. Forum

[Bankhead]

I think it's awful that you have to take so many classes with new professors. That would completely ruin the experience for me.

I've heard that a lot of Curriculum B'ers are odd and socially awkward. Any truth to this? Perhaps this has something to do with the (lack of) firm placement your section experiences.

This sounds like a great option if your future interest is academia. Still, it seems a tough road trying to break into academia from a school like GULC. Not that it can't be done.

[Snooker]

The 3B Curriculum seems like bullshit to me. Law schools are criticized for packing on too much theory and not teaching enough practical skills, so GULC's big solution is to pack on even more theory. will learning critical race theory as a 1L keep their graduates from sinking into document review jobs? Color me unimpressed.

GULC isn't trying to provide a solution that would please anti-intellectual LS critics.

your little ad hominem is way off base.

[Snooker]

.

[Burberry by Burberry]

Curriculum A sounds easier overall: easier on a day-to-day basis and easier to study for finals (more resources available).

I don't know which I prefer: the transparency/tradition of Curriculum A or the intimacy/novelty of Curriculum B.

[pasteurizedmilk]

Curriculum A sounds easier overall: easier on a day-to-day basis and easier to study for finals (more resources available).

I don't know which I prefer: the transparency/tradition of Curriculum A or the intimacy/novelty of Curriculum B.

"Easier" doesn't really mean anything. The curve is the curve is the curve, ya know?

[Yimbeezy]

The 3B Curriculum seems like bullshit to me. Law schools are criticized for packing on too much theory and not teaching enough practical skills, so GULC's big solution is to pack on even more theory. will learning critical race theory as a 1L keep their graduates from sinking into document review jobs? Color me unimpressed.

GULC isn't trying to provide a solution that would please anti-intellectual LS critics.

Law school is for professional training, it's not an intellectual adventure. Someone looking for an adventure should sign up for a PhD, MA or some other program that isn't going to set them back $200,000. I am sure I have studied way more philosophy than you have, so your little ad hominem is way off base.

Hah.

If you don't want Curriculum B, don't take it. That simple.

[Snooker]

That's a good point, the vast majority of law students should be informed that they should not take Curriculum B. It's good for legal academics looking to talk about "law and..." (i.e. economics, critical race study, etc.). It probably won't help with clerkships if Judge Posner is to be believed that this branch of legal academia is useless to judiges. Aside from the small percentage of students that become legal academics, adding even more academia into your law degree will probably just hurt your career development.

[Yimbeezy]

That's a good point, the vast majority of law students should be informed that they should not take Curriculum B. It's good for legal academics looking to talk about "law and..." (i.e. economics, critical race study, etc.). It probably won't help with clerkships if Judge Posner is to be believed that this branch of legal academia is useless to judiges. Aside from the small percentage of students that become legal academics, adding even more academia into your law degree will probably just hurt your career development.

First, I'd like to apologize if I came off as condescending in replying to your first post.

Second, I think legal history/theory discussions could have a positive impact in certain court environments (i.e. appellate). Understanding more theory and legal history might allow you to better get 'inside' judges' heads. What I think would be really interesting is if a school linked the two strongly - i.e. a lot of clinical experience accompanied by a higher level discussion about the theoretical threads running through what's happening 'on the ground'. Perhaps in understanding legal history and theory better, you could better peg where a particular judge (or bank of judges) stands on issues and know how to make your arguments.

*Edit*: OP, it would be really interesting for you to keep up with this discussion once you are out of law school.

[Snooker]

A law student is more likely to get into academia than into appellate practice, and both groups combined are still a very small number of people.

[scoutfinch80]

..

[dresden doll]

That's a good point, the vast majority of law students should be informed that they should not take Curriculum B. It's good for legal academics looking to talk about "law and..." (i.e. economics, critical race study, etc.). It probably won't help with clerkships if Judge Posner is to be believed that this branch of legal academia is useless to judiges. Aside from the small percentage of students that become legal academics, adding even more academia into your law degree will probably just hurt your career development.

You couldn't possibly know that. If I had to take a guess, I'd say employers won't care at all.

[TTT-LS]

.

