Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:13 am

I think that's a good idea. I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that I advocate paying for law school FTR

e: Oh, probably from the posts where I say maybe they should if they get jobs. Well, maybe. IDK
Last edited by Businesslady on Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:16 am

I'm feeling very conflicted after reading threads where people clearly shouldn't go.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby PeanutsNJam » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:19 am

mmelittlechicken wrote:Categorically banning K-JD would probably help.


A year or two or ten of office work isn't going to transform someone into a big-picture greater-good intellectual activist.

Optimistically, change will happen organically in a few decades. Right now, baby boomers run the worldUSA. And they don't know shit about shit.

User avatar
mmelittlechicken
Posts: 4680
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:34 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby mmelittlechicken » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:22 am

Businesslady wrote:I think that's a good idea. I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that I advocate paying for law school FTR

e: Oh, probably from the posts where I say maybe they should if they get jobs. Well, maybe. IDK

I assumed it had to be dirt cheap or free in this hypothetical land of people who give a shit.

User avatar
mmelittlechicken
Posts: 4680
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:34 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby mmelittlechicken » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:24 am

PeanutsNJam wrote:
mmelittlechicken wrote:Categorically banning K-JD would probably help.


A year or two or ten of office work isn't going to transform someone into a big-picture greater-good intellectual activist.

Optimistically, change will happen organically in a few decades. Right now, baby boomers run the worldUSA. And they don't know shit about shit.

Why quote me if you're arguing against something I didn't say at all? Is it necessary to your autofellating?

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby PeanutsNJam » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:27 am

mmelittlechicken wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:
mmelittlechicken wrote:Categorically banning K-JD would probably help.


A year or two or ten of office work isn't going to transform someone into a big-picture greater-good intellectual activist.

Optimistically, change will happen organically in a few decades. Right now, baby boomers run the worldUSA. And they don't know shit about shit.

Why quote me if you're arguing against something I didn't say at all? Is it necessary to your autofellating?


? I was talking about WE. I'm saying banning K/JD wouldn't help much. I only have a little over a year of WE, so maybe what I'm saying isn't credited, but I think the only effect it has had on me is disillusionment, with perhaps a slight yet insignificant bump in perspective.
Last edited by PeanutsNJam on Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:27 am

mmelittlechicken wrote:
Businesslady wrote:I think that's a good idea. I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that I advocate paying for law school FTR

e: Oh, probably from the posts where I say maybe they should if they get jobs. Well, maybe. IDK

I assumed it had to be dirt cheap or free in this hypothetical land of people who give a shit.

Yeah, that's the idea. Or people just like spending money on things, or have other reasons the Campos book already covered.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:42 am

PeanutsNJam wrote:
mmelittlechicken wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:
mmelittlechicken wrote:Categorically banning K-JD would probably help.


A year or two or ten of office work isn't going to transform someone into a big-picture greater-good intellectual activist.

Optimistically, change will happen organically in a few decades. Right now, baby boomers run the worldUSA. And they don't know shit about shit.

Why quote me if you're arguing against something I didn't say at all? Is it necessary to your autofellating?


? I was talking about WE. I'm saying banning K/JD wouldn't help much. I only have a little over a year of WE, so maybe what I'm saying isn't credited, but I think the only effect it has had on me is disillusionment, with perhaps a slight yet insignificant bump in perspective.

It's probably not really helpful to generalize from your own work experience to the general idea of ever having been out of school from the age of 5 - particularly when you're making declarative and sweeping statements about adult developmental psychology. This isn't exactly top-tier policy analysis.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby PeanutsNJam » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:23 am

I'm definitely exaggerating and generalizing from personal anecdotal experience, but "ban all the K/JD" doesn't warrant any policy analysis.

deanmeekerconsulting wrote:US NEWS created a situation with the rankings that nearly everyone who is a part of the process (university leadership, faculty, alumni, legal employers, current students, parents of applicants, and the applicants themselves) helps to perpetuate. And admissions deans are under tremendous pressure to satisfy the demands of all these groups.


To start with, the students are only part of the problem.

