April 29, 2008
This is the way law school ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
I am officially done with my classes. No more class meetings. No more assignments. In fact, I only have one last take home final exam, with an 8 page limit.
Eight pages left between me and the end of law school!!!
*With sincerest apologies to T.S. Eliot.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 26, 2008
You Can Rent My Mind
Prof. today... "That's what I get paid for, my mind. You're all renting my mind. And when you work as a lawyer, that's what you're doing: renting out your mind."
Posted by Dave! Permalink
Dear Class Eater
I am not unsympathetic to hunger. Check out this blog. I enjoy food. I also understand that hunger can be distracting in class, especially an evening class. And when my blood sugar gets low, I get really cranky. Like now. You know what else makes me cranky? YOUR CONTINUED CHOMPING ON YOUR SANDWICH AND CHIPS.
Seriously, you were late to class anyway, you couldn't finish it outside? Instead, I have to sit here and smell your greasy cafeteria food and listen to CHOMP after CHOMP while I'm trying to fight my own hunger and pay attention to the lecture.
What's worse is this is the second time this week that you've done this. It's becoming a habit, and I'm getting peeved. Please, eat before class or next time, I'm going to bring a bowl of cereal to class, slurp and crunch it down in your face, and then dump the leftover milk on your head.
Thank you.
Irritable Dave.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
February 6, 2008
Trial Advocacy
I've been meaning to post about this for quite some time...
At the end of the summer, just before the fall semester, I took "Intensive Trial Advocacy". It's an eight-day intensive course--and at my school, you have to take the follow up ("Trial Ad 2") the next semester. Many schools have similar classes, called "Trial Ad" or "Trial Practice" or somesuch.
It was definitely an intense experience. Essentially, you are cramming a three credit hour course into eight days--eight long days--covering as many aspects of trial practice as possible. It's mentally exhausting, but it was one of the best experiences I've had in law school. First, I learned an incredible amount. Second, I felt more camaraderie with my classmates in Trial Ad than in many of my other law school courses--not to say it wasn't competitive, it was. But it was also a lot of fun.
The course takes you through skills like direct examination, cross examination, witness prep, opening and closing statements, objections, etc. It is without a doubt the best way to learn the rules of evidence--much better than evidence class! Having to think about the rules of evidence in a practical sense, during prep and during trial, is far more instructive than reading caselaw.
Learning to direct and cross witnesses was valuable as well, and opening statements/closing arguments helped cure some of my public speaking foibles (hopefully). All in all, there was a lot of thinking on your feet--it's a great way to hone your presentation and public speaking skills, all while actually getting to apply your analytical skills and knowledge of the law. I'll admit, the motion practice section is a little weak, at least in the intensive session. Intensive really focuses on the trial itself, with many exercises and mini-trials, leading up to the final, which is a full-blown jury trial. In the second course, you get to delve into motion practice a little more, and refine some of the skills from intensive.
If you're a law student looking to take something in your 2/3L year that will not only be educational, but also a lot of fun, I would highly recommend taking a Trial Advocacy course, even if you don't plan on being a litigator--which I don't. The skills you'll pick up in Trial Ad will help you think on your feet better and refine your communication skills. Regardless of what type of law you hope or think you will end up practicing, I think every law student would benefit from this type of practical course.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
November 11, 2007
How Law School Warps Your Brain
There are some commercials I've seen on television a few times (those rare few times I'm watching live TV, mostly games) from Liberty Mutual that disturb me to no end. They show people doing nice things for people... a woman pulls a guy back to the curb and saves him from a car... a postman helps a guy working on his house steady a ladder... some girl picks up trash and puts in a bin... another lady helps some movers life a couch off a truck. The tagline is "When people do the right thing, they call it being responsible. When it's a home insurance company, they call it Liberty Mutual."
I immediately think, "Those people aren't being responsible, they are just being nice. They have no duty to help any of those other people... and in fact, in some of those situations they are exposing themselves to liability by helping in the first place."
sigh
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
August 28, 2007
Notes for a Law Lecture
"There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief--resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave."Posted by Dave! Permalink
August 20, 2007
Blawg Review #122
Blawg Review goes back to school with Blawg Review #122. With the school year almost upon us, it's time for late registration--and you can't register if you don't know what courses are being offered. So, without further ado, I present to the Blawg Review Course Catalog.
Your host next week will be the esteemed D. Todd Smith at the Texas Appellate Law Blog. Be sure to visit for the next Blawg Review installment!
Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions on how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
March 5, 2007
Why I Am a Dork.
Because every time someone says something about using Thomson & Thomson for a trademark search, I think of Thomson & Thompson.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
December 14, 2006
As much as I like law school...
..when I am waist deep in final exams, and Sony releases something like this--it does make me long for the days when I was in production.
Back to Patent Law.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
December 5, 2006
Suing Edgar Bronfman
It's probably because I'm studying for Business Organizations and have derivative suits on the brain, but when I saw this little tidbit where Edgar Bronfman, CEO of the Warner Music Group, admits that his kids have broken the law and downloaded music. Of course, unlike those parents suffering lawsuits at the hands of the RIAA, Bronfman preferred to "keep [their punishment] within the family".
Now, I don't know what kind of (legal) entity the RIAA is (and don't have time to look it up), but it sure would be killer if some of the "artists" or labels they are supposedly representing were to hold their feet to the fire and make them file suit against Bronfman. Why shouldn't he and his children suffer the same fate of bogus lawsuits that other parents face?
Posted by Dave! Permalink
November 30, 2006
Banning Laptops in the Classroom
Since law professors who blog seem to bring up banning laptops at least twice a quarter, I thought I should bore you with a law student post about law professors who want to ban laptops in the classroom. I’m just coming off of a long business organizations class about dividends, so let me assure you, this post will probably be just as rambling and incoherent as most of my posts.
I do understand that the vast majority of professors want students to be involved in discussion and to be attentive and engaged in their class. Professors, on the other hand should understand that most students want to be involved in discussion and to be attentive and engaged in their class. When that doesn’t happen, I think it’s a personal dynamic, not a technology issue.
I think it’s important for faculty to step back for a moment, to the pre-laptop days, and ask themselves these simple questions:
- Were all of your students diligent note takers, not scrambling to copy your lecture verbatim?
- Did they never pass notes, whisper in the back row, daydream out the window, or doodle in their notebooks?
If you can honestly answer yes to all of those questions, then by all means. Ban laptops. You win. But I doubt anyone can honestly answer yes to those questions.
I do support professor’s rights to manage their courses as they see fit. But I think they shouldn’t be discriminatory against the class of students who have piss-poor handwriting. Yes, we’re a class, and I think it’s time we were protected. If you’re going to ban laptops, ban all note-taking. Let’s face it, note taking itself is pretty distracting. Provide your lecture notes to the class as a handout after each class and forbid note-taking altogether. Then everyone in the class is on equal footing.
Okay, maybe that’s extreme, but it illustrates my point: banning laptops has a negative impact on all students who use the technology properly just to try to reach a very small number of students who wouldn’t be paying attention anyway.
