Assorted links

Mr Dickens certainly puts up a spiritedly panglossian defence. His argument, however, proves too much. His logic applies not just to American education in total, but to each part of it. So let me pick a part where his argument that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds is obviously wrong – legal education. As I understand it, to be a lawyer in the US the system you leave school at 18 or so, do a four-year undergraduate degree, then a three yar postgaduate degree, then take your bar exams. Now you are 25 or more, have no work experience as a lawyer, and are probably deep in debt. Other common law countries do it differently. For example in England, you leave school and:-
†¢ Degree in law – three years full-time
†¢ Legal Practice Course – one year full-time
†¢ Practice-based training (training contract) incorporating the Professional Skills Course
– two years full-time
†¢ Admission to the roll of solicitors.

By the time you are 25 you have passed all your exams, have had two years apprenticeship experience in a law office and one year’s full professional practice under your belt. Your debts are far lower – and may indeed already be paid off; after all, you’ve been drawing a salary for three years. Since that is (it seems to me) a manifestly better system for everyone except the teachers and administrators in US universities, I think it stands as a demonstration that Mr Dickens is wrong.

I’m so glad to drop by your site and read your post. Thanks for this information.

school grants