Whomever St. Valentine was, its fairly certain that St. Valentine was not the Saint of Love. There are at least 14 saints whom are named Valentine. The one whose feast day is February 14 is something of an enigma. It is known that he was buried at the Via Flaminia, north of Rome, but nothing more is really known about him. He is said to have been a martyr, but nothing is known about the circumstances of his martyrdom. Various lists of martyrs include him as a priest in Rome, a Bishop in what is modern Terni, or a faithful martyr in Roman Africa.
In 1493, the Nuremburg Chronicle included a story about a priest of Rome who was martyred during the reign of Claudius II. If this is true, it would put the date of his martyrdom between A.D. 268-270, as Claudius II was not in power for long. According to the Chronicle, he was a Roman priest who was marrying Christians, despite Roman edicts forbidding the practice. After being arrested, he refused to recant, and was eventually beaten, stoned, and beheaded. However, there is no evidence on where the Chronicle obtained its information, and again, this story, while a possible source of the legend of St. Valentine being a patron saint of lovers, has no verification and cannot be seriously considered.
The earliest mention in historical records of February 14 being connected with lovers comes in Chaucer's Parliament of Foules, published in the late 1300's. This is the first mention of romantic traditions being associated with February 14, and/or with the commemoration of the feast of St. Valentine. It has even been argued by some that this feast was coopted as a Christian holiday from the pagan holiday of Lupercalia, a springtime cleaning and purging festival that happened about this time of year. While this is certainly possible, and the early Church was not above such things, (i.e. Christmas conveniently being held about the same time as the Roman Saturnalia), there isn't any direct evidence of this either.
The long and short of it, we don't know how the romantic link to February 14 started, and while we don't know where it started, we celebrate it to this day. Millions of dollars are spent on cards, candy, gifts and other things in the name of "love"., and many seem to believe that St. Valentine is actually behind the holiday as we know it. More likely, Hallmark and the jewelry and chocolate merchants are behind it as we have it now, but it does nothing wrong to be kind to someone you love on the feast of St. Valentine.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
End of an Era - The Tyrant is Gone
After 18 days of largely peaceful protest, with his people nearly universal in their demand that he leave, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt resigned on February 11, 2011. Thus ends 30 years of autocratic rule in a nation which has been, during that time, a friend of the United States. The people of Egypt deserve and deserved better.
Alas, this is another case of the United States putting its national interest ahead of the interests of world peace, and indeed, that of ultimately the United States, by aligning itself with a despot who showed little interest in true democratic reform, despite years of interest by the people of Egypt. The United States, more specifically, in the current matter, has been especially spineless. The "leadership" of President Obama has not helped the situation, and indeed, it may come back to haunt us. Mr. Obama apparently would not or could not see the writing on the walls, that as clearly as a hieroglyph, said that Mubarak would be leaving. The question was not if, but when.
Fortunately, Egypt is not Iran. The demonstrators were not led by religious fanatics, but by largely secular individuals who wanted an end to the corruption, economic malaise, and the brutal treatment by Egyptian security forces. Although the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a tangential role in the protests, they are not a majority, and their influence has been heavily discredited by their willingness to engage in negotiations with the Mubarak regime. Other parties will form coalitions, but none of the major parties in Egypt are driven by the same religious fervor which was prevalent in Iran in 1978.
Part of this is the religious difference. The majority of Egyptians are Sunni. The majority of Iranians are Shi'ite. The these two sects of Islam have different views, and more importantly, different leadership structures. The Sunni sect tends to have religious councils and meetings, and lacks a hierarchical system which would be inclined to cause the problems that have happened under Shi'ite revoluations. The Shii'a, on the other hand, have a hierarchical system where their Grand Ayatollah governs and as we can see in Iran, governs with an iron fist. It is unlikely that this will take place in Egypt.
The United States should not waste this opportunity to offer our help to the people of Egypt, as they remake their government in a way which will benefit them all. However, our help should not be to tell them how to do it, but rather, to help them build consensus and learn of the options, so that the people of Egypt decide how they will be governed. For too many years, the United States has imposed its view of democracy on other countries, and we should have learned to regret it. Let's hope that this time, the United States learns and stands in solidarity with the people of Egypt as they embark on the great adventure of rebuilding their grand and glorious nation.