[gilchristh]

Using the section symbol to refer to a law school section = hilarity.

Sounds like something only a Curriculum B person at GULC would do.

I'm a current §3 student (who also uses § instead of "section"). I shouldn't be posting this on the interwebs, but among the first components of §3 indoctrination is the unveiling of the option-6 shortcut and solicitation of a pledge to use it uniformly and exclusively in all future communication, digital or otherwise. Failure to do so results in immediate ex-communication from the vast underground network of past, present, and future §3ers and repossession of the patchouli and Birkenstocks that are distributed during orientation week. [Note: Use of a Mac computer is a prerequisite.]

I hope this question isn't too noob, but for what reasons would someone choose the alternative curriculum over the standard?

I chose it because I prefer a more interdisciplinary approach to learning. I am extremely happy with my decision. With that comment out of the way, I wanted to comment a bit more on some other posts in this thread. There seem to be an impressive number of (incorrect) assumptions made about the "alternative" curriculum approach of §3 and I think it's really detrimental for those of you who are interested in and considering electing the alternative option to listen to law students who lack any real familiarity with the peculiarities of §3 (and even more detrimental to listen to 0Ls and undergrad professors or advisors who have absolutely no idea what the program is or what effects it will or won't have on your future career).

So this thread is almost a year old, but I was recently admitted to Gtown and am extremely interested in Section 3/Curriculum B. Hopefully someone will give it a read. I feel like I'm beginning to get a handle on the differences in content and organization between B and A, but I have yet to find any good information on what exams in B are like. Any info on that? If the exams are substantially different, how do section 3 students prepare?

I know that many of us used previous exams of our professors from both their prior §3 and non-§3 classes. There really were no significant differences in exam style, even for the classes that are somewhat "unique" to §3 (like Legal Justice and Government Processes). The content of the LJ exam, of course, was less case-oriented, but even that--our most "theoretical" class--was based primarily upon hypos.

Bump. Any new insights or comments about section 3 since we last heard from you?

I earlier commented about the variable quality of instruction in the small sections... it might be a somewhat rough year for the entire section... course is being taught by a first-timer...

I obviously can't compare my/our experience to that of those in previous years, but it sounds like the situation was significantly corrected this year. We lost several professors to the Obama administration and we, too, had some "new" professors (new only to §3; not newbie professors), but I was extremely impressed with the caliber of our professors, as were most of my classmates. We had one professor who everyone complained about all semester who was new to §3 (our Government Processes professor). I'm sure she was torn to shreds in her evals, but as we went through the process of outlining and preparing for finals, the general sentiment was that we had, in fact, learned the material and we did actually get much more than we thought we had out of the class--so even that one mark against the program seemed to be really minor in the end (and somewhat unfair, too; upon retrospect, it looks like that course--basically an intro to Admin law--is just a bear to cram under one heading because it's such a scattered body of material). We have two other professors new to §3 who are co-teaching Bargain, Exchange, and Liability (Contracts and Torts combined into one year-long course), and they're both great. The rest of our professors were season §3 vets (who absolutely rocked).

My main gripe is probably the lack of transparency... there isn't much information on section 3... the administration seems very unwilling to release useful information... the job market (especially when it comes to law firms)... entrance and exit stats.

Again, it seems this was corrected at least somewhat this year. I started the Facebook group for §3 last summer after section assignments were released, so maybe I had more information available to me, but I never had much trouble getting the information I wanted (granted, I did do a respectable amount of research on the GULC website and elsewhere). Somewhere in the many links I posted is a breakdown of average GPA at graduation for §3 v. rest of class (and §3's is slightly higher). Andy Cornblatt was also rather forthcoming with information during Orientation, as were our professors (most notably my LJ professor, Seidman, an absolutely amazing professor and one of the founding forces behind §3) and former §3ers who are now 2Ls, 3Ls, or alums. I'm fairly certain that the reasons this information isn't used more flagrantly probably include some of the reasons bwv mentioned (no impetus to do so) and, more notably, the fact that there is no way to determine how much of the discrepancy is attributable to the alternative approach and how much of it is the result of self-selection. With the multiplicity of factors that influence law school aptitude, even the release of entering stats wouldn't be very conclusive. But I get your point, bwv, and I feel like they were more forthcoming with us in general this year.

