What Would You Change About Law School? Forum

[bacillusanthracis]

For example, would you change core classes, the material taught, methods of teaching, etc.?

As I reach the end of my law school experience, the specter of not being taught state-specific law looms large, so I find myself taking every California-specific class I can get my hands on, which has resulted in the opposite of the uninspired 3rd year--a mass of units and material that's decidedly un-3L-like, with the desperate feeling that I need more time--and then my mind rejects that idea like a stomach getting that greasy-sick feeling after eating a tainted tamale off a construction site food truck.

Anyway, what would you change and how would those changes be beneficial to you?

[kellyfrost]

Students would be required to complete externships, actually doing legal work, rather than sitting in classes looking at Facebook.

[acr]

everything

[rcharter1978]

For example, would you change core classes, the material taught, methods of teaching, etc.?

As I reach the end of my law school experience, the specter of not being taught state-specific law looms large, so I find myself taking every California-specific class I can get my hands on, which has resulted in the opposite of the uninspired 3rd year--a mass of units and material that's decidedly un-3L-like, with the desperate feeling that I need more time--and then my mind rejects that idea like a stomach getting that greasy-sick feeling after eating a tainted tamale off a construction site food truck.

Anyway, what would you change and how would those changes be beneficial to you?

I don't particularly think that crim law needs to be a required class. Its so element driven that I think you could learn it in bar review. Probably the same for torts.

What are you signed up for?

[Calbears123]

No grades or at least no curve after 1l.

[kellyfrost]

For example, would you change core classes, the material taught, methods of teaching, etc.?

As I reach the end of my law school experience, the specter of not being taught state-specific law looms large, so I find myself taking every California-specific class I can get my hands on, which has resulted in the opposite of the uninspired 3rd year--a mass of units and material that's decidedly un-3L-like, with the desperate feeling that I need more time--and then my mind rejects that idea like a stomach getting that greasy-sick feeling after eating a tainted tamale off a construction site food truck.

Anyway, what would you change and how would those changes be beneficial to you?

I don't particularly think that crim law needs to be a required class. Its so element driven that I think you could learn it in bar review. Probably the same for torts.

What are you signed up for?

I would disagree here. Criminal Law and Torts should both remain required 1L classes so long as they are tested on the bar.

[Hikikomorist]

Close at least half of them.

[rcharter1978]

For example, would you change core classes, the material taught, methods of teaching, etc.?

As I reach the end of my law school experience, the specter of not being taught state-specific law looms large, so I find myself taking every California-specific class I can get my hands on, which has resulted in the opposite of the uninspired 3rd year--a mass of units and material that's decidedly un-3L-like, with the desperate feeling that I need more time--and then my mind rejects that idea like a stomach getting that greasy-sick feeling after eating a tainted tamale off a construction site food truck.

Anyway, what would you change and how would those changes be beneficial to you?

I don't particularly think that crim law needs to be a required class. Its so element driven that I think you could learn it in bar review. Probably the same for torts.

What are you signed up for?

I would disagree here. Criminal Law and Torts should both remain required 1L classes so long as they are tested on the bar.

Thats silly there are other subjects that are bar tested that aren't as element driven and easy to understand. You would do better to force students to take subjects like Evidence, Business Associations and even another semester of Sales.

[kellyfrost]

For example, would you change core classes, the material taught, methods of teaching, etc.?

As I reach the end of my law school experience, the specter of not being taught state-specific law looms large, so I find myself taking every California-specific class I can get my hands on, which has resulted in the opposite of the uninspired 3rd year--a mass of units and material that's decidedly un-3L-like, with the desperate feeling that I need more time--and then my mind rejects that idea like a stomach getting that greasy-sick feeling after eating a tainted tamale off a construction site food truck.

Anyway, what would you change and how would those changes be beneficial to you?

I don't particularly think that crim law needs to be a required class. Its so element driven that I think you could learn it in bar review. Probably the same for torts.

What are you signed up for?

I would disagree here. Criminal Law and Torts should both remain required 1L classes so long as they are tested on the bar.

Thats silly there are other subjects that are bar tested that aren't as element driven and easy to understand. You would do better to force students to take subjects like Evidence, Business Associations and even another semester of Sales.

What are you? A law school dean?

[rcharter1978]

For example, would you change core classes, the material taught, methods of teaching, etc.?

As I reach the end of my law school experience, the specter of not being taught state-specific law looms large, so I find myself taking every California-specific class I can get my hands on, which has resulted in the opposite of the uninspired 3rd year--a mass of units and material that's decidedly un-3L-like, with the desperate feeling that I need more time--and then my mind rejects that idea like a stomach getting that greasy-sick feeling after eating a tainted tamale off a construction site food truck.

Anyway, what would you change and how would those changes be beneficial to you?

I don't particularly think that crim law needs to be a required class. Its so element driven that I think you could learn it in bar review. Probably the same for torts.

What are you signed up for?

I would disagree here. Criminal Law and Torts should both remain required 1L classes so long as they are tested on the bar.

Thats silly there are other subjects that are bar tested that aren't as element driven and easy to understand. You would do better to force students to take subjects like Evidence, Business Associations and even another semester of Sales.

What are you? A law school dean?

LOL -- are you? You don't have to be a law school dean to realize that: a) criminal law and torts are easier, element driven classes and b) that there are far more difficult subjects on the bar that aren't element driven.

[TLSModBot]

Close at least half of them.