Alas, this is another case of the United States putting its national interest ahead of the interests of world peace, and indeed, that of ultimately the United States, by aligning itself with a despot who showed little interest in true democratic reform, despite years of interest by the people of Egypt. The United States, more specifically, in the current matter, has been especially spineless. The "leadership" of President Obama has not helped the situation, and indeed, it may come back to haunt us. Mr. Obama apparently would not or could not see the writing on the walls, that as clearly as a hieroglyph, said that Mubarak would be leaving. The question was not if, but when.
Fortunately, Egypt is not Iran. The demonstrators were not led by religious fanatics, but by largely secular individuals who wanted an end to the corruption, economic malaise, and the brutal treatment by Egyptian security forces. Although the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a tangential role in the protests, they are not a majority, and their influence has been heavily discredited by their willingness to engage in negotiations with the Mubarak regime. Other parties will form coalitions, but none of the major parties in Egypt are driven by the same religious fervor which was prevalent in Iran in 1978.
Part of this is the religious difference. The majority of Egyptians are Sunni. The majority of Iranians are Shi'ite. The these two sects of Islam have different views, and more importantly, different leadership structures. The Sunni sect tends to have religious councils and meetings, and lacks a hierarchical system which would be inclined to cause the problems that have happened under Shi'ite revoluations. The Shii'a, on the other hand, have a hierarchical system where their Grand Ayatollah governs and as we can see in Iran, governs with an iron fist. It is unlikely that this will take place in Egypt.
The United States should not waste this opportunity to offer our help to the people of Egypt, as they remake their government in a way which will benefit them all. However, our help should not be to tell them how to do it, but rather, to help them build consensus and learn of the options, so that the people of Egypt decide how they will be governed. For too many years, the United States has imposed its view of democracy on other countries, and we should have learned to regret it. Let's hope that this time, the United States learns and stands in solidarity with the people of Egypt as they embark on the great adventure of rebuilding their grand and glorious nation.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Hypocrisy All Around
This post is addressing the hypocrisy of both the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives in American politics when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty. It will not address whether abortion or the death penalty should become public policy, simply the fallacies in both these groups ideology.
Many conservatives, especially the most active, pride themselves on supporting the right to life. Whether they believe life should be protected for religious or legal reasons is irrelevant. Their fundamental belief that all life should be protected is what matters. Now, for the vast majority of conservatives the right to life extends to unborn children. Because of this belief abortion should be illegal so life is ensured, and anyone who does this act is committing murder. However these very same people who believe unborn children have the right to live disregard those values when it comes to the issue of the death penalty.
When conservative activists who support the death penalty were asked the question, “[w]hy do you favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, the top answers included punishment fits the crime, they deserve it, and saves tax payers money. Only four percent picked to serve justice. The fact is the death penalty is murder; something most conservatives do not seem to understand. A life is being taken when the act is not necessary. Convicted murders can and are thrown in prison for the rest of their lives each and every day. They are no longer a threat to society behind bars. If one’s belief is that all life is sacred or should be protected by law it should not only be when it suits their best interests. The fact is a life is a life, whether they are convicted of murder or not. This reason is why extreme conservatives are hypocrites.
Conservatives are not the only ones who have contradictions in their beliefs when it comes to pro-choice and the death penalty. Liberals do as well. Most liberals are pro-choice. This does not mean they are for killing unborn children, simply that they believe it is a personal choice. Their hypocrisy exists because a majority of liberals also believe the death penalty is wrong. One of the most profound answers as to why liberals are against it is the death penalty is murder. The fact is they are right. Whether the death penalty is carried out for retribution, justice, or financial reasons, it still is taking a life needlessly. Following this logic neither people nor the government should take a life. Yet, many liberals support the right for individuals to make such a decision every day when they support pro-choice. The fact is life exists prior to birth in the eye of the law. If a pregnant woman who is three month pregnant is murdered by a robber, that person will be charged not with one murder but two, in most states. Ergo, life exists before birth in the eyes of the law. Roe vs. Wade (citation needed) established that life began before birth, although the actual time when it began is still subject to legal interpretation. Politics is not perfect and every belief and decision is not always correct, moral, or legal, but this article shows the inconsistencies in many people’s beliefs when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty.
Many conservatives, especially the most active, pride themselves on supporting the right to life. Whether they believe life should be protected for religious or legal reasons is irrelevant. Their fundamental belief that all life should be protected is what matters. Now, for the vast majority of conservatives the right to life extends to unborn children. Because of this belief abortion should be illegal so life is ensured, and anyone who does this act is committing murder. However these very same people who believe unborn children have the right to live disregard those values when it comes to the issue of the death penalty.
