5 ms·

Imagine how much worse we would be if we have unqualified lawyers and medical doctors. Hidden in every libertarian geek's logic when it comes to this is stuff i

Imagine how much worse we would be if we have unqualified lawyers and medical doctors. Hidden in every libertarian geek's logic when it comes to this is stuff is the implicit assumption that the world is is just teaming with autodidact geniuses that have no use schooling. It's fun to think but I don't think reality is cashed out in this way

e15ctr0n 12y ago
Qualification == passing the bar exam Schooling == 4 years of law school Qualification != Schooling
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  You do get more coverage with both though. I mean, we talk on HN all the time about how exams are flawed at measuring knowledge, and can be gamed. School is also flawed and does not guarantee learning, but with both school + exam you can have greater confidence in your candidates...
  - VLM 12y ago
    Going the opposite direction, I grew up in a (the?) state that auto-stamps "pass" on the exam if you graduated from an in-state school. Not a figure of speech, you're auto-admitted if you have an in-state accredited law degree.
    - e15ctr0n 12y ago
      Are you talking about Wisconsin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_privilege
      - VLM 12y ago
        Yes although the location isn't as important as the concept that in a discussion of removing one half of "diploma plus test" we have a lot of experience with removal of the other half of the requirement. In practice I don't think the horror stories really matter... if we graduate roughly 2 to 3 times as many new lawyers as there are jobs for them, then by definition we only employ roughly the top 1/2 to top 1/3 of grads, so horror stories about what could theoretically happen if an idiot got past the idiot filter are not entirely relevant if only the far right side of the bell curve will ever get jobs in the field anyway.
- dinkumthinkum 12y ago
  Yes, that is true in the typical HackerNews geek libertarian sense. Sure. But this is only the case in a small number of genius autodidacts, perhaps like yourself (minus the statistical knowledge gap). Think of the actual education as a more thorough exam and preparation, even if it is not "sufficient" as some have indicated.
  - endzone 12y ago
    no it's true in any sense. for those committed to credentialism, why not increase the difficulty of the bar exam until is a sufficiently thorough mark of preparation for a legal career, and then do away with the jd altogether? i'm really not sure it's possible to launch a robust defence of the three year JD, bearing in mind the goals of the average student (not a life of scholarship) and the cost of full time education.
geebee 12y ago
This comes up almost every time someone questions the need for full medical or law school. There is a middle ground. I personally would support multiple paths to the bar (and to medical practice). I read (and kind of enjoyed) Milton Friedman's "abolish the AMA", but I wouldn't really go that far. I do, however, think that the AMA and ABA exercise far too much power to deny others there right to practice, and I think it's healthy to have more than one path. For instance, I recently read about a seismic engineer who attended an on-line law school (Kaplan - the article was in us news). He will take over as corporate council for his engineering firm, but he will have to take the bar in California. All other states (minor hand waving here) ban pure online law degrees. It sounds like a reasonably rigorous degree (4 years, many hours of study, interaction with students and professors), and he had to pass the bar. How could the public interest possibly be served by preventing this guy from practice? What 25 year old history major from a 4th tier law school is denied a job because a mid career seismic engineer was allowed to join the bar? I also think that law is particularly unique in that it regulates almost every element of society. People talk about "broad liberal arts educations", but I think most pre-law students are pretty narrowly educated (they tend to avoid math heavy majors, and go straight to law school, never really understanding how other fields work). I think that the ban on on-line learning, combined with an unnecessarily long degree may actually prevent the best people from becoming lawyers - in short, rather than ensuring quality, it may simply ensure a myopic profession that still goes out and regulates everybody else. Would someone with a grad degree from a strong program in engineering or CS and accelerated one year law degree who passed the bar be a threat to the public? Personally, I'd much rather hire someone who majored in a very rigorous undergrad field (with humanities coursework as well) and got a grad degree from a top school plus an accelerated law degree than a b- history major who partied his way through a mediocre 3 year jd and barely passed the bar. I also don't think that these two groups would compete for the same jobs. At the very least, I'd say people should have the option of pursing (and hiring people who pursued) other paths.

