Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Bronx Bum
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:02 pm

Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby Bronx Bum » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:08 pm

I feel like there's not enough stress on scholarship. Sure, we are learning how to practice (i.e. reading cases and analyzing them) but we need a foundation. Instead of "thinking like a lawyer" on 1L exams, we should be learning the foundations and the history of the law. Scholarship is the single most important element of real practice. We need to know the law through scholarship. Basically, like they tell us to use secondary sources first in LRW. Finals should consist of papers, etc. even if it is still curved. Brian Leiter said recently that judges and lawyers often turn to him on controversial aspects of the law. Scholars always have insight and are the source of all practitioner's legal work. Maybe I'm alone on this one, but law school is too practical. Why do we need to be ready to practice law after 1L? No idea.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby ph14 » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:09 pm

Bronx Bum wrote:I feel like there's not enough stress on scholarship. Sure, we are learning how to practice (i.e. reading cases and analyzing them) but we need a foundation. Instead of "thinking like a lawyer" on 1L exams, we should be learning the foundations and the history of the law. Scholarship is the single most important element of real practice. We need to know the law through scholarship. Basically, like they tell us to use secondary sources first in LRW. Finals should consist of papers, etc. even if it is still curved. Brian Leiter said recently that judges and lawyers often turn to him on controversial aspects of the law. Scholars always have insight and are the source of all practitioner's legal work. Maybe I'm alone on this one, but law school is too practical. Why do we need to be ready to practice law after 1L? No idea.


151

User avatar
joemoviebuff
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:51 am

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby joemoviebuff » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:16 pm

Image

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby Veyron » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:16 pm

Notsureifserious

User avatar
fathergoose
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:36 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby fathergoose » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:17 pm

ph14 wrote:
Bronx Bum wrote:I feel like there's not enough stress on scholarship. Sure, we are learning how to practice (i.e. reading cases and analyzing them) but we need a foundation. Instead of "thinking like a lawyer" on 1L exams, we should be learning the foundations and the history of the law. Scholarship is the single most important element of real practice. We need to know the law through scholarship. Basically, like they tell us to use secondary sources first in LRW. Finals should consist of papers, etc. even if it is still curved. Brian Leiter said recently that judges and lawyers often turn to him on controversial aspects of the law. Scholars always have insight and are the source of all practitioner's legal work. Maybe I'm alone on this one, but law school is too practical. Why do we need to be ready to practice law after 1L? No idea.


151

too generous

User avatar
NeighborGuy
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:51 am

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby NeighborGuy » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:20 pm

Notsureifserious either, but I'll take a shot anyway.

I'm guessing because most lawyers will only ever deal with practical matters. I mean really, how many of us are going to have to deal with issues that require a deep, thorough knowledge of legal history and theory? Are clients going to storm into our offices demanding we explain the nuances of the old English ordeal system? Probably not, they're going to want us to know to make rain for them.

Also, how many of us actually care? Not me. We do need scholars for those heavy questions, but we don't need an army of them; just a few for the rest of us to consult every once in a lifetime.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18415
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby bk1 » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:23 pm

Shitty troll is shitty.

User avatar
dailygrind
Posts: 19657
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:08 am

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby dailygrind » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:24 pm

fathergoose wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Bronx Bum wrote:I feel like there's not enough stress on scholarship. Sure, we are learning how to practice (i.e. reading cases and analyzing them) but we need a foundation. Instead of "thinking like a lawyer" on 1L exams, we should be learning the foundations and the history of the law. Scholarship is the single most important element of real practice. We need to know the law through scholarship. Basically, like they tell us to use secondary sources first in LRW. Finals should consist of papers, etc. even if it is still curved. Brian Leiter said recently that judges and lawyers often turn to him on controversial aspects of the law. Scholars always have insight and are the source of all practitioner's legal work. Maybe I'm alone on this one, but law school is too practical. Why do we need to be ready to practice law after 1L? No idea.


151

too generous

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby Bronte » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:09 pm

I actually question the underlying premise that law school should be more "practical." There's some changes I could see being really effective, for example: (1) Switch LRW from all litigation to one semester litigation and one semester transactional and (2) drop property as a 1L course and replace it with corporations/business organizations. Further, law school should probably be two years. However, overall, the idea that the whole case method should be dropped and that the classes should be all about learning to practice is dubious. It's very difficult, extremely boring, and inefficient to try to teach "practical" shit in the classroom.