Now, I’m sure there are some unique reasons for faculty to ban laptops in the class, but it seems like every article/post/rant I’ve read from a professor who was banning them fell into one of three broad generalizations:
Laptops create a "physical barrier" to discussion.
Several professors have claimed that the “picket fence” of laptop screens creates a physical barrier that inhibits discussion. But being in a horse-room shaped lecture hall with 150 seats isn’t a physical impediment to discussion at all. Nope. I love to have lively discussions with the back of my classmate’s heads. Very conducive to intellectual discourse.
Maybe, maybe, this would be true in a small seminar, with only a dozen students or so. Although, I think that’s more of a generational gap. I think faculty see the laptops as a physical barrier, but that most students don’t see them. Students today are comfortable with technology--it's been a part of their education for most, if not all, of their lives. There might be a few students who think they are intrusive as well, but I’d also wager that there are a few shy students who are glad to have the shelter--and may even participate more because they have that shield. Either way, I think the actual impact is much more minimal than it’s often made out to be. In the end, I think it’s a wash.
Laptops encourage people to take verbaitim notes instead of writing down just what is important.
First, why is it necessarily bad to take down notes verbatim? I’ve encountered a few students who do this, and yes, I think some of them are missing the forest for the trees. But I know of one classmate in particular who was a very good and diligent student who took “verbatim notes”. She did it because it was part of her learning process. It’s just how she learned. She internalized what was being said as she was transcribing, and it helped her later during the distilling process of outlining.
Second, are there really that many people in your classes with their fingers flying on the keyboard trying to take down every word? I’ve only ever seen a few people doing this, even in large 1L required classes. This is just a guess, I don’t have the data to back this up (although, I haven’t encountered a professor who did either), but I suspect if you took away their laptops, those same people would be scribbling away, filling their notebooks with your every word. Only now, they won’t be able to read half of it. So what would banning the laptop accomplish?
Well, for starters, it would penalize those, like me, with poor penmanship. But more important, it doesn’t accomplish the goal you’re trying to achieve, which would only “benefit” a handful, and instead penalizes the vast majority of people who take notes effectively with a laptop.
Laptops create a tempting diversion from paying attention or participating in class.
They do. I’ll acknowledge that the diversion offered by a networked laptop are multitudinous. Between instant messaging, the web, games… it’s a non-stop cornucopia of distraction. So what?
Laptops have increased the distractions, but they are hardly the first distraction in the classroom. In the days before laptops, I have it on good authority that students would sit in the back row and on occasion, whisper. I also have discovered in some boxes in my mother’s attic, some form of primitive instant messaging that she called “notes”. Apparently, these “notes” were constructed of paper and then deviously passed from one student to another--all during the course of a lecture!
Sarcasm aside, I’m sympathetic to the frustration of competing with a laptop for students attention. But the reality is that it is a part of the job. Your job as a faculty member is to organize and present the material in a comprehensible and engaging manner. I’ve had some outstanding professors over the years, and those who were passionate about their subject matter, well prepared for class, and dynamic speakers never had to “compete” for the attention of their students. Period. There will always be one or two (or six, in a class of 150) people who are “checked out”. But you kind of just have to ignore them. Making the other 144 people in the class suffer while you try to reach those six is doing a disservice to everyone, yourself included. Here’s my advice: write them off. Maybe they will fail your class: but it will be their own fault. It’s the best gift you can give them--they don’t want to be their anyway.
But, if I may make a gentle suggestion… if you find yourself consistently competing for your students attention in class, you should revisit your organization of the material (if not the material itself) and you should get some brutally honest criticisms of your speaking skills. Some academics are outstanding in the classroom. Some are outstanding in print. Some are gifted in both, but that rare. There’s nothing wrong with that--but recognize your own limitations and work on improving them instead of focusing your misplaced frustration on technology that actually helps a great many students.
Laptops are being used by the government to emit thought controlling radio waves to track my movement.
Okay, no professor (to my knowledge) has ever proffered that argument. But if they did, they’d be the coolest faculty member ever. Or insane. Or both.
So where does that leave professors who want to ban laptops in the classroom? Recently, a professor posted his laptop policy, which essentially allowed students to use them for notes, but if they were found using them for other purposes, they would lose the right to use them.
At first, it sounds like a good compromise, but it’s still really discriminatory against laptop users, and it still is only treating the symptom, not the disease. Would students taking notes on paper “lose the privilege” if they were caught passing a note? Or doodling in the margins? Or actually writing fiction instead of taking notes? (I knew a student who did that in one class… I noticed he was writing a whole lot during one not very interesting lecture. I asked what he was working on, and he said, “A short story.” Since all lawyers secretly want to be writers, it seemed like an okay idea to me.)
I do use the net during class. In fact, it saves me time and my back. When we’re looking at a statute in class, instead of flipping through the 1200 page supplement, I pull it up on Westlaw/Lexis. Nifty! But that would (technically) violate such a policy. And it wouldn’t be possible with an all out ban. And what reasonable argument can be made that it’s better to lug around a 10lb. book to get the same information?
The problem professors are really struggling with here is not the laptop. The laptop is the symptom, not the disease. In fact, the laptop is the symptom of a few diseases, not all of them afflicting students. There’s student apathy, boring material, poor speaking skills, the list goes on.
So I would ask that any professor considering banning laptops try these steps first:
-
1. Make a note of how many people are really “checked-out” in your class. What percentage of the class is it? Is it really that high? Or is it just the percentage of people who are going to be checked out anyway?
2. If the percentage is high, re-examine your class. Review your course materials--is the material interesting? Can it be made more interesting by doing something out of the ordinary (role playing, incorporating current events, interesting hypos?)
3. Finally, take a good, honest look at your lecture skills. Videotape yourself and see if you would be interested while you were lecturing. Or ask past students who did well in your class what you could do to improve. I’ve had one or two classes where I checked out, simply because the professor was a very poor lecturer. And in both cases, I actually enjoyed speaking with the professor one-on-one, they were very different in that type of interaction. I have no doubt that if they made a real, concerted effort to improve their skills, their classes would have improved dramatically.
If you’ve tried all of that, and you still are having problems in the class, try the laptop ban. But be fair about it:
-
1. Make your policy known in the registration bulletin/course descriptions so people know your policy before they have to register.
2. Consider using a “compromise” ban--that is, laptops only for notes but a violation of that policy results in a total ban for that student.
3. If you do decide to ban 100%, and your course is a required course, make sure there is at least one other section taught by someone else for those who depend on the ability to actually read the concise, type-written notes they do take.
And of course, if you’re banning laptops to escape the mind control radio emissions of the National Security Agency, try a tinfoil hat first.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
May 20, 2006
Done!
I had my last exam for the semester last night... yes, on a Friday night. From 6-10pm... four hours of issue spotting hell. But now, I am done!!
At least, until Monday, when the summer session starts.
*sigh*
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
May 9, 2006
Deconstructing Law School Exams
It's finals time in ye olde law school, which always has the law bloggers, students and professors alike, contemplating the nature of Exams. Prof. Volokh has some suggestions about, Why Law Schools Generally Grade Based on a Single End-of-Semester Exam, Prof. Althouse wonders Do law students know (or believe) that we lawprofs mean for the exam to be a rewarding educational experience?, and Prof. Solove chimes in, Examining Law School Exams
I'd like to offer my student perspective. Specifically addressing some of the points raised by Prof. Volokh in his defense of the practice.