Unfortunately, there is a general lack of transparency at GULC. The school does not officially publish the grade distribution/curve...

I found the curve online before the semester began, and we were all emailed the updated curve just before exams. This is just one example, but it seems to me that the school might be making honest efforts to improve on several of the issues you mentioned.

The 3B Curriculum seems like bullshit to me... Color me unimpressed.
...
Law school is for professional training, it's not an intellectual adventure...
...
yeah it would be a good option for academia, but since... [blah blah blah, I am an 0L, not going to Georgetown anyway, have verbal diarrhea, draw unfounded conclusions, blah blah blah]... Instead of being taught to think like lawyers, we're being trained to think like legal academics.
...
...the vast majority of law students should be informed that they should not take Curriculum B... adding even more academia into your law degree will probably just hurt your career development.

Thank you, grasshopper. So how has your experience in §3 been? Oh, you aren't in §3? Okay, so how has your experience at GULC? Oh, I see you aren't a GULC student, either. Hmm, well then surely you must have been a legal academic or legal professional before you started doling out career advice. What? You're a 1L at Texas? And you were an 0L when you wrote this? Oh, I understand. Certainly you have developed an impressive level of expertise through the law school application process, knowledge sufficient to substantiate your pronouncements.

Ah, how wise we were when we were 0Ls, when we understood the legal profession and legal education better than legal professionals and legal educators! If only we could return to those days of perfect confidence and self-satisfaction...[/nostalgia]

I'm so glad I had the self-awareness to choose the option that was best for me rather than listening to the noise out there. I'm happy with the "intellectual adventure" I opted for. Lucky for both of us, Snooker can remain "unimpressed" while I focus on impressing employers.

On a more serious note, Snooker's comments suggest a rather grave misunderstanding of the §3 option. First, the "alternative" curriculum for §3 isn't very alternative in content. We cover the same subjects everyone else covers during 1L, but we just do so in a more interdisciplinary fashion (and with fancier class names). Instead of regular ol' Civ Pro, we have Legal Process and Society, which is... (wait for it)... (can you guess?)... Civil Procedure! But we also add in some Criminal Procedure and some Administrative Procedure and spread it out over the course of a year. So it's more like "Court Procedure" or "Adversarial Process Procedure" or something slightly broader in scope than plain old Civ Pro, but also something I imagine will be rather practical in my legal career, whatever path I may choose. The goal is to facilitate a broader understanding of legal process and practices by covering these conceptually-related subjects under one banner. That's essentially what our classes do, with the exception of Legal Justice (which is available as an elective under the heading of "Jurisprudence" at most schools, but generally only to 2Ls and 3Ls who probably would have reaped far greater rewards from it by taking it earlier in their academic careers).

Second, I should clarify for those of you who may not know that §3 is only a 1L program. In fact, 1L is the only time any of you will be divided into "sections" at all. Beyond 1L year, everyone picks and chooses classes at will and everyone is commingled in regular old law school classes (§3 students just tend to get slightly higher grades in them ). Doesn't seem like "bullshit" to me, but hey--I'm biased.

this sounds like a great option for academia.
i see it as harder to defend for firm jobs.

There are actually a few §3 alums who are professors at Georgetown, and I think that's one of the areas where §3 has an edge, but don't quote me on that (anecdotally, it seems to hold water anyhow). But wiseowl's assumption about firm jobs doesn't appear to play out (again, according to the word of some professors and former §3ers). §3: higher average GPAs + higher average level of campus involvement (another §3 fact) + unusual class names as an interesting subject to discuss at interviews = more job offers.

I've heard that a lot of Curriculum B'ers are odd and socially awkward. Any truth to this? Perhaps this has something to do with the (lack of) firm placement your section experiences.

We are by far the most social section on campus. We're more involved on campus, most likely to hit bar review on Thursday night, arguably the most likely to be hurting during 9am classes on Friday, probably the most likely to share notes and outlines with each other, and definitely the most likely to overtake the 11th floor lounge for an impromptu jam session or keg party (much to the dismay of the RAs). There are some oddballs in our section, and I can't really comment on other sections since I'm not sitting in on their classes, but overall, we're the most cohesive, most active, and most social section.