When conservative activists who support the death penalty were asked the question, “[w]hy do you favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, the top answers included punishment fits the crime, they deserve it, and saves tax payers money. Only four percent picked to serve justice. The fact is the death penalty is murder; something most conservatives do not seem to understand. A life is being taken when the act is not necessary. Convicted murders can and are thrown in prison for the rest of their lives each and every day. They are no longer a threat to society behind bars. If one’s belief is that all life is sacred or should be protected by law it should not only be when it suits their best interests. The fact is a life is a life, whether they are convicted of murder or not. This reason is why extreme conservatives are hypocrites.
Conservatives are not the only ones who have contradictions in their beliefs when it comes to pro-choice and the death penalty. Liberals do as well. Most liberals are pro-choice. This does not mean they are for killing unborn children, simply that they believe it is a personal choice. Their hypocrisy exists because a majority of liberals also believe the death penalty is wrong. One of the most profound answers as to why liberals are against it is the death penalty is murder. The fact is they are right. Whether the death penalty is carried out for retribution, justice, or financial reasons, it still is taking a life needlessly. Following this logic neither people nor the government should take a life. Yet, many liberals support the right for individuals to make such a decision every day when they support pro-choice. The fact is life exists prior to birth in the eye of the law. If a pregnant woman who is three month pregnant is murdered by a robber, that person will be charged not with one murder but two, in most states. Ergo, life exists before birth in the eyes of the law. Roe vs. Wade (citation needed) established that life began before birth, although the actual time when it began is still subject to legal interpretation. Politics is not perfect and every belief and decision is not always correct, moral, or legal, but this article shows the inconsistencies in many people’s beliefs when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Truth about the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
Several different blogs have recently gone into hysterics over HR 3, which was introduced into the US House of Representatives with 173 sponsors. Let's discuss several of its provisions which have been the subject of debate, and compare them with what is actually meant. To see the full text of the bill, (it is actually fairly short), click HERE
I might note that this bill violates one of the Republican and Tea Partiers' first rules, in that there is nothing in the bill indicating where in the constitution that Congress is authorized to pass this legislation . Of course, Congress IS authorized to do this by the powers vested in Article I, Section 8. But, at the beginning of this term of Congress, the Republicans and Tea Partiers made it clear that they were going to require every bill to have a clause which establishes its "constitutional legitimacy", and this bill does not do so. Perhaps that requirement only applies to bills that are sponsored by Democrats?
Sections 301, 302 and 303 of the bill speak about prohibiting the use of federal or public funds, including trust funds, to fund abortions. Simply put, this means that no government subsidized program, including any program such as medicaid or medicare, can fund an abortion. If a woman wishes to have an elective abortion, she must pay for it out of her own pocket. It also states that the woman cannot have a tax benefit for self-funding an abortion.
Section 305 and 306 allow for insurance companies to offer separate plans to women that will cover abortions, and I presume that an insurance company could also offer a separate abortion policy if it so desired. It also states that taxpayer funds are not to be used to buy such insurance. Again, this is in keeping with the desire that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, that she pay for it out of her pocket, and not have the taxpayer pay for it in any way.
Section 309 is the section which seems to bring certain people almost to the point of hysteria. This section has two parts. One part states that Section 301, 302 and 303 shall not apply when there is a case of forcible rape. This has been seized upon by some, perhaps with agendas of their own, to imply that force would be necessary to be proven, and that somehow, the Republicans are "redefining" the crime of rape. That is complete hogwash. Rape, at the common law, had 5 elements to make it a crime. Those were: penetration, force or resistance, non-consent, absence of a marital relationship, and mens rea. Modern statutes have evolved considerably from that. A handful of states allow for a prosecution without proof of force, but this is not the prevailing view in the United States. However, what counts as force has changed considerably, to include intimidation, psychological force, and other non-violent means of forcing the act. A review of state statutes reveals that in all states under this law, no changes will need to be made to the rape classifications in order for a woman to seek an abortion after being raped.
