to teach using the socratic and case methods.</p>
<ul>
<li>I would like to congratulate myself for remembering almost all of this. I only forgot transfered, metonymies and canonical.</li>
</ul>
As much as you might (understandably) not like it, there’s a valid reason for minimum age requirements (both express and functional) for being granted authority to perform various functions. And those minimums are based on experience and trade-offs, even if they may not be entirely “fair” to each individual. Some people can handle alcohol when they’re 16, others never can. But the minimum drinking age is 21 for everyone. </p>