Do you get a JD? Sounds more of an MA program

Sure, it's just like an MA program that uses a foundation of case law augmented with some contextual readings to frame studies in contracts, torts, civil procedure, legal research and writing, property, constitutional law, administrative law, jurisprudence, and some odds and ends during your first year, followed by two more years of classes in law. Just like an MA program, only completely different format and content that highly resembles that of a legal education.

Curriculum A sounds easier overall: easier on a day-to-day basis and easier to study for finals (more resources available).

I don't know which I prefer: the transparency/tradition of Curriculum A or the intimacy/novelty of Curriculum B.

We do have a slightly heavier workload, but the powers-that-be claim that the difference is modest now (after years of tinkering). If you prefer an interdisciplinary approach to learning that (I think) fosters more overlap (and thus, broader-level understanding), then Curriculum B is probably for you. If you are very traditional, very conservative, or generally a more compartmentalized thinker, then it probably isn't for you. You know who you are. Make the decision that is right for you. Choosing the option that you think will be most effective for you will be the primary factor in determining how you perform in and beyond law school.

If you're planning to attend GULC but are on the fence regarding curriculum selection, come observe a class from each option. Feel free to PM me any other questions you may have. I'm rarely on here anymore, but I get notifications of PMs via email and I'm happy to respond.

[pasteurizedmilk]

11th floor lounge eh? That's my home base. I wonder if we've met. Are you guys the ones who keep thrashing it and leaving keg cups and beer bottles and overturned chairs everywhere? Get your lives together §3, damn dirty hippies.

And if I hear one more §3er talk about how much smarter they are I'm going to freak out. FREAK OUT TOBY! This is so much more offensive to me than hard core pornography. I say, if Jesus heard this he would cry.

§3 is a cool program that takes a different perspective to teaching the same basic material you learn in the traditiaonl 1L classes. I've reviewed material from both and gone over outlines and class notes with people in §3 and I can honestly say there isn't that much of a difference between what the two curriculums teach. Sure, you get more theory in §3, but you get a lot of the same theory in a less direct way through the traditional 1L curriculum. The main difference is that Curric B explicitly embraces the theoretical aspect while the traditiaonl sections let the differing theoretical and historical perspectives emerge from class discussion, lecture and casebook readings. I remember a few times where someone from §3 was explaining a particular theory with a fancy-sounding name and I realized we covered the exact same material only minus the fancy name.

Whether or not you compartamentalize informaiton well or not isn't really a determinative factor in which curriculum is a better fit, IMO. Both currics require the same skill set to be succesful. I'd argue that a more important factor in choosing your curriculum is what you want from your peers. §3 is full of more eccentric people than the traditional sections. Class discussion are much more lively in Curric B than Curric A classes. There are more hippies and eco terrorists in Curric B than Curric A. Law school is full of douches, but TBH the most self-important douches I've met at GULC have been from Curric B (not to shortchange the rest of us - there's plenty of douche to go around here in Hoyaland). Curric B also has more interesting people who are more likely to challenge traditional viewpoints, so that might cancel out the higher douche quotient. I'm not knocking you guys, Gil - most of my friends are in your section. I just think there's a lot of self-important crusading douches in §3 too (including a few of my friends).

There's up and downs to both. Snooker and Gilchristh are both wrong. Curric B isn't awful, but it also isn't superior (I highly doubt Curric B sees more job offers because of the curriculum difference, Gil.) They're just different.

[gilchristh]

First, let me clarify by stating that I make absolutely no assumptions about my particular performance last semester; I can only say that the average GPA listings I found (which I can't locate right now, but will try to hunt down in my mess of files spread out over three computers in two cities) reports the average §3 GPA a few hundredths of a point higher--definitely not anything major. And I certainly don't claim that has any direct correlation to a determination of who is smarter. We do seem to have a bunch of splitters in §3 (in both directions, but a preponderance of high-GPA splitters in particular), but that could very well be representative of the school in general, and I would tend to think that a slight boost in GPA could easily be explained by the glut of high-GPA splitters (read: not me) if my observation is valid.

