Required law school

March 27, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
I know I’m a little late on this one, but has anyone else seen The Onion article, “Year of law school now mandatory for nation’s 25-year-olds?” The article ran in the satirical paper March 11, but I remember seeing it recently advertised on Slate.com.

According to the “news” article, every 25-year-old would have to attend a year of law school, regardless of their current life plan. It even has an Indiana connection, “quoting” Rep. Steve Buyer of Indiana as saying the new measure “would effectively void any real-world responsibilities for another full year.”

The article is obviously poking fun at the idea that some people look at law school as a way to postpone entering the real world for a little longer or to placate their parents. I have had conversations with people discussing the idea of law school as a fallback if their original life plans fall through.

Law students, what do you think of the article? Funny or offensive? Do you think some people choose to go to law school to make their parents happy or put off dealing with having to get a job and enter the real world?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I found it quite comical. I am only a year out of law school, but we would all be lying if we said that every single one of our peers was in law school for overly compassionate and dignified reasons. It is absolutely true that some people go to law school for status reasons or to postpone entering the real world for a little bit longer. Although I have no idea why anyone would want to subject themselves to the emotional rollercoaster and ridiculous debt.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT