Teacher's Salaries part 2

[James]

Ok this is the same discussion. The other was a bit off topic and also getting too long to follow. This is Kddani's original comment:

ETA: link to original discussion that expands on this comment and others.

http://greekchat.com/gcforums/showth...threadid=62627

Teacher's salaries

So reading my local newspaper... my high school's teachers are threatening to go on strike. Currently, "the starting salary for a teacher with a master's degree at South Fayette is $39,250, approximately $3,500 above the county average, according to the school district.The average teacher's salary is $55,940 a year, with one-third of South Fayette teachers earning more than $75,000 a year."

I know this isn't normal across the country, but all of you complaining come teach in PA!

It's sad that the average teacher's salary from my HS is fairly likely to be more than i'll make starting out of law school.

and one third of them making over $75K???? it's no wonder the school taxes are so high!

[APhi Diva]

Following up on Rudey's "don't you need a JD?" to step into a courtroom comment, you need a JD to even sit for the bar exam....then you need to not only pass the bar exam, but be admitted to the jurisdiction in question before stepping into a courtroom as a lawyer....so no, people cannot just "try" to be a lawyer....

As a PS, why was the thread closed in the first place?

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by APhi Diva
Following up on Rudey's "don't you need a JD?" to step into a courtroom comment, you need a JD to even sit for the bar exam....then you need to not only pass the bar exam, but be admitted to the jurisdiction in question before stepping into a courtroom as a lawyer....so no, people cannot just "try" to be a lawyer....

As a PS, why was the thread closed in the first place?

Don't know why the thread was closed, but I was going to reply to Rudey's post with this. I didn't think you could even step into the courtroom without going through several steps. Thank you for confirming that.

[James]

The thread wasn't closed because it was bad. I just think that at a certain point it can get too long and become "unwieldly" which discourages people from continuing a good discussion.

[kddani]

Originally posted by KSigkid
Don't know why the thread was closed

I don't know why either, thought it was a fairly civil discussion that stayed on track and while people were heated at times, it still went way better than most contraversial topics.

I also don't like my post being reposted in another thread without my follow up comments elaborating and clarifying what I meant.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I was posting a reply to Rudey's question when the thread was closed.

Originally posted by Rudey
Are you even legally allowed to serve as an attorney without a JD?

-Rudey

I'm not sure about all the details, but you can represent yourself in court which is called acting pro se.

My friend did this in court against a very well known NYC attorney and won. My friend couldn't afford an attorney of equal caliber since it would have cost $50,000 in retainer fees.

[kddani]

Originally posted by Peaches-n-Cream
I'm not sure about all the details, but you can represent yourself in court which is called acting pro se.

yes, anyone can represent themselves (for the most part), but you can't represent anyone else and you can't be paid to represent someone else

[Peaches-n-Cream]

Originally posted by kddani
yes, anyone can represent themselves (for the most part), but you can't represent anyone else and you can't be paid to represent someone else

Thanks for clarifying that.

Originally posted by kddani
yes, anyone can represent themselves (for the most part), but you can't represent anyone else and you can't be paid to represent someone else

That would be kinda funny if you could represent someone else, can you imagine the stupidity?

[James]

Actually there are federal courts dealing with specific issues where you can represent others . . . even though you are not a lawyer.

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
That would be kinda funny if you could represent someone else, can you imagine the stupidity?

[kddani]

Originally posted by James
Actually there are federal courts dealing with specific issues where you can represent others . . . even though you are not a lawyer.

What courts are you speaking of?

[James]

This is from the other thread I posted. These are "administrative courts"

The Federal Example

Another indication that individuals without bar approval can adequately render legal services is that most federal administrative agencies permit unlicensed practitioners to represent parties in cases before them, both adversarial and nonadversarial. According to the Results of the 1984 Survey of Non-Lawyer Practice Before Federal Administrative Agencies, published jointly in 1985 by the ABA Standing Committee on Lawyers’ Responsibility for Client Protection and the Center for Professional Responsibility, there have been few reports of problems with lay advocates.

