• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is College Bull****? I think it is.

Dustin said:
Nowhere on that page does it say you don't need a college degree or need to attend law school to become part of the Bar. The page talks about unaccredited law schools and the such but it does not say you can become a lawyer or take the bar exam without attending a law school.


You might want to get your money back that you spent on college. It seems they didn't even teach you to read.
Click to expand...
You are quite right, apart from the bit which says
In addition, applicants who have not attended law school may qualify to take the examination if they trained in a law office or judge’s chambers for four years in accordance with certain rules and procedures and meet certain additional requirements.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension a little yourself?
 
Megalodon said:
From the link, on page 2, as directed :"In addition, applicants who have not attended law school may qualify to take the examination if they trained in a law office or judge’s chambers for four years in accordance with certain rules and procedures and meet certain additional requirements."

You are too stupid to argue with... This exchange is over.
Click to expand...


If you don't know the difference between 'taking the bar exam' and 'practicing law in California' then YOU are too stupid to argue with.


You're running away because you see the flaws in your absurd reasoning. So I will be the one ending this waste of time 'exchange' not you.


I'm done with your lies and childish insults.
 
Dustin said:
I'm not the one who first posted that link.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, but you tired to use it to support your argument. `Just because someone else was taken in by it, doesn't men that the information it contains is accurate.
 
Dustin said:
Red herring. Irrelevant to the conversation.


I won't respond to anymore posts asking irrelevant questions about my personal life.
Click to expand...

How is it irrelevant in a discussion about education to ask what your own education is?

You have a beef with colleges. OK. You don't think you learn much - if anything - from attending.

So, what is your own educational background?
 
brodski said:
No, but you tired to use it to support your argument. `Just because someone else was taken in by it, doesn't men that the information it contains is accurate.
Click to expand...


Well it's definitely accurate. I used it because it was used as a claim that you didn't need to have a degree or attend law school to become a lawyer.
 
Dustin said:
If you don't know the difference between 'taking the bar exam' and 'practicing law in California' ...
Click to expand...


You're quiet right, there are other requirements
Practicing law in California requires more than passing the bar examination.
Applicants must obtain a specified score on a nationally administered and graded
professional responsibility examination, pay required fees and successfully undergo a
moral character screening. In addition, applicants must not be reported in arrears with
child or family support payments.
Click to expand...
none of which requires a degree in law or anything else.
​
 
Dustin said:
If you don't know the difference between 'taking the bar exam' and 'practicing law in California' then YOU are too stupid to argue with.


You're running away because you see the flaws in your absurd reasoning. So I will be the one ending this waste of time 'exchange' not you.


I'm done with your lies and childish insults.
Click to expand...

Ok, one last time. Read this slowly, so that you might grasp it...
You do not need a college education to take the bar exam. Thus, if you pass the exam in those conditions, you will be practising law, in the US, without attending college. Wich you claimed was illegal.

You are evidence for the foolishness of expecting a student to correct their own mistakes. Not only you dont correct them, you can't even recognize and admit them.

I foresee a brilliant future for you either in the lawn landscaping or food fliping industries. And you'll keep complaining about how you could have done it, if "they" hadn't stopped you.
 
Hey, Dustin, I'm the one who posted the link about that law school book. I didn't use that as proof that you can practice law without attending law school, and no one else did either. Other posters had real information about that (including your very own Wikipedia source). Here's what I said about that book.

EBU said:
A fairly useless addition to the discussion about whether it is possible to practice law without having gone to law school.


http://www.lawschoolbible.com/
Click to expand...
 
Megalodon said:
You are evidence for the foolishness of expecting a student to correct their own mistakes. Not only you dont correct them, you can't even recognize and admit them.

I foresee a brilliant future for you either in the lawn landscaping or food fliping industries. And you'll keep complaining about how you could have done it, if "they" hadn't stopped you.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Megalomaniac. Willingly ignorant. Inflated ego. Illusions of grandeur.

Thus, a fanatic is born.
 
Dustin said:
See last posts and read the entire document. It specifies what I explained.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t, in fact it specifically explains how to become qualified without attending college. Can you give me a quote from the document (which you assert supports your claims) which says that you need a degree to be called to the bar in California?
 
Jimbo07 said:
I suppose you're also going to say that I should be bolding where appropriate for vectors and subscripting my indices. :p



I'm hoping this year to get a job marking (or as a lab assistant) for some of the general 100 level courses. This will help remind me what and how it is taught. We also have 100 level classes for non-physics majors, 100 level classes for physics majors and the spread of mechanics/electrical/modern classes for eng. phys majors. :D
Click to expand...

The general classes like highschool classes are physics with out any calculus. So yes you do need to often just accept the equations.


Inconsistencies yes. I'm not sure that you could demonstrate a mathematical meaning for these things taking the form that they have. I put to you that they wouldn't typically introduce even velocities and accelerations as being time derivatives of position. You just have to accept:

x(t) = x0 + v0t + (1/2)at2
Click to expand...

Not really, you can prove some of it it is getting the relationship from postion to acceleration that is a bit tricky but you can get that by looking at velocity and doing some tricks.

You do not need calculus to derive that equation it is just easier to do. You get it by doing this, concider something accelerating at a, its average speed is (1/2)a over the interval t=0->t=1 and adds A to that every second. Then you just look at the progression of how far it travels on a second by second basis, and you get the 1/2at^2 part.

Constant velocity equations don't need calculus to be dirrived.
 
Rob Lister said:
After reading every other page of this thread, I beg you all to leave Dustin alone.

I know it is unlikely but he may well take some of your well-put advice to heart and go to college...

and become a doctor...

THEN we have REAL problems.
Click to expand...

Let's just say that it seems likely that those Dustin would treat would have a better-than-average chance of ending up as kidabers...
 
Hey Dustin,

Name one of those "many" spelling errors I supposedly made that didn't involve a missing letter due to a sticky keyboard. You oddly don't seem to have addressed my post from last night.

Dustin said:
If you don't know the difference between 'taking the bar exam' and 'practicing law in California' then YOU are too stupid to argue with.
Click to expand...

If you'd gone to college, or, indeed, law school, you'd know that the bar exam is the licensing exam to practice law in a given state-- anyone allowed to take the bar exam is allowed to potentially pass the bar exam, and therefore to practice law. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there are some states in which attending or completing law school is not a prerequisite for sitting for the bar exam.

CFLarsen said:
No, really.

How old are you, Dustin?

What is your educational background?
Click to expand...
Hmm, recent history of blackheads coupled with an attitude of smug superiority utterly devoid of substance or justification. My money's still on the petulant 14 year old theory, which for Dustin's sake is the best we can hope for. It's not so unusual to be an obnoxious idiot at 14, and there's still hope that one's parents might knock some sense into one at some point. If he really is a grown-up like he claims to be, then it's probably too late.

ETA: Gratuitous kidaber reference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom