Instigator / Pro

K_Michael

1581

rating

debates

64.47%

won

Topic

#750

Should the Basics of Law Be Taught in High School? (As an Elective)

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 5 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

K_Michael

Tags

Education

Parameters

Publication date: 04.11.2019 11:10PM
Last updated date: 04.24.2019 04:28PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Chitty-Chitty

1471

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Description

Should high schoolers have a basic knowledge of law? I think so. Not that it should be required, but there should be a class for it. I would hate to go to law school only to realize that I don't like it.

Round 1

K_Michael

04.15.2019 07:05PM

Pro

There are a few classes that teach some basic law if you count learning the amendments in history, and debate, which is an elective that schools have that can sorta prepare you for lawyering.

I can only vouch for my personal experience in my own high school, but if there can be a class for "World of Conspiracy Theory," or "Equine Sciences," I think that there can be an elective for law. If schools already have this and I'm just unaware, then all the better.

Roughly a third of college students change their major within three years and before getting a degree. [1] This means that money and scholarships are being wasted on courses that are never finished. I don't have a specific statistic on law students, but the information is still relevant.

A prevalent reason for this is that high school graduates are not well informed about their major before they choose it.

Law school is even worse. Because you have to go to a specific law school, rather than learn law at a normal college, there is no option of changing your major. Instead, you have to drop out. And the law school dropout rates range up into the 20%, though more expensive schools like Harvard necessarily have much lower rates. [2]

The point is that too many students walk in blind and don't like what they see. This is part of the reason for student loan debts, which affect 70% of college graduates. [3]

A solution I propose is to more thoroughly inform high school students of their courses of study before they choose their major. I might be doing a debate about that later on.

A basic law elective class is a step in the right direction.

[1] https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018434.pdf

[2] https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=198049

[3] https://www.debt.org/students/

Chitty-Chitty

04.16.2019 02:44PM

Con

I would argue that a basic knowledge of the law and its proceedings should be taught as a mandatory thing for a quarter or two. It is the duty of American citizens to be informed about the process of government, and the judicial branch is part of this.

In addition, it is inevitable that you would go into court for something or other, be it a traffic violation, speeding ticket, DUI, or a criminal charge. Knowing how to conduct yourself and how the case/verdict will happen will be helpful in the long run, especially if you know your rights. Or if you're a model citizen or have mandatory jury duty, it is still crucial to know how the law operates in enforcement and on a court scale.

Government classes are often taught, and it is mandatory for the school I attend. But the classes don't focus as heavily on the Supreme Court and lower courts as it does the legislative and executive branch. Everyone focuses on the President when, in fact, the Supreme Court has just as much influence.

Examples:

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which began the "separate but equal" doctrine
Roe v. Wade (1973), establishing that right to privacy extends to abortions
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), asserting that students have free speech in schools
Marbury v. Madison (1803), extending the Supreme Court's power

In my opinion, having a good knowledge of the law is imperative in being a good American citizen. It is the obligation of the American citizens to know about the government, on a small and large scale.

Round 2

K_Michael

04.16.2019 03:30PM

Pro

Ah. You're saying that a basic law should be required, not an elective.

Well, at my school, there are required credits, such as P.E. and Health that you have to take, even though they're "electives."

This is different from math, English, science, and history because they're not "Core Classes."

I don't oppose law as a required "elective." I was only thinking about preparing for law school when I made this debate, but it also makes sense that a degree of legal understanding is part of having good citizenship.

So I think that law should be a required elective. I know that in my description that I said "Not that it should be required," but I wasn't considering normal obligations in court.

I might also propose the law class being put under the same credit as Government classes so that students can pick between the two, but really they should take both.

Chitty-Chitty

04.16.2019 04:21PM

Con

Firstly, I would like to correct my statement "Or if you're a model citizen or have mandatory jury duty, it is still crucial to know how the law operates in enforcement and on a court scale." I meant "Even if" for the model citizen comment and I apologize if it was unclear. Continuing.

I would not say that the Government and law classes should be interchangeable, as they focus on different things. I'd also state that Government and law would be "core classes", because, once again, it is the duty of the American citizen to know about their government and the due process of law, as well as their rights (see here, apologies for the website format).
Instead of teaching us about the mitochondria for the 17th time in a row, we could learn something useful if the law class is obligatory. (I'm dead serious about this, there is too much reviewing of material.)
Required credits can take place over any year. For example, at my school, it is required we have at least one P.E. credit in order to graduate. But if you have a class that takes place over a quarter in a certain year, like Health in junior, it could make things much smoother.

Round 3

K_Michael

04.17.2019 03:08PM

Pro

I was only suggesting that they might implement it that way. Other classes have been like that at my school, like taking a foreign language and Journalism each counted as a Communications credit. It wasn't personally something I supported.

Fair point, but perhaps a question for another debate.

Fair and relevant.

But they call them Core Classes because you take them every year. Science, history, English, and math.

It would still be considered a required elective because it wouldn't do that. It would be like health: important knowledge, but not something you need to spend four years on.

Chitty-Chitty

04.17.2019 04:28PM

Con

1. Noted.

2. True, but it's something that needs to be talked about anyway.

3. I accept your point.

I would like to point out that if you're making the decision to go to law school, then it would be in your best interest to research law. I personally want to become a CTI in the Navy and get a Ph.D. in ornithology (the study of birds, hence my profile picture) so I can be a falconer. In order to completely see all my options, I've got to research. See what the requirements are. Besides, there are no classes for the foreign language I want to learn (Russian). There's no class exclusively about birds. Sometimes schools don't provide all the options. So find them yourself.

Chitty-Chitty

04.17.2019 07:21PM

#19

-->

@K_Michael

I just like birds, man. All the birds.

dave2242

04.17.2019 07:02PM

#18

-->

@K_Michael

i guess There was none a short while ago

K_Michael

04.17.2019 06:18PM

#17

-->

@dave2242

Wait, are there just a bunch of bird enthusiasts on DART? lol

dave2242

04.17.2019 06:14PM

#16

-->

@K_Michael

i dont think that is a kingfisher. but yes i agree it looks somewhat similar

K_Michael

04.17.2019 05:34PM

#15

-->

@Chitty-Chitty

And your profile is a kingfisher? It looks similar, anyways.

K_Michael

04.17.2019 05:31PM

#14

-->

@Chitty-Chitty

I'm fairly interested in ornithology, myself. I'm probably not going to major in it, though. It's more like a hobby.
What's your favorite bird? You said you wanted to be a falconer, so I'm guessing a bird of prey.

K_Michael

04.17.2019 03:09PM

#13

-->

@Chitty-Chitty

I would have responded sooner, but I didn't see a notification. Possibly I was clearing them as you published?

K_Michael

04.15.2019 07:09PM

#12

-->

@Wrick-It-Ralph

It doesn't matter if it is already being taught. Someone can argue for or against something being instituted even if it's already instituted. It's just like saying "Donald Trump should be President."

Wrick-It-Ralph

04.15.2019 04:07PM

#11

-->

@K_Michael

Let me save you the trouble, they're probably already teaching it.

K_Michael

04.15.2019 03:42PM

#10

-->

@Wrick-It-Ralph

All very valid, but I would still like certain things to be taught.

Wrick-It-Ralph

04.14.2019 04:56AM

On a slight tangent from this subject. I always see people claim "this and this and this need to be taught in school" or "I never learned this or this or this" and the funny thing is. They always named off something I learned in school. It's like a stigma of sorts. There's problems with schools obviously because we see problems with drop out rates especially in public schools, but people are always so quick to stab at the curriculum and not consider other factors like funding, or methodology behind the curriculum. etc.

I personally think that private schools should be illegal. There's precedent for this and it's ultimately beneficial because it forces EVERYBODY in the community to care about the schools because they don't get to pull their kid out of the system and leave the rest to rot.

Pinkfreud08

04.14.2019 04:42AM

-->

@K_Michael

I don't know how your high school is however at my high school in northern California we have various career pathways with classes for that pathway. For instance my junior and senior, I'll be taking Mock Trials, Foundations of Law and Public Service, and public service career core.

K_Michael

04.12.2019 02:28PM

should be

K_Michael

04.12.2019 02:28PM

-->

@Alec

I'm okay with that. But a curriculum be developed so that the schools have that option.

Alec

04.12.2019 10:35AM

-->

@K_Michael

I think the schools should decide for themselves whether or not to have this class. Some schools can't afford it.

Speedrace

04.12.2019 01:15AM

-->

@K_Michael

YESS, I want to go to law school and I would loooooooooooooooooooove this

K_Michael

04.12.2019 12:33AM

-->

@Wrick-It-Ralph

There's some stuff in the terms of legal research and language that high school doesn't cover.

K_Michael

04.12.2019 12:13AM

-->

@Wrick-It-Ralph

You might be right. I haven't been to law school, so I don't know if there's an appreciable difference between what high schoolers learn and law school. Of course, there's still the question of it it SHOULD...

Wrick-It-Ralph

04.12.2019 12:05AM

-->

@K_Michael

What makes you think that schools don't already do this? Do you mean local penal codes? Because Federal law is definitely taught in schools and it's not an elective, it's part of history class. They just sneak it in so good that you don't realize it, lol.

If you're talking about in depth semantic bar exam law, then maybe yes?

Ramshutu

04.22.2019 01:04PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Both sides are in agreement about teaching of law as a key agreement - the matter of argument is whether this teaching should be mandatory or optional.

The debate comes between an optional or a mandatory class. But con makes a better argument as to why teaching the law should be mandatory, and pro appears to agree with his case, arguing it should be a required elective.

As this resolution really boils down to semantics, I’m forced to decide based on my interpretation of the resolution. The resolution and the description appear to clearly imply an optional and non-required element - and as such I feel that both sides agreeing it should be required counts as con negating the resolution.

Arguments to con.

TheRealNihilist

04.19.2019 11:55PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

The contender was more arguing for a better version of the instigator's argument instead of an opposite or a difference that was enough to say he was on the opposing side.

PsychometricBrain

04.18.2019 06:06PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Both conceded, there was no serious disagreement, this topic should probably be debated again with a clearer title such as "Should every college have to offer a law course"

oromagi

04.18.2019 03:31AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Both sides seemed pretty solidly Pro. Con wanted to up law to a requirement and Pro was fine with that.

Barney

04.17.2019 06:17PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Both conceded.
Had there been a definition for elective, this could still be weighted. As is, there were too many unanswered questions; such as is a normal elective different from a required class?