Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to skip college just so they can start working sooner?

The money. 2-3 years if lost income plus $$$ tuition fees.

3+3 is the best option in U.S.

Anonymous wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_JD_program

Some colleges have 3+3 programs - 3 years UG + 3 years law school. They're listed in that article.

Thanks.

As a someone who went to law school in the US, I would not have wanted to skip college and go directly to law school.

Unfortunately, we don't offer that type of program. Most other countries (all that I can think of) do law school right out of HS as an undergrad of sorts. We don't. There are some states where you can take bar without law school (I think NE is one) but that'd be the closest you could get.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it were possible, it would be short sighted re employment prospects. No big law and no one should be hiring a 22 y.o. sole practitioner to represent them.

What do you mean by ‘sole practitioner’? Does a person who completes the 7 years just jump in the deep end? I assumed they went into junior positions where they would be closely supervised.

NP here. In the U.S., after being admitted to the bar you can practice law without supervision. Most people do join a larger practice but it is not required and some strike out on their own from the start. A sole practitioner has her own law firm and no partners.

Also consider that a high school graduate does not have the writing skills, maturity, or general world experience. Three (or two!) years of law school can't fix that. Most of the legal advice I give is practical and based in an understanding of how the world works.

Has he had exposure to lawyers in real life? Does he know what kind of law he wants to practice and what that actually looks like?

Even if it were possible, it's a really bad idea to zip through college and law school with the end goal of being a lawyer, unless his parent owns a firm and that's where he's going to work and f everything else.

There are SO many things he can do that will prepare him to be a better lawyer that have nothing to do with what he'll learn in class in the mandatory courses in college and law school. He should do non-lawyer work for lawyers, whether in private practice, public interest, or government (ideally more than one of these!) to see what they day-to-day is like and what areas of law he might be interested in (federal court litigation is so different from family law or legal aid type work is so different from transactional work, etc.). He should get a normal college job where he can develop customer service skills and work ethic. Bottom line, he should take his time and not rush. His judgment, perspective, people skills will all be better for it and those are the things you need to succeed as a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it were possible, it would be short sighted re employment prospects. No big law and no one should be hiring a 22 y.o. sole practitioner to represent them.

What do you mean by ‘sole practitioner’? Does a person who completes the 7 years just jump in the deep end? I assumed they went into junior positions where they would be closely supervised.

I think the person means that few law firms would take a kid who skipped undergrad, and the alternative would be hanging out a shingle but getting clients would be a challenge for a 22 year old. But maybe there are non profit roles or other roles.

Your best option is to go outside the US. In addition to the UK, Quebec used to have a direct option but I think it may have changed. Keep in mind however, that these shorter programs usually then require getting a job as a trainee. That would likely have to be done in the country where you got the degree in order to be qualified. So not sure it shortens the process that much.

Why would anyone want to skip college just so they can start working sooner?

Anonymous wrote:Even if it were possible, it would be short sighted re employment prospects. No big law and no one should be hiring a 22 y.o. sole practitioner to represent them.

What do you mean by ‘sole practitioner’? Does a person who completes the 7 years just jump in the deep end? I assumed they went into junior positions where they would be closely supervised.

Even if it were possible, it would be short sighted re employment prospects. No big law and no one should be hiring a 22 y.o. sole practitioner to represent them.

Some schools have a directly application process, where you apply for college and law school in one application. Like PITT. But I believe you still have to do the 7 years (and if you decide not to go there for law school they don't hold you to it--the advantage is not having to go through the stress of applying at the end of college).

ALAP @ Pitt. Indiana also has a combined BA/JD program. I haven’t heard of any US program that skips the BA or BS entirely but maybe someone else can jump in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_JD_program

Some colleges have 3+3 programs - 3 years UG + 3 years law school. They're listed in that article.

Is there any option for a kid who knows they want to be a lawyer to enter a law course upon immediately leaving high school? I understand here in the US, it is usual to do a 4 year undergraduate degree followed by 3 years of law school. Seven years seems a long time and is obviously pretty expensive. It would obviously be faster and much cheaper just to go straight into a law degree if that's what the kid already knows they want to do. I think in the UK, it takes 4 years of full time study (a 3 year degree law degree and 1 year professional skills course). In Australia, it takes 4-5 years (a 4 year law degree plus a legal practice course). Is there a way to get direct entry here?