I'm primarily contending the sneering attitude people with WE have towards K/JDs, as if their time in the work force has elevated them to a different plane of enlightenment. Can WE have positive effects on adult psychology? Definitely. Always? I don't believe so. The kid who left home at 16 and supported himself by working as wait staff, and eventually manager, at a restaurant counts as K/JD. Are you really going to contend he's less "mature" than some dude who has been doing marketing for 2 years out of UG? What about the K/JD who managed to secure a scholarship to a prestigious UG despite a drug-addled single mother.

Yeah that's all anecdotal (but true stories), but still it's enough to call "ban all K/JD" as bullshit.

Unless you're talking about making legal field work a necessary prerequisite, because I can see that making a difference. 2 years of management consulting isn't gonna turn a K/JD beta into an alpha renaissance ubermensch.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:49 am

No, your hypo is not enough to call an off-the-cuff general comment about something that would never actually be implemented as a bright-line admissions rule that ends in "would probably help" bullshit.

Moreover, I don't really care to speak to life in general, or life under extremely specific circumstances like leaving home at 16 and managing a restaurant. I am making posts on a law school admissions board that ask general questions about the various interests of people involved in legal education as students go through the process from start to finish. I like when Nony and utahraptor make substantive comments informed by their experience. I like when Prof. Campos posts with relevant data.

I also like tossing off general utopian comments about how the state and various institutions should spend other people's money, asking about counterfactual scenarios that fall between the present state and "end law school forever," and speculating as to areas as to where various parties might apply their energies or whether Brian Tamanaha would slap sublime for stepping into his office.

This page is terrible. I prefer the format where I remind everyone about every 3 posts that I don't know very much about any of this, and then other people who know more than each other can come in and clarify anything too outlandish or idealistic on fairly specific grounds. I would like to get back to that format, or better, one where people read the papers in the OP and linked throughout the thread and make substantive comments informed by actual experience or personal knowledge.

User avatar
mmelittlechicken
Posts: 4680
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:34 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby mmelittlechicken » Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:09 am

PeanutsNJam wrote:I'm definitely exaggerating and generalizing from personal anecdotal experience, but "ban all the K/JD" doesn't warrant any policy analysis.

deanmeekerconsulting wrote:US NEWS created a situation with the rankings that nearly everyone who is a part of the process (university leadership, faculty, alumni, legal employers, current students, parents of applicants, and the applicants themselves) helps to perpetuate. And admissions deans are under tremendous pressure to satisfy the demands of all these groups.


To start with, the students are only part of the problem.

I'm primarily contending the sneering attitude people with WE have towards K/JDs, as if their time in the work force has elevated them to a different plane of enlightenment. Can WE have positive effects on adult psychology? Definitely. Always? I don't believe so. The kid who left home at 16 and supported himself by working as wait staff, and eventually manager, at a restaurant counts as K/JD. Are you really going to contend he's less "mature" than some dude who has been doing marketing for 2 years out of UG? What about the K/JD who managed to secure a scholarship to a prestigious UG despite a drug-addled single mother.

Yeah that's all anecdotal (but true stories), but still it's enough to call "ban all K/JD" as bullshit.

Unless you're talking about making legal field work a necessary prerequisite, because I can see that making a difference. 2 years of management consulting isn't gonna turn a K/JD beta into an alpha renaissance ubermensch.

I am K-JD, FYI.

User avatar
Ex Cearulo
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:51 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Ex Cearulo » Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:11 am

Businesslady wrote:
It's fucked up to charge so much directly to the student, but so what if it's expensive to teach responsible and intelligent people about legal theory so they can practice law - or not practice law, whichever. Fine. It costs a lot to train a fighter pilot, too, and I don't think they're dogfighting all the time or whatever. Is the Air Force a scam?

Image

Dear God, I'm not sure it's possible to come up with a more ridiculous analogy.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:32 am

Well, no shit. That transitioned into a comment about the socially optimal scale of various economic activities with a link.

I doubt it. Like anything else - you have to parse out the looting.


It's incredible the information entropy that takes place over the course of a few pages. Maybe hierarchy rules.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby PeanutsNJam » Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:33 am

I'll definitely second that it'll be interesting to hear current/graduated law students' opinions on the Kennedy paper. I can't access the Tamanaha paper in the OP, but how valid is his criticism of the Kennedy paper?

