<p>I was reading an interesting post on the WSJ law blog that effectively alleged that law school was too conceptual to be an effective trade school and too detail-oriented and intellectually mediocre to be lumped in with the rest of mainstream academia. So my question is: what exactly does one learn in law school? Having heard that it was more about concepts than practice and that there was a substantial intellectual component to LS, I was happily expecting breezy philosophical discourse. Having heard more than one commentator on WSJ note that law professors could not even summarize Hobbes or Locke, however, was mind numbing. I have no doubt LS is academically rigorous within the confines of its contents. I just wonder, if neither practice oriented nor philosophical, what exactly they are?</p>
<p>I think to some extent you've confused the idea that discussion is theoretical/intellectual with the idea of it being "philosophical." What constitutes a theoretical discussion depends on the discipline. I have a friend who is a prof of theoretical phsycis -- very different than applied physics - nothing to do with issues of philosphy.</p>
<p>The answer to your question depends on large part on the law school you attend and even within a school there will be differences amond subjects and professors. I attended YLS. I had a friends who attend a lower tier regional law school. Our experiences were like night and day. He spoke about how his classes would prepare him for the bar and addressed the details of actual practice in our home state. Such concerns were the farthest things from my law school experience.</p>
<p>We dealt more with theoretical legal issues. Let me see if I can explain this. We were looking mostly at supreme court and influential circuit court decisions -- the types of cases that come up actually rarely in practice that help clarify or define what the law is. You discuss why the court decided what it did, whether if was right to decide as it did and why, and how a court might decide a slightly different issue, etc. Whereas in practice, most of your time is spent counselling clients as to what the law is - ie what the statutes say -- and statutes, which define what the law is for most people in every day life, were rarely looked at in law school --- for the most part you are trying to keep your clients from ending up in court, as opposed to constructing detailed arguments that they could make as to what the law should be if they end up in front of the circuit court of appeals.</p>
<p>There was also a great difference among professors -- some much more "realtity - this could come up in the real world you will face - based". while some much more "theoretical - you will probably never deal with this in practice - based." The two sections of first year civil procedure, taught by two very different professors, were as different as could be in this regard.</p>
<p>I don't know if this fully helps you or not. I know when I was applying to law schools, I was able to visit and sit in on some classes. That might be the best way for you to get an answer to your question.</p>
<p>In the interests of trying to be thorogh -- I'll add the following to my prior answer.</p>
<p>There are also classes you will take where you are learning more historical theoretical issues. For example - torts and contracts - two basic first year subjects. Both deal with the basic issue of how to assess liability between parties. Contracts deal with situations in which there may (or may not) have been an understanding between the parties that governs that issue. Torts deal with situations in which there were no prior understandings - eg, accidents, negligence. </p>
<p>Much of what is current law regarding who is liable under what circumstances in now covered by statutory law. But when you enter those classes as a first year law student, your prof is not going to start talking about legislative rules on liability. You're going to start learning about what a common law court in England decided hundreds of years ago. You may then work your way up to examples of how states have addressed issues in legislation, but that may well be left for a higher level elective class. </p>
<p>You may ask why bother with the history lesson? Well I guess one reason may be that even when statutes govern such principles, they were drafted based on existing theories of law - either rejecting, accepting, or modifying them. So by learning those theoretical underpinnings, it helps you understand why the law got where it is and possibly what the real intent of the statute might be.</p>
<p>Thank you both! Those were extraordinarily helpful responses. Bizymom, do you mind me asking where you attended law school?</p>
<p>Do you comments hold true across the board? Is there also a lot of case analysis in, say, comparative or international law classes? </p>
<p>I read a profile of a student on the YLS website who mentioned that the questions probed by his constitutional law class were things like "what is a constitution? why do states need constitutions?" Those are the sort of thought-provoking debates/dialectics I would hope to have in law school! If only every one were like Yale...</p>
<p>you do realize that it was bizymom replying twice, not two different people right?</p>
<p>also</p>
<p>
[quote]
I attended YLS. I had a friends who attend a lower tier regional law school. Our experiences were like night and day. He spoke about how his classes would prepare him for the bar and addressed the details of actual practice in our home state. Such concerns were the farthest things from my law school experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Columbia,</p>
<p>I can't speak for all law schools but I attended what is referred to on CC as a top-tier law school and I suspect that my legal education was similar to Bizymom's and graduates of other top law schools. Like Bizymom, my law school classes focused on theoretical legal concepts more than practice issues, although in a few of my third year courses and extracurricular projects we focused on real-world legal issues. However, even my international law courses were more theoretical than practical.</p>