First, Prof. Volokh notes, "[p]rofessors hate grading exams, and would thus rather grade one exam than two or more..."
There's no arguing with that. I've never graded exams, but having taken my fair share of them I can imagine that grading them is a major undertaking. That said, I think Prof. Volokh is off somewhat here.
One of the reasons that grading a law school exam is such a major undertaking is because each exam deals with such a huge volume of information. One exam for the entire semester means that either the exam must be "deep" in that it asks students to deeply explore a few very important concepts, or "shallow and wide" meaning that it deals with the volume of material covered.
If multiple exams were given, the subjects could be somewhat more narrowed. So, the sheer depth or breadth required in a single examination wouldn't be the same--which in turn might make grading them easier. So I think there's a valid argument to be made that if Professors hate grading exams so much, a major contributing factor may be the exam format itself. Perhaps a few more exams might break up the monotony of grading a massive tome of an exam and make the experience a little less tedious.
That said, other Professors in other fields from math to English literature to biology have to deal with grading multiple exams and still manage to teach and complete scholarly work: why shouldn't law professors?
Then there is the student viewpoint. Prof. Volokh suspects that students may prefer the one-exam approach as well. He notes that law students tend to be very studious (which in my experience is true) and that because of the competition and stress, if we were presented with multiple exams, we would study and stress just as hard.
I think Prof. Volokh makes a fundamental attribution error here. Yes, students stress over exams and a portion of that is because of the competitive nature of law school. However, I think a great deal of the stress also come from the fact that this is your one shot--blow this exam and your GPA tanks and every recruiter you face will think you can't lawyer your way through a 12(b)(6) motion.
Of course students would take multiple exams seriously. However, I think for nearly all students the knowledge that with multiple exams you could have an off day and not pay dearly for it would provide a welcome measure of relief from the pressure of law school. Among my peers and study groups, I've found that the pressure we feel from exams comes far less from the competitive aspect than from the idea that if you blow this exam, you've blown it. Think about it: is there more pressure to beat your classmate's GPA by a tenth of a point or in the fact that if you have a cold and aren't on your game for 3-4 hours one night, you've wasted an entire semester's worth of tuition dollars and hard work?
Multiple exams would distribute that stress a little more evenly throughout the semester or quarter. It would also put student's minds a little more at ease because of the increased accuracy in grading by having more points of data concerning a student's mastery of course materials. Prof. Volokh poo-poos the notion of increased accuracy because of the increased stress caused by studying for more exams. Again, I think that is off-base. The increased stress of more exams is likely to be off-set by the knowledge that you are being assessed more accurately, rather than risking a semester of hard work and studying on just one exam.
I'm somewhat disturbed about the dismissive attitude expressed by Prof. Volokh towards accuracy. Should we not strive to be accurate in our work because it's not as convenient? He notes that an increase in accuracy would merely rearrange the distribution of grades. Well, yes, that's true. But it would rearrange them correctly to reward those who have a greater understanding of the course material rather than those who were "on" during the exam or who perform well under arbitrary pressure (which is valuable in some areas of law, but certainly not all). Shouldn't that always be a goal of educational assessment?!
As to the idea of abolishing grades as a means of removing the issue of accurate assessment and relieving stress from professors and students, he notes that even schools that "don't have grades" still have some sort of ranking system. I would counter that there are schools which do not have grade disclosure, which is one way to eliminate that problem altogether. And, yes, employers use grades as an initial screening tool, but that is yet another argument in favor of the accuracy Prof. Volokh so casually dismisses. Of course, he notes that most employers probably wouldn't be troubled by the inaccuracy enough to care--but I would be willing to bet students would feel better knowing their grades were accurately representing their abilities to potential employers. Besides, is it the role of the law school to test for knowledge or to test for employability? I'll leave that for another discussion.
Prof. Althouse asks "Do law students know (or believe) that we lawprofs mean for the exam to be a rewarding educational experience?" Speaking for myself, I'd like to say, yes. We know that some of you mean for the exam to be rewarding experience. And some exams are very rewarding. Others, not so much.
I know I appreciate the effort put into constructing exam hypos which cover course material. It's not easy. And personally, I find the experience of studying for exams to be very rewarding. It's always astonishing to me when I start to outline just how much material I've absorbed during the semester. My exam study process involves reviewing notes and cases, but mostly outlining. For me, the outline isn't about the result, it's about the process. The process of a thorough outline is how I prepare for exams--usually finishing a day or so before the exam and then relaxing a bit. And the experience is rewarding. I feel good that I've learned so much and usually it helps my exam confidence. If the process stopped their, I'd be really happy. But the anxiety I feel about making sure I'm "on" for the exam goes a long way to destroying that experience. I tend to get so nervous about not having a "bad day" that a week or so before the exam, I start taking Echinacea, drinking lots of fluids, and generally "psyching myself up" for the exam. That's not too rewarding. In fact, I get so paranoid I stop being rational in some respects. I always eat the same meal the night before an exam and the same lunch the day of exam. It's not superstition, it's habit to help me be more comfortable. I know so many students that have "exam rituals" it's not funny--and I think it's a manifestation of the stress caused by so much riding on the one exam.
I can also tell you that there are exams out there which are not rewarding in the slightest, and because Professors are individuals, most may attempt to create a rewarding experience, but there are certainly those who don't. And there are personality differences. What is a rewarding experience to some might be hell to another.
But to answer Prof. Althouse's question, I do think most students recognize that professors are not trying to torture them with exams. And if Professors really want the exam experience to be even more rewarding, then take a step to help eliminate some of the arbitrary stress so we can stress about the material: give multiple exams. Think about it, multiple rewarding experiences for you and your students.
To that end, I think Prof. Solove offers an interesting suggestion with the "take home" exam. (I should qualify this to say I have not had one of these yet in law school, but I have in other studies in the past.)
I think there is value to the take home exam, although Prof. Solove noted that in his experience, performance on the take home exam wasn't better than the "in class" timed exam. I think there are two reasons for that: first, the nature of students to procrastinate--wait, I don't think that is just students--human nature to procrastinate. The end result is that while students could have performed the exam spaced out over the 24 hour period, I'd guess many just wrote it in the 4-6 hour time frame anyway. The other problem is that even a take home exam does not eliminate any of the pressure or problems that are associated with the one-exam, one-grade methodology.
I think that personally, I would much prefer a page-limited, take home exam. It definitely fits my personal working style much better. (I like to be able to walk away from a problem, let it digest, and then return to it. I also like to work with some constraints to reinforce discipline in my writing.) However, I have no doubt that there are some students who hate this approach.
That, in my mind, is all the more reason for adopting a multiple test methodology. Even with just two exams, a mid-term as an in-class exam and a take home final (or vice versa) a professor could offer a style of examination suited to both types of students, relieve some of the pressure caused by one-exam/one-grade, more evenly distribute their workload in a more manageable fashion, and increase the accuracy of assessing course mastery. Now that would be a rewarding exam experience.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (7)
May 3, 2006
Finals Time!
The posting here will be, okay has been, pretty spartan. In addition to moving into the new house, it's finals time at ye olde law school. Sorry to drop off the face of the earth for a while, but it's a necessary evil.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
March 4, 2006
Finally...
...Con Law becomes interesting!
I [do not] find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights we hold as fundamental today.—Justice Thurgood Marshall
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
March 2, 2006
IM Rules.
I'm able to learn about the Separation of Powers and the legislative ability to delegate authority while at the same time finding out that Brenna got her sorry, no talent ass booted on American Idol.
Technology is awesome.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
March 1, 2006
Things I Learned Tonight...
...in Estates and Trusts:
1. My seat neighbor has a huge buddy list in her chat program.
2. The guy in front of me likes Solitaire
3. The girl in front of me likes trying out new clothes on her Yahoo! avatar.
Oh, yeah and something about Medicaid qualifying trusts and the "Granny's Lawyer Goes to Jail" law...
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
February 16, 2006
Quote of the Evening
The quote tonight comes from Constitutional Law:
"Stupid is not unconstitutional. Stupid is stupid."
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
January 25, 2006
Sometimes...
Law students do something to renew faith in the legal system.
Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But I don't see that as one of the administration's talking points. This "public relations" campaign being waged by an administration that has pretty clearly violated Federal Law is beyond the pale. It's refreshing to see students stand up for rights and in a way that is both peaceable and effective. To each and every student who participated, this student says, "Thank You".
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
January 22, 2006
Noscitur a socii
Having just had "Legislative Process" (which could more accurately be called "Theories of Stautory Interpretation" last semester, I got a kick out of this. Here's my results:
You are "Noscitur a socii"! You look to neighboring words to shed light on the meaning of ambiguous words. You're a sociable canon, and always look at everything in context. However, you're useless by yourself.
[Via Divine Angst and Ambivalent Imbroglio]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
January 3, 2006
One Down...
One exam grade in! CivPro, which has an unusually dedicated professor to have turned those around so quickly! That's a load off... I'm pretty pleased, now just two more to go...
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
January 1, 2006
Weekly Law School Roundup #1 (or #60)
E.Spat has brought back the Weekly Law School Roundup! She's posted her first edition over at WWFFD, but it looks like the future editions will alternate between there and the Legal Underground.
Thanks, E.Spat and Evan... I know this was a feature that was very missed among the law student bloggers...
Posted by Dave! Permalink
December 16, 2005
Two Down
Had my evidence exam tonight. Overall, it was pretty much as I expected. I enjoyed the format: a trial transcript with objections, you had to rule on each objection and state your reasoning. Then there was a section where you had to identify 10 objections which should have been made, but were not. So, yeah, I liked the format... we'll have to wait to see how much the format liked me.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
December 14, 2005
One Down...
Thank you to all the people who sent me good CivPro vibes for my first final of the season yesterday. I feel pretty good about the exam, so I either rocked it or failed it. You know how those things go.
Actually, it probably means I'll get a B+... workin' hard to be average!
(To those not in law school, a B+ is actually the equivalent of a C on the forced curve the school uses for required courses like CivPro.)
Now, on to Evidence...
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
December 5, 2005
Law Professors and the Bar Exam
There's an interesting article in the W$J today: Raising the Bar: Even Top Lawyers Fail California Exam. I guess it's news because Kathleen Sullivan (Constitutional Law Superstar and former Dean at Stanford) failed the California Bar Exam.
Over at Concurring Opinions, Prof. Solove has a good response, Abolish the Bar, in which he raises some very good points about why the bar exam is a poor means for ensuring quality lawyers.
However, given that for the time being the bar exam is a reality of practicing law, this post by Prof. Horwitz at PrawfsBlawg caught my eye. Prof. Horowitz mentions that he hasn't taken the California Bar Exam, in spite of having moved to California. Which leads me to my question: shouldn't he?
I'm not singling out Prof. Horowitz; there are many faculty members at many schools who haven't taken the bar in the state where they teach. Many are very fine members of the faculty. There are good reasons for not taking the bar for academics--career mobility, the nature of specialization in legal scholarship, etc.
However, part of the roll of an educator at any law school is to prepare students for the practice of law. In the current reality, that practice includes the bar exam. Therefore, don't they have a responsibility to take and pass the bar exam in the state where they teach?
Obviously, it's possible to know the material on the bar exam without having taken it or passed it; I would guess most professors have taken the exam somewhere. There is a valid argument that a professor teaching at a top 10 school, where most students will leave the state to practice anyway, would not be in a better position to train students for the bar exam in some remote state. There's also an argument to be made for reciprocity; if a state is willing to grant reciprocity, why should a faculty member re-take the bar exam for a career move? Perhaps they shouldn't. But I think there is an argument that they should.
I do not think schools should "teach to the exam". I'm sure that lowers quality on many levels. However, the reality is that the vast majority of faculty teach at Tier 2-4 schools which means the average student is less likely to become a constitutional scholar and much more likely to practice divorce or bankruptcy in the same state in which they are being educated. To this majority of law students, the bar exam is a very important aspect of their legal training and career. In order to get the best possible education shouldn't the faculty who are teaching them have first hand knowledge (i.e. take) of the exam for themselves?
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
December 1, 2005
Law School for Dummies
Actually, the dummies would be those of us actually in law school. It's finals time. Can you tell?
Anyway, I thought I would offer my take on all of the courses I've had the pleasure of taking in law school so far. You, too, can be a 2L with me in just a few easy steps:
Criminal Law
Yes, of course he shot that old woman, but did he intend to shoot that old woman.
Torts
Accidents happen, but someone's gonna have to pay for that.
Contracts
A promise isn't worth squat if there isn't money involved.
Property
It's Mine! Or how we can justify taking land from Native Americans and use it as the entire basis of our society.
Civil Procedure
Here's a rule. Pretty clear, eh? Now find a sneaky way to get around it for your client.
Constitutional Law
You thought this would be all Brown v. Board of Education? Sure, sure. Later on... first, welcome to the Commerce Clause!
Evidence
Fun and creativity with "facts"! (See Civil Procedure)
Statutory Interpretation
Congress is one fscked up mess, but they wrote this law, so how do we figure out what they meant?
Legal Writing
Good start! But try again. And again. Oh, and again. Work on your word choice.
Thank you, goodnight!
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
November 30, 2005
Classmates
Two amusing things about some of my fellow classmates:
1. Imagine your professor has just given a hypo and asked a question about a case you're discussing. As they glance around the room, not a single volunteer, they peer over the students, looking for the next cold call victim. Suddenly, a cell phone rings... and clear as a bell, vocals and all, the ringtone is "Wake Me up Before You Go Go". Can you guess who is called? And then it rang again.
2. A seatmate in a class got up at our break to ask the professor a question. He left his composition book closed but in plain view. You know, the one's with the black-and-white mottled covers? Only this one has a different label on it... instead of reading "Civ Pro" or "Torts" it says, "Name: Snoopy, Hobbies: Supertime!" with a picture of Snoopy, doing his Peanuts dance.
I want one of those composition books now! I sincerely hope I get to practice law with people like these two classmates. Too many lawyers (hell, people) are just too stuffy!
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
November 9, 2005
BlawgThink 2005
I have been meaning to write about
BlawgThink 2005 for weeks now... ah, the joys of law school: copious amounts of spare time.
Anyway, I'm super psyched for this event. The speakers and attendees sound fantastic, featuring such blawg luminaries as Dennis Kennedy, Brandy Karl, Evan Schaeffer, Carolyn Elefant, Matt Homann, Ernest Svenson, Rick Klau. Matt Homann is even reviving his "Five by Five" feature at the conference with "Five by Five Live".
Although the tracks look interesting for the first day, it's really the second day--the open collaborative/brainstorming/freeform discussion that I'm really excited about. After the really great "Evening at Adler" (for Mac Developers) that I went to last month, I've been really excited about (1) how blogs can bring real people together to do real things; (2) how great it is to meet interesting and intelligent people and hear new ideas; and, (3) how great discussions/brainstorming can be for generating new ideas and motivating work on old ones.
With so many great legal bloggers assembled in one place, there's bound to be great stuff coming out of BlawgThink this weekend. And there's still space, I think, so if you aren't coming yet, sign up!
Posted by Dave! Permalink
New Blog: Stepfather of Soul
There's a new blog in the blogosphere: Get on Down With The Stepfather of Soul! This new blog comes to you from my friend (and former classmate) Jason Stone. Jason and I were 1Ls together and opponents for our oral arguments for Legal Writing. You couldn't ask for a better sparring partner. Then he up and transferred to Atlanta!
But Jason's new blog isn't a blawg, he's cooler than that... it's an awesome funk and soul blog and he's featuring podcasts! I just downloaded the first edition, and I can't wait to listen to some of the incredible stuff he's got in his collection. I suggest you do the same...
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
September 8, 2005
You know you are cracking...
...when you dream about Civil Procedure.
I had a dream that I had died and I was being judged to determine if I would go to Heaven or Hell. It turns out, it's all about personal jurisdiction and choice of law.
In my dream, when you die, you go to a Court of the After Life, where each side files these special motions to try to wrestle jurisdiction over your soul. It all hinges on minimal contacts--of sorts--and "fair play and substantial justice". A balancing test, really.
If you have more good contacts with people, Heaven gets jurisdiction and can apply their law, which is relatively forgiving. If you have more bad contacts with people, you're in Hell's court, where the law is a little more strict constructionist.
Well, I lucked out and ended up in Heaven's Court (hey, it was my dream) and then went on to be Solicitor General for God.
*insert maniacal laughter here*
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
August 24, 2005
Woe is Mac
I recently bought an Apple PowerBook. Mostly because I really love OS X, and although I already have a PC desktop and notebook for work, I wanted a light, fun computer to use for my personal projects and school. Now, I have no illusions about Macs and law school--I expected no support and resistance, but this is a bit ridiculous.
We have wireless networking (new!) at my school, and I wanted to get my new PB on... so I went to our "Help Desk" and our conversation went like this:
"I wanted to authorize my Mac for the wireless network."
"We don't support Macs. You see, they use a completely different operating system."
"Um, yes, I know. But wireless is wireless. It's all 802.11b/g and TCP/IP. I can give you the MAC address for authentication."
"We don't support them because we don't want Macs here."
Delightful bunch. This is the same crew that told me they required Windows because of security last year. I had to suppress my laughter at that one.
*sigh*
I can still get on the wired network, but it's irritating.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
July 9, 2005
Just Desserts
I once made fun of Christine Hurt over at
Conglomerate for her late night Saturday Bluebooking.
Now, here it is, 11:40PM on a Saturday night and I'm just taking a break from the draft of my write-on case note.
*sigh*
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
June 16, 2005
A Tale of Two Law Students: Me
This is the tale of two law students: Dave and Dave. The first half of this (very long) post was written the day after I took my first exam of my second semester. As you will see, I was pretty despondent. When I finished, I decided that although writing about it was cathartic, posting it would only have revealed half of the story�my perception at the time, but not the reality of my performance. The rest of the story would have to wait until grades were released.
This week, I received the grades, and so I drafted the second half of the post. Here are both parts...
May 13, 2005
Self-realization. I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, "I drank what?" Real Genius
Have you ever known something? I mean known it? Mastered it, backward and forward, like the back of your hand, inside and out, clich after clich? Well, that's how I felt about Contracts.
Contracts made sense. Not only that, I studied for this exam. Hard. I re-read all of the cases (no fooling'). I summarized them. I re-read all the relevant sections of the Restatement and the UCC. I outlined. I knew this shit cold. And it was an open book exam!
For class, I'd read the cases. I'd participated in class. I'd studied the material. If law school grades were based on some reasonable assessment of knowledge, say, a series of assignments during the semester comprised of quizzes, papers, a mid-term and a final, I would rock Contracts like Tenacious D on meth.
Instead, law school is based on the one final/one grade paradigm. This is a clever system designed towell, I have no idea what it's designed to do. Apparently it's designed to determine: (1) who takes tests better; (2) who was having a better day; (3) who responds best to completely bogus artificial pressures that have no bearing on your real knowledge and/or mastery of the material but will nonetheless determine whether you clerk for the honorable Judge Whitey or have an ad for bankruptcy ((info))((tapes))℠ on the back of the local yellow pages.
If you sat down with me for an afternoon, engaged in a discussion of contracts, I think you would walk away from our conversation saying, "Wow, he really has a fundamental grasp of the material." If you read my exam answers from yesterday, you would say, "can this freak even tie his own shoes?"
I walked into the exam psyched. I was ready for it. In fact, I would almost say I was looking forward to it. This test was different.™ Our professor wanted us to cite cases! Our professor wanted us to answer real application questions! He even warned us: irrelevant doctrine would result in the subtraction of points, so no kitchen sink, mind-dump here. No! You had to know the law and apply it. Cool! The instructions even contained phrases that strike fear into the heart of most law students: some of the questions could be answered in a few sentences! (Unlike this essay.)
Now, remember that I said this was an open book test. So, I cracked the exam and read the first question. Here is a selection of my inner dialog:
"Whoa. This is a no-brainer. Wait. Is it? Maybe it's not as simple as I think. I must be missing something. Okay. Stick to the game plan. Just read the questions, no thinking, no writing. Read. Digest."
"Okay. Done. This is too easy. Wait a minute. I am so, totally and completely missing something. Wait. Stop. You're getting distracted. STICK TO THE PLAN. Okay, better. Outline answer number one."
"Hmmm. That seems too short, too simple. I have to be missing something... what am I forgetting?! Hey, okay, I know I wasn't going to use it... but the case book is right there. Just check a thing or two. Quickly. No, really, I'll be quick--the clock is ticking."
At that point, it's was all over. I'd fscked it all up; I opened the case book and frantically searched for "what I was missing" but I never did find it. What I did find was that I'd wasted a considerable amount of time second-guessing myself on what should have been a throw away question. So now, turning my attention to the next question, I was already behind. Needless to say, I didn't really finish the last question (there were three total). My last answer consisted of an outline, some paragraph sketches, and a little note indicating that I had run out of time.
