Law firms that really want to win the war for talent should look beyond the tiny pre-filtered population of law students and extend their talent search to the whole world. Here's how they could do it.
Thank goodness for getting back to the core questions, rather than "on what date..." or "how can we refine our current system to make it more orderly and more efficient"? I applaud many of your ideas and offer a few thoughts:
1. Pausing for a minute on what's wrong with the current timing and picking up on your trenchant observation about who most easily and obviously rises to the top in the first 3 months of law school. I take it is not controversial to suggest that 15 weeks is hardly time to level the playing field for those who had to work during college or who are not native speakers or who have out performed their parents and their peers and are the first in their families to go to law school (or maybe college). I take it also that each of those factors would be considered positive factors by law firms. I reconstruct your point to note that these are also people who I would like to be in the game when lawyers and judges are given the opportunity to do justice or create more equitable rules. I also pause here because I think it it (more than) worth noting that the current system does that no matter when the recruiting date is because it relies heavily on who has made law review, which in the US is dependent on first year grades. If 50% of the measure of your "merit" is taken while you are still unpacking your suitcases, your kindergarten zip code is very likely to control. If you just squint, you notice that we've constructed a system that is designed in a way (if not "to') keep those who are not born to privilege out.
2. On your idea of testing for "legal knowledge," I assume, given your appreciation for the use of technology in practice that you don't mean recall of specific legal rules and their exceptions. Assuming you mean knowing the foundational, structural concepts that create the framework of our current legal systems well enough so that issues can be spotted and the rules can be found, I encourage you to keep your eye on Nevada (https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/nevada-to-consider-three-stage-process-to-join-bar).
3. The idea of shifting the cost of legal education to the profession is appealing. There is no doubt, in the United States under the current model, that some of the "education" that creates opportunities for learning to do what lawyers need to be able to do needs to take place through supervised practice and include people who have actually engaged in the practice of law among those who create the opportunities and scaffold the learning. Here's a different model to consider: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1355/.
4. A step in the same direction might be to consider the role community college or 2 year degree programs might play towards building the academic competencies so many of our schools (public and private) fail to build in the first 12 years. All of those who teach (in schools and in firms) should understand how people learn (not just "know" things) and this expertise is especially valuable and necessary in connection with building skill in analytic thinking, reading, and writing.
thank you for taking us on another ride through your amazing imagination… The greatest business minds follow your pattern… they do not tweak; they reinvent… they disrupt.
After thirty years of marriage and child minding, I decided to finally write the bar exams. I find that spending several more thousands of dollars on becoming licensed to practice law, living on a small income and a minimum wage job, I can't even save enough money to complete the bar admission exams. I don't think my case is atypical, but it might be. At some point I lost all respect and regard for the lawyer-making process and the law society. Only rich people can afford to become lawyers.
Thank goodness for getting back to the core questions, rather than "on what date..." or "how can we refine our current system to make it more orderly and more efficient"? I applaud many of your ideas and offer a few thoughts:
1. Pausing for a minute on what's wrong with the current timing and picking up on your trenchant observation about who most easily and obviously rises to the top in the first 3 months of law school. I take it is not controversial to suggest that 15 weeks is hardly time to level the playing field for those who had to work during college or who are not native speakers or who have out performed their parents and their peers and are the first in their families to go to law school (or maybe college). I take it also that each of those factors would be considered positive factors by law firms. I reconstruct your point to note that these are also people who I would like to be in the game when lawyers and judges are given the opportunity to do justice or create more equitable rules. I also pause here because I think it it (more than) worth noting that the current system does that no matter when the recruiting date is because it relies heavily on who has made law review, which in the US is dependent on first year grades. If 50% of the measure of your "merit" is taken while you are still unpacking your suitcases, your kindergarten zip code is very likely to control. If you just squint, you notice that we've constructed a system that is designed in a way (if not "to') keep those who are not born to privilege out.
2. On your idea of testing for "legal knowledge," I assume, given your appreciation for the use of technology in practice that you don't mean recall of specific legal rules and their exceptions. Assuming you mean knowing the foundational, structural concepts that create the framework of our current legal systems well enough so that issues can be spotted and the rules can be found, I encourage you to keep your eye on Nevada (https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/nevada-to-consider-three-stage-process-to-join-bar).
3. The idea of shifting the cost of legal education to the profession is appealing. There is no doubt, in the United States under the current model, that some of the "education" that creates opportunities for learning to do what lawyers need to be able to do needs to take place through supervised practice and include people who have actually engaged in the practice of law among those who create the opportunities and scaffold the learning. Here's a different model to consider: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1355/.
4. A step in the same direction might be to consider the role community college or 2 year degree programs might play towards building the academic competencies so many of our schools (public and private) fail to build in the first 12 years. All of those who teach (in schools and in firms) should understand how people learn (not just "know" things) and this expertise is especially valuable and necessary in connection with building skill in analytic thinking, reading, and writing.
Jordan,
thank you for taking us on another ride through your amazing imagination… The greatest business minds follow your pattern… they do not tweak; they reinvent… they disrupt.
I enjoy your thinking so much. Keep it up.
Gerry
After thirty years of marriage and child minding, I decided to finally write the bar exams. I find that spending several more thousands of dollars on becoming licensed to practice law, living on a small income and a minimum wage job, I can't even save enough money to complete the bar admission exams. I don't think my case is atypical, but it might be. At some point I lost all respect and regard for the lawyer-making process and the law society. Only rich people can afford to become lawyers.