<p>I also agree with Bizymom's analysis of what theoretical means in the context of a legal education. Virtually all of my classes involved analysis of cases and constitutional issues, as well as some statutory analysis, and the resulting social and legal implications. Specifically, we analyzed the details of a legal case and how it was decided. We discussed how that case fit into the framework of laws in that field. Finally, we evaluated whether and how that case and related law furthered broader societal policies or goals. The discussions were precise and detailed, and my professors utilized a technique generally referred to as the Socratic method to essentially cross-examine students on their knowledge of every detail and nuance of the topic. I frankly don't recall ever having a breezy philosophical discussion, although I certainly would have welcomed the chance to kick back and shoot the breeze.</p>
<p>Things may have changed since I attended law school 30 years ago, but my law school experience was not a debating society. The professors didn't care about the students' opinions on world events and most of our discussions were on specific and sometimes arcane legal principles rather than items of general public interest. In my law school education, the goals were to read extensively and critically, grasp the details of complex legal concepts, think logically, learn how to reach a rational and supportable conclusion, and communicate those conclusions effectively under pressure.</p>
<p>There are law schools that focus on preparing students to pass the bar exam and practice law immediately upon graduation. Some are top-50 law schools. They generally are region-specific since the practice of law varies from state-to-state and the curriculum is tailored to the state in which the law school is located. Thus, while it may be a good idea to attend a practice-oriented law school, it is important to pick a school in the state in which you intend to practice law.</p>
<p>dcfca- whoops. Shows how poor my critical reading can be...</p>
<p>DRJ4- Thank you for the reply. The detail-oriented aspect of law school frightens me. I'm someone who prefers great ideas to petite minutiae. And I'm not even sure I want to practice law, but rather use the JD for some other purpose. Should I reconsider?</p>
<p>Columbia,</p>
<p>If you were to ask 10 lawyers these questions, you would probably get 10 variations on the answer. Law is a "big tent" career, and there are different kinds of people who go to law school and who work in law-related fields. Since they aren't the same, some would tell you not to worry and some would discourage you. I don't want to do either. My goal is to give you facts (or what I think are facts) that you can use to make up your own mind.</p>
<p>I think detail is important in law school and in a legal career, and I don't think you can get around it. Legal work isn't really like TV, where it seems like the most important part is making a persuasive and dramatic argument. There are lawyers who do that, but only after they spend months slaving over the details of a case or negotiating an agreement to prepare themselves for that dramatic moment. If you know that detail work doesn't suit you, you may not like a legal career. Of course, you might also find a legal career challenging and then you wouldn't mind the detail work. Do you find yourself generally distracted or bored by any job that requires working with details, or do you find that you don't mind detail work if the job interests you?</p>
<p>I believe that most jobs, including jobs that aren't law-related, involve detail work. People don't want to hire someone to give them off-the-cuff advice everyday. I'm sure you wouldn't want to go to a surgeon who didn't bother with details in medical school, nor would you want that kind of lawyer or plumber or babysitter for your kids. As to whether you should pursue law school or not, only you can decide that but to be successful in your career you need to work diligently and pay attention to detail.</p>
<p>As you probably know, there are many careers that mesh well with a legal education. Here are some areas in which lawyers end up working: As traditional lawyers in law firms, as solo attorneys working in their own firms, as prosecutors and defense counsel, as in-house counsel for businesses and corporations, in politics, in public interest positions or government service including the FBI, CIA, and the foreign service, in teaching, as a sports agent, and I'm sure there are other careers I have overlooked. One of the best things about a legal education is that it opens many doors, both after graduation and as you get older.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you comments hold true across the board? Is there also a lot of case analysis in, say, comparative or international law classes?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>since i didn't attend any other law school or take courses in comparative or international law, i really can't say what does or doesn't hold true across the board.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I read a profile of a student on the YLS website who mentioned that the questions probed by his constitutional law class were things like "what is a constitution? why do states need constitutions?" Those are the sort of thought-provoking debates/dialectics I would hope to have in law school! If only every one were like Yale...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>to be honest, this bears little relationship to what my con law class at YLS was like. as i said before, A LOT depends on the individual prof teaching the course. </p>
<p>Yes YLS is unique -- but don't even make too many assumptions about what things are like there -- it is a law school, not a phd program in philosphy -- I knew philosphy majors in my law school class who were a little frustrated that EVEN at YLS, they were expected to address issues based on existing case law and legal principles and not just some greater "theories" as to what the law should be. And law profs wanted you to provide an answer -- not an exploration of why there are no answers in life. </p>
<p>Law school, even at Yale, isn't about deciding what the law should be in some utopian society -- it is about studying what courts have said the law is, or should be, here in the US (for the most part).</p>
<p>Before you decide to go to law school for some purpose other than practicing law, really stop and think about the following:
1) law school is expensive. will that "other purpose" let you pay off your law school debt?
2) is the law degree for that other purpose worth spending 3 years with people who really do want to practice law? there is a certain type of personality that tends to be attracted to law school -- driven, ambitious, argumentative -- they will be your classmates.
