| | |
|
MatthewVillarFirstPaper 3 - 17 May 2012 - Main.MatthewVillar
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Didn't They Teach You That in Law School? | |
<
< | I interviewed with someone this past week (which is a little harder to admit after our most recent class session). Regardless of whether the job works out, I left the interview feeling great and optimistic. The interviewer was a “real” person to me and was someone that I could actually relate to; probably because I got the sense that the interviewer was not spewing total bullshit at me. | | |
The interviewer, at this stage in life, was clearly a content person—it was all smiles and excitement when talking about work. The interviewer had done the whole firm thing, was not satisfied, and then went into the public sector and found happiness even with such high volumes of work. (As a side note: the interviewer mentioned a cute little story about how a partner at the firm did not think twice about contacting my interviewer for something work related while my interviewer was away on a honeymoon). When we discussed law school life and why I was here, the interviewer admitted to going to law school for reasons I feel that most of us would probably never confess to: that college had gone well and because it went well people said “you should go to law school!” and “you can do anything that degree!” and alas here we are trying to figure out what we are doing in this place.
| | | But in my view law school education seems to be very incestuous. It seems that most “good” law professors come from the same two or three schools, having been taught a certain way and then regurgitating these methods to more students, many of whom will go on to academia and keep the process going. These methods then force students into a “conflict of commitment” as Eben would say. At this point in the 1L year I think we have all realized that you cannot come into a law school classroom ready to use your imagination. We must face the reality that learning and exploring the law is a separate goal that requires different skills and priorities from doing well on one blindly graded law school exam which the professor will probably read in 5 minutes (law professors are important people who obviously have better things to do). We must trade in learning/exploring for learning how to take a test that will not truly prepare us for a law career. It is hard to rationalize this backward system. One way I think we allow ourselves to feel better about it is by comparing the law school process to the medical school process. Getting an MD requires 4 years of schooling followed by another 4 to 8 years of residency before medical students really become doctors. From what I understand, however, doctors in residency are thrown into the lion’s den and really get their hands dirty. This seems to pale in comparison to the slow development of recent JD graduates who are, in the eyes of employers, in no shape to be able to do any meaningful work. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for those attorneys whom put up a sign and take on clients right out of law school.
A classic cynical thought then creeps into my head: those who can’t do, teach. Checking out some Columbia faculty biographies I have found that out of my 7 professors this year, 2 have practiced law (Eben included). Maybe law professors are those who just do not care about the practical aspects of law and so focus on theory or whatever else they feel like talking about. Or maybe they just think that everyone would rather be in law professor school. Or maybe it is because they have never practiced before and would really just not know where to begin—if this is the case, the question to ask would then be, didn’t they teach you that in law school? | |
<
< | -- By MatthewVillar - 14 Feb 2012
So what is the central
idea here? I think it is that law professors at schools like
Columbia have little practical experience or interest. They
therefore aren't teaching their students how to be lawyers. This is
workable, because their student are going to be law firm employees
rather than lawyers in a more traditional sense. You could add a
couple of additional points to this set: The firms are prepared to
train their own employees, provided some basic familiarity with legal
materials, and a sufficient degree of conformism has been induced in
sufficiently bright people. This works for the firms, because their
clients will pay by the hour for the training of the employees, the
very best of whom will become partners, as in an accounting or
consulting firm.
If that's your central idea, it would be good to get it across
quickly, as I did above, without all the waste motion. That would
leave you space enough to explain what is changing. Clients won't
pay by the hour for lawyer training anymore; they won't pay by the
hour at all. So firms are changing, and law school must too. But
law schools like this one have trouble changing, because that would
require their faculty to be lawyers, and as you have discovered they
aren't, really, at all.
But you want to trace out the implications for contemporary law
students (like ... yourself) rather than law schools. Which you
could, on that basis, if you were snappy about it.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |