Law professors are more impractical than regular professors Forum

[Puffy]

To describe civil procedure the professor tried to draw an analogy between civil pro. and putting together IKEA cabinet. She says when you read the directions, it's like incomprehensible, but then you look at the pictures, and everything comes together.

Has she ever put together IKEA furniture before? If not, why does she bring it up as an example?

And they use pedagogical methods from like the 60s, possibly because they learn how to teach by watching Dead Poet's Society.

[Tanicius]

To describe civil procedure the professor tried to draw an analogy between civil pro. and putting together IKEA cabinet. She says when you read the directions, it's like incomprehensible, but then you look at the pictures, and everything comes together.

Has she ever put together IKEA furniture before? If not, why does she bring it up as an example?

And they use pedagogical methods from like the 60s, possibly because they learn how to teach by watching Dead Poet's Society.

I assume by Dead Poet's Society you mean the conservative professors that want one right answer as well.

[BobSacamano]

1960? Try 1817.

But seriously, some are much better than others. Many commentators and employers have railed against the impracticalities of a legal education. There seems to be something of a movement towards a more practice-focused education at many schools, though.

[Puffy]

I failed to see how the "case method" is any more hands-on than listening to a straight-up lecture. Because it looks like all it is is the professor grilling one student out of 100 on legal issues that the student does not know because the student literally started law school like today. At least a straight-up lecture will end sooner.

I hope it gets better once I'm out of 1L curriculum.

[Grad_Student]

It will make sense in the end and you might even come to enjoy it. Hang strong 1Ls

[GATORTIM]

LS sucks

[savagedm]

It will make sense in the end and you might even come to enjoy it. Hang strong 1Ls

I prefer the socratic method with the case readings... keeps me focused... sorta

[shortporch]

I failed to see how the "case method" is any more hands-on than listening to a straight-up lecture. Because it looks like all it is is the professor grilling one student out of 100 on legal issues that the student does not know because the student literally started law school like today. At least a straight-up lecture will end sooner.

I hope it gets better once I'm out of 1L curriculum.

You can't understand how participating in a back-and-forth question-and-answer session is "any more hands-on" than listening passively to a monologue? You can't understand how a series of questions tossed out there by the professor while you consider them, even if not called upon, engages you more than listening to the professor talk ceaselessly? You can't understand why a judge would ask you about your argument when you wrote a brief that already says everything you meant to say? You can't understand why you might be called on-the-spot to talk about legal issues? You can't understand why you're being forced to read cases for legal principles, when an overwhelming majority of your legal research at a law firm involves you signing onto Westlaw, entering search terms, and reading cases to discern the legal principles applicable to your case?

I'd stick with the observation that you "literally started law school like today."

[savagedm]

I failed to see how the "case method" is any more hands-on than listening to a straight-up lecture. Because it looks like all it is is the professor grilling one student out of 100 on legal issues that the student does not know because the student literally started law school like today. At least a straight-up lecture will end sooner.

I hope it gets better once I'm out of 1L curriculum.

You can't understand how participating in a back-and-forth question-and-answer session is "any more hands-on" than listening passively to a monologue? You can't understand how a series of questions tossed out there by the professor while you consider them, even if not called upon, engages you more than listening to the professor talk ceaselessly? You can't understand why a judge would ask you about your argument when you wrote a brief that already says everything you meant to say? You can't understand why you might be called on-the-spot to talk about legal issues? You can't understand why you're being forced to read cases for legal principles, when an overwhelming majority of your legal research at a law firm involves you signing onto Westlaw, entering search terms, and reading cases to discern the legal principles applicable to your case?

I'd stick with the observation that you "literally started law school like today."

Just like learning a musical instrument. You learn the classical way first then deviate and develop your own way once you know what the hell you are doing.