Second, I wasn't responsible for the 11th floor fiasco, but I admit to participation in it. But the beer trash definitely wasn't mine: I only drink liquor or wine and I just don't think either tastes right in plastic cups.

But I have to disagree with you on the frequency of self-important douches. There's one guy in my section who rubs many, MANY people the wrong way. But for the most part, even the banner-waving folk rarely bother me. We do seem to have a plethora of vegans, male feminists, and hard-core environmentalists (would you say I have a "plethora"?), but in my experience few have generally been abrasive... although I will freely admit that the ones who are abrasive are quite vocally so, which might be a point of agreement and is definitely irksome beyond words. ...Meh, hmm... actually, I dunno. On second thought, maybe we do have more. I guess they just don't bother me that much? Nothing a little Facebook "hide" can't cure. I find 'em pretty amusing most of the time, and I guess I enjoy people who are really fired up about a particular cause, even if it's one that I don't personally endorse. Makes for some really interesting discussions, or else it gives me time to manage something totally unrelated while I ignore them (translation: scan Facebook).

Finally, if I were a prospective student, I'd definitely trust pm's stated reasons for choosing the traditional curriculum over my guesses at a reason for doing so since it wasn't even a passing thought for me. I don't think one option is superior across the board by any stretch, and didn't intend to suggest that I did. I do believe it was the superior choice for me because of its style and my appreciation for quirkiness. And my "more job offers" formula was meant in jest; the only serious takeaways I intended were that: 1) there's no disadvantage to B in terms of material covered, 2) the alternative approach is a definite advantage for certain people with a particular learning style and set of preferences, and 3) and the fancy class names have the bonus of being a potential topic of discussion in interviews.

[pasteurizedmilk]

Yeah I was mostly joking about the arrogance thing.....mostly. Although the next time one of you says "self-selection" to me I'm going to lose my mind.

I'm on board with all three of your assertions. I can see how the unique classes would, if played correctly, be a good icebreaker with an interviewer - assuming it isn't with some stodgy uber traditionalist old fuck. but if a firm sent such a person to represent the entire firm, would you really want to work there anyway?

I've heard the legends of the §3 Facebook throwdowns, but haven't had the (mis)fortune of reading it myself. It sounds quite epic. The worst we had in my section was during a discussion of women in the workplace when a fellow classmate suggested women be forced to sign a contract stating they won't have children for 10 years after the date of initial employment. We mostly just laughed at him though - no real fireworks went off. *shrugs* what can you say to that kind of thing?

the 11th floor incident was pretty amusing. ah gewirz.

[pasteurizedmilk]

By the by, have you gotten any grades yet? Have any GULC 1Ls gotten any grades back yet?

[gilchristh]

By the by, have you gotten any grades yet? Have any GULC 1Ls gotten any grades back yet?

Not a peep yet, which has allowed me to confidently update my resume, submit to jobs, and assure my family and non-school friends that "I'm pretty sure I got at least all B-s and above." Ignorance is bliss!

[I wonder if my initial typo of "ignorance is bills" is some kind of Freudian slip.]

[pasteurizedmilk]

By the by, have you gotten any grades yet? Have any GULC 1Ls gotten any grades back yet?

Not a peep yet, which has allowed me to confidently update my resume, submit to jobs, and assure my family and non-school friends that "I'm pretty sure I got at least all B-s and above." Ignorance is bliss!

[I wonder if my initial typo of "ignorance is bills" is some kind of Freudian slip.]

That new curve is pretty generous. Re: jobs - I dropped all law school stuff immediately after my last final and didn't touch a thing all break. Accordingly, the email yesterday about 5:00 PM being the deadline to bid for the GULC/GWU PI jobs was quite a shocker.

Ever tried writing 15 cover letters and updating a year old resume in the span of 6 hours? I don't suggest it.

[Delinquent]

So did section 3 get their grades back yet? If so, would anyone mind sharing what they learned about the section 3 grading experience? studying tips? etc?

I'm thinking something similar to this thread:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &start=425