« September 11, 2005 - September 17, 2005 | Main | September 25, 2005 - October 01, 2005 »
Overload of Goodness
This weekend promises to be simply packed packed packed. First, there's the big war protest and concert, then there's the Green Festival. Simultaneously is the big National Book Festival on the Mall. Finally, we're committed to attending a “charity event” Sunday evening, and I'm supposed to compile Blawg Review #25 by Monday. Oh, and just in case I had hope of catching my breath after all that, I have two court appearances on Tuesday—just for status hearings, but still.
Most of this activity isn't really related to law school, but I'm nevertheless finding 3L just about as crazy busy (in completely different ways) than I found either of the first years. I'm obviously doing something wrong here.
Posted 09:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L
Blawg Wisdom: Thing One & Thing Two
It must be law school application season because Blawg Wisdom is now featuring requests for your help on Thing One & Thing Two in the application game: GPA and LSAT scores. Please Mr. Please, don't play b-17.... I mean, please please please if you have any expertise or just an opinion on how to deal w/less-than-optimal GPA/LSAT situations, get on over to Blawg Wisdom and offer these requesters your thoughts. Thanks!
13 or 14? The GW Academic Calendar Imbroglio
This is mostly GW inside baseball, so if you don't care about such things, there's an interesting discussion at Leiter's Law School Reports about the value of the socratic method. Don't care about that, either? Hmm... Go read Think Progress then, ok? There's always something good and snarky there...
Anywho, in the fall of 2004, GW changed its academic schedule from 14-week semesters with 50-minute “hours” for classes, to 13-week semesters with 55-minute “hours” (or something like that; I just show up when the tell me to). The goal was to compress the ABA-required class time into 13 weeks to make space for the Fall Interview Program (FIP) in the fall. At the time, the SBA (Student Bar Association) and faculty discussed other reasons for the switch, but none of them seemed as important as catering to the big firms that dominate FIP and the students who so dearly want to work for them.
The 13-week schedule was just an experiment that was set to end after a year or two, so now the school is having a bit of a discussion about it. This has generated two fascinating emails from partisans on either side of the issue.
Proponents of the 13-week calendar write:
A 14 week calendar will result in FIP beginning on the same day classes start, 1Ls have no fall break, 1Ls having their first week of school the same as the student body (as opposed to having the campus to themselves), graduation occuring a week later and as a result barring the law school from participating in the university's joint ceremony, one less week to work at your summer job, graduation and the start of bar preparations occurring on the same week and one less week for vacation.
On the other hand:
* The odd end/start times of classes and the cramming of 14 weeks into 13 has led to no available times for organization meetings, panels, speakers. We used to have the 5 - 6 pm timeslot with no classes scheduled.
* No available classrooms for organization events - they are all scheduled for classes.
* 26 weeks instead of 28 weeks gives less time to do all the activities that the organizations have planned for the year.
* Not an advantage to have graduation the same time as the whole university. You'll be competing with undergrads for hotels and restaurants and get a generic GW experience rather than a special law school experience.
* If you don't like the idea of missing 1L Fall break, think about the poor evening 1Ls who have to give up Spring break (and don't get Fall break) under the 13 week system. Evening students make up close to 20% of the JD population here and they overwhelmingly supported keeping the 14 week schedule.
* Less education for your money. Although the total minutes in class is longer under 13 weeks, we all know the end of class period is the least productive part of our education.
In many ways it is cheaper for the administration to have the 13 week schedule, but more expensive for the students in terms of their diminished law school experience.
Are your eyes glazed over? Probably, but what's interesting about this is just that it shows that some law students actually seem to care about how their school experience is designed! This may not be a huge issue, but at least its a sign of life from the student body.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty firmly in the 14-week camp. As mentioned above, the 13-week schedule produces crazy class start/end times (i.e. 3:50-5:15!?) that don't mesh well w/other activities, such as work or social life. The problems the compressed schedule causes for student organizations are real and, although I have no hard evidence of it, I do not doubt that support for student groups (or at least turnout at meetings and events) has dropped b/c of this schedule. In the long run, this could decrease the quality of student life overall. But perhaps most important, the 14-week schedule simply gives more time to cover and digest class material and makes doing so feel just a bit less harried and hectic. I'm all for long summer breaks or whatever, but I prefer a slower, steadier academic pace and I think we had that w/the 14-week schedule.
