<p>I have a question about courses at top 10 law schools. I have looked at their course offerings but I was wondering if a subject such as political theory would be an appropriate topic for a law student to take courses in during law school. Is such a subject seen as relevant to a law school education or is it seen mostly as a political science-related thing? Thanks~</p>
<p>The lawyers can better answer this question, but here is my attempt:</p>
<p>I think that such courses are fine so long as you are also taking other courses which are very practical/relevant to a legal education, such as tax, estates, close business arrangements, evidence, administrative law, and courses in some sort of speciality (patent law, family law, tax, securities, etc). When that is all done, if you have time for a course or two in political theory, jurisprudence, legal history, etc., you will be fine taking them - and it will be a good break from your other coursework. Many schools require an upper-level writing seminar, and a course such as political theory would probably satisfy those requirements. At my school, most of the writing courses are in things like race theory, legal history, abortion, feminist theory, and jurisprudence.</p>
<p>Attorneys, weigh in! :)</p>
<p>My experience with law school was that once your were done with the required curriculum, and the those courses necessary for bar exam preparation, there was precious little time left for electives. I remember taking two: A First Amend. Seminar, and Jewish Law. Both were fun, and I would see political theory fitting in in that capacity as well.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that I'm assuming that at the top ten or even five law schools, there is less of an emphasis on practical law courses after the required first year curriculum. Does this change things?</p>
<p>My opinion:</p>
<p>No. First of all, regardless of what the law school requires, there are certain courses that you really should take. The JD is a professional degree, and, much like engineering, there are a bunch of things that you should take even if you don't want to so you can do your job when you graduate. My law school has exactly two required courses beyond the first year, but I can't imagine having much free room in my schedule.</p>
<p>There are also clinics and law journals, both of which count towards your credit hours and are phenomenal experiences. </p>
<p>So - do the math.<br>
*Assume 9 courses per year, so you have 18 after your first year.<br>
*Law review or a journal might count for two of those (2L year). If you don't do this, you'll need an upper-level writing seminar.
*Third year editor positions on the journal, or working at a clinic, or a writing instructor position count for two more courses.<br>
Down to 14.<br>
*Add in things that don't appear first year but you really should take: professional responsibility, evidence, administrative law, con law (or whatever you are required to take 2L year if it's a 1L course), tax, estates, and close business -> down to 7 electives, and that's with a pretty bare-bones "core" curriculum.<br>
*Some states have very odd procedure rules (I recall hearing that Virginia is among them), so if you intend to practice in such a state, you should take procedure of that state. Maybe down to 6.
*What are you going to do when you graduate? It is often helpful to have at least a handful of courses in whichever area you want to practice - family law, immigration law, employment law, litigation, intellectual property. That's at least three or four courses.</p>
<p>You can see that you'll have at most two to four truly elective courses. Skip the "suggested" courses at your peril.</p>
<p>A course on political theory would be a complete waste of time. Clients don't pay you because of your knowlege of political theory. Bar examiners don't ask you about your knowledge of political theory. If you take too many of these B.S. courses, you can discourage recruiters from being interested in you. </p>
<p>Law school is plumbing school -- you are there to learn your tools of the trade. </p>
<p>Your question is a good one. I have seen too many top law schools offer these course that appear interesting. They offer them in order to appear to have a broad course offering. Actually, many of the courses are just extensions of undergraduate school.</p>
<p>(Although you have not added the course destription, I am assuming the course actually focuses on political theory).</p>
<p>Thank you for all your feedback. Many of these responses have emphasized the practical nature of law school to discourage the type of course I suggested, or at least to show why opportunities to take related classes would be limited. However, I should add that I have little interest in actually practicing law. I will probably join a large firm for a year or two to pay down what will certainly be large debts, but quickly move into politics after that. There is also a small but real possiblity that I would be interested in academia. Does THIS change things? Thanks again for all your help. This forum has the best resonders ever!</p>
<p>There is some variation in the # of required courses among law schools . Yale has the fewest requirements. The first semester is all required courses. You take them pass-fail. After that, my understanding is that the only specifically required courses are criminal law and administrative law, which you must take some time during the three years. There are also writing requirements. There's some sort of moot court requirement too, I think. But, in any event, there's lots of freedom and if you look at the title of courses, you'll see that many of them are weighted more towards the theoretical than the practical.</p>
<p>The down side of this is that you might not be all that prepared for the bar exam. However, most Yale Law grads find that taking a bar review course is sufficient. </p>
<p>You really do have to look at each school on a case by case basis. Just because law schools are ranked similarly doesn't mean the experience is the same. </p>
<p>BTW, Yale has a wonderful loan forgiveness program. You don''t have to work in law to be eligible. Harvard's is also very, very generous. In comparing top law schools, compare not only the financial aid/loan packages, but the loan forgiveness programs. Read the small print.</p>
<p>In terms of courses, it really is the bar exam that's the issue. Check out the pass rate of the states which interest you. There are states where almost everyone passes. If you are certain that you want to get involved in politics in a state with an easy bar exam, then taking practical courses is less important.</p>
<p>A few thoughts...</p>
