Wiki self promotion? Is Concord Law the only school with the Executive JD?

McGill, indeed.

No crack in 2007. Maybe 2008. My plan right now (although I'm wavering) is to finish an English LLB by DL.

Edit: The reason for the maybe 2008 is I might as well actually finish the English LLB before reapplying, because they might give me up to 30 credits advanced standing for it, rather than jumping back and forth).

My issue is this:

1- I enjoy the study of law.
2- I realy, really enjoy legal research and writing.
3- I have no idea if I'd actually enjoy the practice of law.

And within number 3 lies the dilemma.

Since I enjoy studying law, might as well study law, right? Except of course that it's hard work. I'm just completing the DL LLM from Northumbria. I have one year complete towards the UoL LLB, so I can have the LLB complete in two years.

My other interest lies in the area of tranportation and logistics, so my waver is towards an MBA or a logistics degree.

I have to think this over a little more. Oh, and get my dissertation finished up (about 10,000-12000 words to go).

 

Purely out of curiousity, which school granted the JD, Lincoln or NWCU? The sole reason I'm curious is just whether NWCU would take that much transfer credit and award a JD.

Thanks for answering the rest of my questions.

 

"Legitimate is open for debate, but no discussion on this subject would be complete without mentioning Heed University's Thomas Jefferson College of Law, which offers B.S.L., J.D., LL.M., and S.J.D. degrees."

A degree from the above school doesnt qualify for Bar Admission anywhere, so a "law degree" from Thomas Jefferson College of Law is useless in its utility.

When ever I mention my law degrees I point out that I completed a Bar Qualifying program. I couldnt imagine telling anyone I had a law degree but it doesnt qualify me to be a lawyer, what would be the point?

Sorry, again I am against non-bar J.D. degrees as I dont see any purpose for them.

 

(Sound of hand slapping forehead)

How could I POSSIBLY have forgotten NWCU's LL.M.?

Does anyone know whether the (totally unaccredited and non-Bar) Thomas Jefferson College of Law of HEED University is still operating?

novemberdude,

That is a REALLY interesting question! ABA approved schools will allow their students to take their second or final years at a different ABA school but still graduate from their "home" institution. Given the way CalBar law study works, it would seem reasonable that JDLLM2 could have "back transferred" his NWCU cradits to Lincoln.

 

JDLLM:

Go back and check, I think Bruce's tongue was firmly planted in his cheek there. He knows his stuff, he's been into DL education forever, he has a graduate degree in a legal field from a very B&M university, he's been in a law-related field for decades.

 

You're kidding me, right? Was this the case a decade or so ago?If so, this is killing me, here.

Why?

Because back in law school I was an average student, except for a few classes. But I was the bright shining star of International Law, got the high "A". The prof was going to be taking over the international law department at a fourth-tier university (coincidently, not that far from where I now live), and he asked me if I'd like to come along and work as his paid faculty assistant. It would have been a pseudo-faculty job at an ABA-accredited law school. It would likely have given me the opportunity to publish and even teach on some limited level (pretty much as a TA-type, helping him out). I was finishing up my second year, I could have taken classes at that "lesser" school and finished up, though it may have taken an extra semester or so. But I thought about getting this close at a top-tier, then casting it aside to get my degree from a 4th-tier, and I backed off and turned the professor down. He was disappointed, but he found someone else who was evidently more savvy than me, and they probably got a fine experience and a great resume filler.

If this deal you described was the case back in the early-mid 90s, I'm close to smash the head into the wall status, because I still could have gotten my degree from the top-tier and gotten a great leg up on some sort of academic career. It would at the very least have given me great contacts and helped me avoid the scramble I'm now making to land on my feet in full time academia.

My lands, and here I chastise JDLLM for his want of research, and all I needed to do was ask them in the admin office whether I could still get my JD from there as a remote student? Boy!

 

"Children are an heritage from the Lord and the fruit of the womb is His reward. As arrows are in the hands of a mighty man, so are the children of his youth. Blessed is the man that hath his quiver full of them. For they shall not be ashamed, but shall stand in the gate with his enemies." (Psalm 127:3-5)

 

Ted, that's a mighty fine sentiment. I concur without reservation. It's tough enough dealing with all the questions out there and the disrepute that having a big family puts you into. Wife's persona non grata pretty much in her family over it--they're academics and intellectuals. So it's nice to get a kind word like that from a gentleman and a scholar.

Thanks!

 

Why would the wife be persona non grata with her family over having a large family? I mean, after all, isn't it she who has to put up with the morning sickness, the lower back pain, the kid sitting on top of her bladder, the labor pains (or having to be sliced open), and the re-building of an umbilical cord each time she has a child? And, of course, isn't it the both of you who endure the at least two decades worth of financial consequences for each child?

