Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Is Law School a Losing Game?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Is Law School a Losing Game?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:41 am Post subject:

I agree with that. I am not fond of the "jury of your peers" idea. I don't trust my peers. Have you ever been to a Wal Mart? A professional jury may be an improvement. Though it may also end up another cog in the Orwellian machine.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:29 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

I agree with that.

I am not fond of the "jury of your peers" idea. I don't trust my peers. Have you ever been to a Wal Mart? A professional jury may be an improvement. Though it may also end up another cog in the Orwellian machine.

Juries only decide on matters of fact. Judges decide on matters of law. You don't need to be a professional to rule on matters of fact. Matter of fact: "Where was the accused on the night of the killing?" Matter of law: "Does leaving a baby with a 10-year old child for 4 days fit the legal definition of child neglect?" Juries receive instructions from judges on matters of law all the time.

The real problem is that voir dire and jury selection eliminates too many jurors who would never shop at Walmart.

Koveras wrote:

That would add at least a million to the state payroll and would introduce pro-state, pro-corporate and unpredictable self-selection biases to the courts. There would be unions, strikes, and more law schools than ever. America would become even more absurdly legalistic than it already is.

Right-wing pablum. Lawyers make fine public servants. The problem is that law school costs too much and is financed poorly. And yes, too many people go to law school for the wrong reasons.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:54 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Juries only decide on matters of fact.

Have you been to Wal Mart?

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:15 pm Post subject:

I do tend to exaggerate. Still think it�s a bad idea, though.

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:32 pm Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

Let's see if I understand. These law students are so lacking in common sense that they go into hundreds of thousands of debt to for a nearly unemployable degree, and now the suggestion is that we should reward them all with state jobs, because they're "experts".

Unemployable degree is pretty hyperbolic.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:32 pm Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

This was something I was in favor of before the topic of an abundance of law trained students was brought up. I don't like wasting educated people if we have a valid use for them, and I feel we have a valid use for them in this form.

Koveras wrote:

That would add at least a million to the state payroll ...

The attack on government payrolls is coming as a part of a systematic campaign to transfer the wealth of the nation into a progressively smaller set of hands. America doesn't need to be laying off government employees right now. It's doing so in order to enrich a tiny percentage of its citizens. If that's the way the average American wants to play this game, that's their choice, but it has no bearing on my opinions on how one should run the nation.

When making billionaires richer at the expense of anything and everything else isn't your priority, balancing the budget in America stops being especially challenging. America is still a fantastically wealthy nation, and public servants aren't a bad thing so long as they provide society with enough value to make them worth employing.

Koveras wrote:

... and would introduce pro-state, pro-corporate and unpredictable self-selection biases to the courts.

The nice thing about professional jurors is that, unlike the random guy you pull off the street (after giving lawyers on either side a say; talk about bias), they'll be spending enough time in the court room for such trends to be observable, meaning they can be responded to. How well a system like this turned out would depend strongly on how this was handled.

Koveras wrote:

There would be unions, strikes ...

Letting professional jurors unionize would be both foolish and harmful to justice. Any such program would need to specifically prohibit it.

Koveras wrote:

and more law schools than ever.

That's a feature of treating education as a business, not of my suggestion. There's going to be more law schools than ever whether this policy is implemented or not. Polls of law school students have all ready revealed that no matter how much debt they end up with and no matter how few jobs they are, they'll keep attending. There is no, "Let them fail until they get the point and stop." They will never stop under the current system so long as they can procure loans.

Koveras wrote:

America would become even more absurdly legalistic than it already is.

I think it would become if anything less legalistic. The lawsuit lottery becomes less winnable when you have to convince a group of well educated professionals of the merit of your case.

Koveras wrote:

There are too many lawyers in too much debt. The solution, from the point of view of economics and cultural health, is to let these idiots fail, and clamp down on usury.

Letting people fail when we have a valid use for them is pointlessly sadistic. I agree on the usury, though. It's a huge problem, and also a choke point where a lot of social good could be achieved through very small comparative effort by simply putting a stop to it.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:41 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Quote:

Juries only decide on matters of fact.