e15ctr0n 12y ago

Qualification == passing the bar exam Schooling == 4 years of law school Qualification != Schooling

sliverstorm 12y ago
You do get more coverage with both though. I mean, we talk on HN all the time about how exams are flawed at measuring knowledge, and can be gamed. School is also flawed and does not guarantee learning, but with both school + exam you can have greater confidence in your candidates...
- VLM 12y ago
  Going the opposite direction, I grew up in a (the?) state that auto-stamps "pass" on the exam if you graduated from an in-state school. Not a figure of speech, you're auto-admitted if you have an in-state accredited law degree.
  - e15ctr0n 12y ago
    Are you talking about Wisconsin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_privilege
    - VLM 12y ago
      Yes although the location isn't as important as the concept that in a discussion of removing one half of "diploma plus test" we have a lot of experience with removal of the other half of the requirement. In practice I don't think the horror stories really matter... if we graduate roughly 2 to 3 times as many new lawyers as there are jobs for them, then by definition we only employ roughly the top 1/2 to top 1/3 of grads, so horror stories about what could theoretically happen if an idiot got past the idiot filter are not entirely relevant if only the far right side of the bell curve will ever get jobs in the field anyway.
dinkumthinkum 12y ago
Yes, that is true in the typical HackerNews geek libertarian sense. Sure. But this is only the case in a small number of genius autodidacts, perhaps like yourself (minus the statistical knowledge gap). Think of the actual education as a more thorough exam and preparation, even if it is not "sufficient" as some have indicated.
- endzone 12y ago
  no it's true in any sense. for those committed to credentialism, why not increase the difficulty of the bar exam until is a sufficiently thorough mark of preparation for a legal career, and then do away with the jd altogether? i'm really not sure it's possible to launch a robust defence of the three year JD, bearing in mind the goals of the average student (not a life of scholarship) and the cost of full time education.

geebee 12y ago

This comes up almost every time someone questions the need for full medical or law school. There is a middle ground. I personally would support multiple paths to the bar (and to medical practice). I read (and kind of enjoyed) Milton Friedman's "abolish the AMA", but I wouldn't really go that far. I do, however, think that the AMA and ABA exercise far too much power to deny others there right to practice, and I think it's healthy to have more than one path. For instance, I recently read about a seismic engineer who attended an on-line law school (Kaplan - the article was in us news). He will take over as corporate council for his engineering firm, but he will have to take the bar in California. All other states (minor hand waving here) ban pure online law degrees. It sounds like a reasonably rigorous degree (4 years, many hours of study, interaction with students and professors), and he had to pass the bar. How could the public interest possibly be served by preventing this guy from practice? What 25 year old history major from a 4th tier law school is denied a job because a mid career seismic engineer was allowed to join the bar? I also think that law is particularly unique in that it regulates almost every element of society. People talk about "broad liberal arts educations", but I think most pre-law students are pretty narrowly educated (they tend to avoid math heavy majors, and go straight to law school, never really understanding how other fields work). I think that the ban on on-line learning, combined with an unnecessarily long degree may actually prevent the best people from becoming lawyers - in short, rather than ensuring quality, it may simply ensure a myopic profession that still goes out and regulates everybody else. Would someone with a grad degree from a strong program in engineering or CS and accelerated one year law degree who passed the bar be a threat to the public? Personally, I'd much rather hire someone who majored in a very rigorous undergrad field (with humanities coursework as well) and got a grad degree from a top school plus an accelerated law degree than a b- history major who partied his way through a mediocre 3 year jd and barely passed the bar. I also don't think that these two groups would compete for the same jobs. At the very least, I'd say people should have the option of pursing (and hiring people who pursued) other paths.