[HN Gopher] You can't take the Bar exam if your laptop is too mo...
___________________________________________________________________
You can't take the Bar exam if your laptop is too modern
Author : omnibrain
Score : 162 points
Date : 2022-07-13 16:23 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| more_corn wrote:
| Missing part of headline "and your state bar uses Examsoft"
|
| That is not the only option your state bar could have chosen.
| drc500free wrote:
| State Bars are so technically illiterate that they don't know the
| basics of how to procure technology. California Bar has no CTO
| and didn't know to require an SLA of ExamSoft. When ExamSoft
| blames the users for their buggy software, the Bar actually
| believes them.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| It's basic common sense that by July/2022, some people will
| have acquired a laptop manufactured in 2022.
|
| Especially when you deal with exam takers in the thousands.
|
| It shouldn't require a CTO for that, IMHO.
| convolvatron wrote:
| maybe if we had actually dug into open standards instead of
| this mushy cesspool of abandonware, not everyone in the world
| would have to spend their time tracking technology trends
| rattlesnakedave wrote:
| Who is "we" here?
| convolvatron wrote:
| technologists. computer people. computer companies. the
| people responsible for this mess.
| nexuist wrote:
| Or maybe blame the California Bar for partnering with
| such amateur vendors when they had millions of competent
| technology companies to pick from?
| simonh wrote:
| While I'm all for open standards, the fact is they're no
| magic wand. It's just as possible for an open system to be
| clunky, outdated and abandoned. Just because it's possible
| for someone to work on it or fix issues, that's no guarantee
| anyone will.
|
| The problem here was poor consideration of requirements and
| inadequate governance, and there's really no substitute for
| just flat out doing a better job at those. After all, nobody
| is stopping someone developing an open suite of exam
| software, it's not against the law or anything. It's all very
| well saying that's what we need, but somebody has to actually
| buckle down and do it.
| josephcsible wrote:
| I hope someone in the community releases an unofficial patch to
| make it work on 12th Gen CPUs, that just happens to make it work
| on actual VMs too.
| flatiron wrote:
| I bet if you disable the e cores it would work. Worth a try
| junar wrote:
| I wonder if disabling the Alder Lake E-cores could work around
| the problem. Certain games had DRM issues which could be resolved
| this way.
|
| https://www.notebookcheck.net/Gigabyte-releases-tool-to-disa...
| bigp3t3 wrote:
| Another stake in the DRM coffin. /I wish.
| rcurry wrote:
| My all time favorite was when I took the SAT (long time ago) and
| the proctor confiscated my calculator.
|
| At the end of the test there was a final question:
|
| "Which of the following approved calculators did you use on this
| test?"
|
| My calculator was option B.
| cronix wrote:
| Was it a basic calculator or a graphing one that could store
| data on it?
| copperx wrote:
| Did you complain? Sue?
| account-5 wrote:
| I genuinely thought you were calling the OP Sue, went
| searching to see if Sue was the new Karen, couldn't find
| anything, came back and realised you meant sue them... FML.
| copperx wrote:
| Wouldn't that be "Did you complain, Sue?"?
| arcticbull wrote:
| It's the same thing both ways! Chalk up another win for
| English.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| But not Sue, did you complain?
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Not quite the same:
|
| "Didn't you complain, Sue?" - A question to Sue
|
| "Didn't you compain? Sue?" - A question to Sue who is
| inattentive
| Orlan wrote:
| _Surely_ you weren't the only one who read it that way.
| pnemonic wrote:
| I'd have been all over that proctor like shit on velcro
| McNutty wrote:
| Does anyone know if this same issue is present in the PearsonVue
| software?
| [deleted]
| charcircuit wrote:
| You can't take a math exam if your calculator is too modern.
| thih9 wrote:
| Not sure if modern is the right word here; I guess graphing
| calculators from the 90s would also not be allowed. Unless you
| mean something different?
| bambax wrote:
| What's wrong with pen and paper.
| D13Fd wrote:
| It's literally painful to do an essay exam on pen and paper.
|
| Only part of the exam is an essay exam, but modern law is going
| to be practiced on a computer, and it makes sense for the test
| to be administered on a computer.
|
| (if only they could get away from ExamSoft...)
| corrral wrote:
| > It's literally painful to do an essay exam on pen and
| paper.
|
| Hahaha, flashbacks to "Blue Book" exams in college, which was
| a long time ago but recently enough that I basically never
| wrote anything by hand (all typing) except those tests. They
| did indeed hurt.
|
| [EDIT] To be clear, they hurt _because_ I rarely wrote
| anything by hand.
| kubik369 wrote:
| It does not need to be painful. There are pens that require
| far less friction to write than ballpoints or pencils, namely
| fountain pens and rollerballs. Good technique helps too, e.g.
| writing with your whole arm instead of your fingers and your
| wrist only.
|
| Unfortunately, most people in Europe seem to be done with
| fountain pens after the first few years of elementary school.
| I am not sure about the rest of the world, but I would guess
| that it is similar.
|
| // EDIT: Grammar
| humanistbot wrote:
| > It's literally painful to do an essay exam on pen and
| paper.
|
| It is taking everything in me not to make a full-on "kids
| these days" rant.
| keybored wrote:
| I mean, it is wise of you to hold back. Writing by hand can
| be painful without the proper technique. I have one book
| that teaches you how to write properly by hand. It turns
| out that you should use your shoulder a lot more; it's much
| easier to cramp up if you use your fingers to drive the
| pen/pencil, which is what I have always done. When was that
| book released? Maybe in the 1910s sometime. They don't
| teach people such things any more.
| viraptor wrote:
| It was painful for me decades ago. Not sure what it has to
| do with kids these days.
| mcculley wrote:
| In order to make it fair, you would have to hobble every
| test taker to use pen and paper.
|
| I remember writing essay answers with pen and paper and
| also with a typewriter and using Wite-Out. I would not want
| to compete using those tools against someone who is able to
| edit their answers before submitting them.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| If it makes you feel better, in my modern western country,
| all exams are still done with pen and paper. It pretty much
| only has advantages: easier to proctor, less issue with
| cheating, less technical problems, everyone is taking the
| test in the same condition. The idea that you could just
| come out of school and not be able to write a dozen pages
| without feeling pain feels weird to me.
| post_break wrote:
| It's taking everything in me not to say "ok boomer" lol
| postalrat wrote:
| You are already fighting through the pain of taking a test.
| Pen and paper is just a tiny bit more.
| chaosharmonic wrote:
| The century the test is being administered in?
| shard wrote:
| This might shock and amaze you, but I took many midterms and
| finals for my CS and EE classes using pencil and paper in the
| 21st century, and this was at a well-known Californian
| private university.
| endless1234 wrote:
| Were everybody else also doing it on pen & paper, or were
| you the only one?
| csmcg wrote:
| ? Every exam I ever took for my BS in EE was pen and
| paper. 2015-2020.
| shard wrote:
| Good question :)
|
| Yes, all students took the test together on paper and
| pencil in the classroom; a digital version of the test
| was not available.
|
| I just went through my files to check, and indeed the
| final exam for my artificial intelligence class was in-
| class, 2 hours, pen only (no pencil).
| walthamstow wrote:
| I took pen and paper exams at school and university between
| 2007 and 2012 and it was absolutely fine
|
| I'm sure writing a comment like this means I'm getting old,
| but nonetheless
| KineticLensman wrote:
| I took A-levels in 1980 (entirely pen and paper) and a comp
| sci degree in 1983. The exams for the latter were entirely
| paper-based.
| gnulinux wrote:
| I still regularly use pen and paper to take notes and design
| things as a software engineer because in my opinion it's
| simply the best tool for the job.
|
| All my CS exams in UC Berkeley were pencil and paper and I
| thought it was fine (preferrable to computer exams). I
| understand that some people doesn't like it.
| jcpst wrote:
| I went to college in this century. I could probably count on
| one hand the times where a test wasn't on paper.