User avatar
Ex Cearulo
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:51 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Ex Cearulo » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:28 am

Businesslady wrote:Well, no shit. That transitioned into a comment about the socially optimal scale of various economic activities with a link.

I doubt it. Like anything else - you have to parse out the looting.


It's incredible the information entropy that takes place over the course of a few pages. Maybe hierarchy rules.


So you intentionally used a horrible analogy to make a point? I get that you transitioned to something else. And I read the information in the link. I find the discussion overall to be interesting. But fighter pilots and their training don't really fit into an analogy or discussion about the "socially optimal scale of various economic activities", not when you're dealing with extremely specialized training, with national security concerns, that the participants don't pay for (like Nony mentioned) and the controlling entity doesn't profit from. If you're going to use an analogy (whether yours or someone else's) to make a point or guide a discussion, use an analogy that makes sense was all I was saying. Anyway, I realize this could turn in to something I can't stand, which is derailing a thread with a side debate, and I don't want to do that, so I'll stop here.

User avatar
Skool
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Skool » Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:23 am

Chomsky wrote:It’s considered very left wing, very advanced. Some of what appears in it sort of actually makes sense, but when you reproduce it in monosyllables, it turns out to be truisms...All of this can be described literally in monosyllables, and it turns out to be truisms. On the other hand, you don’t get to be a respected intellectual by presenting truisms in monosyllables.

In the third world, popular movements really need serious intellectuals to participate. If they’re all ranting postmodernists… well, they’re gone.



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22887
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:46 am

Re: people who argue about rules spending time in the life world - generally, I agree that's a good thing, but as I suggested before with TFA, I don't think it's a guarantee - I think it depends much more on the person, and I would much rather get more people from a wider variety of backgrounds into law school to begin with. And really that's a broader problem than law school - to the extent it's an issue, what you really need a something like mandatory service between high school and college.

Also, it depends entirely on what rules you're talking about. My sense is that you're thinking about politics/legislation. I really doubt going K-JD matters if you're spending your time helping big companies sue each other or merge with each other. So much of law is a relatively mechanical service profession, not a mechanism for social change.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby utahraptor » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:56 am

The K-JD thing is why I moved from "shut them all down" to "let's make it an undergrad degree and make law school more workshop like/clinical/experiential/whatever." I'm not KJD. My WE doesn't help me at all, but I think being a touch older and more mature is a good thing.

Interviews also serve as a good filter for this stuff.

Businesslady wrote:Sorry, I guess? I hope you got what you wanted for the price you paid. Did you try? Was it frustrating?


I got out of OCI what I wanted. I try in my classes (and I'm one of the weirdos who always goes). I enjoy law school. It just seems pretty masturbatory and I don't think I've learned much. The only value add for me is proving that i'm as good at (or better at) the law school academic bloodsport thing than many of my peers with better academic pedigrees.
Last edited by utahraptor on Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MarkinKansasCity
Posts: 11087
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:18 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby MarkinKansasCity » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:56 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Re: people who argue about rules spending time in the life world - generally, I agree that's a good thing, but as I suggested before with TFA, I don't think it's a guarantee - I think it depends much more on the person, and I would much rather get more people from a wider variety of backgrounds into law school to begin with. And really that's a broader problem than law school - to the extent it's an issue, what you really need a something like mandatory service between high school and college.

Also, it depends entirely on what rules you're talking about. My sense is that you're thinking about politics/legislation. I really doubt going K-JD matters if you're spending your time helping big companies sue each other or merge with each other. So much of law is a relatively mechanical service profession, not a mechanism for social change.


Outside of legislatures, the only people who have the ability to change the law in any substantial way are appellate and Supreme Court justices. The rest of the lawyers work with the system as it is, not as they would like it to be. Advocates are ethically bound to zealously work in the interest of their clients within the current framework, and the vast majority of judges are bound to apply the rules spelled out by higher courts. The only place a service or work experience requirement would make sense, in the context of effecting social change, is at a very high level. This is not to say that work experience relevant to a particular practice area wouldn't be helpful, or even general work experience to understand the world in a non-legal context. I just don't see how that would make any difference for the vast majority of lawyers trying to advance the interests of their clients within the existing legal framework.

