That’s Not As Obvious As It Sounds.
Laws are only as good as the judges tasked with upholding them. And lately, journalists across the U.S. have learned that the legal protections they thought they could rely upon often exist only on paper. But what they may not realize is that, in many states, some judges deciding their constitutional rights aren’t even required to go to law school.
I don’t see a problem with this, provided they pass the bar exam. It’s incredibly difficult to pass the bar without going to law school, so the vast majority do (except maybe Frank Abagnale Jr. from Catch Me If You Can fame).
I really don’t want to set a precedent that bars qualified individuals because their school was discredited or something. What should matter is competence and experience, not education.
We require medical doctors to have a medical degree. Requiring jurists to have a juris degree seems pretty reasonable to me.
We don’t require lawyers to have a law degree, politicians to have a political science degree, or engineers to have an engineering degree. We merely expect them to pass whatever tests we have to prove their competence.
A law degree tells me very little about the judge’s respect for and knowledge of the law, it just tells me they completed some years of schooling. A formal examination like the bar exam gives me information about their knowledge relative to other candidates, and their experience as a lawyer gives me information about their respect for the law. So I don’t weigh where they went to school or even whether they have a job nearly as highly as I do the bar exam or their working experience and reviews from their peers.
The same also goes for a doctor, I don’t particularly care where my doctor went to school, I care where and under whom they did their residency, as well as an evaluation by their peers. I also want to see proof that they’re staying current in their field.