| pram wrote:
| I don't have a strong opinion personally, but my wife is a lawyer
| and I remember her cramming all the BARBRI material in the weeks
| before her Bar exam. She said she basically could have skipped
| law school and done just that stuff (and saved hundreds of
| thousands of $$$ lol)
| iasay wrote:
| That's how I did the AWS solution architect exams. Except it
| was hours not weeks before :)
|
| I spent the training course week on holiday.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Not gonna lie... if I could switch from my dev role to an AWS
| solution architect role just by passing some tests... I
| probably would. Maybe I'm just getting crankier, but there's
| a ton of obvious things that multiple levels of management
| are not seeing until I bring it up, and I don't really want
| to get an MBA.
| mwint wrote:
| What's the disadvantage to skipping law school (other than
| resume issues, I assume)? Could one actually do this and come
| out a "real" lawyer?
| rayiner wrote:
| Unfortunately, the primary value of law school is signaling,
| but it's a big one. You could skip law school in California
| and take the Baby Bar and become a "real lawyer" in the sense
| you could legally do everything any other lawyer can do. But
| even ordinary people (much less corporations) rely on law
| school pedigree as a signal for competence and quality.
|
| E.g. in the recent leaked conversation between Macron and
| Putin: https://nypost.com/2022/07/06/leaked-call-reveals-
| fiery-exch...
|
| > Putin quickly turned the conversation to "our dear
| colleague Mr. Zelensky," accusing the Ukrainian president of
| "lying" to Macron about his intention to implement the Minsk
| Accords, which had sought to end the war in the Donbas
| region.
|
| > Putin then took issue with Zelensky's apparent refusal to
| negotiate with pro-Kremlin Ukrainian separatists, which
| infuriated the French president and prompted him to exclaim
| in audible frustration: "I don't know where your lawyer
| learned law!"
| 0x737368 wrote:
| It's tangential but what a confusingly written article, it
| could have very well been machine translated and I'd have
| been none the wiser.
|
| The jump from bringing up Zelensky not dealing with Donbass
| situation as per agreement to Macron and him exclaiming
| that he doesn't know where Putin's lawyer learned law is
| comical in its absurdity too.
| D13Fd wrote:
| > But even ordinary people (much less corporations) rely on
| law school pedigree as a signal for competence and quality.
|
| This isn't that different from any other profession though.
| A doctor, professor, or engineer from Harvard or Stanford
| etc is going to get a lot more respect than the one had no
| schooling at all (even absent licensing requirements).
| david38 wrote:
| Not in computer science. In the valley, Stanford and UCB
| graduates are common. I know many self-taught ones that
| get just as much respect.
| Finnucane wrote:
| "don't worry, I watched a bunch of youtube videos on
| this."
| RedShift1 wrote:
| "I got my legal degree from Legal Eagle"
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Yeah, it's totally just like all of these no-degree
| developers, except when there's a failure in your
| lawyering, you might get sued, disbarred, and also get
| jail time for being incompetent in addition to
| potentially ruining someone else's life, or at least
| wasting a lot of their time.
| narrator wrote:
| I also got the idea from law school that a lot of going
| to law school is to show to the courts that you've shown
| you're not going to waste the legal system's time by not
| knowing how to follow all the procedure and how to write
| legal documents you submit to the court. The rules of
| civil litigation and how you must write documents are
| hideously complicated due to having been built up over
| centuries to strike a balance between unnecessary and
| time wasting game playing by very crafty players and
| giving parties a fair chance to prove their case.
|
| For example, the clerk at the civil litigation court is
| often like a compiler that will just ignore your document
| if you didn't do it just right. It's like writing a nice
| big long program and the compiler's only response is to
| segmentation fault on you if you made any error in the
| filing. I bet these court clerks receive lots and lots of
| filings that are a big unprofessional mess that they just
| throw in the trash.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > built up over centuries to strike a balance between
| unnecessary and time wasting game playing by very crafty
| players and giving parties a fair chance
|
| Did they strike a balance? Or did they just make it pay
| to play?
| ghaff wrote:
| I'd say all three of those cases are a bit different from
| each other and from law. Schools do make a difference for
| doctors but you still have an MD (or whatever) and can
| probably earn a pretty decent living in the US even if
| you went to a lower-ranged US school and aren't a total
| hack. Yes, academia is pretty status conscious.
