<p>I recently read Scott Turow's seminal piece on the law school experience. I was wondering how closely his description of Harvard Law in 1975 correlates with that and other institutions in the present. Is the Socratic method still largely employed? Is there the same paranoid fervor and cutthroat competition? I'd love to hear from recent One Ls about their various first years at different schools versus Turow's dramatic description.</p>
<p>I'm no longer a 1L, but ...</p>
<p>Yes, the socratic method is still widely used in the first year and beyond. I found it to be very nerve wracking.</p>
<p>No, not all schools are as cut throat as what was depicted in the book. In fact, I think that most are not.</p>
<p>Well, I can't tell you about Harvard, because I don't go there, but I can tell you (as a rising 3L) about my own experiences.</p>
<p>First of all, what struck me when I read 1L is that Mr. Turow really let it get to him. At one point, when doing a moot court project, he said he realized how reasonably the whole thing could have been done - but he and his partner got their boxers in a bundle over it. Other students did handle the project without the neuroses. Even now, that still resonates with me; I see people who handle law school as a job and a challenge to be enjoyed, and I see people who go crazy with the stress. (FYI: my roomie, a French major, did say that she thinks the people who get the most upset are those who didn't work very hard in undergrad; she said that she had papers all the time, hundreds of pages of reading, and generally worked very hard. Law school was not that much of a change for her.) </p>
<p>As for the paranoia - I think it's a first semester, 1L thing. In most law schools, you only get one grade, which is an exam at the end of the semester. Grades also count for a lot (Law Review uses grades, employers want to see As), which really ups the stress level. You'll spend about 15 weeks with really smart, hard working people, on a forced grading curve, and you have NO feedback. You don't know if you understand the material and are going to be at the top of the class or if you're completely confused and will be struggling. Some professors will give a practice exam in October (my law school has that as an unwritten requirement of small section professors), which will help to give you some idea of how to approach exams and how well you understand the material. Nevertheless, it doesn't count for anything and it's only one class. Basically, you're running blind for a while. You don't know if your study methods and outlines are good or bad until you have a semester's worth of grades back. </p>
<p>One of my friends went to a school that had mid-year exams and where class participation was a fairly significant percentage of the final grade. That can be helpful to some people; he did not like it, however. There is something unnerving about having your entire grade be one exam, but professors can bump the grades up or down depending on level of participation and preparation. His school placed a lot of emphasis on the latter.</p>
<p>The good side of that is that people tend to calm down during second semester of 1L year and are even better by 2L year. </p>
<p>The Socratic method is used, and used almost exclusively. Now, some professors are excellent at using Socratic and some are pretty bad at it. I've had a few professors who will use it when it is not appropriate at all. Most professors will use Socratic in a fairly bland manner - "What are the facts? What did the court hold here? What did the court have to say about this statute? Tease out the Equal Protection & Due Process issues here." There are some who really use Socratic as it should be used - to challenge the student to go beyond the case and apply the rules to new situations. That is when you can really learn, think, and are forced to think on your feet. </p>
<p>My school is not competitive - certainly, everyone works hard, but everyone helps each other out. Then again, my school advertises itself as a friendly, happy place to study the law, so it attracts the types of students who want to work together. My undergrad was very similar, which is why I sought that out in a law school. The difference really hit home when I went to a regional moot court competition. Students from one school flat-out lied (I'm not talking about a reasonable interpretation of the given facts; it was not even an unreasonable interpretation - it was just the opposite of what the facts were!). Seemed as if our school does make a difference.</p>
<p>I recently read Turow's book because I have a son considering law school and I wanted to see if it would be an accurate resource for him. Turow was a 1L the same year I was a first-year law student at a top ten (and in some rankings, top five) law school. I mention the ranking because it suggests the programs should be comparable.</p>
<p>In many ways, Turow's experiences and mine were similar. Like Turow, I did not have lawyers in my family that could prepare me for what lay ahead: The fear of being called on in class, the pressure of learning what seemed like a foreign language, my unfamiliarity with the Socratic method, the focus on teaching legal theory rather than practice-oriented skills, and the unrelenting workload. Most of the people who dropped out of my law school class did so in the first month of classes before anyone received a grade. I'm convinced they dropped out from fear and stress. A few dropped out for health reasons later in the year and I think one was expelled for cheating.</p>
<p>However, there were differences between Turow's experiences and mine. My classmates and I were friendly and courteous but we also seemed more competitive than Turow's class. We never would have boycotted or officially complained about a professor en masse, although there was plenty of private grumbling. We were more protective of our study groups. I think I was a typical student and I wasn't afraid of my professors, only of being called on and that went away after the first time. We never would have hissed a professor for "bullying" a student. The universal response to doing poorly in class was: "Stand up for yourself" and "study harder so that won't happen again." Plus, it happened to everyone so you learned quickly not to take it personally and to get over it.</p>
<p>Turow's class was more interested in public-interest law than mine but that doesn't mean we were all there for the money. In fact, I only remember a handful of students who cared about becoming highly-paid lawyers, and they were sons and daughters of lawyers. They were also the ones who cared most about Law Review. The majority of students in my law school class wanted to be criminal defense lawyers, standing up for the little guy against the powerful State. By the time we graduated, there were only a few who were still interested in criminal law and most of them become DOJ and State prosecutors. The vast majority of my class accepted positions with large law firms.</p>
<p>I don't remember being as bored with my second and third year classes as Turow was. After the first year, courses were more specialized and the professors were more relaxed. I enjoyed most of these classes and they helped me identify areas of the law I had an aptitude for or liked. It also gave me time to participate in clinics to develop practice skills. In my time, you could easily graduate from a top ten law school and know very little about the daily practice of law. Clinics were the way law schools handled that 30 years ago. Perhaps today they include more practice-oriented courses in the curriculum.</p>
<p>Bottom line: Turow's book accurately portrays the emotions that I and my peers felt as first-year law students. I suspect those feelings are universal and I'm going to recommend it to my son.</p>
<p>Sorry, Yossarian. I realize you asked for current info and my comments are anything but current. Too much nostalgia and not enough sense.</p>