<p>I finished reading this book by Turow last night. It was OK in writing, but I learned a lot about law school and its rigors. Have any of you read it? Can you compare and contrast the law school scene of 1988 or so with that of today? Have any of the reforms Turow mentioned in his book been applied? By the way, I really liked Perini. He reminded me a lot of my AP US History teacher.</p>
<p>I read it before I went to Law School, and a lot of my experience was similar. In fact, my contracts prof. was a student of Wiliston at Harvard (the Carbonic Cannoball dude from the Paper Chase). Once, after he asked a student a fairly easy question that the student could not answer, this prof. asked him if he "had a dime?" The student asked "why," and the prof said" "because your parents might like to know you are coming home early." Very harsh.</p>
<p>Haha, I haven't read the Paper Chase yet. Even though a prof has never put me on the spot that bad, I do somewhat think the Socratic Method is a good tool. Of course, it wouldn't be a lot of fun if all the classes of the first semester were Socratic. I'm the type of person that unless I participate in the class and open my mouth, the lecture will fly by me and I won't be actively learning the material. In the book I also really liked the part about hissing. I also thought that Perini was wronged (publishing the letter), even though he made a mistake first. Is it true that the purpose of law school is to churn out academics as opposed to "lawyer school"? Or has that changed?</p>
<p>In my day (really not all that long ago), the mantra was that "we are going to teach you to think like a lawyer." What they really meant was that there was neither the time, nor interest, in teaching one the nuts and bolts of practicing law. Sure there is the trial ad class, and a few clinincs were one can get some real lawyering skills, but by far the interest was in the "thinking" part. How to read a case, analyze it, and apply it to new or different facts, is (or was) the main focus of law school -- with a fair amount of attention paid to teaching core concepts that would be tested on the bar exam.</p>
<p>I read 1L this summer. After a semester of law school, I'll comment on a few things. </p>
<p>I think that Turow brought a lot of his angst upon himself - there was one part where, after moot court competition, he said that he realized how reasonably the whole assignment could have been handled. </p>
<p>1L was written in the 70s I believe - probably published in '88. </p>
<p>Read "Law School Confidential," which gives you a more modern picture of law school (first edition, 2000, new edition, 2004). </p>
<p>Going from there - I think that you are going to get a very different law school experience depending on where you go. I was fortunate enough to go to a school where people really like each other - honour system, small environment, all that. Most of us are thrilled that we are here and not somewhere else. As such, it is nothing like what Turow described in 1L. But, I could see how it could be, in a more competitive environment.</p>
<p>Some of the things in 1L are true - you get absorbed in the law, everyone there is really smart, and it's easy to get obsessive. Socratic, until you get used to it, is a nightmare. To give you an idea: my favourite high school teacher did Socratic, and I loved it. That's a lot of what pulled me into the sciences. Fast forward from '98 to '04, and I'm sitting in my first ever law school class. The dean called on me and one other person, and, for a solid hour and a half, alternated between grilling us both on the reading that had been assigned for that day. I followed the Law School Confidential method of reading and briefing, had notes in the margins, and had read everything at least twice. I wanted to throw up. All I could think of was the Paper Chase scene where Hart lost his lunch after a similar experience. It really took me until November to get used to it - but, (and this is coming from a fairly outspoken, confident person), it's really terrifying. Just my take, but most people hate it. I made an effort to answer questions in class to at least get used to talking, which made it easier once I was called on. </p>
<p>We are really doing the "learn to think like a lawyer" method of legal study - and I think it's a good idea. Having been through engineering (which is also a professional degree), I realize that you learn most of the nuts and bolts on the job, and that the degree really teaches you how to think like an engineer. However, 3rd year clinics are becoming very popular: students who have taken evidence and PR can apply for 3rd year practice licenses and do some actual legal work. (I have heard that third year tends to be useless, but CD would know much more about that!)</p>
<p>One more thing - HLS has about 100+ students per classroom, with 550 per year. My 1L class is roughly the size of a HLS section. Very different experience.</p>
<p>Yeah, I read that in the book, Turow thought something along the lines that LS should only be done in two years. I was amazed, I was thinking it should take longer than three. </p>
<p>Also, what I meant by liking the SM dealt more with participating and actively learning than being grilled the whole class period :-). I would think it would be better to perhaps pick 5 students each day, instead of focusing on one or two during the whole class. I'll be sure to read those two books before my break is up :-). AA, are you taking finals now?</p>
<p>The value (or lack thereof) of the third year has been long debated. There is always talk that the third year would best be served as a clinical year, whereby the student can learn the nuts and bolts of practice, while providing supervised representation for the under-represented in society. Personally, I think it is a wondeful idea, one that would fullfil many objective, and maybe put lawyers in a better light with the general public.</p>