The U.S. Patent Office administers a competency test that both attorneys and nonattorneys must pass before they can bring cases before the office. There is no evidence to suggest that the nonattorneys are any less capable than the attorneys in dealing with the complexities of patent law and procedure. And in the case of Sperry v. Florida Bar (1963), the Supreme Court rebuffed an attempt by the Florida bar to prevent a non-bar member from representing Florida clients in patent applications.

Accountants, who are usually not bar members, frequently advise their clients on tax matters, and "enrolled agents" are permitted to appear before the U.S. Tax Court on behalf of their clients in disputes with the Internal Revenue Service. Accountants usually understand tax law as well as or better than many lawyers. As Barlow Christensen argues in the American Bar Foundation Research Journal (1980):

The accountant who lives every day in the field of tax law almost surely has an understanding of that field comparable to a lawyer’s understanding. Indeed, a proficient accountant probably knows and understands the tax laws far better than does the general practice lawyer.

In Michigan, nonlawyers are permitted to represent parties in proceedings before the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC). That requires considerable knowledge of the relevant law, but there is no evidence that claimants or employers have been ill-served by nonlawyers. The Michigan bar in 1985 fought to have a slight ambiguity in the wording of the Michigan Employment Security Act interpreted in a way that would place MESC cases under Michigan’s UPL statute, but failed.

In many states, nonlawyer real estate agents have been successfully preparing legal conveyancing documents for years. In Arizona, for example, a state supreme court decision in 1961 ruled that such work constituted the "practice of law" and was therefore illegal (State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co.). The realtors mounted a campaign, vigorously opposed by the state bar, to overturn that decision by amending Arizona’s constitution. The public voted in favor of the amendment by almost four to one. Since the adoption of that amendment, no evidence of consumer harm from incompetent document preparation has come to light.

[PhoenixAzul]

To Comment on the Unions...

Unions are the reason my family has food on the table. My father has been a loyal union member for the past 30 some odd years of his life. He never "needed" his union steward until this past summer, when his finger was crushed and amputated at work. The union fought for his medical leave and to keep him employed. As a kid , we never crossed picket lines, switched newspapers so we wouldn't be scabs, brought doughnuts to a strike...the union is part of my family.

[kddani]

Originally posted by PhoenixAzul
To Comment on the Unions...

Unions are the reason my family has food on the table. My father has been a loyal union member for the past 30 some odd years of his life. He never "needed" his union steward until this past summer, when his finger was crushed and amputated at work. The union fought for his medical leave and to keep him employed. As a kid , we never crossed picket lines, switched newspapers so we wouldn't be scabs, brought doughnuts to a strike...the union is part of my family.

Not all unions are the same. I do see some of the importance of unions when I work on files every day of injured workers similar to your father. But teaching unions deal with a lot different subject matter than those of blue collar workers.

But are they necessary for teaching? Can they get too much power? In my opinion, they're not really necessary for teaching. And I do think they can get too much power when they offer too many protections, such as when the pay isn't commessurate (spelling way off on that one...) with performance. When a teacher can continually be lazy and not make any effort and still get pay raises.

[AGDee]

In Michigan (and I believe this is true in all 50 states), it is not legal to teach without a teaching certificate, which requires a degree in education, the passing of competency exams AND at least 20 credits of grad school in the first 5 years of teaching.

While anybody can try to be a teacher, not just anybody is actually capable of keeping the behaviors of 20-30 kids under control for 6 hours a day, knowing how to identify the learning styles of each individual child and making sure they teach to each learning style, evaluating which level each child performs at and keeping them challenged at their own levels, etc.

I definitely disagree with the statement "anybody can be a teacher" and I disagree even MORE with the statement "anybody can be a GOOD teacher".

Dee