User avatar
MarkinKansasCity
Posts: 11087
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:18 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby MarkinKansasCity » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:58 am

utahraptor wrote:The K-JD thing is why I moved from "shut them all down" to "let's make it an undergrad degree and make law school more workshop like/clinical/experiential/whatever." I'm not KJD. My WE doesn't help me at all, but I think being a touch older and more mature is a good thing.

Interviews also serve as a good filter for this stuff.

Businesslady wrote:Sorry, I guess? I hope you got what you wanted for the price you paid. Did you try? Was it frustrating?


I got out of OCI what I wanted. I try in my classes (and I'm one of the weirdos who always goes). I enjoy law school. It just seems pretty masturbatory and I don't think I've learned much. The only value add for me is proving that i'm as good at (or better at) the law school academic bloodsport thing than many of my peers with better academic pedigrees.


Image

Just trying to get my piece of paper and move on man.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:13 pm

Ex Cearulo wrote:
Businesslady wrote:Well, no shit. That transitioned into a comment about the socially optimal scale of various economic activities with a link.

I doubt it. Like anything else - you have to parse out the looting.


It's incredible the information entropy that takes place over the course of a few pages. Maybe hierarchy rules.


So you intentionally used a horrible analogy to make a point? I get that you transitioned to something else. And I read the information in the link. I find the discussion overall to be interesting. But fighter pilots and their training don't really fit into an analogy or discussion about the "socially optimal scale of various economic activities", not when you're dealing with extremely specialized training, with national security concerns, that the participants don't pay for (like Nony mentioned) and the controlling entity doesn't profit from. If you're going to use an analogy (whether yours or someone else's) to make a point or guide a discussion, use an analogy that makes sense was all I was saying. Anyway, I realize this could turn in to something I can't stand, which is derailing a thread with a side debate, and I don't want to do that, so I'll stop here.

You're right. Shareholders of defense contractors are nothing like partners of firms. It's an efficient market that has no conflicts of interest arising from private interests in the state's use of force, and the general concept that the expense of training a class of specialists at the highest level shouldn't necessarily invalidate an organization totally isn't transferable because "national security." The militarized system of domestic order that results in mass incarceration really shouldn't be discussed alongside resources that can be deployed to protect - you know what, fuck it.

I don't care to continue this either, because there are some pretty basic principles of political economy that I don't feel like explaining, and there are several other pages discussing what "the controlling entity" is in the context of legal education. And do you know who else mentioned the part of being stuck with the bill? I did. This isn't a "side debate." It's you picking at an analogy, not reading, and not extracting the reasoning of citing to a source when it's spelled out. Don't go.

Skool wrote:
Chomsky wrote:It’s considered very left wing, very advanced. Some of what appears in it sort of actually makes sense, but when you reproduce it in monosyllables, it turns out to be truisms...All of this can be described literally in monosyllables, and it turns out to be truisms. On the other hand, you don’t get to be a respected intellectual by presenting truisms in monosyllables.

In the third world, popular movements really need serious intellectuals to participate. If they’re all ranting postmodernists… well, they’re gone.

I appreciate the substance of this comment but for the most part I'm not describing anything like a popular movement. I think we can distinguish between popular movements in the third world and current and prospective law students at top schools (and especially those who are desirable in admissions rankings gamesmanship) starting to ask questions about what the institutions can do to make their QOL as students and practicing attorneys better - not just "placement" - when they're in the process of deciding where to go to school.

II'm operating under the assumption that the people this thread should reach are capable of polysyllabic discourse and reading dense text - even if that's not everyone posting in it. I appreciate Chomsky a lot and will take Chomsky over Foucault any day. However, in the context of schools that trade in the abstractions that order people's lives, and a discussion of what jurisprudential research publications might look like, I don't think it's too much to ask that people make use of more complex frameworks. I also think having shitloads of more affordable trade schools is a great idea.

You're describing a pragmatic acceptance of anti-intellectualism, the sort of which reduces one to discussing things like fighter pilots, and we may be talking past each other on that point.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:50 pm

utahraptor wrote:The K-JD thing is why I moved from "shut them all down" to "let's make it an undergrad degree and make law school more workshop like/clinical/experiential/whatever." I'm not KJD. My WE doesn't help me at all, but I think being a touch older and more mature is a good thing.