<p>I tend to agree, CD. Learning about the lawyer part shouldn't be an extracurricular activity. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a great percentage of grads actually go on to represent people as lawyers? Sure there are clerkships and some academic jobs, but I do believe many go on to practice and could use a class or a year learning these skills. What do LS students do in the 3rd year?</p>
<p>I'm done with finals!!! As of yesterday, I'm a free woman (until January). </p>
<p>CD: the idea of the third year as a clinical experience sounds wonderful - although, just my perspective, it might be difficult to charge students upwards of $50k/year for that. That aside - something like a straight clinical year, with perhaps a class or two thrown in for fun, would be great. </p>
<p>The active learning of Socratic is good - so much easier to pay attention than when the professor lectures. Also, the famous law school hypotheticals are awesome. I'll put together a top 10 list sometime. Hum, there was a good one about the necessity defense in torts, which featured our class wandering about the woods, lost and hungry, and stumbling upon a deserted cabin. Next hypo featured the same crew, armed with our torts books, stumbling upon a cabin inhabited by physicians attending an ultra-secret conference on how to get rid of lawyers, who denied food and shelter to our near-death class. Would we be justified in using force to procure life-sustaining food?</p>
<p>Yes. Unless there was a nearby sustenance source and unless the physicians have a good reason to deny food and shelter, Darwinism kicks in. There would need to be a declaration of war first, of course. I would like a top ten list :-).</p>
<p>yes, paying to work in a clinical setting can be a bit erksome, but then student teachers do that (although not generally at the same tuition level).</p>
<p>Third year is where you find the time to take a few electives. For example in my "third year" (actually my 4th since I was night student), I took Jewish Law taught by a prof. who was both a rabbi and JD. It was fun, but it was not a bar course, nor has learning how to read and cite to the Talmud come in handy to my practice.</p>
<p>I would go for 1/2 practice and 1/2 learning lawyer skills. Jewish Law does sound very interesting... I'll definitely be looking forward to it in the next years :-). Do you two have a favorite class/professor?</p>
<p>That is tough. I would say it was my legal writing and research prof. Unlike most law schools, at the time that I went tenure line faculaty taught these classes. He was not only a lawyer, but also had a teaching credential. That class taught me so much, and indeed set the course for my entire legal career as an appellate attorney.</p>
<p>I heard Scot Turow speaking about One L on an author's tour in 1977 or 1978; it was, coincidentally, his last day as a 3L at Harvard ("which, in the tradition of Harvard 3L's, I am skipping," he said).</p>
<p>He was a One L closer to thirty years ago. I just attended my 20-year LS reunion (at a nationally prominent, but more famously "laid-back" law school). There were students who whipped themselves into a frenzy, and many others (myself included) who refused to drink the kool-aid.</p>
<p>I gather from my younger colleagues that things haven't changed that much either way.</p>
<p>Of the four classes I've had - Contracts, criminal, civil procedure, and torts - I really love all of my professors. I think that criminal taught us really how to think like lawyers, in that we really got into mens rea (the entire course was really on mens rea). Our prof used to be a prosecutor, then switched to defense, and apparently did riduclously well on both sides. He was also big on explaining the moral reasons behind what we studied, like why someone can watch another person be killed and not be liable. It makes the subject a lot better. The contracts prof was great in that he is really straightforward - you know exactly what he expects. As a subject, k's aren't really touchy-feely: it's really a lot of rules and then application. As a former engineer, I love that. Our Civ Pro teacher was great just as a teacher - Socratic is not scary under her. She also really wanted to make sure that we understood it. The torts prof. is great.</p>
<p>Overall, as a class, Civ Pro was my favourite - it's the most like a puzzle. Very logical, very straightforward, and it seemed like the opinions made the most sense. Torts was frustrating in that judges really seemed like they would do whatever they wanted to make sure that the verdict came out the way they wanted it to.</p>
<p>As noted by Greybeard, One-L was written about Turow's first-year experience in 1975, with the book first published in 1977. </p>
<p>Things have changed a lot since then. For one thing, you can "Pass" whenever you want at most schools, though you should probably be prepared, and participate, next time out, if for no other reason than respect. In general, it's simply far more relaxed and laid-back, especially at most programs.</p>
<p>You could "pass" in my day too, but only at great peril of being further embarrassed by not being prepared.</p>
<p>CD - you mean the inherent embarrassment of not being prepared? That's gotta be better than trying to answer the question when you haven't done the reading, right? </p>
<p>Of course, ideally, one will always be prepared. Personally, I don't have a problem talking in class usually, and generally enjoy it.</p>
<p>Woohoo, Susan777 is back! Even though I haven't set a foot in a LS classroom, I would prefer to pass than flipping through a book and sweating out the answers for a whole class session.</p>