I completely screwed myself on this one. I went from confident, feeling like I knew the material to a wishy-washy second-guesser in about five minutes flat. Why?
Because the pressure is really overwhelming. You've spent 3-4 months reading 1200 pages of cases for this class and your entire grade is going to be determined within this one, 3.5 hour window. It's about as far removed from nearly any real-life situation I've ever faced. I've never had a boss come to me and say, "you know that big project we've been evaluating for the last six months? I'd like a report for the board in three hours. Just write as much as you can remember about the projectoh, and your raise depends on how the board feels about this report."
Nor has my wife, an attorney, ever been told by a judge, "I want that motion on my desk in three hours." Hell, I can't tell you how many times she's gone to court and at the end of the day I'll ask how it went, only to hear, "the other guy asked for a continuance. I have to go back in two months."
So what exactly are we being tested on? This isn't a criticism of my Contracts professorhe was a good teacher. In fact, I think his exam (using real world questions and open book) was much closer to reality than some of the other exams I've taken, which were glorified, "Take the next three hours to write anything and everything you can about the subject" types of exams.
But we all have bad days and we don't all respond the same under the type of pressure you face in an exam situation. Does that mean that you're going to be a bad attorney? I highly doubt it. The demands of trial practice aren't the same as a transactional real estate practice. The exam is a highly artificial metric which doesn't really test much more than your ability to take law school exams. But this exam determines your grade and therefore your "worth" as a student, which is in turn used by employers to gage your "worth" as a potential employee. I can't be the only one who thinks this system is fundamentally flawed.
In the end, I'm just very, very depressed about the whole experience. Depressed because I feel as though my performance was below what I am capable of; depressed because I know that this one bad day is going to drag down my GPA and I'll spend the rest of school trying to catch up; depressed because now I'm completely drained and I have to turn around and study for another exam; and most of all, depressed because I let this bullshit get to me like this.
June 16, 2005
I have received the grades for my classes last semester. It's hard for me to express just how utterly and completely devastated I was after my Contracts exam. I was so angry with myself for not having stuck to my exam plan as close as I would have liked and for letting the pressure of the exam get to me.
I know that grades are not the end-all-be-all of existence. I'd been out of school long enough before returning to law school to know that my performance in the workplace, my skills, and my ideas are good and valuable to employers and I know that although grades might matter for that first job, they fade pretty quickly.
After the exam, I took a day off. I spent some time with my wife and I decided I would not post-mortem the exam in any way. So I left Contracts behind and moved on to Property.
I was very careful to follow the study plan I'd outlined and every day I reminded myself that it was just a test. Consequently, this time, I was able to stick to my exam plan and I walked out of the exam feeling somewhat confident. Somewhat. I was still plagued by that same doubt I think all law studentsif not all studentsface: that I somehow missed a major point, resulting in poor answers that were incomplete or just plain wrong.
I still think that the law school exam process is very flawed. There is a very definite bent to law school, almost militarya "break you down in order to rebuild you" sort of thing going on. Except law school doesn't rebuild you. They pay a lot of lip service to "thinking like a lawyer" which I suppose may be true if thinking like a lawyer means saying to hell with advice, mentorship and teaching and learning nearly everything on your own. That's law school in a nutshellthey break you down, alright, but the rebuilding is up to you. It's the most expensive self-study course you'll ever take.
That isn't to say I haven't had a good experience. On the whole, I have. That alone should be evidence of the insanity that is law school. I'm sure you're asking yourself right now, "Wait, he was just going on and on about how exams nearly killed him and now he's saying it's a good experience?! Waaa?" But it's true. This is the first time in my life I've actually had to work in school. There is something satisfying about that, in a perverse way.
This semester I had two very good professorsone of whom is among the best professors I have ever had. But even in his class, performance evaluation still came down to that one day, those 3.5 hours spent sitting in front of a computer, trying to condense a semester's worth of knowledge into a few pages cogent enough to demonstrate that you may have actually learned something.
I still think it's a crap way to evaluate students.
So what did all this self-imposed drama teach me? I'm not sure. Mostly it confirmed that I'm my own worst enemy and the real danger lies in taking myself too seriously. But now I have some more experience under my belt and I know just how much difference remaining calm and keeping perspective can make. I only hope I can retain that insight as I continue to "rebuild" myself and start "thinking like a lawyer".
Oh, if you were wondering, I rocked both exams.
Rock over London, rock out Chicago!
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
June 12, 2005
Weekly Law School Round Up
Update: To make this a more community friendly feature (and so I can slough off the editorial duties to other Blawgers like AI and E.Spat) I've moved this post over to Blawg Wisdom. -Dave!
Evan Schaeffer used to perform a valuable community service with the Weekly Law School Roundup. Unfortunately, with his format change, he dropped the feature. Given the number of blogs I read each week, I figured I would take a stab at it, at least for a bit. If people like it, I'll keep it up.
Things are kind of slow on the law student front, what with the arrival of summer. A whole bunch of law students are law students no more: Sua Sponte, Jeremy Blachman, Law Dork, and the Class Maledictorian have graduated. Congrats to you all!
Now, let's see what's cooking with those of us still in hell:
Summer associates are eatin' right... WonL has a round robin welcome dinner as a new summer associate. Meanwhile, Heidi is living large in the Windy City. E. Spat might be busy getting ready for the summer gig, but she still had some time to serve up a little beefcake.
What are you going to wash that down with? Milbarge clues in the unenlightened.
Meanwhile, back in the trenches, Nudum Pactum wants to know... Is nothing holy?
And finally, Jeremy Richey is cooking up something exciting, but I've been sworn to secrecy...
Posted by Dave! Permalink
May 20, 2005
Some Hard Truths
Sherry has a rundown of the Legal Lies that are bandied about in the legal profession, especially to law students and young lawyers. As a law student myself, I can attest that I've been told more than a few of these by people before. Some of them I still tell myself occasionally.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
May 8, 2005
Great Law School T-Shirts
Law School Funny Stuff has some really funny t-shirts for sale. Well, funny if you are a law student or a lawyer. My personal fav, "I own blackacre".
[Via In Limine]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
May 4, 2005
The Dave! Fall Lineup
I know, this year isn't even over (I still have two finals) but I just got my schedule confirmation for next fall... Civ Pro, Legislative Process(?), and Evidence. Legislative Process is the new class that replaces Justice as a requirement. Because, you know, fsck justice. We're going to be lawyers, damn it. If you come out of law school thinking that justice has much to do with the law, well, the terrorists win.
Anyway, the best news is that I only have to be in class until 8:30 two nights a week! And the other two nights I get out at 8:00! Yippee!! Goodbye 14 hour days and hello 12.5 hour goodness! What am I ever going to do with all that spare time?!
Posted by Dave! Permalink
April 28, 2005
How not to argue your appeal.
Wow. And you thought you were unprepared for moot court?! Just listen to that guy! (It's short, only 4 min.)
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
April 27, 2005
Overheard Conversation
You think you are a procrastinator. This was the conversation overheard in class the other day:
Slack Master, "Hey, do you have the reading for contracts?"
