LL.M. update

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by nosborne48, May 30, 2005.

Loading...
  1. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    For that tiny number of masochistic souls who continue to follow my progress:

    I finished my first reading of Dworkin's "Laws Empire" and returned to Hart's "Postscript".

    The light is dawning. The published conversation between these two Jurisprudence scholars is making better sense every day.

    Next on the list will be Fuller and Finnis; these two are actually commentators on the titanic struggle between Hart and Dworkin

    Sentencing, because it is more "law" type law and also because I have an excellent tutor, is scaring me less every day. I owe my tutor a paper on the deterrent effect of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. My gut reaction is, "zero" but that's just cynicism, (or maybe experience) talking.

    Thing is about jurisprudence, though, is I have to go about it my own way, read the works through in order to really understand the arguments.

    Hart, of course, along with Austin, was a Professor of Jurisprudence at University College London. (Sob.) So I have to get it RIGHT.

    Oh, I got lucky and found a used copy of Aquinus' "Treatise on Law". Yes, it ALSO is a required text...
     
  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I should add, that if you don't know what I am talking about, consider yourself BLESSED!
     
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Well, it sounds like things are going better than the last time you checked in. :D

    Is the LL.M. program more concentrated on legal theory than actual practice? Also, do you see it being of significant value to you as a lawyer in the US?
     
  4. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    It is actually not legal theory per se. I am not really sure what "legal theory" even means.

    Jurisprudence is actually a narrow kind of sociology grounded (more or less) in the real issues of how lawyers and judges actually function with a large dash of rather amateurish philosophy.

    Sentencing is a policy study using the English system as the "laboratory".

    The degree, if completed, will be of no practical use whatever to me. It MIGHT be useful to a person in a policy related position...doubtful if it would be meaningful within the context of the American legal academy.
     
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I meant to ask if the program focused on things like comparing the writings of two lawyers, versus debating the merits of Klingbaum v. Hassenfeffer, or some other case law.
     
  6. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    The jurisprudence readings are designed to contrast the principal writings of the positivist versus natural law scholars.

    The sentencing course is much more a traditional "law" course with particularly heavy emphasis on policy and actual research findings.

    Next year, if I am successful in August and don't have to re examine these two sujects, the two subjects will be criminology, a very theoretical subject, and juvenile justice, a statute and policy course.
     
  7. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    WHEW!

    I just got back an essay...not good...

    My tutor tells me not to get discouraged. I assume she'd be honest if she had to be. Her standards ARE high...Ph.D. in Mathematics then qualified as a barrister the HARD way.

    Thing is, though, I feel I really am making progress but the English approach is very different than the American one. Much more specific, probably because they have ONE crummy jurisdiction instead of 52 jurisdictions. English WESTlaw is laughably simple.

    Well, her job isn't to pass me or fail me; her job is to make as sure as she knows how that I am ready to take the University examination in August.
     
  8. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Hang in there, counselor. I'm sure that a few months before the Bar, you probably wouldn't have done so well writing essays either. If it's any consolation, I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about above either. I know what "natural law" means (I think) but that's about it.
     
  9. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Actually, the argument is very interesting. Both sides are vehement in their opinions but both sides end up with serious problems.

    I am thinking of shifting my registration to the new (and vastly more expensive) LL.M. scheme. This would allow me to be examined in a single subject or part of a subject on each semi annual exam cycle.

    But LORDY they want a lot of cash for the privilege.
     
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Should you choose to ever teach at a law school, I would think that the London LL.M. would be tailor-made for you to teach something like International Law, Comparative Law, etc.
     
  11. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    You'd think so, but in reality, no.

    My impressions from want-ads and desultory research:

    Qualifying to teach in an American law school (tenure track) requires a very high class standing in a top tier school for one's J.D. degree and evidence of scholarship potential in the form of publications. VERY accomplished non top tier graduates may also find positions but top ten per cent and order of the coif or academic honors (plus an article or two) are pretty much minimum qualifications.

    A clear majority of tenured law professors earned J.D. degrees at a handful of schools, mostly private, mostly highly selective, and usually heartstoppingly expensive. You know who they are; Harvard (by far the most common), Yale, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, U.S.C., Boalt Hall... (This is one reason, BTW, that legal education is so UNIFORM in the U.S.)

    A graduate law degree will not make up for deficiencies in one's J.D. record.

    Qualifying to teach in an American law school (non tenure track) requires good performance in one's J.D. program, admission to the Bar, and extensive, current experience in the field one wishes to teach. Being a Judge or former Judge is an important credential. A published article or two doesn't hurt but, since the job isn't tenure track, evidence of scholarship is not generally emphasized. Teaching experience at some level is considered very desirable.

    Non tenure track appointments are usually confined to narrow practice specialties, such as bankruptcy, consumer law, children's law, and the like. Clinical work is also often supervised by non tenure track instructors for the very good reason that the average Contracts professor couldn't argue a case or counsel a client if her life depended on it. An astonishing number of tenure track professors are not licensed attorneys, at least, not in the jurisdiction where they teach. Some are not licensed anywhere!

    A graduate law degree doesn't count for much in either scenario EXCEPT to teach tax law. Even there, practice experience or a CPA certificate will substitute nicely. It's interesting; a fair number of professors of tax law teaching LL.M. program classes do not themselves hold the LL.M.

    The ONE argument I've heard in favor of getting an LL.M. is that an experienced lawyer seeking to break into the academy can point to his shiny new LL.M. as proof of his genuine, if new found, dedication to academic work. Otherwise, so goes the theory, he's just looking for a place to retire with a salary. But a couple of recent articles in good journals would probably do just as well.

    The conventional wisdom is that a wannabe law professor, if he seeks any additional degrees at all, should earn a masters in a law related field like criminal justice, sociology, accounting, environmental science, etc.
     

Share This Page