This.

[star fox]

Two years instead of three.

[Toni V]

If you’re “offered” as a 2L, the third year of LS would not be required. I recall that the third year was a big waste of time and $$ ― having to pay for a needless third year and the unnecessary loss of income adds up. A quick calculation of losses potentially = $200k.

[A. Nony Mouse]

If you’re “offered” as a 2L, the third year of LS would not be required. I recall that the third year was a big waste of time and $$ ― having to pay for a needless third year and the unnecessary loss of income adds up. A quick calculation of losses potentially = $200k.

Either require 3L or don't, but don't make it contingent on having a job. It's either useful or it's not. Making people who don't have a job pay more is stupid and cruel.

[NonTradHealthLaw]

Stop with the academic masturbation and recognize it is a 3-year technical degree for all but the top 14 (3?) school. Focus on teaching skills including efficient, non-Westlaw research, client/professional development, transactional drafting, courtroom writing, and an elimination of "Hugging Puppies and the Law" type of esoteria.

[Toni V]

If you’re “offered” as a 2L, the third year of LS would not be required. I recall that the third year was a big waste of time and $$ ― having to pay for a needless third year and the unnecessary loss of income adds up. A quick calculation of losses potentially = $200k.

Either require 3L or don't, but don't make it contingent on having a job. It's either useful or it's not. Making people who don't have a job pay more is stupid and cruel.

OK Fine. Then don't make it contingent, make the 3rd year of LS optional.

[rcharter1978]

Stop with the academic masturbation and recognize it is a 3-year technical degree for all but the top 14 (3?) school. Focus on teaching skills including efficient, non-Westlaw research, client/professional development, transactional drafting, courtroom writing, and an elimination of "Hugging Puppies and the Law" type of esoteria.

If there is a third year, I think it should involve a lot of the things you mention above.

[bacillusanthracis]

I'm ass backwards in that I'm glad for my third year. I've treated law school like one long bar prep course. I've taken every subject that's tested on the bar and only now am I finally getting to Wills and Community Property. And I saved those towards the end because I'm going to practice family law.

But to each their own. If you want to skip the third year, take the bar, and get out, then you should be able to. But that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. You'll see the end of the bar exam before you see that.

One more thing: testing should be different. The law school exam is a unique thing that's only applicable in the real world if you're primary goal is to get sued for malpractice. I remember scoffing at take-home exams until I had to do a couple. But I remember more about those subjects than I do any other. That race-horse shitshow in my particular crim law class with the undisputedly useless Model Penal Code ("answer according to both California law and the MPC") was a blur I've suppressed like a clown-rape gang bang.

So of course that means my opinion on the bar is similar. The MBE should stay because well, if multiple choice questions are good enough for doctors, they're good enough for us. The PT has some useful application arguments going for it. Bah. Whatever. I'll take it and I'll pass it. And when I'm done I'll never give it another thought.

[sublime]

The biggest problem with shortening is that it would completely fuck one class year. Firms aren't going to hire double just because there are more grads.

[lavarman84]

Stop with the academic masturbation and recognize it is a 3-year technical degree for all but the top 14 (3?) school. Focus on teaching skills including efficient, non-Westlaw research, client/professional development, transactional drafting, courtroom writing, and an elimination of "Hugging Puppies and the Law" type of esoteria.

This sounds like a reasonable idea. Of course, you need professors who can actually teach this stuff, rather than academics. And then you run into the obnoxiousness of finding a way to grade this shit on a curve.

But it's a good idea in principle.

I also agree with the idea of closing a lot of the law schools. Make it like med school. Difficult to get into and pursue.

However, I am totally opposed to getting rid of 3L year. I am thankful to be in the midst of a chill 3L year before having to spend most of my waking time working.

[Hikikomorist]

I can get law firms wanting to improve the substantive education in law schools and how well they prepare students for practice, but I don't get why law students would really care about that. No one is expected to know anything coming out of law school, and I'm quite okay with that. Longer exams suck, and clinics sound like they suck.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Clinics are great. And I would have loved to have been more prepared for my job. While you're going to have to learn a lot on the job, if I could have learned more of it in school it would have made the learning curve way less onerous.

That said, there are so many different kinds of legal jobs and so much of what you need to know is specific to a given field/employer, I'm not sure how effectively schools could teach practical stuff. But it would be worth trying.

(Also some of this is up to the student. You want to take Hugging Puppies and the Law, go for it. No one's being required to take that kind of class so if it exists it's not really that big a deal.)

(Also, lol at the idea that having an extra year to chill is going to make up for working for the rest of your life. like 10 years from now it's not going to have made the slightest difference.)

[downbeat14]

I guess I'll chip in on a pedagogy issue I find annoying.

I wish professors would all give an ungraded midterm, or better yet a mini-practice exam at the end of each substantive unit of the course, complete with a model answer and a suggested time limit for taking it under timed conditions. This would seem to make the learning curve of the exam taking process for each course much easier. On the other hand, this would make the baseline of exams better and thus more competitive for the top grades at the end of the semester, so maybe not as advantageous for students who are spending time figuring this stuff out first semester 1L while the masses are still briefing cases...

[A. Nony Mouse]

I agree that that would be much better pedagogy. It would probably make it harder for profs to distribute grades on a curve, though, so not likely ever to be adopted widely.

[EncyclopediaOrange]

No grades or at least no curve after 1l.

This would be chill.