In my Consititutional Law class,
we didn't read the Constitution

Based on what I have observed, many view law school as a hole you need to punch on your way into politics. Most presidential and governor campaigns are riddled with lawyers who have no jobs and looking to ride on someone's shirt tail. Law schools turn out far more lawyers than are needed, so they infiltrate what they can after graduating. Thus the frivolous law suits, class action attorneys, legislatures catering to lawyers more than insurance companies....

Yep, they can't make it as an attorney so they run for political office. A vast majority of congress are made up of these cretins.

All one needs to do is look at the number of lawyers per 100,000 citizens, and compare this to other countries. We are way overlawyered. We would be better off with individuals who could read, write, and speak in the common language. Unfortunately we live in a time when communication is not possible. SCOTUS has ruled that a premium, a payment for a contract voluntarily agreed to, is a tax and can be imposed by government. SCOTUS has ruled that sex, understood in 1974 as referring to biology (testes = male, ovaries = female) now means whatever you want on any given day. BLM has ruled that a felon, with dark skin color, resisting arrest, is a saint and must be worshipped and adored. Antifa has ruled that our Constitution must be replaced with a Communist Dictatorship. What do they learn in law school? That to get along, you have to go along. Worthless non-professional. Now, with the lockdown, there is a move to cancel bar exams! It is all crazy.

I hated law school. Yet, I would change little about it? Why? Well, the Socratic method remains the best way to create good lawyers. The author seems not to understand this. His arguments also suggest he didn’t belong in law school. Law students are 22+ year old college grads, usually taken from the top of their graduating classes. Why should a law professor have to tell law students to read the Constitution? Law schools are not trade schools. It simply doesn’t work to try to train law students like doctors, nurses, welders, bricklayers, construction workers, or any other profession or trade. Law school would need to be 8 years instead of 3 years. Rather, law schools train law students to think like lawyers. They are taught how to figure out the right questions to ask, how to find the answers, and how to Use those answers to advocate for their clients. Law schools don’t have it easy these days, as our high schools give out diplomas to everyone and no longer teach civics. A high school graduate should know the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These days, many college grads don’t even know that. Law schools aren’t supposed to take in every college grad. But it’s sad that they can’t assume college grads know anything. May can’t even compose a paragraph. Law schools don’t need to change their methods. They do need to get pickier about who they will accept.

Reply 4 says, "Law schools aren't trade schools." That sounds good but what does it really say? Does it say that law school should not teach a person how to practice law? By the same token, then, it would seem safe to say, "Med schools aren't trade schools and so they shouldn't teach a person how to practice medicine." The fact is, law schools ARE very much trade schools in that they are supposed to teach a person a trade. Their purpose is not to make a student into an elite intelllectual lacking practical skills. The first purpose (though admittedly not the only purpose) should be to teach a student how to perform services for the public competently in exchange for the (high) hourly rate he charges.

Now I know why the so-called lawyer who handled my late sister's estate was so stupid. When she did her will and wanted to leave money to the American Cancer Society he asked who that was. I got the exact wording for her will from their web site on the internet and he still botched that.

Big Bopper, the law is most definitely NOT a trade. It’s a profession. It’s not only far different from any trade, but it’s also different from any other profession. A doctor sees a patient, diagnoses the patient and prescribes a course of treatment. Often, there’s only one right diagnosis and one right way to treat the patient. Or, a plumber comes to a house to fix a broken toilet. There will likely be one correct diagnosis and a right way to fix it. This is normally not true at all in the law. There are often several ways to skin a cat, and they often all can be effective. It’s not a mechanical function. Yes, there are legal tasks such as probating a will that involve mechanical filling out and filing the proper legal forms. But that’s not real lawyering.

Hope this isn't considered off topic. When JFK was assassinated and it was necessary to have LBJ take the oath of office his advisers couldn't find it. They were desperate to find where it was at. Finally someone pointed out it's in The Constitution of the US.

Music schools too. I can read music perfectly but I still can't play the dam guitar.

This article is laughable. I cannot envision any law school professor, instructor, or whomever telling his or her law school students to "Read the Constitution." Such a statement to a classroom of law students would most likely result in quizzical looks all around. Student go to law school to learn how to think like a lawyer. This includes logical thinking in clear, coherent sentences and being able to verbalize such clear thinking. Practicing law is primarily writing and speaking. Many politicians have a law degree and are able to practice law if they chose to do so. Things learned in law school are beneficial in many endeavors other than being a lawyer, including, as a few examples, a legislator, a politician, a judge, a law enforcement officer, a writer, a proof reader, a businessman, a city manager, a county administrator, or a law librarian.

Sorry, Guys, but a Constitutional Law class should at least require the students to read the Constitution once during the semester. It should be at the beginning of the semester just in case something about the Constitution comes up. He says it takes 20 minutes to read. Should be mandated.

I've said for years: "The only time any of these *XXXXXX type people* ever read the Constitution is when they are looking for loopholes."

IMHO, y'all are missing the essential difference between MEDICINE and LAW, which is that in MEDICINE, whatever "truths" the doctor claims are judged by the constant and immutable reality in the OUTSIDE WORLD, whereas in LAW, whatever "truths" the lawyer claims are judged by the fickle and inconstant reality in the MINDS OF OTHERS. Where once our society was truly ruled by LAW, it is now ruled by LAW(YERS) and that has made all the difference.

I repair surgical instruments, and I can tell you that there are a lot of surgeons who apparently are clueless about how to use a number of surgical instruments. Some can be repaired easily, others not so much, and even others are ruined and need to be thrown away. Some of these instruments cost anywhere from $500 to $3500 dollars a piece. Having to toss an instrument that cost a thousand bucks or more simply because it was used the wrong way gets me PO'D beyond belief. In some cases, that one instrument cost more than my take home pay for a two week pay period.

There is the actual United States Constitution. And then there is "constitutional law". The two are often only tangentially connected. And sometimes completely unhinged from one another.

Ditto1958, I practiced law for a career of litigation at the highest levels of the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court. I disagree with your contention that law school should not teach a student how to practice law. Your argument is the law is not a "trade" like plumbing. But you're getting bogged down in semantics. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that law is not a trade like plumbing. How does that support your view that law school should not teach students how to practice law? You say that in law there are several ways to skin a cat. OK, I'll stipulate to that. But how does that justify a system where NONE of those several ways get taught to law students? We have a system where property lawyers don't know how to do a house closing, contract lawyers have never drafted a contract, and litigation lawyers have never seen the inside of a courtroom. I'm guessing that your reply would be that law school teaches students "how to think like a lawyer." I went to law school fully expecting to receive that secret handshake of "how to think like a lawyer." What I found was that thinking "like a lawyer" was a lawyer's phrase for thinking logically. I already knew how to think logically. "Thinking like a lawyer" was trivial logic in comparison to the logical thinking required of me in college calculus and Differential Equations that I took when I was 18-19 as part of Engineering School. Anyone who can't already "think like a lawyer", i.e. think logically, has no business going to law school to learn how; he's a hopeless case.

That sure wasn't the case at UCLA Law forty years ago, and I very much doubt that it is now. Unfortunately, that school, like all of them, has gone much further left than it was back then, and it was bad back then.

Imagine, as a law student attending a class on Constitutional Law, and never having to read the US Constitution. Like pastors who don't read the Bible or police officers who don't read the laws of their jurisdiction. Stunning. Tell your kids to send their kids to vocational school. Don't waste money on college and avoid the communist indoctrination their kids would receive.