Interesting read, cannot wait to see the volley of exchanges over this one. Behind a partial pay-wall (limited free access to NYTimes on per article/month basis) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/business/dealbook/bar-exam-the-standard-to-become-a-lawyer-comes-under-fire.html?_r=1
I learned about an exemption to the New York bar back during Vietnam. It was made public by Joel Steinberg. Apparently, if you interrupted your legal studies to join the armed forces you got to practice law upon your return to civilian life sans bar exam. I'm sure he's not the best poster child for that exemption. And I'm sure there are a number of quality lawyers who became licensed under this exemption. Still, it's a weird sort of exemption. I can understand granting these individuals more time to complete their law studies (as New York has strict completion guidelines). But waive the exam altogether? What does that say about the necessity of the exam itself?
I like this quote: And the New Hampshire model of portfolio review is fascinating. I have a friend who works at a legal aid office which is chronically understaffed. She said she wishes her incredibly capable paralegal could read the law. But alas, she is located in an area with no local law school.
Yes, that one made me LOL. Interesting, isn't CUNY the law school "value" you mentioned. In regards to your friend, Vermont is right next door, they let individuals read the law. Too bad there is no reciprocity with licenses. I read that there is a Justice on the Vermont State Supreme Court who read her way to her law license. The Justice noted that it's ironic that she can sit on that states highest court could not even get a law license in many states.
Very interesting article. I think this quote is spot-on: I have long held the belief that the bar exam and the CPA exam have much less to do with measuring competency than they are barriers to entry specifically designed to keep the number of people holding these designations low to increase the marketability and earnings potential. Both designations are notorious for having very low pass rates. Take the CPA exam, for example. The AICPA states that the exam was created to "protect the public" (to paraphrase). This really makes no sense since one can work his or her entire career in the field of accounting without even being a CPA. Enrolled agents, for example, can do everything CPAs can do regarding taxes. A person could also obtain the Certified Internal Auditor designation and make good money with a career in internal auditing. To make a comparison, what would happen if the pass rate for the NCLEX (the registered nurse exam) was as low as that of the bar exam and the CPA exam? One can argue, after all, that we have to "protect the public" from bad nurses who literally have the power to end a life by incorrectly measuring a medication. If the NCLEX had such a low pass rate, we would consider it a national emergency because there wouldn't be enough nurses to take care of all of the sick people in our hospitals. I'm not opposed to qualifying exams for professional certification at all, but I do think the current bar and CPA exams aren't designed to measure competency so much as they are designed to protect the "old boys club," as it's known. They are designed to restrict the number of people entering the profession. It's long past time for an overhaul of these credentials, in my opinion.
My friend lives in Utica. Vermont is nearly 2 1/2 hours away. If her paralegal was able to travel to Vermont to read the law, she would be able to travel to Albany or Syracuse to attend law school. Any of these options would necessitate leaving the legal aid office. And yes, CUNY Law is rather affordable compared to many other law schools. At $15,862.90 per year ($7,931.45 per semester) for New York residents, this is a much more affordable means of getting a JD than the online option we discussed in another thread. But, if you don't live near CUNY Law, that still necessitates moving. And full-time study there would absolutely necessitate leaving your day job.
Ooops. I thought your friend was in New Hampshire since you mentioned New Hampshire in the sentence just prior but did not specifically say where she was located. How about the Latitude/Longitude next time? (j/k) I was still correct though since Vermont is next door to both NY and NH. Funny how that worked out.
I have a constitutional right to not use appropriate segues. Don't tread on me! I figured you just underestimated the size of our Empire State. Most people seem to think that Upstate New York is incredibly small. A job applicant we were flying in once suggested that we fly him in to Buffalo so he could visit family and he would "pop over" to Syracuse for the interview and then "pop back" the same night for his flight. When I told him that he was proposing a nearly 5 hour round trip he nearly crapped.
Some sort of exam is used to license many professions, I don't see why lawyers should be exempt. If, on the other hand they choose to rebuild the exam to make it more this or less that I would say it's OK.
Nope. I drove from DC to Niagara once. Then to NYC via the Thruway. It a good chunk of territory. Not as big as Texas but it'll do in a pinch.
