|
FirmlyRefuse 25 - 18 Apr 2012 - Main.MatthewVillar
|
| | I found this campaign (http://firmlyrefuse.tumblr.com) at Harvard to get students to think about why they are choosing to work for firms to be interesting, particularly given the themes of this course and our conversation today about grades.
Grades for me have served to stand-in for concerted thought as to what I'm actually doing here. I have convinced myself that if my grades are good enough, I'll have options because a strong transcript resonates across different realms of employment (this is essentially the point Ben made today about the fear of having paths foreclosed). No matter what it is actually decide I want to do with my practice, I consoled myself that having a strong strong transcript wouldn't be a detriment. Probably that's true, at least in bureaucratic employment fields where such factors matter, but focusing on grades has meant that I've spent little time thinking about my purpose in earning this license. This makes it more likely that I'll funnel into EIP, because it's easy and because I haven't really thought about what I would do instead. Grades aren't the only reason I haven't set about designing an alternative, but they are a part of it. | | | I know I'm pretty much entirely echoing what others have said but I find the "training" issue the hardest to understand. Arlene's point makes perfect sense to me - you learn by doing and you generally do more in places other than firms, especially early on. However, like Abiola said, it seems like many lawyers in the public sector strongly recommend spending a couple of years in firms for the training aspect. Abiola offered the higher amount of training resources in firms as an explanation, but it still seems to me that if 90%+ of what a young firm lawyer does is doc review then how are those training resources actually being applied? I feel like the best way to figure this out would be to talk to more public sector lawyers and dig deeper into why many of them suggest starting out in firms, but perhaps someone here might be able to offer some further explanation? Thanks and sorry if I'm being repetitive...
-- JosephItkis - 18 Apr 2012 | |
>
> | Those of us in Bobbit's Legal Methods section listened to one of his guest speakers (my law school memory is failing me so I forget her name and I do not remember exactly what she did--but she was kind of a big shot) explain to us how, regardless of what we wanted to end up doing, we should take the first few years out of law school to work in a big firm. She recommended this path for two reasons: the money which would help pay back loans, and the training/exposure opportunity. She specifically mentioned that when she left the private sector, she was better prepared than the lawyers she began to work with in the public sector whom had not spent time at a firm. This sounded great to me! A firm would only "open more doors!" After spending the first semester being immersed in an environment where everyone is bred to feel this way I really did not have any reservations about EIP. That blind sense of optimism is now gone and I will certainly be more cautious about my decision. At this point I cannot help but feel (probably out of fear) that trying to get a summer job through EIP is, after all, just a job since we would not have a license yet. How bad could it be to experience what it is like and, worst case, lose just a summer learning this is not what you want after graduation? I too am a neophyte and I really do not know what to expect out of a summer associate position.
-- MatthewVillar - 18 Apr 2012 |
|
|
FirmlyRefuse 24 - 18 Apr 2012 - Main.JosephItkis
|
| | I found this campaign (http://firmlyrefuse.tumblr.com) at Harvard to get students to think about why they are choosing to work for firms to be interesting, particularly given the themes of this course and our conversation today about grades.
Grades for me have served to stand-in for concerted thought as to what I'm actually doing here. I have convinced myself that if my grades are good enough, I'll have options because a strong transcript resonates across different realms of employment (this is essentially the point Ben made today about the fear of having paths foreclosed). No matter what it is actually decide I want to do with my practice, I consoled myself that having a strong strong transcript wouldn't be a detriment. Probably that's true, at least in bureaucratic employment fields where such factors matter, but focusing on grades has meant that I've spent little time thinking about my purpose in earning this license. This makes it more likely that I'll funnel into EIP, because it's easy and because I haven't really thought about what I would do instead. Grades aren't the only reason I haven't set about designing an alternative, but they are a part of it. | | | Returning to the training point: I worked at the DOJ for three years working on white collar cases. After 1L, and maybe after the end of the upcoming summer, I'm pretty sure that lawyers learn by doing. Earth-shattering, right? Because government offices, like the DOJ, are regularly understaffed, the junior attorneys are given loads of responsibility to handle entire investigations. Even as a fresh-out-of-college paralegal, I took notes at witness interviews and wrote up a memo afterwards. The person "across the table" from me taking notes was normally an eager mid-level associate. All the public interest jobs I've seen allow fresh lawyers to learn through immediate experience--something that seems like a privilege you work towards at a firm. If that isn't training, then I don't know what is. I've never worked at a firm, though, so I would appreciate if anyone can offer insights on how firm work is assigned (though I know it varies by firm).
-- ArleneOrtizLeytte - 18 Apr 2012 | |
>
> | I know I'm pretty much entirely echoing what others have said but I find the "training" issue the hardest to understand. Arlene's point makes perfect sense to me - you learn by doing and you generally do more in places other than firms, especially early on. However, like Abiola said, it seems like many lawyers in the public sector strongly recommend spending a couple of years in firms for the training aspect. Abiola offered the higher amount of training resources in firms as an explanation, but it still seems to me that if 90%+ of what a young firm lawyer does is doc review then how are those training resources actually being applied? I feel like the best way to figure this out would be to talk to more public sector lawyers and dig deeper into why many of them suggest starting out in firms, but perhaps someone here might be able to offer some further explanation? Thanks and sorry if I'm being repetitive...
-- JosephItkis - 18 Apr 2012 |
|
|
FirmlyRefuse 23 - 18 Apr 2012 - Main.ArleneOrtizLeytte
|
| | I found this campaign (http://firmlyrefuse.tumblr.com) at Harvard to get students to think about why they are choosing to work for firms to be interesting, particularly given the themes of this course and our conversation today about grades.
Grades for me have served to stand-in for concerted thought as to what I'm actually doing here. I have convinced myself that if my grades are good enough, I'll have options because a strong transcript resonates across different realms of employment (this is essentially the point Ben made today about the fear of having paths foreclosed). No matter what it is actually decide I want to do with my practice, I consoled myself that having a strong strong transcript wouldn't be a detriment. Probably that's true, at least in bureaucratic employment fields where such factors matter, but focusing on grades has meant that I've spent little time thinking about my purpose in earning this license. This makes it more likely that I'll funnel into EIP, because it's easy and because I haven't really thought about what I would do instead. Grades aren't the only reason I haven't set about designing an alternative, but they are a part of it. | | | We should be working on becoming better informed. Better informed means knowing what grades mean to you; what you want from a class; what you want from a particular professor; and what you want to do once you leave CLS. It all takes time to figure out. But we have to take that time. We should not be making hasty decisions about our next steps.
-- LissetteDuran - 18 Apr 2012 | |
<
< |
| >
> | | | | I propose two words to describe the legal education-legal employment dilemma: indentured servitude.
Returning to the training point: I worked at the DOJ for three years working on white collar cases. After 1L, and maybe after the end of the upcoming summer, I'm pretty sure that lawyers learn by doing. Earth-shattering, right? Because government offices, like the DOJ, are regularly understaffed, the junior attorneys are given loads of responsibility to handle entire investigations. Even as a fresh-out-of-college paralegal, I took notes at witness interviews and wrote up a memo afterwards. The person "across the table" from me taking notes was normally an eager mid-level associate. All the public interest jobs I've seen allow fresh lawyers to learn through immediate experience--something that seems like a privilege you work towards at a firm. If that isn't training, then I don't know what is. I've never worked at a firm, though, so I would appreciate if anyone can offer insights on how firm work is assigned (though I know it varies by firm). |
|
|
FirmlyRefuse 22 - 18 Apr 2012 - Main.LissetteDuran
|
| | I found this campaign (http://firmlyrefuse.tumblr.com) at Harvard to get students to think about why they are choosing to work for firms to be interesting, particularly given the themes of this course and our conversation today about grades.