Section 309 also has a provision for incest where the victim is a minor. Incest is a completely separate crime versus rape. In the case of a minor, there may be an underlying rape charge, especially if it is shown that the victim was coerced into sex with someone prohibited by family relationship. An adult, however, is presumed to be able to give consent. If the woman did not give consent, or was coerced into the sexual act, then again, it may be rape, and the statement above about Section 309(a) would apply. An incestuous relationship where the woman is of legal age, and freely consents to the sexual act, should not be treated any differently than any other case of a sexual relationship where the woman finds she is pregnant and then has second thoughts. I realize that abortion up to a certain point is legal in the US, whether I like it or not, and if it is going to remain legal, the government has a right to refuse to pay for it.
In short, HR3 is a bill which seeks to make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions. If a woman chooses this drastic end to a human life, she should pay for it out of her pocket, and the taxpayers should not be complicit in assisting her in doing so.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Dictatorships, Oligarchies, and Theocracies Beware
“The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.” - Machiavelli
Beginning in January, 2011 the Islamic world has witnessed grassroots movements calling for more political and economic freedoms in the states of the Republic of Tunisia, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It first started in Tunisia when protestors, hard hit by the economy, began protesting in the streets. This phenomenon has become known as the Jasmine Revolution. This largely unexpected and sudden movement resulted in the resignation of the authoritarian president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, and a new interim government consisting of oppositionist leaders.
Only days after this shocking event rang through the Islamic world protesters took the street in the Arab Republic of Egypt calling for the resignation of President Mubarak and new political elections to be held. President Mubarak, known as an authoritarian leader in the Middle Eastern world and violator of political freedoms for almost thirty years, attempted to use once again heavy handed measures to stop the protests. His order to send police and military forces to stop the massive protests were futile and only seemed to encourage them even more. On February 1, CNN reported that President Mubarak would not run for reelection in the next scheduled election in September. But such a statement is too little too late for the vast majority of Egyptians. They want him out of power and most likely he will be within a matter of weeks.
The Kingdom of Jordan too is seeing civil unrest. Jordan, a relatively modern Islamic country and important ally to the United States is experiencing massive protests largely due to economic reasons. On February 1, 2011, King Abdullah II of Jordan fired his government after a demand from protesters in the country for more democratic government and accountability. New Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit has been given the task to implement “real political reform in the king’s vision of comprehensive reform, modernization, and development.” Other countries in the region are witnessing talk of civil unrest – Syria, and Yemen.
Let these recent phenomenons in the Middle East be a warning to dictatorships, oligarchies, and theocracies around the world. The famous saying from Machiavelli’s The Prince,” it is far safer to be feared than loved...,” does not necessarily hold true. If these events in the Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan, teach us anything it is that repressive regimes are not immune to revolutions.
Suddam Hussein, the former evil dictator of Iraq, was able to hold onto power due to his practical nature. He knew the importance of keeping enough of Iraqi people happy. That is why Iraq boasted a strong economy and a decent size middle class. Members of important families including those in the middle-class were even allowed to leave the country for vacation.
The technocrat oligarchy that rules the People’s Republic of China have given many economic freedoms to its’ citizens; they understand the importance the economy has on peoples’ opinion about the government in power. China’s pragmatic economic policies for the last 30 years have allowed the communist party to stay in power and kept many Chinese’ minds off political freedoms.
These examples of authoritarian leaders understand the limits of their authoritarian power over their people; something many leaders in the Middle Eastern world seem to forget. Whether a country is a democracy or an authoritarian regime, it ultimately stays in power at the will of the people. The leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Syria continue to repress their citizens at their own peril.
Beginning in January, 2011 the Islamic world has witnessed grassroots movements calling for more political and economic freedoms in the states of the Republic of Tunisia, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It first started in Tunisia when protestors, hard hit by the economy, began protesting in the streets. This phenomenon has become known as the Jasmine Revolution. This largely unexpected and sudden movement resulted in the resignation of the authoritarian president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, and a new interim government consisting of oppositionist leaders.
Only days after this shocking event rang through the Islamic world protesters took the street in the Arab Republic of Egypt calling for the resignation of President Mubarak and new political elections to be held. President Mubarak, known as an authoritarian leader in the Middle Eastern world and violator of political freedoms for almost thirty years, attempted to use once again heavy handed measures to stop the protests. His order to send police and military forces to stop the massive protests were futile and only seemed to encourage them even more. On February 1, CNN reported that President Mubarak would not run for reelection in the next scheduled election in September. But such a statement is too little too late for the vast majority of Egyptians. They want him out of power and most likely he will be within a matter of weeks.
