Comments on Goofing Off in Law School

• it comes up every year
• Posted by Larry on January 3, 2006 at 6:50am EST

• This issue comes up like clockwork every year, and since few people actually want to change law school, but seem to delight in calls to make it less intellectual (or shorten it to two years), not much will happen.

  But, a couple results of the survey are confusing. In general, the first year of law school is radically different from the last two. Just about everyone (across the country) is taking the same classes, and there is intense competition between students. Papers are rare (I think that first year legal writing classes count as “papers” but I might be wrong.) The second and third year starts to resemble conventional graduate school – with more papers, independent research, etc. -- but at most schools, it is still somewhat different.

  But, at the same time, in the second and third years, students become more acclimated to working, and don’t fall into time-wasting traps (often set by professors.)

  The problem, therefore, is that students are unlikely, in the first year, at most schools to “work on papers requiring integration of multiple sources.” (Some schools require this, but, by far, not most.) Likewise, first year students usually don’t participate in student government activities (but, for the most part, student government in law school isn’t take too seriously). Pro bono (at least within the contexts of the school) and clinical projects are usually off limits to first year students, too. Yet, for some reason, these activities, according to the study, were undertaken by more first year students than second-year students.

  Having “serious talks” with people of different ethnicities or political beliefs is overrated. Most of the time “serious talks” are just rap sessions. By the time someone gets to their second year of law school, most people realize that these talks are wastes of time, and if you want to engage in serious dialogue, you can do so in the context of scholarly work (which is much more self-promoting) or litigation.

• Posted by David on January 3, 2006 at 10:27am EST

• Havng recently graduated from law school, I am not surprised by the results of the survey. Even beginning in the spring semester of the second year, students become well-versed in how to "prepare" for a typical law school final. In the end, they realize what many 1Ls do not discover until it is too late: because of the way most law school courses are taught, if all you care about is getting a good grade, you rarely need to go to class and could likely get an outline from other students. It is an old adage that going to law school does not prepare you to become a lawyer and I almost entirely agree with that statement. Law schools could easily both give back to the community, provide a rewarding experience for 3Ls and teach how to be a real working attorney if they allowed the third year to essentially be an apprentice year. In other words, provide for nearly full-time, year long clerkships, or internships with nonprofit or government agencies. Let students improve their practical skills rather than taking a class just for the sake of taking it. Students in their 3rd year at law school constantly talk about that 1 class that they took because they just needed a few more credits or it fit in their schedule. This is NOT what they should be wasting $35,000 on.

• Few want to change law school??
• Posted by JMG on January 3, 2006 at 10:27am EST

• I disagree that few people want to change law school. I would agree that few who benefit from the status quo want to.

  The sole purpose of a law school requirement is to prevent lawyer pay from approaching that of teachers. Without it, law schools would have to compete for students and auto-didacts could sit for the bar exam without supporting law professors in the style to which they are very accustomed (as Lincoln and Clarence Darrow, among other great lawyers did).

  Sitting for the bar exam in almost all states (46 if I recall correctly) requires a JD from a law school; in most of these states, the school must be accredited by the ABA. Thus, states have given the inner circle of the lawyers union the absolute right to control access to the union. The ABA's main requirement is a minimum amount of time spent in class.

  Thus, even as the ABA's own studies show that 80% of the civil legal needs of the poor are not met at all (and that their criminal defense needs are usually "met" by the least qualified and experienced attorneys), the ABA whispers plaintive suggestions that lawyers ought to serve the poor ... forgetting that they barred most of the people who want to do that at the door to the law school (and saddled the rest with $80k of debt, plus whatever undergrad debt they had).

  Meanwhile, state bars have unauthorized practice of law (UPL) committees whose sole function is to prevent anyone from horning in on the monopoly.

  So who cares whether third year students self-report working hard? The only point of the third year is to keep those students from the practice of law for another year and to promote more failures on the bar exam (which tests first year law ... although you aren't allowed to take it after you complete the tested courses).

• Law schools controlled by ABA groups
• Posted by Art D. on January 3, 2006 at 6:29pm EST

• For an interesting view of law school and how they are controlled by ABA -- Janet Donald, "Learning To Think"

  http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0787910325.html

  My neighbor's a Top 5 law school grad. LSAT was 99%, Nat'l Merit semi-finalist. Hated law school. Did it to one-up parents; joined dot-com.

  Worked hard first year of law school. Last two years -- watched movies 90% of time, then crammed last two weeks to get his pass-grade, a la Slick Willie Clinton. He says 3rd year is a joke.

• Posted by Gregory W. Bowman , Professor at Mississippi College School of Law on January 6, 2006 at 4:38am EST

• The unspoken question here is whether we should get rid of the third year of law school. The law is becoming increasingly splintered and hyper-specialized, and in my view the third year (and much of the second, for that matter) is there to allow people to take elective courses they are interested in. As a professor, I am constantly frustrated by how much I CANNOT cover in a single semester--including stuff that is terribly important for students to know. I'd actually think about ADDING A FOURTH YEAR if I had my way, unpopular though that may be, to provide more substantive instruction--as well as practically-focused externships and the like.

  I've posted more on this on my blog at http://law-career.blogspot.com.

• Posted by Nicole on February 2, 2006 at 8:50pm EST

• As a 2L student, I would have to agree with the survey with one exception: by the time students reach their 2nd and 3rd year of school, we've become time managers. We know what professors want in class and can read faster b/c we know how to focus in and get what the courts are trying to say. Also, burn out is common. For many students we've been going for 20 years of school straight through, in all honesty what do you expect? We're tired of school and ready to start careers. Also, at my school this is heightened by the fact that our grading system is a C curve and that at least half the population is on what is known as "structured curriculum" or curriculum set by the administration. These courses are what is tested on the bar, and though this isn't a bad thing, all those students are prepared for is the bar, not practice. While my school has many opportunities for pro bono (we have degree certification if we complete 25 hours of pro bono work) or externships, if you're on this structured curr. you don't really get the opportunity b/c the only electives you get to take are classes where you can fulfill advanced research and writing requirements. This fosters burn out...and what's worse they do this to try and appease the ABA into a better tier-ranking without regard to the fact that our graduates who leave the area cannot find jobs b/c (while we may pass the bar) we have to compete with a consist "top 50 school" and another "tier one" ranked school. So, I am one of those students that feel after the second year, all I should do is get practical experience and study for the bar.