| Engineering (especially software) is more forgiving. The
| common wisdom around law is that if you can't get into a
| better school and ideally get a prestigious clerkship, it
| may not be a great professional choice.
| Tangurena4 wrote:
| Once upon a long time ago, when I lived in Florida, I was
| interested in running for election as a county judge. There
| were provisions in the statutes for small counties (under 40k
| population). There was a special program only offered at UF
| in Gainesville that was 3 years long and only for people who
| wanted to run for County Judge. I believe even though it was
| the same length as a regular JD, that if you passed this
| course you could not sit for the bar exam.
|
| https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/34.021
| rowanG077 wrote:
| The disadvantage is obviously that you need the stuff you
| learn in law school to pass the bar. If you can independently
| learn it then you can come out as a "real" lawyer. But it
| seems it's not all states you can just do the bar and be a
| lawyer, some do require law shool.
| mhb wrote:
| Essentially all require law school.
| zippergz wrote:
| Specific details here, if anyone is actually curious:
| https://barprephero.com/learn/take-the-bar-exam-without-
| law-...
| notahacker wrote:
| Which also includes the important detail that the people
| who go to law school are 3x as likely to pass than the
| people who didn't (but had multi-year apprentices at a
| law firm).
|
| That suggests the value of the actual teaching isn't
| insignificant.
| watwut wrote:
| From what I recall, majority of people who tried failed. The
| pass rates for people who did not went through school were
| abysmal.
| mulmen wrote:
| Was it more than zero? Did they pay to take the test?
| pram wrote:
| I'd like to add to the rest of the discussions: you can get a
| JD from a law school and still end up not being able to
| practice law if you fail the Bar. Yes, you need a JD to take
| the Bar exam in most places, but the 'credential' that gives
| any actual value is just the exam.
| donatj wrote:
| Have a friend who had to take it a couple times over the
| course of I think 5 years before he finally passed. Worked
| IT until he finally passed.
| hobobaggins wrote:
| Was your friend Joe Pesci?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBarc_-Eoek
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| The disadvantage is that the vast majority of states no
| longer let anyone just sign up and take the bar, you need a
| degree, or at least some sort of sponsorship to even register
| to take the exam. The days of just taking the bar "Catch me
| if you can" style are long since past.
|
| Source: Years ago I looked into "just taking the bar" only to
| come across ridiculous hoops and requirements.
| D13Fd wrote:
| Examsoft sucks. They are a horrible pain to deal with, they are
| entrenched in their market, and they have no fear of imposing
| ridiculous requirements on their users (e.g. bar exam takers)
| because their users aren't their customers. Their customers are
| the jurisdictions that administer the bar.
|
| So yeah. I agree it sucks but there is not much to do about it as
| an exam taker.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| I'm so glad I'm out of school and I don't have to worry about
| this kind of stuff. I feel for students today.
| borissk wrote:
| Just buy a Ryzen laptop. Intel's 12th Gen has had a number of
| issues - hardware acceleration in browsers not working, problems
| with thread scheduling under any OS except from Windows 11,
| excessive power consumption and overheating in benchmarks. On top
| of that Intel has done a lot of illegal stuff to protect their
| market positions.
| kotaKat wrote:
| Meanwhile, as a Ryzen user, half of my virtual machines won't
| work and crash, USB is flakier than a biscuit in the Sahara,
| and my OEM refuses to release AGESA updates and I can't update
| the AGESA myself to fix literally dozens of problems on Ryzen.
|
| "Just!" buying new hardware isn't a solution.
| borissk wrote:
| What is the OEM?
| twawaaay wrote:
| I think you miss the whole point of why this landed on HN.
|
| Why would somebody need to buy another laptop just to be able
| to attend the exam?
| borissk wrote:
| Because buying a laptop running a drastically new
| architecture increases the chances you'll run into software
| issues. This exam app is not the only thing Intel has broken.
| reiichiroh wrote:
| "Why doesn't this work on my Linux laptop?"
