Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school is essentially the same as an undergrad degree, but USA determines social status by how many years of school you can afford, so they add extra years to professional degrees.

WTF are you talking about? I did four years at a SLAC and three at a T3 law school.

I think the PP's point is it's a first degree in the subject, not advanced study. On the other hand undergrad degrees include a lot of study outside the major, while the law student has three years of study in the area.

And yes in many countries law degrees are first degrees. There's no evidence that lawyers in say Britain or Australia are undereducated.

No one said that, but the training to be a British lawyer is actually longer - not the the three years plus bar exam. It's three years PLUS training for four years in chambers to be a solicitor for a total of seven years.

+1. At least six years to become a solicitor. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/career-advice/becoming-a-solicitor#:~:text=without%20a%20degree-,How%20long%20it%20takes,to%20follow%20a%20legal%20career.

At a minimum it is 3 years of undergrad degree, one year of law school (which is a professional skills based program) and then 2 years of work in a law firm as a trainee OR one year of pupillage as a barrister. So 5 years minimum including undergrad (6 to be a solicitor)- that is shorter than the US progression with less time in school.
- signed, English solicitor. In terms of training to be a lawyer, I think it is a better system because of the practical component. But there are trade offs.

But they get paid during their apprenticeships with the law firms. It’s three years of uni undergrad in law then training which is work where you get paid. Or if you didn’t do law in undergrad you ca do a one year conversion course then do training.

I’m an American attorney but I think the British system is better because you go into less debt and you get to try out different kinds of law during training before committing to one.

[b]


so what? that's not the point of the thread. are you done splitting hairs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school is essentially the same as an undergrad degree, but USA determines social status by how many years of school you can afford, so they add extra years to professional degrees.

WTF are you talking about? I did four years at a SLAC and three at a T3 law school.

I think the PP's point is it's a first degree in the subject, not advanced study. On the other hand undergrad degrees include a lot of study outside the major, while the law student has three years of study in the area.

And yes in many countries law degrees are first degrees. There's no evidence that lawyers in say Britain or Australia are undereducated.

No one said that, but the training to be a British lawyer is actually longer - not the the three years plus bar exam. It's three years PLUS training for four years in chambers to be a solicitor for a total of seven years.

+1. At least six years to become a solicitor. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/career-advice/becoming-a-solicitor#:~:text=without%20a%20degree-,How%20long%20it%20takes,to%20follow%20a%20legal%20career.

At a minimum it is 3 years of undergrad degree, one year of law school (which is a professional skills based program) and then 2 years of work in a law firm as a trainee OR one year of pupillage as a barrister. So 5 years minimum including undergrad (6 to be a solicitor)- that is shorter than the US progression with less time in school.
- signed, English solicitor. In terms of training to be a lawyer, I think it is a better system because of the practical component. But there are trade offs.

But they get paid during their apprenticeships with the law firms. It’s three years of uni undergrad in law then training which is work where you get paid. Or if you didn’t do law in undergrad you ca do a one year conversion course then do training.

I’m an American attorney but I think the British system is better because you go into less debt and you get to try out different kinds of law during training before committing to one.

Anonymous wrote:I believe there's two paths to law in Britain. Remember that degrees are three years because the "general education" is done in high school there.

There's law as an undergraduate subject, which is very academic and not necessary unless you're really interested in legal philosophy etc.

There's also second degrees for those did degrees in other subjects.

Then after your degree you do vocational training for several years.

I believe it's about a 50/50 split between these two routes.

OK but to practice it is six to seven years.

I believe there's two paths to law in Britain. Remember that degrees are three years because the "general education" is done in high school there.

There's law as an undergraduate subject, which is very academic and not necessary unless you're really interested in legal philosophy etc.

There's also second degrees for those did degrees in other subjects.

Then after your degree you do vocational training for several years.

I believe it's about a 50/50 split between these two routes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school is essentially the same as an undergrad degree, but USA determines social status by how many years of school you can afford, so they add extra years to professional degrees.

WTF are you talking about? I did four years at a SLAC and three at a T3 law school.

I think the PP's point is it's a first degree in the subject, not advanced study. On the other hand undergrad degrees include a lot of study outside the major, while the law student has three years of study in the area.

And yes in many countries law degrees are first degrees. There's no evidence that lawyers in say Britain or Australia are undereducated.

No one said that, but the training to be a British lawyer is actually longer - not the the three years plus bar exam. It's three years PLUS training for four years in chambers to be a solicitor for a total of seven years.

+1. At least six years to become a solicitor. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/career-advice/becoming-a-solicitor#:~:text=without%20a%20degree-,How%20long%20it%20takes,to%20follow%20a%20legal%20career.

At a minimum it is 3 years of undergrad degree, one year of law school (which is a professional skills based program) and then 2 years of work in a law firm as a trainee OR one year of pupillage as a barrister. So 5 years minimum including undergrad (6 to be a solicitor)- that is shorter than the US progression with less time in school.
- signed, English solicitor. In terms of training to be a lawyer, I think it is a better system because of the practical component. But there are trade offs.