 

Yep, all good insights Ted.

She's the one who bears most of the burden, I bear some; we both pretty much take it all ourselves (not that the fringe benefits don't outweigh all other considerations, not that I'm complaining). But among certain people, that doesn't seem to be enough. Her family just has this different attitude now. I think it could traced to around the time we announced her third pregancy--two was reasonable, higher society might have two--but three? They don't come right out and say it straight up, but you can tell it by the stage whisper comments when we visit. Child knocks over the milk, grandma professor says to grandpa professor: "That's what you get when someone bears more offspring than they can handle." This steady patter of comments and looks, just a general coldness. Just subtle stuff like that.

Back when the wife was chasing the PhD and popping birth control pills, it was all smiles. It's just changed. I think in many crowds, especially the high education elites, having a slew of kids is considered vulgar and lower class, like some kind of peasant.

 

It still sounds like a lot, but lest that seem like any sort of criticism I hasten to add that I think LF and his wife are lucky.

Of course, there are different sorts of lucky. My wife and I would have liked to have had a gaggle, but now it looks like maybe we were lucky to get one.

Anyway, way OFF topic. Sorry.

NOTE to LF: What sort of International Law were you/are you interested in? Treaty stuff or Conflict of Laws stuff or International Trade stuff?

 

No sweat November, I didn't take your comments wrong. Six is a lot!

I don't know if I was particularly more interested in international law than any other type, just that for some reason the class clicked for me or I got lucky and stumbled into the right answers. I have no idea generally, law school was a blur for me.

The aspect of international law that interested me most is that it's not really law in the classical sense. At least not like the laws of a sovereign over its subjects, and there's no hard-and-fast enforcement mechanism over the subjects of international law, unless they're too weak to flout it. Of course you've got treaties, like contracts, and those can be enforced within an independent sovereign, but what of the other signatory? If they don't go along, you can take them to international court--I guess--but what if they refuse to abide by its decision? It's an interesting quandry, like the Wild West. I know this stuff only on an elementary level, I think Osborne is probably studying this stuff on theories of law on a much higher level.

 

(jumping up and down and waving well manicured hands)

Is too! Is too! Is too!

International law IS law in every sense of the word!

(small flecks of foam appear at corners of lips)

Scalia is wrong about THIS just like he's wrong about everything else!

 

"just like he's wrong about everything else"

THAT was a nice touch.

 

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. How does one define "law"? There's the $64,000 question.

Now all I have are vague notions that if compliance with the law is voluntary rather than compulsory and there's no reliable enforcement mechanism (at least none that the stronger subjects of the "law" must respect), then do you really have law rather than just a bunch of voluntary contracts that can be broken at will?

Now don't laugh at me, Osborne, I know my "profound thought" above is probably just the baby step first premise among people who study this stuff that leads to much more involved and intricate theories. Just want you to know that I know I'm in first grade with this stuff, maybe kindergarden. So tell us what the advanced legal theorists that you're reading say.

 

Just want you to know I honestly didn't know Scalia was of that opinion. Just goes to show how thoroughly logical/incoherent I've become, in that, even without knowing what the master theorist/dangerous Svengali says, I happen to come to the same brilliant conclusion/brainwashed delusion.

 

JDLLM2,

This is EXCELLENT advice for you to follow. Listen to little fauss, he's right on this one.

 

Heck, I just ascribed this position to Scalia because I assume that if I disagree with ANY position in jurisprudence, Scalia MUST agree with it and vice versa!

You put your finger EXACTLY on the point. What, exactly, do we mean when we say that the law places an obligation to act on one of its subjects?

Holmes took the position that compulsion means force or threat of force.

Hart says that the law, in order to BE law, must become "internalized". In other words, the law itself becomes the reason for acting in a particular way.

Others take other positions but you can see that, for Holmes, you are right. International law isn't law because tehre is no sovereign to impose sanctions. For Hart, however, force is a secondary matter.

 

You been reading a lot of this, haven't you? Does it seem to be getting more clear?

NOTE: I sent you a PM a few minutes ago. Just need a little advice from the real lawyer around here.

LF

 

Actually, I'm fighting the last war. This is what my examination covered in May. Won't know 'til June.

Yes, oddly enough, it HAS become clearer with reading and thinking and discussing (here and elsewhere).

Your pm is a seriously nontrivial question so it might take a bit to reply. In the meantime, you might pull that state's UPL statute and Court rules. These vary; the effect is pretty uniform but some, like New Mexico's, are pretty specific about what is, and is not, UPL in an MJP scenerio.