Grades for me have served to stand-in for concerted thought as to what I'm actually doing here. I have convinced myself that if my grades are good enough, I'll have options because a strong transcript resonates across different realms of employment (this is essentially the point Ben made today about the fear of having paths foreclosed). No matter what it is actually decide I want to do with my practice, I consoled myself that having a strong strong transcript wouldn't be a detriment. Probably that's true, at least in bureaucratic employment fields where such factors matter, but focusing on grades has meant that I've spent little time thinking about my purpose in earning this license. This makes it more likely that I'll funnel into EIP, because it's easy and because I haven't really thought about what I would do instead. Grades aren't the only reason I haven't set about designing an alternative, but they are a part of it. | | | The associates that I became really close with at these firms always had plans. They came into this process knowing exactly what they wanted to get out of the particular firm. As Agnes pointed out "the training" they wanted was not some sort of amorphous notion. They knew who they wanted to work with, on what kinds of cases, and on what types of assignments. Once they reached a point where their checklist was complete, they moved on to something that challenged them the way they wanted to be challenged. | |
<
< | I would not knock anyone for deciding to work at a firm. However, I do think that not caring about anything but the salary and the ranking on US News is not a good way to approach this process (I think it is the same of a person who works in the non-profit sector so that his/her loans were paid off and then switched to a firm so that he/she can enjoy the salary). But tying this back into the discussion about grades and the lack of teaching, it is difficult to figure out what you want to do and how you want to do it when there is no guidance. As Skylar pointed out, when there is no guidance, the goal becomes trying to keep doors open. And we are told that good grades keep doors open. It is simple math. But, I do think that we have come to a point where we need to be more strategic about the doors we want opened. | >
> | I would not knock anyone for deciding to work at a firm. Just as I would not knock anyone for choosing any job. Every job has its pros and cons. However, I do think that not caring about anything but the salary and the ranking on US News is not a good way to approach this process (I think it is the same of a person who works in the non-profit sector so that his/her loans were paid off and then switched to a firm so that he/she can enjoy the salary). But tying this back into the discussion about grades and the lack of teaching, it is difficult to figure out what you want to do and how you want to do it when there is no guidance. As Skylar pointed out, when there is no guidance, the goal becomes trying to keep doors open. And we are told that good grades keep doors open. It is simple math. But, I do think that we have come to a point where we need to be more strategic about the doors we want opened. | | |
We should be working on becoming better informed. Better informed means knowing what grades mean to you; what you want from a class; what you want from a particular professor; and what you want to do once you leave CLS. It all takes time to figure out. But we have to take that time. We should not be making hasty decisions about our next steps. | |
>
> | -- LissetteDuran - 18 Apr 2012 | | |
I propose two words to describe the legal education-legal employment dilemma: indentured servitude.
Returning to the training point: I worked at the DOJ for three years working on white collar cases. After 1L, and maybe after the end of the upcoming summer, I'm pretty sure that lawyers learn by doing. Earth-shattering, right? Because government offices, like the DOJ, are regularly understaffed, the junior attorneys are given loads of responsibility to handle entire investigations. Even as a fresh-out-of-college paralegal, I took notes at witness interviews and wrote up a memo afterwards. The person "across the table" from me taking notes was normally an eager mid-level associate. All the public interest jobs I've seen allow fresh lawyers to learn through immediate experience--something that seems like a privilege you work towards at a firm. If that isn't training, then I don't know what is. I've never worked at a firm, though, so I would appreciate if anyone can offer insights on how firm work is assigned (though I know it varies by firm). | |
>
> | -- ArleneOrtizLeytte - 18 Apr 2012 |
|
|
FirmlyRefuse 21 - 18 Apr 2012 - Main.ArleneOrtizLeytte
|
| | I found this campaign (http://firmlyrefuse.tumblr.com) at Harvard to get students to think about why they are choosing to work for firms to be interesting, particularly given the themes of this course and our conversation today about grades.
Grades for me have served to stand-in for concerted thought as to what I'm actually doing here. I have convinced myself that if my grades are good enough, I'll have options because a strong transcript resonates across different realms of employment (this is essentially the point Ben made today about the fear of having paths foreclosed). No matter what it is actually decide I want to do with my practice, I consoled myself that having a strong strong transcript wouldn't be a detriment. Probably that's true, at least in bureaucratic employment fields where such factors matter, but focusing on grades has meant that I've spent little time thinking about my purpose in earning this license. This makes it more likely that I'll funnel into EIP, because it's easy and because I haven't really thought about what I would do instead. Grades aren't the only reason I haven't set about designing an alternative, but they are a part of it. | | |
We should be working on becoming better informed. Better informed means knowing what grades mean to you; what you want from a class; what you want from a particular professor; and what you want to do once you leave CLS. It all takes time to figure out. But we have to take that time. We should not be making hasty decisions about our next steps. | |
>
> |
I propose two words to describe the legal education-legal employment dilemma: indentured servitude.
Returning to the training point: I worked at the DOJ for three years working on white collar cases. After 1L, and maybe after the end of the upcoming summer, I'm pretty sure that lawyers learn by doing. Earth-shattering, right? Because government offices, like the DOJ, are regularly understaffed, the junior attorneys are given loads of responsibility to handle entire investigations. Even as a fresh-out-of-college paralegal, I took notes at witness interviews and wrote up a memo afterwards. The person "across the table" from me taking notes was normally an eager mid-level associate. All the public interest jobs I've seen allow fresh lawyers to learn through immediate experience--something that seems like a privilege you work towards at a firm. If that isn't training, then I don't know what is. I've never worked at a firm, though, so I would appreciate if anyone can offer insights on how firm work is assigned (though I know it varies by firm). |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|