3) it is a lot easier to go into law school thinking you won't practice law than it is to come out at the end of three years not practicing law (assuming you are at a top school where you have employment opportunties) -- law firms are going to be the ones recruiting at the law school -- all your classmates will be interviewing for summer and then permanent jobs. the money they offer is awfully good. three years after entering law school with lofty goals, you could well find yourself doing tedious research in a firm's law library thinking its only for a year or to two to earn some money before you go on to that "something else" you have in mind -- only as you get used to that money, it can be hard to break away after that year or two.
4) if you have some other career goal in mind, stop and explore whether there may not be a better route to get there than the time and cost involved in law school.</p>
<p>Good advice, Bizymom.</p>
<p>Having gone through a PhD program (literature) and also law school, at UC Berkeley, I can say from my own experience that they are very different intellectual experiences. Although law school at a school like Boalt is as theoretical as it is practical, it is still very different from graduate school, because ultimately it is preparing students for a practical career and the law professors, for the most part, are not PhD's, but people who went to law school, clerked for a judge or two, and practiced law in a big firm for a couple of years. Oddly, though, many pride themselves on NOT preparing students for the bar or even for day-to-day practice of law (for example, in Civil Procedure, I couldn't figure out what the subject was all about for months, since we spent so much time on abstract things like "quasi in rem jurisdiction" -- as a lawyer, it really is a far less abstract subject). I felt that the students in law school were as smart as graduate students but far different -- most wanted to work hard and make a lot of money and were not interested in law as a purely academic subject; graduate students, at least in the humanities, tend to be a more cynical, less practical lot. Law school courses are also taught very differently -- the professors have much more control over the discussion, using the so-called Socratic method, which can be very manipulative; there is a good deal of show and tripping up of the students. Law school is also far more result, i.e., grade oriented -- and grades do matter for getting summer jobs and ultimately offers at high end law firms, so it is more competitive than graduate school in negative ways that can make it seem more like high school than college. That said, law is an interesting subject from an intellectual perspective, especially the first-year courses and constitutional law courses, and legal writing and thinking (known as "thinking like a lawyer") is refreshingly straight-forward by comparison to the academic variant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the professors have much more control over the discussion, using the so-called Socratic method, which can be very manipulative; there is a good deal of show and tripping up of the students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>glad someone brought this up!! :)
i also went to a top law school. for the most part, if there was some new, "out there" legal theory being discussed in class, it was the professor's, NOT the musings of some student who wanted to have a philosphical discussion. and while it could be fascinating getting a look at the thinking behind such theories (especially when some of those profs later ended up on a court of appeals), it was not a matter of the students getting to flex their own creative theories, but rather a matter of them having a chance to learn the prof's.</p>
<p>I actually prefer shorter but denser passages; I consider them an intellectual challenge. Convoluted language and detail are quite all right as long as the subject matter is very interesting and what is included not too long! I have to read approx. 700 pages a week sometimes, and I quickly found it more rewarding to locate and parse through the small bits of challenging exposition than to trudge as thoroughlly through the reams of evidence. If I can take pleasure in idling endlessly over the prose in a passage by Foucault on the law of prisons or somesuch, I won't be completely alienated by law school, will I?</p>
<p>If only law knew how to spice up the subject matter as well as the social sciences. It's hard to get worked up about reading a textbook called something like "International Commercial Arbitration Case Law" as opposed to a history of the French and Indian War or an anthropological monograph.</p>
<p>
<p>I have to read approx. 700 pages a week sometimes, and I quickly found it more rewarding to locate and parse through the small bits of challenging exposition than to trudge as thoroughlly through the reams of evidence.
In all candor, I think law school is more like a trudge than a parse. So is being a lawyer.</p>
<p>Think about it, C. Look at the responses you've received here from complete strangers who go on and on talking about the law and lawyers. Weren't you surprised? We're trained to be thorough and detail-oriented. You may not be that way now, especially if you are 18-22, but you probably need to be that way sometime if you want to be a good lawyer.</p>
<p>I would be surprised if any professor of criminal law included Foucault in the curriculum; the reading, instead, will be cases about criminal law, i.e., judicial decisions, which focus on facts and apply the statutes to them. Rare is the judge who has even heard of Foucault -- I would wager that a search on Lexis would yield next to no citations. You might prefer a jurisprudence program to law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If only law knew how to spice up the subject matter as well as the social sciences. It's hard to get worked up about reading a textbook called something like "International Commercial Arbitration Case Law" as opposed to a history of the French and Indian War or an anthropological monograph.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>you have to accept the fact that it is not a law school's job to spice up its subject matter in the manner you are hoping for. i really think you have to stop and think about why it is that you are even considering law school -- if its because you think that if you can get into YLS you will have 3 years of intellectual challenge, i really thing you should reconsider.</p>