After law school, candidates will spend 675 hours working under the supervision of an experienced attorney and create a portfolio of legal work that bar officials will grade as an alternative to the traditional bar exam.
So, still basically a test, but now more like 4 months of underpaid/free labor.
The bar I took cost something like $2000 including two months of prep classes on top of law school. Then more money for a hotel stay so I could take a two day test. I would have preferred 4 months apprenticeship paid or no.
I gave you my opinion, from my experience . If you’ve taken a bar and that’s your opinion, fine.
The primary barrier to entry into the legal profession is law school, not the licensing exam.
4 months of legal apprenticeship with a side gig isn’t bad. However, I would imagine that most applicants will be doing 4 months of paid clerkship with enough extra unpaid hours to meet the bar’s criteria.
That’s still lower than what’s required to do hair/nails here in Oregon. My buddy had to drop $25k on some shitty for-profit school to become a barber.
A practicum is required for some professions, like professional engineering. The standard for engineering is four years with a bachelor’s degree and passing two tests. You can read engineering in a couple of states without going to college, but it takes 15 years experience and you still need to pass one of the tests.
If you’re referring to the FE and PE tests as being required. They are required to be able to get the extra cert, but not to be am engineer. Most engineers are not PEs, and you don’t have to pass the FE exam to be an engineer.
Come to the UK where it’s now going to be two years of qualifying experience on top of exams in a highly competitive field working for minimum wage if you manage to work 40 hours and not more.
To get to that point that you actually start on the qualification can take a few years post law degree and nowhere near all law graduates get to that point.
So, still basically a test, but now more like 4 months of underpaid/free labor.
The bar I took cost something like $2000 including two months of prep classes on top of law school. Then more money for a hotel stay so I could take a two day test. I would have preferred 4 months apprenticeship paid or no.
You think travelling to and from unpaid work for four months is better than paying $2k and a hotel for one night?
Average 21 working days a month, commute at $10 a day which is a very low estimate for the US, and its $840 + 2 months of lost wages.
At minimum wage that’s $2320 before tax… but we’re talking (hopefully) intelligent people who can earn significantly more.
At $20/h we’re looking at $6400 in lost wages by comparison to the old system you have described.
This is bad for workers as its putting a greater financial barrier on entering the profession.
I gave you my opinion, from my experience . If you’ve taken a bar and that’s your opinion, fine.
The primary barrier to entry into the legal profession is law school, not the licensing exam.
4 months of legal apprenticeship with a side gig isn’t bad. However, I would imagine that most applicants will be doing 4 months of paid clerkship with enough extra unpaid hours to meet the bar’s criteria.
I would think 4 months would also help your resume. But then again, not sure if not having the bar exam could hurt your resume? Curious your opinion.
That’s still lower than what’s required to do hair/nails here in Oregon. My buddy had to drop $25k on some shitty for-profit school to become a barber.
While your friend’s story is BS and a reflection of some absurd laws, I assure you law school is longer lol
If it’s paid reasonable (let’s say, paralegal level? I dunno) then I see no problem.
Some firms- especially the small ones- might do this. Most won’t and that’s the problem.
A practicum is required for some professions, like professional engineering. The standard for engineering is four years with a bachelor’s degree and passing two tests. You can read engineering in a couple of states without going to college, but it takes 15 years experience and you still need to pass one of the tests.
If you’re referring to the FE and PE tests as being required. They are required to be able to get the extra cert, but not to be am engineer. Most engineers are not PEs, and you don’t have to pass the FE exam to be an engineer.
You do to become a stamping engineer, and the stamping privilege is the difference between and engineering graduate and a professional engineer.
I specified Professional Engineer, which is different from engineers that work on products covered by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
I get that you can have engineers in fields that don’t need licensure.
Even in civil/archE, most of 'em don’t have their PE.
Come to the UK where it’s now going to be two years of qualifying experience on top of exams in a highly competitive field working for minimum wage if you manage to work 40 hours and not more.
To get to that point that you actually start on the qualification can take a few years post law degree and nowhere near all law graduates get to that point.