The Kingdom of Jordan too is seeing civil unrest. Jordan, a relatively modern Islamic country and important ally to the United States is experiencing massive protests largely due to economic reasons. On February 1, 2011, King Abdullah II of Jordan fired his government after a demand from protesters in the country for more democratic government and accountability. New Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit has been given the task to implement “real political reform in the king’s vision of comprehensive reform, modernization, and development.” Other countries in the region are witnessing talk of civil unrest – Syria, and Yemen.
Let these recent phenomenons in the Middle East be a warning to dictatorships, oligarchies, and theocracies around the world. The famous saying from Machiavelli’s The Prince,” it is far safer to be feared than loved...,” does not necessarily hold true. If these events in the Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan, teach us anything it is that repressive regimes are not immune to revolutions.
Suddam Hussein, the former evil dictator of Iraq, was able to hold onto power due to his practical nature. He knew the importance of keeping enough of Iraqi people happy. That is why Iraq boasted a strong economy and a decent size middle class. Members of important families including those in the middle-class were even allowed to leave the country for vacation.
The technocrat oligarchy that rules the People’s Republic of China have given many economic freedoms to its’ citizens; they understand the importance the economy has on peoples’ opinion about the government in power. China’s pragmatic economic policies for the last 30 years have allowed the communist party to stay in power and kept many Chinese’ minds off political freedoms.
These examples of authoritarian leaders understand the limits of their authoritarian power over their people; something many leaders in the Middle Eastern world seem to forget. Whether a country is a democracy or an authoritarian regime, it ultimately stays in power at the will of the people. The leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Syria continue to repress their citizens at their own peril.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
The Prestigious Doctorate of Jurisprudence: Horrible Career Prospects & Financial Ruin
Attorneys, Judges, and holders of the Doctorate of Jurisprudence (law degree) have it made. Once you get this degree you are set for life. Sit back and enjoy your $100,000 plus job, bonuses, and your brand new sports car. Wrong. That’s the view many Americans have about the legal community and the one many law schools are trying to convey. The truth is that in reality the legal market is saturated with law degrees and licensed attorneys, and in recent years the market is falling out from under them. It is all about supply and demand.
According to the American Bar Association there are currently 1,180,386 practicing attorneys in the United States. This is a huge number and to make matters worse from 2007-2008 a whooping 141,719 students enrolled in law school. These numbers are fairly constituent year to year meaning 45,000 new law degree holders enter the job market each and every year. (American Bar Association) Just think in three years time the legal profession will witness an additional 10% of the current level of practicing attorneys entering the field. Typically, according to the Department of Labor most occupations only grow 10-15 percent every ten years NOT 10-15 percent every three years.
Not only is the supply and demand of a law degree causing problems but so is the financial burden students much endure in able to obtain such a degree. Tuition even at mediocre law schools can cost anywhere from $38,000 to $45,000 a year. Then figure in cost of living, books, and extra loans while they study for the bar exam, students can easily leave school with debt ranging from $157,000 to $178,000. (Northwestern Law) Now if students think they will be just fine since they are going to land that “Big Law” job right out of law school think again. Unless they are going to a law school ranked in the top 20 and graduate in the top ten percent of their class or plan on graduating in the top three percent of their class from a lower ranked school they are dreaming. The truth is the vast majority of law students do not ever practice big law.
The American Bar Association estimates that with the increasing burden of financial debt on most law school graduates they must find jobs that pay at least $65,000 or more a year just in order to make the minimum payments on their debt. However, finding a job paying this much is no small feat either. Many firms, small, medium, and large sized are cutting back on hiring due to the recession, and many are not even hiring students who interned with them. The reality is many lawyers their first year out of school get paid $45,000-$60,000 a year. That is very hard to pay off those loans when they make that much. Law students might be committing themselves to a life of indentured servitude at least through their twenties and thirties.
That being said hope is not all lost if people know they want to be an attorney. Students don’t have to go to the best law school they can get into in order to be successful and such a decision is not necessarily wise given the current economic situation for the legal market. Several options are available that make legal education more affordable. 1. Go to a law school that has lower tuition, many state schools have relatively low tuition costs. For example, the University of South Dakota, total cost of attendance is only $24,502 for state residents and $34,907 for out of state residents a year. Other state schools that have cheaper costs of attendance include University of North Dakota, University of New Mexico, University of Nebraska, and the University of Kansas.