<p>You could study abroad during your 1L summer (or part of it) to make room in your schedule or to take courses which interest you but are not a) bar courses b) required or c) really good core courses to have. There are loans for study abroad, and it would be a great way to unwind. </p>
<p>You could even split your summer doing study abroad and research for a professor.</p>
<p>DC has a fairly easy bar, in that passing either MD or VA will qualify one for it. If you are going into a firm and then politics, that might be a good place for you - both in opportunities for politics and in terms of a fairly easy bar exam, so you won't spend your law school days taking a bunch of courses which don't interest you.</p>
<p>This is not my "dumping on you" time, but just a few thoughts: know why you are going to law school. The people who do the best know exactly why they are there. They aren't thinking, "Oh, a law degree would be useful." They are thinking, "I want to be a lawyer." Some good students want to be lobbyists or judges or whatever - but they know what they are doing there. The workload is not bad, but the stress is killer - and the only way to get through it is by having a goal. I tell this to everyone - not picking on you. :) Just know what you want to do. Figure out how much the loans are going to cost. Figure out your salary, subtract taxes, subtract loan payments, and a rough cost-of-living estimate. If, at the end, this still looks good to you, you'll be in fine shape to start law school. </p>
<p>Law is a great stepping-stone to politics. If you are motivated, do a search of politicians whom you would like to work for (or be) and find out where they were educated. That might help you a bit in your search. </p>
<p>If you don't want to practice law but want the JD, it might make more sense to go to a school which will give you merit aid if you can't find one with a suitable loan forgiveness programme.</p>
<p>More musings - a JD -> academia and a JD -> politics might lend themselves to very different law school paths. The former would involve immersing yourself in your work and keeping your grades in the stratosphere, then making Law Review. You've probably heard that less than 1 in 10 people who try for legal academia get a job. Politics? Your GPA doesn't matter. Working in a prosecutor's office for a few years might be a great way to improve your political career - so legal clinics or certain extracurriculars might be good for that. To a certain extent, you probably wouldn't want to spend three years slowly becoming blind in the library if you want to be a politician. Some of the parents/attorneys could comment further. </p>
<p>Most professors have only practiced for a handful of years, if that. It is very unusual to meet any who were successful in their practices but then went into academia. </p>
<p>Read Law School Confidential, if you haven't already.</p>
<p>An excellent guide on pursuing a career in legal academia written by Brian Leiter, a professor at UT Law School:
<a href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/GUIDE.HTM%5B/url%5D">http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/GUIDE.HTM</a></p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>A course on political theory would be a complete waste of time... Law school is plumbing school -- you are there to learn your tools of the trade.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm sure that's true of many law school students, along with many undergrad engineers and other career-oriented students.</p>
<p>However, I'd disagree with the statement from a couple of standpoints. First, not all law students necessarily enroll with the expectation of being recruited by a law firm and/or seeking clients. Some may aspire to academics, politics, business, or other fields where a solid grounding in the law may be useful; I've known several individuals who obtained their law degree because they thought it would be interesting and might prove useful in their field, but had no expectation of serving clients.</p>
<p>Second, even for individuals planning a conventional legal career, law school (particularly when part of an elite university) may present some great opportunities for electives taught by world-class profs with an outstanding group of classmates; it would be a shame to take advantage of none of these to focus on grinding away to pass the bar exam.</p>
<p>(Naturally, these same elite schools offer outstanding courses in the law, too - every elective decision will involve a tradeoff.)</p>
<p>Just an oblique comment here; given the challenges of running for office in the U.S. these days, many students I talk to are deciding that the best path to politics is business, not law. I am talking about the Bloomberg/Corzine model. So, as Aries says, if you aren't really psyched about becoming a lawyer and are set on politics, it's something to consider. Law school is a lot of work and money.</p>
<p>Again, let me stress how wonderful and extremely helpful all your comments are. You are all very knowledgeable people who are kind enough to spend time answering questions.</p>
<p>I guess the reason I'm interested in using the law to start a foray into politics is partly because I really enjoy academia - researching, coming up with new ideas, arguments, ways to look at things - but don't want to become a professor or anything. I was unclear before when I mentioned academia because what I meant was that I'd be interested in writing a few articles or books but not making that sort of work my career. From what I've been reading, law school curriculum (particularly at the top 5 or ten schools and much less so at lower ranked ones) is highly academic in nature. Sure, part of my reason for wanting to go to HYS is for the prestige, but my main reason is for the amazing and unique courses which are not found at other law schools.</p>
<p>Also, I took your advice Ariesathena and looked up some congressmen and senators I liked (and a few I strongly disliked) and sure enough so many of them were law school graduates (especially from HYS and a sizable number from Virginia) - though not all of them pursued legal careers following graduation.</p>
<p>aprent5 - your point about business is well taken. Honestly, I kind of like the idea of beginning my post-JD days by starting a business that uses some of my legal education as background rather than selling my soul to a large firm for a few years. Though this decision has less to do with starting a political career and more to do with my burning desire to be self-employed.</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, do some law school graduates do this? Say, enroll in or audit a few business classes if they are at university like Harvard or UPenn, use some of their legal courses to navigate the legal obstances of business and start their own enterprises? I am NOT interested in a joint MBA program since I figure that if I don't want to work for a company what would be the point of spending all the time and money to get a second degree?</p>