Have you been to Wal Mart?

Look, its relevant.

So is this.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:36 am Post subject:

I dunno: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqMfPVIu1Y

redaxe

Joined: 01 Dec 2008

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:39 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Eventually enough of them will be forced into declaring bankruptcy and defaulting on their loans, that the banks will be forced to stop giving out these loans as they cease to be a profitable investment.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:32 pm Post subject:

redaxe wrote:

Fox wrote:

You cannot escape a student loan by declaring bankruptcy, and even if you try to default on the loan, so long as you continue working somewhere, you can have your wages garnished. After you retire, you can also have your social security garnished I believe. Of course, it's actually a debt collector that will be doing that; the bank will have sold your debt and received their profit long before then. The bank sits pretty and does essentially nothing for its money, and under the current system, these loans will always be profitable unless the majority of recipients either become homeless transients, leave the country, or commit suicide.

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject:

redaxe wrote:

Fox wrote:

You can't do that with student loans.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

Yes, I remember now. However I still feel it's fine to remind everyone that the larger part of these new expert jurors would be halfwits who deserve to fail. Surely rewarding these people is an injustice against those who wisely opted against debt-slavery under these circumstances, and surely it's sensible to mistrust the expert status of anybody who didn't.

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

That would add at least a million to the state payroll ...

The attack on government payrolls is coming from several places. While it's currently playing in to certain hands, it isn't like it's a fundamentally pro-corrupt-billionaire movement.

It may be true that the government doesn't need to be laying off employees right now. Does it follow that they should be hiring a million more? Say they hired them tomorrow. Where would their salaries go? The banksters, to pay off their debts. Apparently banksters get the money no matter what. Your way, they'd have a whole bunch of jurors in their pockets too.

You've managed to discount this part my argument on the basis of the reality that corrupt billionaires are currently in command. You then go on to construct your idea on the basis of a cleaner reality. What changed in between?

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

... and would introduce pro-state, pro-corporate and unpredictable self-selection biases to the courts.

I hadn't thought of that. I expect the biases would be systemic, however, barring other significant changes, such as changes to the nature of the education system and the power structure.

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

There would be unions, strikes ...

Letting professional jurors unionize would be both foolish and harmful to justice. Any such program would need to specifically prohibit it.

OK.

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

and more law schools than ever.

Obviously we need to put a stop to that, cause we can't just hire them all as professional jurors. I see you playing the angles, Fox. If you don't win on principle you'll try a surprise checkmate by presenting professional jurors as a stop-gap. My position is still this: address the sources of the problem, and in the meantime let these kids find their own jobs.

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

America would become even more absurdly legalistic than it already is.

I think it would become if anything less legalistic. The lawsuit lottery becomes less winnable when you have to convince a group of well educated professionals of the merit of your case.

This is true. The danger would lie in adding a powerful new bureaucracy that thinks the solution to every problem is more paper regulations. These people would still be lawyers at heart, and lawyers are all about self-perpetuation.

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

There are too many lawyers in too much debt. The solution, from the point of view of economics and cultural health, is to let these idiots fail, and clamp down on usury.

I'm not convinced. Let them find work on their own. Glad we agree on usury.

TheresaTheresa

Joined: 24 Feb 2010

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:59 am Post subject:

Scruffey wrote:

That's a really interesting article. I've thought about the value of law school a lot recently and I'm realizing it may not be worth it for me.

It isn't, and not just for you.

bamboozler

Joined: 18 Jan 2011

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:30 pm Post subject:

I have a law degree and trust me it was a waste of time. Case closed!

Yaya

Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:03 pm Post subject:

bamboozler wrote:

I have a law degree and trust me it was a waste of time.

Case closed!

Do you care to elaborate? Law school is a mixed bag, it seems, in that some are so glad that they went but many are not.

I hear many continue with law school because of the debt incurred after the first year.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe