The Everyone knows how difficult it is to study law, but everyone also know that one of the most difficult things is the very first step, and that is getting into law school. Not everyone who aims to be a lawyer can get into the law school of their choice, that is because some of the best law schools are of course very picky when it comes to their students. You wouldn’t blame them of course, they want to have the finest students that is why it is almost too impossible to get in. Without further ado, here are some of the toughest law schools to get into.
“Law is an imperfect profession in which success can rarely be achieved without some sacrifice of principle, thus all practicing lawyers, and most others in the profession, will necessarily be imperfect, especially in the eyes of young idealists. There is no perfect justice, just as there is no absolute ethics, but there is perfect injustice, and we know it when we see it.”
…show more content…
Unlike other law schools, Stanford only accommodates around 500 students. It is considered to be one of the country’s toughest law schools to get into, one of the the reasons may be the fact that they want to maintain their status in the top law schools with highest bar passage rates. In fact, in 2013, 97% of Stanford law graduates took the bar exam in New York for the very first time, and they managed to pass.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL
Last but definitely not the least is the University of Chicago Law School, which is considered to be one of America’s most influential law school when it comes to economic analysis of law. One of the major reasons why they are very selective of their students is that because they are one of the fifteen law schools in the United States, that produces lawyers that law firms want. So basically, if your resume says that you graduated from UCLS, law firms wouldn’t think twice of hiring
The University of California, Los Angeles, established in 1949, is a public institution that is recognized as one of the nation’s top law schools. The UCLA School of Law is acknowledged worldwide as a model of academic rigor and diversity, and distinguishes itself from other nationally ranked law schools by having established itself as the youngest. The school’s mission is to strive to offer an in-depth education in the fundamentals of ethical and professional practices of law through rigorous courses to help develop analytical skills in a cultural and diverse environment. According to Admissions Advisor Andrea Sossin-Bergman, the School of Law focuses on the presence of vital and diverse viewpoints that affect each student in significant ways with a respect to the quality of each student’s education (Sossin-Bergman).
Ivy League schools recruit students from a certain background, such as the “silver spoon” type. These schools pride themselves on being able have rich students in their facility and to have the access to the various donations and bragging rights on students graduating from their school and becoming elite business men and women. Ivy League schools are popular because of the people that are accepted into them. They are built off of wealthy
“Injustice is like a desert and justice is like an oasis of water” (Martin Luther King Jr.). Grant Wiggins, Paul Edgecomb, and Joan of Arc are heros of injustice.
Justice is perhaps the most formidable instrument that could be used in the pursuit of peace. It allows for people to rise above the state of mere nature and war with one another. However the fool believes that justice is a mere tool to be used to acquire power and rule at his own discretion. Can it be possible for anyone to be that virtuous? Or does power acquired in that manner actually come from somewhere else? Through justice it’s possible to produce a sovereign that is in harmony with the very people that constitute its power. The argument against the fool and for justice will proceed from this foundation.
Also, that justice is a certain type of specialization, meaning that performing a particular task that is a person’s own, not of someone else’s. Plato (2007), Polemarchus argues with Socrates in book I that, “Justice was to do good to a friend and harm to an enemy” (335b p.13). Plato (2007) he then responds, “It is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite the unjust man” (335d p.14). His views of justice are related to contemporary culture, because when someone does something that they are supposed to do, they receive credit or a reward for it, but if the opposite of that is performed, by not doing the particular task that is asked, they are then rewarded but with punishments. Also, that justice is doing the right thing in a society. Justice of contemporary culture does not diverge from the views offered in The Republic and Socrates views are adequate, because if a task is not performed the way it needs to be, and is supposed to be a person should not be rewarded for it. Additionally, that an individual should be just not
In the Republic, Plato discusses many topics, including the issue of justice versus injustice (Plato 34). Plato’s argument indicates that justice works interchangeably with proper ethics (Plato 35). According to Plato, in order for a person to live the “best life”, they must live with justice and ethics (Plato 35). These two terms are similar in the sense that it is subjective to each individual. One’s definition of justice results from their own beliefs of ethics, which varies from person to person. Plato claims that doing “justice” is the better way of living, even if it brings misfortune in the end (Plato 34-35). This brings up the ethical dispute that misfortunes from justice is better than rewards earned from injustice. However, as seen in modern day, there is still no universal idea as to whether or not something is justifiable or abides by the ethical conduct that is expected. Often times, an action may seem justified to one individual while it seems unjustified to another. In order for someone to get what they want, they don’t think about their actions, whether or not it is following their ethical codes. In this case, the idea of “justice” and “ethics” is purely a mirage of the mind that people created so that they have a reason to feel good about themselves. In today’s society, many people get away with doing “injustice” while the actions of “justice” are disregarded. The definition of “justice” and “ethics” is still open-ended as demonstrated by justice system of the United States. There are people getting away with crimes and innocent people being put into prisons. Many times, these cases communicate the racial discrimination in the states.
Upon the summation of the debate between Polemarchus and Socrates, Thrasymachus enters into the fray. He states that justice “is nothing other than advantage of the stronger” (Republic 338c), and also that the greatest life is that of perfect injustice, to be found in the life of a tyrant. This definition leaves no room for the common good because it creates a life of compet...
Book 1 of Plato's Republic raises the question what is justice? Four views of justice are examined. The first is that justice is speaking the truth and paying one's debt. The second is that justice is helping one's friends and harming one's enemies. The third view of justice is that it is to the advantage of the stronger. The last view is that injustice is more profitable than justice.
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
Justice plays a valuable part in the public’s life; no matter who you are or where you are from. In Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? the reader encounters six specific approaches to lawfulness and ethical morality, which constitute of utilitarianism, libertarianism, Locke, Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle. Each of these definitive philosophies falls under one of three general concepts and categories. These consist of freedom, virtue, and welfare. Exclusively judging the title of the book, one may think that it attempts to solve or bring forth ethical and moral issues of our time. After reading the book however, the reader becomes aware that Sandel’s work is much
According to Pojman (2006), justice is the constant and perpetual will to give every man his due. This would seem to imply that for justice to be carried out, people must get what they deserve. But there is some debate over what being just entails; to be just is to be fair, but is being fair truly to give people what they deserve? In this essay, I will detail why justice requires that people are given what they deserve through the scope of punishment, reward, and need.
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice has something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white.
Until we as a society view justice as an internal process rather than something shaped by “external forces,” (The Republic, 433c) we will never comprehend our true place within the Polis nor our own soul’s state of fulfillment as we begin to recognize our ‘just’
Does absolute justice exist or not? This essay will present arguments for the existence of absolute justice.
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In