<p>These are my thoughts. I appreciate any feedback. You are all very nice and thoughtful people. Thanks!</p>
<p>P.S. Ariesathena - I know this latest posting probably represents a juicy invitation for you to reiterate your (excellent) point about knowing why you want to go to law school. But despite my many desires and goals I think there is a method to my madness.</p>
<p>If you objective is to go into politics, you don't need a law degree for that. You don't mention whether you are referring to being a candidate or being on the staff of polititian or working for a political party. I would suggest you find an area that you are really interested in and pursue a graduate degree in that area. For example, a Ph.D. in economics gives you instant credibility when talking about economic policy. The economy - national, state or local - is often the most important factor the voters. In addition, if you obtain a Ph.D. you can refer to your self as doctor and immeidately distinguish yourself from just about anyone else gunning for your position.</p>
<p>If you go to law school for some general intellectual stimulation; frankly, you are taking the space of someone who really wants to be a lawyer. Please realize once you graduate from law school you will need to pass the bar regardless of whether you practice law. Why? Failing to pass the bar has great stigma. Saying you didn't take it because you did not intend to practice law is not much better. </p>
<p>You are asking the right questions. It is unfortunate more prospective law students don't ask these questions before committing to law school. If so, the first year drop out rates might be lower.</p>
<p>As long as you know why you are going, that's fine. Doesn't have to be a perfect career plan, but you should know why you are there. I'm also highly in favour of people who want political careers having a legal education. My point is just that you need something to keep you going at 2 am when you have class in six hours and more work to do before the day starts. </p>
<p>Good luck. :)</p>
<p>I attended a top 10 law school many years ago. A friend of mine was attending a seond tier law school a year ahead of me.
She talked about how all her courses were geared to making sure they could pass the bar exam and be ready to practice law. Most of the students at the school came from and were going to practice in the state in which the school was located.
At my school, practical issues such as the bar exam or the actual practice of law were simply not the focus of the education. The only courses that probably were geared to practicalities were the ones associated with clinics where students could offer legal services to indigents, etc. The attitude was very much that the school was there to help you learn to "think" like a lawyer -- to turn out great legal minds -- a bar review course was there to help you to pass the bar. Students came from and were going to end up all over the country and ended up doing an amazing range of things.
I found law school intellectually interesting - I hated the practice of law.</p>
<p>unbelievablem - i love you. Well, I love your comments at least, which express what I've until now been assuming. Compared to courses in undergraduate school did you find your intellectually stimulating law courses similar in that they emphasized carefully analyzing texts, coming up with original arguments about them and/or discussing them in class? Was the difference principally one of the amount of outside work that you had? </p>
<p>I've been assuming that if I went to a school like HYS I'd do the required first year courses, a clinic or two to get hands on experience, and generally have a fair amount of freedom to choose which courses I wanted to take after that. It seems that the curriculum at HYS and UPenn, too, is fairly flexible after your first year. Also, I like ariesathena's idea of summer study abroad or research. I hadn't thought of that so thank you.</p>
<p>Another assumption I had was that if you went to a top school like HYS and perhaps even Columbia and UPenn, the particular classes you took would be less important than the fact that you graduate from those schools. Again, I guess this would depend on whether you wanted to be highered by a large firm or not, but am I assuming correctly? Thanks</p>
<p>Sit in on classes if/when you visit schools to get a good idea of what the professors teach. I had a professor who taught almost all theory in one class - there's a bunch of stuff that will obviously be on the bar that we never even saw - just basic black-letter stuff. I felt like I learned a ton, though - and I feel like I'm a better legal thinker for it.</p>
<p>karlaspice-
I think a lot of it had to do with the professors - many were simply leading scholars in their field - which didn't necessarily make them great teachers - but they were more interested in theory than practice - many probably had limited it any experience as practicing attorneys, but they had tons of experience as policy makers, authors, intellectuals. The truly greatest professors were the ones who were willing to share their own insights and yet still be open to the students' views. The approach wasn't necessarily what IS the law - but what should be the law.
For the most part, I don't think any place I interviewed cared what courses I took in law school - in fact, since firms don't usually request your transcript, they really don't even know what courses you took unless you make a point of telling them.<br>
From what I saw - and remember this is based largely on when I graduated almost 25 years ago (I've been out of the practice of law for about 10 years) - large firms didn't expect you to come to them knowing much of anything in terms of content - they were looking for bright lawyers who could communicate effectively and learn. Writing was probably the most important skill for a young lawyer to have. The opportunities available to someone graduating from a top school were definitely very different than those available to graduates of lower tier schools.
I knew many students who came to my school thinking they would never work for a big firm, who were very idealistic in terms of what they wanted to do with their law degree who ended up at least starting out at large firms - largely because it became so easy to do so - big firms recruited big and offered big salaries. Small, public interest firms, and government positions didn't have the resources to make the same recruitment push - so if you wanted to work their, you had to do more of the work to get the job, rather than the jobs coming to you.</p>