Another option is instead of attending law schools where they meet the average GPA and LSAT scores attend a lower ranked school where their scores are in the 75th percentile. There are a few benefits of doing this. First of all, many schools give merit-based scholarships to law students in the 75th percentile of the entering class, some of these scholarships are very generous. For example, the Hamline University Law School located in St. Paul Minnesota offers half tuition and full tuition scholarships to well qualified applicants. This allows students to leave law school with little to no debt. Another benefit of choosing this option is since students are attending a school they are more qualified for it might give them the edge over the other students making them more likely to graduate in the top part of their class enhancing career prospects.
The last option that will be mentioned is apply to schools that provide full-rides to public interest students or loan repayment programs. To students who are dedicated to public interest law this is the way to go. Many students who choose this option leave law school with little to no debt allowing them to practice in an area of law they really love and one that will really make a difference. Northeastern School of Law, Boston, Northwestern School of Law: Lewis & Clark, Portland, and American University School of Law, Washington D.C., are some of the best law schools for public interest law.
Warning: Students who want to practice public interest law, or for the government strongly consider these options! Many jobs in these areas of the law pay very little starting out so limiting the amount of debt is key when leaving law school.
According to the American Bar Association there are currently 1,180,386 practicing attorneys in the United States. This is a huge number and to make matters worse from 2007-2008 a whooping 141,719 students enrolled in law school. These numbers are fairly constituent year to year meaning 45,000 new law degree holders enter the job market each and every year. (American Bar Association) Just think in three years time the legal profession will witness an additional 10% of the current level of practicing attorneys entering the field. Typically, according to the Department of Labor most occupations only grow 10-15 percent every ten years NOT 10-15 percent every three years.
Not only is the supply and demand of a law degree causing problems but so is the financial burden students much endure in able to obtain such a degree. Tuition even at mediocre law schools can cost anywhere from $38,000 to $45,000 a year. Then figure in cost of living, books, and extra loans while they study for the bar exam, students can easily leave school with debt ranging from $157,000 to $178,000. (Northwestern Law) Now if students think they will be just fine since they are going to land that “Big Law” job right out of law school think again. Unless they are going to a law school ranked in the top 20 and graduate in the top ten percent of their class or plan on graduating in the top three percent of their class from a lower ranked school they are dreaming. The truth is the vast majority of law students do not ever practice big law.
The American Bar Association estimates that with the increasing burden of financial debt on most law school graduates they must find jobs that pay at least $65,000 or more a year just in order to make the minimum payments on their debt. However, finding a job paying this much is no small feat either. Many firms, small, medium, and large sized are cutting back on hiring due to the recession, and many are not even hiring students who interned with them. The reality is many lawyers their first year out of school get paid $45,000-$60,000 a year. That is very hard to pay off those loans when they make that much. Law students might be committing themselves to a life of indentured servitude at least through their twenties and thirties.
That being said hope is not all lost if people know they want to be an attorney. Students don’t have to go to the best law school they can get into in order to be successful and such a decision is not necessarily wise given the current economic situation for the legal market. Several options are available that make legal education more affordable. 1. Go to a law school that has lower tuition, many state schools have relatively low tuition costs. For example, the University of South Dakota, total cost of attendance is only $24,502 for state residents and $34,907 for out of state residents a year. Other state schools that have cheaper costs of attendance include University of North Dakota, University of New Mexico, University of Nebraska, and the University of Kansas.
Another option is instead of attending law schools where they meet the average GPA and LSAT scores attend a lower ranked school where their scores are in the 75th percentile. There are a few benefits of doing this. First of all, many schools give merit-based scholarships to law students in the 75th percentile of the entering class, some of these scholarships are very generous. For example, the Hamline University Law School located in St. Paul Minnesota offers half tuition and full tuition scholarships to well qualified applicants. This allows students to leave law school with little to no debt. Another benefit of choosing this option is since students are attending a school they are more qualified for it might give them the edge over the other students making them more likely to graduate in the top part of their class enhancing career prospects.
The last option that will be mentioned is apply to schools that provide full-rides to public interest students or loan repayment programs. To students who are dedicated to public interest law this is the way to go. Many students who choose this option leave law school with little to no debt allowing them to practice in an area of law they really love and one that will really make a difference. Northeastern School of Law, Boston, Northwestern School of Law: Lewis & Clark, Portland, and American University School of Law, Washington D.C., are some of the best law schools for public interest law.
Warning: Students who want to practice public interest law, or for the government strongly consider these options! Many jobs in these areas of the law pay very little starting out so limiting the amount of debt is key when leaving law school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)