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| matt321 wrote:
| Abolish the bar? Wut? Why? Because its hard?
| t_mann wrote:
| Requirements like the bar exam exist also to protect the
| insiders who also happen to make the rules. In economics it's
| called an insider-outsider problem. Not saying we should
| actually abolish the bar, just hinting at a possible reasonable
| argument.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| also called regulatory capture
| xtracto wrote:
| What should be abolished is those crappy proctoring
| applications. Either implement remote-friendly tests or do as
| TOEFL has done since decades and apply tests at controlled
| locations.
| srndsnd wrote:
| I am not a lawyer nor do I have a JD, but the argument I've
| heard from friends who have recently passed the bar amounts to
| the idea that the inordinate amounts of memorization required
| to pass the bar are a poor measure of someone's ability to
| actually practice law.
|
| Worse than that, if a lawyer were to attempt to give advice
| without consulting any outside resources and not doing any
| research, that could be construed as malpractice. As a result,
| you could argue it even encourages that kind of behavior. Yet,
| that is what the bar exam asks.
|
| I've seen countless takedowns on HN of programming interviews
| on whiteboards as a poor way to evaluate someone's ability to
| write code. Same concept, different domain. Similarly to those
| programming interviews, it can also be seen as a "best of the
| worst" situation.
| Maultasche wrote:
| I don't know much about the bar exam myself, but I had a
| professor in college who was also a practicing lawyer.
|
| He was of the opinion that in order to pass the bar, you
| mainly needed to really know the legal fundamentals and be
| good at making a legal argument in the bar exam, and that
| knowledge of specific laws is less important, because those
| are always available in reference books.
|
| He told us a story of passing the Massachusetts bar exam
| (just to see if he could) without knowing anything about the
| state laws in Massachusetts, and won a bet he had made with
| his friend, who didn't think it was possible.
| [deleted]
| gamblor956 wrote:
| The bar exam is nothing like a whiteboard. It tests knowledge
| (law is a knowledge-based profession), and skill (the writing
| portions test an applicant's ability to write legal
| documents).
|
| As a lawyer, I've found that anyone who could not pass the
| bar was simply unsuited to providing legal advice, and are
| generally even unsuited to doing any legal-related task for
| pay.
|
| The bar exam sets a minimum threshold for a person's ability
| to research, and remember, large quantities of rules,
| applications, and theories, and be able to apply or
| regurgitate all of that within a short time frame. This is
| similar to real world demands, such as a trial, or contract
| negotiations, where the lawyer will not have time to go back-
| and-forth researching every new thing that pops up during the
| event and must go into it fully prepared ahead of time.
| ksdale wrote:
| As a lawyer, there is so much more that falls under the
| umbrella of "practicing law" that is nowhere _near_ as
| demanding as a trial or contract negotiations. I personally
| think the credentials that lawyers have are completely
| unnecessary for a large portion of the tasks that only
| lawyers are allowed to perform.
|
| I think the bar exam is more like, sufficient but not
| necessary, anyone who can pass the bar is easily capable of
| being a lawyer, but I don't think the bar is necessary at
| all to prove that someone is capable.
| D13Fd wrote:
| What kind of law do you practice? In my view every
| litigator has to be ready to go to trial.
|
| I guess if you are going to be a contract document review
| attorney or something then maybe the bar is overkill in
| some ways. But I would argue that the only value added by
| someone like a document review attorney is the fact that
| they passed the bar (demonstrating a broad base of
| knowledge).
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I am not a lawyer, but I would guess there is a position
| for "slightly more than Legal Zoom". I want to create a
| will (and don't need to worry about estate taxes.) I want
| to create an LLC. My counterparty and I agree on the
| terms and we need someone to draft or modify a contract
| that specifies what we say.
| [deleted]
| HWR_14 wrote:
| As a lawyer, how do you feel about the need to have
| graduated from a 3-year law school (in almost all states,
| with the exception for some that have a longer
| apprenticeship program) to even take the bar? It seems like
| if the bar is a sufficient screen it would be unnecessary.
| richardfontana wrote:
| Incidentally, in the US, the transformation during the
| early to mid 20th century of the basic law degree
| (originally typically LLB [Bachelor of Laws]) into a
| postgraduate JD (Juris Doctor) with a 4-year
| undergraduate degree prerequisite, and the
| standardization of the LLB/JD program at three years
| (from earlier instances that were one or two years) was
| done by the legal profession in a failed attempt to erect
| barriers to entry to members of immigrant/ethnic minority
| communities. When I was in law school I wrote a paper for
| an ethics class on this topic. (Ethics BTW came to be a
| required class in ABA-accredited law schools in the wake
| of Watergate.) Outside the US I believe the basic
| university law degree is typically an undergraduate,
| bachelor-level program.
| coding123 wrote:
| As a customer of a lawyer It seems like an absolute
| requirement for me.
|
| Why is everyone trying to erode society down to like,
| nothingness?
|
| Burger flipper to 400k/year lawyer anyone?
| barneygale wrote:
| Could you /imagine/ a world without lawyers? _shudders_
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > Could you /imagine/ a world without lawyers?
|
| Yes, I can. And, frankly, it sucks.
|
| I don't do my own roofing. The idea that I would have to
| argue my own case in court sounds horrible. I don't know
| how. And then the people who right now are (or become)
| lawyers would just use their superior system knowledge to
| extort others. Far better that the responses available to
| a claim of some tort are "I guess I should call a lawyer"
| and not "I guess I should pay $5,000 for this to go away
| or spend the next 2 years learning the law to fight it on
| my own."
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I'm not trying to erode society down to nothingness. I
| dislike academic credentialism.
|
| I just want there to be many paths to learning. Formal
| schooling. Apprenticeship. Private mentoring. Hell, you
| could probably get a series of YouTube channels (with a
| very low success rate) or something closer to a MOOC.
|
| Obviously, you need to demonstrate you _learned_ from
| those paths. And I wondered if the bar exam was
| sufficient to show that. So I asked someone who claimed
| to be a lawyer on the internet as _I don 't know_ how
| sufficient the bar is as a measure.
| spoiler wrote:
| I think they're pointing out the ridiculous costs of law
| school and the wealth barrier of entry that creates.
|
| Someone who could pass the bar exam, and could end up
| being a great lawyer isn't even given the chance, because
| they can't afford to attend law school (which is
| necessary to take the exam, from what I gather, but IANAL
| & I'm not from the US).
| abduhl wrote:
| Financial aid is readily available at all top tier law
| schools for anyone that could plausibly end up a "great"
| lawyer. As much as I dislike the hierarchical nature of
| post secondary school, there is no doubt in my mind that
| the hypothetical person who has not distinguished
| themselves to the point where a top tier law school would
| notice them and offer financial aid by the time they've
| completed an undergraduate degree and taken the LSAT does
| not exist or, if they do, they are so rare as to not
| exist.
|
| Now, are people who could pass the bar exam and be merely
| a "good" or "acceptable" lawyer being frozen out by the
| wealth barrier? Absolutely. But actually probably not:
| these people can go to a lower tier and cheaper school.
| spoiler wrote:
| I don't know enough about the system in the US and I
| might be talking out of my ass here, since most of my
| impression are formed by reading online discussions, but
| here goes... I was always under the impression that you
| can just buy into most unis in the US? There's the
| scholarship programs, but I was also under the impression
| they're often through sports rather than grades (and to
| me it's obvious that there's not necessarily a
| correlation between someone good at American Football and
| law).
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > . I was always under the impression that you can just
| buy into most unis in the US?
|
| This is true at the richest levels. If you are willing to
| write a multi-million dollar check as a donation (name a
| building/room after your family), you will probably be
| admitted. In 1999, apparently a $2.5 million donation
| secured Jared Kushner's admittance into Harvard. This has
| to be adjusted not just by regular admission but also by
| the increased competition (it is more than twice as
| competitive). So I would expect we might be getting
| closer to a $10 million donation. Although schools would
| probably cap it/auction it off if they got too many
| donations.
|
| This is by far the minority of admissions.
|
| Other cases where people "pay to get in" are literally
| bribes, and people can and have gone to jail.
|
| > There's the scholarship programs, but I was also under
| the impression they're often through sports rather than
| grades
|
| There are a lot of scholarship types: academic, need-
| based, interest based (an engineering may spend money to
| help aspiring engineers), corporate (we'll pay your
| tuition if you work here for 2 years after), and
| athletic. Not all schools offer all types, and some (like
| interest based scholarships) are unaffiliated with any
| school (although athletic scholarships are).
|
| Also, athletic scholarships are limited to your
| undergraduate (pre-law or pre-med or your BA/BS in X).
|
| In all cases, the scholarships help you pay for school,
| but tend to be different from the actual admittance
| process. So the correlation would be between someone good
| at Football and someone who can _afford_ school. Which,
| if you think about it as a job (they make the school a
| ton of money) is fair in a way.
| lief79 wrote:
| Minor clarification. Sports scholarships are limited by
| duration, and often apply to BS and MS for 5 years max,
| with 4 years of playing time.
|
| Generally switching schools requires a year off, but
| there are some loop holes by applying to a grad major
| that is not present in the original school. Basketball
| and football players seem to use these often. You can
| google for more information, and I believe it still
| wouldn't work for law/doctor programs, but I haven't
| looked into this.
| abduhl wrote:
| Post-baccalaureate study scholarships are unrelated to
| sports scholarships. Law is a post bachelor degree.
| "Buying" your way into a top law school is possible but
| basically entails buying your way through an
| undergraduate degree as well which means that you might
| have "bought" your way in but you're still ultimately
| incredibly well prepared. And these people who buy their
| way in subsidize the exact people you're concerned about
| being kept out: poor but well qualified candidates who
| can become "great" lawyers.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > Burger flipper to 400k/year lawyer anyone?
|
| Are you saying that a "burger flipper" should always be
| one and never aspire to eventually be a lawyer?
| devteambravo wrote:
| Chamath Palihapitiya would be mad if all he made was
| 400k/yr, and Burger King was his place a choice as a
| young man looking to flip burgers.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| The same way I feel about requiring doctors to go to
| medical school before they can do a residency.
|
| The bar exam and law school have different purposes. A
| law school teaches the laws of the _entire country_. A
| bar exam tests the law of the _specific state._ While
| many laws are _similar,_ they 're not the same, and the
| differences matter a great deal.
|
| And secondly, a great many people can eek their way
| through law school who have no business actually
| practicing law, and the bar exam is essentially the last
| filter keeping those incompetents away from the practice
| of law before they can harm clients. (The law provides
| recourse to clients when a lawyer's actions deliberately
| harms clients, however, there is little to no recourse
| for clients if their lawyer makes a mistake.)
| dtmmax33 wrote:
| They should do it like medicine. You go to school, then a
| residency then pass your boards. It would be better if
| you went to law school, did x number of hours under a
| lawyer, then take the bar exam.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Cost-wise the thing I find extremely strange as a
| foreigner is the US insistence that people should do a
| full year BS before studying law and medicine. It doesn't
| make a lot of sense to me. Here you just study the field
| you want to practice from the start.
|
| The costs by themselves are also shocking to be fair.
| Here the full four years of a law degree allowing you to
| pass the bar would only set you back 753EUR to which you
| would probably have to add a year of preparation and the
| cost of the exam itself which probably bring you to
| somewhere between 2000EUR and 4000EUR for the academic
| part of actually becoming a lawyer.
| D13Fd wrote:
| > The bar exam and law school have different purposes. A
| law school teaches the laws of the entire country. A bar
| exam tests the law of the specific state. While many laws
| are similar, they're not the same, and the differences
| matter a great deal.
|
| This was true 10 years ago. Now the majority of states
| use the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), often without a
| jurisdiction-specific component. It's unfortunate.
|
| I agree with the rest of your comment though.
| edmcnulty101 wrote:
| I would personally not want to go to a lawyer that is not
| able to pass the bar exam.
|
| Even if it's just an IQ check, I would want my lawyer to have
| a high IQ, social Darwinism or not.
|
| I wish law had more certification tests like medicine has
| with its specialties.
|
| I also think law school should be optional like it is in
| California or not costing $50,000 a year... that's just gate
| keeping and puts lawyers in massive financial debt or only
| selects for the rich.
| grumple wrote:
| I would do law school online, but guess what? It still
| costs $70k a year to do a JD that's almost entirely online.
| The cost is really absurd. I feel that way about all higher
| education, but especially about JDs. Cheaper learning
| platforms are the future.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I really don't understand logic behind that price other
| than we can just charge that much. Material doesn't
| change that much, I doubt the ratio of staff to students
| need to be very low either... No special or expensive
| equipment is needed either...
| edmcnulty101 wrote:
| It's because this profession is regulated by the
| government. So the prices skyrocket. This happens with
| any thing regulated by the government. A liquor license
| in CA can run up to $300,000 dollars. Health insurance is
| insanely expensive. The more automobile regulation, the
| more the price goes up.
|
| Regulation is a double edge sword.
|
| They make a thing safer but then the increased cost
| excludes a lot of people from using the thing until
| typically only the rich are able to enjoy a thing.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Even if it's just an IQ check, I would want my lawyer to
| have a high IQ, social Darwinism or not.
|
| You can have a high IQ and be terrible and memorizing and
| regurgitating a bunch of facts and figures. I've seen
| people who were literal geniuses fail tests that others who
| were... lets say, 'very much not geniuses' passed without a
| problem because they were skilled in cramming for a few
| weeks to get their certification even while never having a
| real deep understanding of the subject and pretty much
| immediately forgetting everything they "learned".
|
| IQ (for what it's worth) is more about being able to figure
| out what's in front of you than it is having a great memory
| for numbers, trivia, dates, or laws and past legal cases.
| watwut wrote:
| If you are terrible at memorizing, you won't be good
| layer. They do actually need to remember a lot and
| quickly. And they don't have time to look up everything
| either.
| edmcnulty101 wrote:
| Well I think there's different aspects to IQ.
|
| Retention is one as well as problem solving.
|
| I think both play an important part in a lot of
| situations.
| coding123 wrote:
| I get that a whiteboard code test at Google would be probably
| very hard. A whiteboard (err, screen share) code test at my
| company would be fucking bubble sort. Yes there's a 100k/year
| difference in pay more at Google.
| D13Fd wrote:
| What you have to do to pass the bar, even now, is extremely
| basic by lawyer standards. It's the floor.
|
| It is not like a programming whiteboard interview. It's a
| test that you study for, learning basic legal concepts, and
| knowing exactly the range of topics that are going to be on
| the test. I know many disagree, but in my opinion you _need_
| those basic legal concepts to practice law well.
|
| Everyone likes to say "well what if I just want to do family
| law?" No. You should still have to know the basics of law,
| because many of these issues _will_ come up in your time as a
| lawyer, regardless of your area of practice. This is not
| advanced stuff, and it is not at all unfair to say that every
| lawyer should have a basic understanding of it.
|
| Bad lawyers make _everyone 's_ job harder, and make every
| case more expensive for clients on both sides. If you think
| legal cases are expensive now, just wait until they relax the
| licensing requirements.
| rhino369 wrote:
| The bar exam weeds people out at the wrong point--after they've
| racked up 300k in loans. They should just set a minimum LSAT
| score to achieve the same purpose.
|
| Or better yet, make a JD a Bachelor of Law degree without
| weeding out.
| fallingknife wrote:
| But then how do you weed people out?
| rhino369 wrote:
| Let the market decide. Nobody is going to hire someone with
| shit grades from a lowly ranked school. But instead of
| having 300k in debt, those unemployable Bachelor of Law
| grads will be no worse off than if they had a BA in an
| unmarketable field like sociology or poli-sci.
|
| Right now, they have to go get the the BA in anything (most
| do stuff like poli-sci) AND then they have to go spend 3
| years and 300k dollars on a professional degree.
|
| The glut of lawyers isn't really a problem without all that
| wasted time and debt.
| Karsteski wrote:
| Something something gatekeeping by old people
| riskable wrote:
| To be fair, the Bar exists because lawyers themselves felt
| there were too many lawyers.
| golemotron wrote:
| To be fair, if lawyers use and become familiar with up-to-date
| technology, the whole system breaks down. Our economy depends
| upon a lag between technological development and regulation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-13 23:01 UTC)