• Belgdore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The bar I took cost something like $2000 including two months of prep classes on top of law school. Then more money for a hotel stay so I could take a two day test. I would have preferred 4 months apprenticeship paid or no.

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You think travelling to and from unpaid work for four months is better than paying $2k and a hotel for one night?

      Average 21 working days a month, commute at $10 a day which is a very low estimate for the US, and its $840 + 2 months of lost wages.

      At minimum wage that’s $2320 before tax… but we’re talking (hopefully) intelligent people who can earn significantly more.

      At $20/h we’re looking at $6400 in lost wages by comparison to the old system you have described.

      This is bad for workers as its putting a greater financial barrier on entering the profession.

      • Belgdore@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I gave you my opinion, from my experience . If you’ve taken a bar and that’s your opinion, fine.

        The primary barrier to entry into the legal profession is law school, not the licensing exam.

        4 months of legal apprenticeship with a side gig isn’t bad. However, I would imagine that most applicants will be doing 4 months of paid clerkship with enough extra unpaid hours to meet the bar’s criteria.

        • soloner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would think 4 months would also help your resume. But then again, not sure if not having the bar exam could hurt your resume? Curious your opinion.