Interviews also serve as a good filter for this stuff.

Businesslady wrote:Sorry, I guess? I hope you got what you wanted for the price you paid. Did you try? Was it frustrating?


I got out of OCI what I wanted. I try in my classes (and I'm one of the weirdos who always goes). I enjoy law school. It just seems pretty masturbatory and I don't think I've learned much. The only value add for me is proving that i'm as good at (or better at) the law school academic bloodsport thing than many of my peers with better academic pedigrees.

Well, I mean, that's all right, and I'm happy you're having fun, but I think what you're describing might not be well-described as "academic" bloodsport if you're not really engaging with professors while others are writing their papers. It sounds to me like checklisting and getting points bloodsport. If you enjoy grinding and being good at grinding, and are happy that you'll be materially secure and have a steady source of material away at which to grind, then good. I hope you have fun doing it. I think you probably deserve more than whatever you'll get for it right away. I think you're smart enough to figure out how to get it eventually.

I likewise don't think a person should have to go through a graduate program, much less one with prominent constitutional scholars, for the opportunity to get what you wanted. On the other hand, things being how they are, with people wanting what they want - pragmatically speaking, I'm not sure it's the worst thing to suggest that your grinding should subsidize more rigorous research publications as well as clinics, or that the institution should play a more active role in making sure you can grind in humane conditions, or that people going in with less of a financial burden might think about how to spend their three years in the machine to get something more personally rewarding at the end. I've already described my view of how the dollars move around, how incentives are structured, and what appear to be potential opportunities for interaction and dialogue. I'm glad you're able to keep it in check when I'm out of my depth on certain aspects.

I'm not sure how generalizable the experience of getting nothing out of it but the satisfaction of winning at grinding is - but that seems like an unhealthy way to structure an education in the law. Would you have tried harder to dig into more fun things if you knew you didn't want a big firm job? If you didn't have to pay so much for the OCI ticket? What would you be doing with your time there, and the degree, if it were free or close to free?

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby PeanutsNJam » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:51 pm

Businesslady wrote:I'm operating under the assumption that the people this thread should reach are capable of polysyllabic discourse and reading dense text - even if that's not everyone posting in it. I appreciate Chomsky a lot and will take Chomsky over Foucault any day. However, in the context of schools that trade in the abstractions that order people's lives, and a discussion of what jurisprudential research publications might look like, I don't think it's too much to ask that people make use of more complex frameworks. I also think having shitloads of more affordable trade schools is a great idea.

You're describing a pragmatic acceptance of anti-intellectualism, the sort of which reduces one to discussing things like fighter pilots, and we may be talking past each other on that point.


It's not that people here are incapable of understanding big words and dense text. If you want substantive discussion on how to improve (or create where there is none, as utahraptor would assert) the pragmatic benefits of law school, you need to ask people who have been to law school. Just to remind you, this is the admissions forum, primarily populated by speculative 0Ls.

I read the Kennedy paper, but I have no frame of reference with which to observe that paper. As such, I can't engender any inspirational discussion on the topic, because I don't know shit about it. Not because I can't google dictionary a word.

Although JCougar and utahraptor have both, repeatedly, basically said they can't say "judicial scholarship" with a straight face. Whether they're addressing present circumstances, or the general field of jurisprudence, is unclear.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:So much of law is a relatively mechanical service profession, not a mechanism for social change.


Is that just how it is now, or how law in general is?

Some parts of this thread were helpful for an 0L like me. Namely, where people talked about the disconnect between "legal scholarship" and actual legal practice. What would be most practically helpful would be people talking about how exactly law schools are currently perpetuating the facade of **_~rigor~_** (with polysyllabic words and dense text?), instead of how we can achieve our wet dream fantasy.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby utahraptor » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:16 pm

Businesslady wrote:
utahraptor wrote:The K-JD thing is why I moved from "shut them all down" to "let's make it an undergrad degree and make law school more workshop like/clinical/experiential/whatever." I'm not KJD. My WE doesn't help me at all, but I think being a touch older and more mature is a good thing.

Interviews also serve as a good filter for this stuff.

Businesslady wrote:Sorry, I guess? I hope you got what you wanted for the price you paid. Did you try? Was it frustrating?


I got out of OCI what I wanted. I try in my classes (and I'm one of the weirdos who always goes). I enjoy law school. It just seems pretty masturbatory and I don't think I've learned much. The only value add for me is proving that i'm as good at (or better at) the law school academic bloodsport thing than many of my peers with better academic pedigrees.

Well, I mean, that's all right, and I'm happy you're having fun, but I think what you're describing might not be well-described as "academic" bloodsport if you're not really engaging with professors while others are writing their papers. It sounds to me like checklisting and getting points bloodsport. If you enjoy grinding and being good at grinding, and are happy that you'll be materially secure and have a steady source of material away at which to grind, then good. I hope you have fun doing it. I think you probably deserve more than whatever you'll get for it right away. I think you're smart enough to figure out how to get it eventually.


Thing is, law school isn't really that much of a grind. I'm sure some people brute force their way into doing well, but the fact that there might be a checklist somewhere doesn't magically make everyone good at it. In fact, given that we all know it's a bit of a joke, shouldn't it be easier to do so?

This is one of the things where if you dropped kayfabe we could have a real conversation, person running these accounts (who I think went to law school but hey, maybe I'm totally wrong and there's actually a person out there who fits the story and this isn't some bizarre, confusing, many months long sock puppet).

I agree it's not part of academia but if law school exams aren't an academic exercise I have no idea what is. You read something, apply the relevant things you learned, analyze the shit of the applicability of those things, and question the effectiveness of your own analysis. It's not SCHOLARSHIP and it's not DIFFICULT, but it's certainly academic.

If you want to drop kayfabe and discuss it more, I'd be glad to do so. If not, I guess it was nice talking to a quasi-geninue non-law persona about the rigor of law exams.

Businesslady wrote:I likewise don't think a person should have to go through a graduate program, much less one with prominent constitutional scholars, for the opportunity to get what you wanted. On the other hand, things being how they are, with people wanting what they want - pragmatically speaking, I'm not sure it's the worst thing to suggest that your grinding should subsidize more rigorous research publications

research about what

Businesslady wrote:as well as clinics, or that the institution should play a more active role in making sure you can grind in humane conditions, or that people going in with less of a financial burden might think about how to spend their three years in the machine to get something more personally rewarding at the end.

Personally rewarding how? I'm sure some people LOVE that they got to listen to Tim Wu talk about stuff. But, I think you're giving me a superficial read. Not only am I saying "I found it unfulfilling" I'm saying "You probably wouldn't be fulfilled either, and if you would, you should question why."

Businesslady wrote:I've already described my view of how the dollars move around, how incentives are structured, and what appear to be potential opportunities for interaction and dialogue. I'm glad you're able to keep it in check when I'm out of my depth on certain aspects.

To be crystal, I'm saying that pretty much nothing you've posted in any of these threads is of merit. I liked Campos' addition earlier. I still hate these threads.

Businesslady wrote:I'm not sure how generalizable the experience of getting nothing out of it but the satisfaction of winning at grinding is - but that seems like an unhealthy way to structure an education in the law. Would you have tried harder to dig into more fun things if you knew you didn't want a big firm job? If you didn't have to pay so much for the OCI ticket? What would you be doing with your time there, and the degree, if it were free or close to free?

Again, I don't think it's grinding. I also don't think you really get what an EDUCATION IN THE LAW is, or, probably more accurately, I think you probably know what law school is like, but I don't understand why you pretend to not and use random accounts to discuss this stuff.

I do many fun things in law school. I'd do the same things I do now if it were free. I 'enjoy' my classes, but I think a large part of that is that I recognize that it's all a joke. That truth isn't impacted by my level of debt.

I'm just saying that LEGAL ACADEMICS are, by and large, jokes. They're the winners of the "grind" that you're talking about, nothing more. If law school is a grind, and success in law school is "grinding" why are you glorifying the people who were the most successful grinders? Do you think there is some other filter out there that siphons off the future clerks? Do you think there are other inputs.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby utahraptor » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:19 pm

Pretty much I want to lock you in a room with Eben Moglen for a couple of hours and, upon your exit, want you to discuss the legitimacy of LEGAL ACADEMIA.

(the irony being that I think Moglen might be one of the few people here who would agree with me)




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: charmonster, Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests