<p>
What!? These people teach law at an undergraduate level, to the unclean masses!? And then, if they want to work as lawyers, they follow a process of specialist studies and an apprenticeship that do not result in a crippling financial burden… My God, these people are clearly savages.
What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms; in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding.*</p>
<p>Defensive attribution is something that is very well documented. As a younger man, it is natural for me to not be overly fond of the fact that if a war requiring a draft were to occur you would debate it while I would die in it. It’s also natural for me to feel that you are out of touch, which I suppose on this issue we all technically are since no one in this thread studies education for a living. As older men, you are predisposed to believe that you are correct, based on life experiences that are largely not attributable to this discussion–but hubris does not diminish with age, it only consolidates and matures. It knows to be quiet. I would greatly enjoy some kind of reality show based on an arrogance comparison between practicing attorneys and 18 year olds. The only difference I’ve ever seen between every young man who has a shred of intelligence and every old man who has a shred of intelligence is that the young man hasn’t had a chance to be wrong enough yet, but the idea that being incorrect causes someone to grow and “evolve” as a human being when they are not studying the subject they are wrong about is largely disproven by… well, people.</p>
<p>The advantage you have over me is life experience (I’m speaking in generalities of young v. old here, I have no idea what your actual life experiences are), which is very true, and very applicable to many things in life–which is an open system. An understanding of a closed system does not benefit from this without study of that system, though, so you’re reaching if you believe that an increase in age correlates with an increase in understanding of all subjects.
The problem is that there is nothing special about 25. It is a construct of timing, nothing else. It is a result of an academic subject requiring a bachelors degree that should not require a bachelors degree. I don’t have a problem with apprenticeships. I don’t even have a problem with most people starting the actual practice of law at 25, if they’re going through certifications or specialist studies–I have a problem with the fact that the preexisting process cannot apparently be justified by anyone, and is based entirely on an assumption of efficacy that is only a result of that fact that it exists. This is a less than terrific train of thought.</p>
<p>I have a problem, and any person who considers themselves capable of rational thought should also have a problem, with using some kind of pseudo-graduate school as an introduction to a subject. A graduate school awarding what in practicality is perceived as the equivalent of a masters–which are almost impossible to receive scholarships and aid for, propagating a dynastic classist system that is the opposite of capitalism and democracy, and even though the content is equivalent to a bachelors. An MBA is beneficial to the understanding one has of business, but one can also study business at the undergraduate level, and there is no reason for one to preclude the other–and there are still professional designations that require more study, or specific study, or specific experience. Neither field requires prerequisite study in X, only general skills.</p>
<p>There is no reason today for law school to be a 3 year postgraduate program of study, and if a discussion with three lawyers who cannot elucidate a reason without bouncing between conjecture, pop neuroscience and “experience” (deformation professionnelle yay French) in a field that does not at all relate to education should be taken into account, there has never been and will never be a reason at any time throughout the entire course of man. With the exception, of course, of it existing as a protectionist measure for a profession.
It’s not, and as a lawyer I have to believe you understand the difference between purchase and consumption.
Oh, but only if this one was. There is no actual logic basis for any of this ********, really, and I think you know it. Especially since we had LLBs in this country to begin with, and postgraduate law schools only flourished as a result of needing separate buildings to teach using the socratic and case methods.</p>
<ul>
<li>I would like to congratulate myself for remembering almost all of this. I only forgot transfered, metonymies and canonical.</li>
</ul>