Whatever. It is longer than in the US

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school is essentially the same as an undergrad degree, but USA determines social status by how many years of school you can afford, so they add extra years to professional degrees.

WTF are you talking about? I did four years at a SLAC and three at a T3 law school.

I think the PP's point is it's a first degree in the subject, not advanced study. On the other hand undergrad degrees include a lot of study outside the major, while the law student has three years of study in the area.

And yes in many countries law degrees are first degrees. There's no evidence that lawyers in say Britain or Australia are undereducated.

No one said that, but the training to be a British lawyer is actually longer - not the the three years plus bar exam. It's three years PLUS training for four years in chambers to be a solicitor for a total of seven years.

+1. At least six years to become a solicitor. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/career-advice/becoming-a-solicitor#:~:text=without%20a%20degree-,How%20long%20it%20takes,to%20follow%20a%20legal%20career.

At a minimum it is 3 years of undergrad degree, one year of law school (which is a professional skills based program) and then 2 years of work in a law firm as a trainee OR one year of pupillage as a barrister. So 5 years minimum including undergrad (6 to be a solicitor)- that is shorter than the US progression with less time in school.
- signed, English solicitor. In terms of training to be a lawyer, I think it is a better system because of the practical component. But there are trade offs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school is essentially the same as an undergrad degree, but USA determines social status by how many years of school you can afford, so they add extra years to professional degrees.

WTF are you talking about? I did four years at a SLAC and three at a T3 law school.

I think the PP's point is it's a first degree in the subject, not advanced study. On the other hand undergrad degrees include a lot of study outside the major, while the law student has three years of study in the area.

And yes in many countries law degrees are first degrees. There's no evidence that lawyers in say Britain or Australia are undereducated.

No one said that, but the training to be a British lawyer is actually longer - not the the three years plus bar exam. It's three years PLUS training for four years in chambers to be a solicitor for a total of seven years.

+1. At least six years to become a solicitor. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/career-advice/becoming-a-solicitor#:~:text=without%20a%20degree-,How%20long%20it%20takes,to%20follow%20a%20legal%20career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school is essentially the same as an undergrad degree, but USA determines social status by how many years of school you can afford, so they add extra years to professional degrees.

WTF are you talking about? I did four years at a SLAC and three at a T3 law school.

I think the PP's point is it's a first degree in the subject, not advanced study. On the other hand undergrad degrees include a lot of study outside the major, while the law student has three years of study in the area.

And yes in many countries law degrees are first degrees. There's no evidence that lawyers in say Britain or Australia are undereducated.

No one said that, but the training to be a British lawyer is actually longer - not the the three years plus bar exam. It's three years PLUS training for four years in chambers to be a solicitor for a total of seven years.

There are so many variables, for example UNT law program and Stanford grad program are apples and oranges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Ph.D. without a master’s in a reputable, American program is going to take about 7 years; 8 is more likely than 6. Law school is an easy 3, although you will have to pay for it; a Ph.D. will be funded at meager wages.

false and a weird statement to make

It's really the dissertation (difference in kind) that matters, not the number of years per se (though it generally takes a long time!)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school is essentially the same as an undergrad degree, but USA determines social status by how many years of school you can afford, so they add extra years to professional degrees.

WTF are you talking about? I did four years at a SLAC and three at a T3 law school.

I think the PP's point is it's a first degree in the subject, not advanced study. On the other hand undergrad degrees include a lot of study outside the major, while the law student has three years of study in the area.

And yes in many countries law degrees are first degrees. There's no evidence that lawyers in say Britain or Australia are undereducated.

Anonymous wrote:A Ph.D. without a master’s in a reputable, American program is going to take about 7 years; 8 is more likely than 6. Law school is an easy 3, although you will have to pay for it; a Ph.D. will be funded at meager wages.

false and a weird statement to make

Anonymous wrote:Law school is essentially the same as an undergrad degree, but USA determines social status by how many years of school you can afford, so they add extra years to professional degrees.

WTF are you talking about? I did four years at a SLAC and three at a T3 law school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are very different environments that lead to very different paths. I would not focus so much on what the school experience itself entails, but where it leads. Do you want to be a lawyer? A research scientist/academic? Start there. If you don't know I would pursue neither for now.

+1. These two things aren't comparable unless you are going for a SJD (Doctor of Juridical Science). That is a degree beyond JD.

also a rare and worthless degree.

Depends on the program and, to some extent, the Ph.D. concentration. You will read and write significantly more in a history PhD program or political theory PhD than a quantitative-focused Poli Sci program. All will likely be more reading than a JD. Plus, the goal of a PhD is to generate new knowledge with your dissertation (either as 3 peer-reviewed journal articles or a draft book manuscript) compared to mastering/applying existing knowledge for a JD. There are obvious differences in the career trajectories and prospects after graduation as well. It’s good to get clarification on the differences in degrees, but you should base your decision on the path you ultimately want to pursue after graduation. And talk to as many current students and recent grads as possible IRL, so that you don’t apply with a romanticized picture of either path.