Classmate, "Um, hold on, let me look it up... it wasn't bad, 25 pages or so."
Slack Master, "Twenty-Five pages for the whole semester?"
Classmate, "Um, no, for tomorrow. The semester's assignments are basically the entire casebook."
Slack Master, "Really???!"
And I thought I was behind because I'm just starting my outlines! This guy has over 900 pages of reading to do!
Posted by Dave! Permalink
April 21, 2005
A Paper I Need to Read...
Heidi writes about a classmate presenting a paper in Federalism which started out:
"So, I went to Professor Halberstam and said that I wanted to write a paper about states rights in zombie movies. And he said, 'Well, nobody's going to take you seriously if you write about states rights.'"
I so want to read that paper...
[Via Letters of Marque]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
April 11, 2005
Survey of Student Engagement
Jeremy has a fantastic Survey of Student Engagement posted today... All law students are definitely encouraged to take it.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
March 5, 2005
More on Law Professors...
Prof. Hurt over at Conglomerate jumps into the 'where should you go to school if you want to be a law professor fray' and raises a very good point: it is important to consider current hiring practices and not just the practices of the past.
To respond to some points that have been raised in various comments on other sites:
1. Prof. Leiter notes: "It appears the person (My name is Dave, but you may call me Mr. Gulbransen --Ed.) surveying the Chicago-area law schools was counting clinical *and* academic faculty..."
Personally, I don't care about the distinction. I doubt outside of the cloistered world of the academy, that anyone cares. Undoubtedly it has career implications but I also suspect there are some who would prefer to be clinical faculty. God forbid people entering the field of higher education have different motives.
2. I don't think it's any more difficult to pursue an academic career in law than it is in any other academic field. In fact, I'm still surprised that people can get jobs in legal education with only a J.D. (Although, as Prof. Solum notes, and LLM, SJD, or PhD can an advantage.) I mean c'mon people--the scholarly publications of legal education are student edited journals. I do wonder how the world of legal scholarship would be changed if faculty submitted to peer edited journals. I know I'm not the first to wonder.
3. Publishing is lovely; however, there are those who would just prefer to teach--and there is value in that. Law professors would be wise to bear that in mind. Those who graduate, enter the real world, make their fortunes are those who endow the chairs that afford faculty the luxury of academe. They also tend to remember those who taught them best. (And yes, I'm aware that publishing and teaching aren't mutually exclusive--but those who master both are as exceptional as the Tier 4 graduate professor.)
4. I never stated that I wanted a career in academics. I wouldn't rule it out, but it's not something I've given much consideration--it is certainly not why I decided to go to law school. Frankly, if I knew with 100% certainty that I wanted to be an academic, I'd get a PhD before I'd get a JD. I'm one of those freaks who went to law school with the notion that the law applies to so many areas of our lives that it would be worth having the degree--whether I practice or not--and whether I stay in my current career path or not.
I just hate to see members of a class (and "law professor" is definitely a class) crushing the dreams of anyone out there who may be wanting to pursue a career in academics. Yes, a healthy dose of reality is important to anyone--no one should be completely blind to the hurdles they may have to overcome to pursue a career in their chosen field. But to say that if you go to a school outside the top [insert arbitrary, self-serving number] then it's hopeless isn't doing a service to anyone because it is just not true.
That isn't to say that someone who graduates at the bottom of their class from a Tier 4 school has a shot at academics; but that's not really what's being debated. None of the student voices I've heard lack the understanding that the more prestigious your pedigree the easier the road. But there are those out there who would be very comfortable ending up a faculty member at one of those Tier 2, 3, or 4 schools where they could teach students to be lawyers. And not all of those future professors need degrees from Yale to get there.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
March 2, 2005
Something is rank here, all right.
There's a lot of talk about law school rank these days (I guess there always is)... however, one thing that caught my eye was David Bernstein's post over at The Volokh Conspiracy. Law Dork and Divine Angst both had some interesting comments as well.
So, in the spirit of procrastination for a brief I'm working on, I did a "mini" survey. I looked at the "rankings" for the schools attended by some law professors who blog:
| Blogging Professors | |
| Number Surveyed | 47 |
| Average Rank | 7 |
| Top 10 | 37/47 |
| Percentage Top 10 | 79% |
Since I'm all about the City of Chicago, I also decided to take a look at all the law schools in the Chicago area. Here they are, presented in order of school rank:
| Chicago | Rank: 6 |
| Number Surveyed | 58 |
| Average Rank | 6 |
| Top 10 | 54/58 |
| Percentage Top 10 | 93% |
| Northwestern | Rank: 10 |
| Number Surveyed | 88 |
| Average Rank | 16 |
| Top 10 | 66/88 |
| Percentage Top 10 | 75% |
| Chicago-Kent | Rank: 63 |
| Number Surveyed | 69 |
| Average Rank | 23 |
| Top 10 | 35/69 |
| Percentage Top 10 | 51% |
| Loyola | Rank: 67 |
| Number Surveyed | 47 |
| Average Rank | 37 |
| Top 10 | 22/47 |
| Percentage Top 10 | 47% |
| DePaul | Rank: 103 |
| Number Surveyed | 62 |
| Average Rank | 41 |
| Top 10 | 24/62 |
| Percentage Top 10 | 39% |
| John Marshall | Rank: 138 |
| Number Surveyed | 61 |
| Average Rank | 47 |
| Top 10 | 23/61 |
| Percentage Top 10 | 38% |
Note: This was a very cursory survey, based on faculty listings on the school's websites. I also threw out professors who had degrees from places like "Tokyo University" because I didn't have a ranking guide handy for them. The other ranks are all based on the latest U.S. News ranking, since that seems to be the de facto standard--for better or worse.
If you want to see the full results--including a break-down by individual faculty members, I've put it here in an Excel sheet.
Apparently, there is some hope for those who would like to pursue a career in academics, but don't have the Top 10 cred.
Would anyone be interested if I expanded this into a full survey/paper?
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
February 22, 2005
Calling all Law Students - A Quick Survey
I'm just curious (I'm having issues with my school's computing support). How many of your schools offer:
1. Wired network access in the classroom?
2. Wireless network access?
3. If they offer wireless network access, how do you authenticate? (If you know.)
Thanks!
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (11)
February 10, 2005
Stupid Exam Mistakes
We had a review session last night for one of my exams last semester. Yeah, it's been over two months since we took the exams, but apparently the law moves slow and academics move slower.
Anyway, I thought I would share with you a mistake that I can only attribute to nerves since it was my very first exam in over 10 years out of school:
"Because John Doe did not die, Mr. Stabby is not guilty of murder."
(Duh)
"However, he may be liable for murder under the deadly weapon doctrine."
(Um, you know, if Doe had died.)
I actually laughed when I read that... apparently, so did my prof.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
February 8, 2005
The Pitfalls of Biglaw: Part Deux
I was having a chat the other day with some folks about Biglaw, and the subject of the Yale Numbers came up. We got to wondering what the typical first-year associate makes, hourly, based on those numbers. So here it is:
Based on what seems to be the industry average for starting Biglaw Associates, $125k per year.
Target: 1800 Billable.
Reality: 2434 Hours at work.
Hourly Rate: ~$50/hr.
Target: 2200 Billable.
Reality: 3058 Hours at work.
Hourly Rate: ~$40/hr.
Now, granted, many firms offer yearly bonuses, so that can push the hourly rate up... except that you don't get bonuses for being a low biller...
...in fact, I did a little digging, and (granted, this is old data) but at one Biglaw firm, first-year associates got a bonus based on--you guessed it--hours billed. The bonus for 2200 hours at this firm was $15,500. Raising the hourly rate to $46/hr.
It's not hard math to do, but I wonder how many law students ever bother to do it.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
February 2, 2005
Pony Up the Points!
Jeremy Richey is encouraging everyone to donate their Lexis Points for tsunami relief (via the Red Cross). Just sign into your Lexis account and "shop"... you should see a link to donate to the Red Cross Tsunami relief.
C'mon people! Pony up the points! What the hell were you going to use them for anyway?! Spend the points on something useful!
Posted by Dave! Permalink
January 30, 2005
The Pitfalls of Big Law
One of the many reason's lawyers have such incredibly low career satisfaction, and one reason I don't want to go Big Law:
The Truth About the Billable Hour
[Via The Prejudicial Effect]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
January 29, 2005
Why I don't want to be a law professor.
Seriously, I kid... I own a BlueBook, ALWD, and The Redbook. Not too mention my Strunk & White and my CMS. I'm a style guide junkie.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
January 26, 2005
Guest Post
I wrote a Guest Post today for Evan over at Notes from the (Legal) Underground. It was in response to this post from last week by Prof. Childs.
Go on over and check them out, if you are so inclined.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
January 25, 2005
A Minor Criticism
I realize that I am not at a "Tier One" school where the focus is academic research. However, my school aggressively touted their legal writing program as a selling point and I bought it.
But now that I've been through a semester of it and I'm deep into the first assignment of the second semester. It's become clear: this is not about writing; it's about job training.
I don't actually have a problem with that. But I do wish it had been billed that way. I understand the need to teach us how to structure memorandum, complaints, motions, memorandum in support of motions, briefs, etc. But the bulk of our time is spent going over rote procedural points that could, I think, easily been gleaned out of a text book or by example.
We don't spend any time in class analyzing our thought processes, our word choice, the logical structure of our arguments. That's sloughed off with the "Neumann Paradigm" which is to be committed to memory, and serve as the boiler plate for all of our writing moving forward. Fine. That's all fine. It's just a let-down.
But the kicker, the thing that actually bothers me is the constant, "the first assignment you'll get when you join a firm." Or, "this is how the partner you're working for is going to want this." Or, "the first few years at your firm are going to be spent doing this."
God forbid any of us should want to start a solo practice. Or work for the state. Or go into public service. Or consult. Or any number of things we could accomplish with our training.
This assumption that we're all automatons gearing up to practice BIGLAW, go the traditional wage slave, er, associate route is *so* 1950. I know law is slow to change, but really, this is 2005. There are probably as many different reasons for being here as there are students. And a significant portion of us probably don't want to practice BIGLAW. So fine, teach the course like we're all going to end up the Anonymous Lawyer, but c'mon throw the rest of us a bone every now and then with an assignment that might actually pique our interest. And stop ramming the, "this is the way it will be" down our throat.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
January 19, 2005
Fluke or Fate?
Well, it's in... the last grade for my first semester as a 1L! And, as luck would have it, it's much higher than the first grade I received. Which is very ironic... I felt so confident and prepared for my criminal exam, and I get an unexpectedly lousy grade. Then I feel completely unprepared and and daunted by torts, and viola... a respectable grade?!
I suppose I should have been able to surmise that outcome by the way I felt after each exam. Over confident? Flubbed it. Freaked out? Did well.
Go figure.
At least the criminal professor is letting us review the exams and having a review session, so I can see what I did "wrong" for his exam.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
January 18, 2005
Grades: Part Deux
Well, I got another one, and thankfully, this one is an order of magnitude better than the first. It's almost exactly what I thought I would get, and felt I deserved for the course. It was in legal writing, a course which alternately I loved and drove me bonkers.
That leaves just Torts outstanding... which is both good and bad. I didn't feel as confident going into torts as I did going into Criminal. The exam itself also felt much more difficult. So either I really f'd it up, or I'll do better in torts, making my criminal grade, well, criminal. :)
Only time will tell... It'll probably be another week at least until I get my final grade. Sheesh.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
January 10, 2005
It ain't scarlet, and it ain't no "A"
Well, apparently grades have begun to trickle in, because I just got an IM from a classmate, "Did you see? Crim grades are posted!"
So I went up to check, and viola! Bitter disappointment! Hooray!!
I am so glad I skipped town right after finals and hadn't thought about them until now. Otherwise, I'd be a basket case.
What sucks is that I really, truly felt that I was prepared for this round. I did the practice tests. I wrote my own outline. I was pretty confident I knew the material. And then bam! I am starring at one of the worst grades of my academic career.
I know, it has to happen at some point, but I was still not ready for the shock. Granted, it's only in one class, and it's not enough to put me on academic probation or anything, but it is enough to make the law school experience, shall we say, less pleasant?
I've decided I'm not playing any silly law school games. When people ask how I did, I am candid: "Not very well." If they press, I'll reveal the actual letter... I feel like it's already branded on me like a scarlet "A". Well, not an A, exactly...
What's most upsetting is that I actually enjoyed the class. I kept up with the readings and I thought I had a good handle on the material. I studied. As one of those over-achieving assholes who always did well in school without really trying, I decided law school would be different. I applied myself. And the reward I got was a lousy grade!
So, should I go back to my slacker ways? I think I could do this well with a lot less work. Or should I chalk it up to experience and the fact that I'm still learning exactly what law professors are looking for in an exam? Or should I write it off as one bad test, hardly an estimation of my self-worth, or even my (potential) ability within the practice of law? I dunno. I suppose I should wait and see if this one grade was an anomaly, or an indication of a bad semester.
Sigh.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
December 9, 2004
One More To Go!
Finished my Criminal Final tonight, so just Torts left, and this semester is over! I will make no prognostication about my performance. I'm sure I did better than I think and not as good as I hope. Who knows? It will be another 5-6 weeks before I get my grades back anyway.
I have come out of this finals period with some valuable lessons though, which I would love to share for all you pre-1Ls out there:
1. Briefing is valuable for keeping up with the development of ideas in class, but the value of briefing for exams is minimal. (Keep in mind, this might not be true of more case-centric courses, like Con Law.) You should brief, but brief briefly. :)
2. Outline. Outline. Outline. Seriously.
Now, here's the thing, everyone will say, "Outline the way that means something to you" which I think is a total B.S. cop out. I'm going to tell you how to outline:
First, start with your course syllabus, make each one of the topics a major header in your outline.
Next, underneath each header, make subheaders for each of the rules/concepts that apply to that section; use your class notes to round this out. Cross-check this with a hornbooks and/or commercial outline. Some of the "Un