The recent NYT article unintentionally highlighted the problem with trying to teach practice in the classroom. An attorney asks some first year associates, "What steps do you take to accomplish a merger?" (already a question so open-ended that it's virtually unanswerable). The answer: "draft a certificate of merger and file it with the secretary of state." If you think law school is boring now, imagine how boring it would be if we spent all our time learning which documents we need to file with whom.

User avatar
biglaw$
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:18 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby biglaw$ » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:14 pm

bk1 wrote:Shitty troll is shitty.

anewaphorist
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:13 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby anewaphorist » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:23 pm

An attorney asks some first year associates, "What steps do you take to accomplish a merger?" (already a question so open-ended that it's virtually unanswerable). The answer: "draft a certificate of merger and file it with the secretary of state."


The part of me that wanted to go to law school just died a little.

BlueDiamond
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby BlueDiamond » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:43 pm

I'm disappointed with law school in general

User avatar
JamMasterJ
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby JamMasterJ » Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:51 pm

NeighborGuy wrote:Notsureifserious either, but I'll take a shot anyway.

I'm guessing because most lawyers will only ever deal with practical matters. I mean really, how many of us are going to have to deal with issues that require a deep, thorough knowledge of legal history and theory? Are clients going to storm into our offices demanding we explain the nuances of the old English ordeal system? Probably not, they're going to want us to know to make rain for them.

Also, how many of us actually care? Not me. We do need scholars for those heavy questions, but we don't need an army of them; just a few for the rest of us to consult every once in a lifetime.

whoosh

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:25 am

ph14 wrote:
Bronx Bum wrote:I feel like there's not enough stress on scholarship. Sure, we are learning how to practice (i.e. reading cases and analyzing them) but we need a foundation. Instead of "thinking like a lawyer" on 1L exams, we should be learning the foundations and the history of the law. Scholarship is the single most important element of real practice. We need to know the law through scholarship. Basically, like they tell us to use secondary sources first in LRW. Finals should consist of papers, etc. even if it is still curved. Brian Leiter said recently that judges and lawyers often turn to him on controversial aspects of the law. Scholars always have insight and are the source of all practitioner's legal work. Maybe I'm alone on this one, but law school is too practical. Why do we need to be ready to practice law after 1L? No idea.


151


lol

User avatar
snailio
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:40 am

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby snailio » Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:27 am

Jesus you guys are really bored, must be the Turkey hangova.

User avatar
wiseowl
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby wiseowl » Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:28 am

still touching that shithole bro?

mrloblaw
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby mrloblaw » Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:08 am

This one had me until the last word of the first sentence. That's got to be at least a 150.

User avatar
downing
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:03 am

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby downing » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 am

Law school is fine the way it is, except that it needs to be one year shorter.

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:05 pm

downing wrote:Law school is fine the way it is, except that it needs to be one year shorter.



+1 The length of undergrad and law school = racket.

It's such bullshit that students are having to go into all this debt when post high school education could be cut in half.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby kapital98 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:37 pm

downing wrote:Law school is fine the way it is, except that it needs to be one year shorter.


+1,000

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:42 pm

I hate that no matter how ridiculous it is, it will never be changed, because "that's how law school has always been."

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby r6_philly » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:49 am

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
downing wrote:Law school is fine the way it is, except that it needs to be one year shorter.



+1 The length of undergrad and law school = racket.

It's such bullshit that students are having to go into all this debt when post high school education could be cut in half.


Barrier of entry would be too low then. Can't make big salary that way.

User avatar
Ernert
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:35 am

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby Ernert » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:04 am

joemoviebuff wrote:Image


I enjoyed this picture.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby BeenDidThat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:40 am

Bronx Bum wrote:Instead of "thinking like a lawyer" on 1L exams, we should be learning the foundations and the history of the law. Scholarship is the single most important element of real practice. We need to know the law through scholarship.


This is by far my favorite part of the post because of how hilariously out-of-touch with reality it is.

If you're a troll: 173

If you're serious, someone should ban you before you do real harm to a clueless 0L.

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is?

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:28 pm

r6_philly wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
downing wrote:Law school is fine the way it is, except that it needs to be one year shorter.



+1 The length of undergrad and law school = racket.

It's such bullshit that students are having to go into all this debt when post high school education could be cut in half.


Barrier of entry would be too low then. Can't make big salary that way.


huh? There's not "barrier of entry" as it is.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atticus25, Bing [Bot], crumb cake, sr1986, Wipfelder and 17 guests