So they’re lowering the bar, then?
You can put it in as a link with an exclamation point to imbed the GIF. ! [Description] (Link) without the spaces
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
After law school, candidates will spend 675 hours working under the supervision of an experienced attorney
Just as we’re relearning that apprenticeships are a possible alternative to college, the law comes along and says “¿Por que no los dos?”
Lol, that’s cute, say doctors everywhere. With the 8 years of post secondary education and 3-8 years plus of 80 hours a week apprenticeship after that. They figured out doing both long ago. And grad students well on their way too with post doc positions.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted. Architects also have a post-degree apprenticeship period before they can go through licensure (or can even call themselves architects).
Engineers too. A 4-5 year degree, then an exam to get engineer in training status, then a few years apprenticeship, then another exam to get a license that allows them to sign off on projects. Although, a friend of mine never bothered taking the last exam, he just has to work under another engineer.
No way that could ever go sideways… 🤦
Lionel Hutz was a man before his time.
