"While people always have been able to study law under another attorney, then become licensed themselves by taking the bar exam, this new pathway creates standardized education materials and removes the examination requirement."
So no LSAT/law school, no bar is a potential pathway to practice law. Wow.
these is modern times, the fact that the learned practice of law itself predates both the LSAT and modern notions of a legal education quite considerably notwithstanding.
Depends on what you mean by modern notions. Western tradition of formal legal education has its roots in ancient Rome. It was less prevalent in England than on the continent until the revival in the 19th century, probably because there was less Roman influence in the culture in general.
Comments
"While people always have been able to study law under another attorney, then become licensed themselves by taking the bar exam, this new pathway creates standardized education materials and removes the examination requirement."
So no LSAT/law school, no bar is a potential pathway to practice law. Wow.
these is modern times, the fact that the learned practice of law itself predates both the LSAT and modern notions of a legal education quite considerably notwithstanding.
Depends on what you mean by modern notions. Western tradition of formal legal education has its roots in ancient Rome. It was less prevalent in England than on the continent until the revival in the 19th century, probably because there was less Roman influence in the culture in general.
i mean like U.S. News & World Report ranked legal educations. but i take your point, thought of that as well.
Apprenticeship and experience on the job was a long established path to practice law before lsat and law school.
A fair point but it’s also true of every discipline.
The question that's worth exploring is why did it change, and did it only seem to benefit one or a few groups/institutions?