<p>
You must have a very strange definition of reading indeed (unless you are using some kind of bizarro language where everything you say has the opposite of its meaning), for I’ve even emphasized the point multiple times that lawyers should study law–even when the idea of apprenticeships were brought up, with the exception of skilled labor I think they’re too archaic for their own good.</p>
<p>I am not sure if I should be sarcastic and tell you that you desperately need to work on your reading comprehension, be forgiving and explain my position to yet another person who has obviously not even read my posts for the umpteenth time or be concerned about any possible medication combinations you may be taking that would be interfering with your ability to comprehend “law = should be undergraduate program of study, prospective lawyers study law in 4 years and get an LLB like the rest of the world, have option of 1-year LLM for specialist designations.”
I think apprenticeship in the modern world could be viewed as entry-level work, where you are slowly immersed in the culture of any given group and taught how to operate correctly within that apparatus. A more formal apprenticeship program is probably warranted for law (and most professional fields, really), but I don’t think we’re severely lacking now.</p>
<p>I’ll ignore the fact that psychologists oftentimes have even more important advisory roles than lawyers, and that all the fields I’ve listed previously (CPA, CFA, actuary, claims adjuster, paramedic, soldier, series 65 or 66 investment advisor) require either a bachelors or just a high school diploma and instead I will say that the idea of maturity is entirely nebulous. 3 additional years of graduate schooling, in a field that almost no matter what is going to be completely different than what an undergraduate will have studied (thus effectively not utilizing 4 years of a collegiate education at all), cannot teach someone judgment.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that on a normal distribution chart set for age that if you were to somehow measure “judgment” the middle 50% for people aged 45 would be rated higher in “judgment” than the middle 50% for people aged 25. I also do not doubt that you have colleagues who are immature, undisciplined and insensitive–because that’s a normal thing to have, across any age group and any profession.</p>
<p>Trying to tack three years onto the age an average attorney is licensed to practice is just doing it out of hope that the additional years will somehow make him more “ready” for the world–but the reality is that those who are not ready after a 4 year, intensive college degree in law will most likely not be ready at all, and the bar exam sets a practical barrier post-college to weed-out those who were not weeded-out at the undergraduate level, as Greybeard has said.</p>
<p>3 years cannot quantify maturity. Nothing can quantify maturity, and spending 3 more years in academia of all places is not something any sane person could say would better prepare someone for the realities of life. I cannot accept the idea of something that is inherently nebulous being arbitrarily decided by those with power and wealth within a profession and forced upon an entire country and profession–especially when the decision shows no demonstrably true benefits (with the exception of limiting the population in a field that is overpopulated at the top), especially when it is not the way it is done in other democratic, fully-functioning countries. It is antithetical to justice.</p>