Posted 10:30 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L
Blawg Review #24 & Improving Law School
Jaybeus Corpus posted a great Blawg Review on Monday. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out. And since the next one will be right here at the imbroglio, please be sure to submit your best posts—both those you've read this week and those you've written. A good Blawg Review depends on you!
But in keeping with the theme of late, Blawg Review #24 contains a link to a great post from the [non]billable hour about how to improve law school from a blawgger's perspective. There are lots of great ideas in there; I especially like
- 9. Ignore big firms. Seriously.
- 11. Guarantee student satisfaction. (By making the first semester free!)
- 12. Remember, the law is not rocket science.
On the other hand, #2, “Bring in BarBri as a curriculum consultant,” seems like a royally awful idea. One of the problems w/law school is that it teaches too much for tests already at the expense of teaching practical skills and knowledge; bringing in BarBri is only like to exacerbate that problem.
Number 4, “Auction off legal research access to West or Lexis,” is interesting and it would be a good start—Wexis should definitely have to pay more for its captive audience—but I'd definitely take this further: Put Wexis out of business, either by using eminent domain to buy them out (replacing their for-profit services with non-profit analogues), or by simply creating a publicly-funded competitor that offers the same material for free to anyone with an internet connection.
Isn't it fun to dream?
See also: A recent survey of which schools produce the most BigLaw Drones Associates.
Posted 12:08 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L
Who's Gonna Kill 3L?
Following up on yesterday's post about whether the cost of law school should prevent people from pursuing public interest careers, Andrew Raff points to an ongoing debate at the Legal Affairs Debate Club over the oddly-phrased question: Abolish the third year of law school? Check out the give and take between Laura I. Appleman and GW's own Daniel Solove (who blogs at both Balkinization and PrawfsBlawg). Appleman seems to be the proponent of change (although she's not arguing explicitly or forcefully that law school should be only 2 years, only that something needs to change), while Solove is defending the third year (but grants that the current landscape of legal education has problems that law professors and law schools could do more to address).
I've written about this topic before, but let me be more clear: While I see pros and cons in both positions, I'm all for getting rid of the third year for cost/debt reasons alone. Saving students lots of money would reduce barriers for them to enter public interest careers, and it could theoretically reduce the cost of legal services for everyone, so it would be good public policy. An added benefit is that it could take some of the snobbery and pretentiousness out of law school and the legal profession generally because at two years the JD would become a Master's degree, plain and simple. In fact, why don't we change that pretentious name, anyway? Let's all get our Master's Degree in Law (drop the whole pile of Latin b.s.) and get on with our lives. The world would be a better place. Perhaps people would even have less disdain for lawyers if they dropped some of their pretensions.
That said, I'm willing to consider alternatives. A few pretty good ideas were floated in the comments here, any of which would probably be improvements over the current system. The debate between Appleman and Solove is generating other interesting points to consider. (Unfortunately I don't have time now to consider them in detail, but soon, I hope.)
More obscurely, does it strike anyone else as peculiar that the question posed by the Legal Affairs Debate Club does not name an actor who would do the abolishing? Is the question whether the ABA should abolish the third year (it could), or whether law schools should do it, or law professors, or law students, or...? Any of these groups could take on this cause and, with sufficient organization, could probably succeed in rolling law school back to two years. But the form of the question gets to the truth that this is an issue for which no one really wants to take responsibility. Perhaps the status quo in legal education remains largely undisturbed because the constituencies involved are so diffuse and at odds that none of them can get together well enough to really change things. If that's the case, this seems a place where the ABA, as a sort of umbrella over all of these groups, should really be taking the lead...
UPDATE: See also this post on PrawfsBlawg about states that allow people to take the bar exam w/out attending law school. That post also links to previous debate on the issue by Appleman and Solove.
Reality Testing Law School Debt and the Public Interest Career
You hear it all the time in law school: “I need to get a big firm job so I can pay off my loans.” Sometimes the statement is prefaced with, “I'd like to do X, but...” where X is some form of public interest work. Supposedly studies show that a large majority of entering 1Ls express a desire to go into public interest law, yet only something like 3% of law graduates (on average) actually take public interest jobs upon graduation. There are many reasons for this, including that there just aren't enough public interest jobs, and that's because the government keeps cutting funding for them because, hey, if you're poor, you don't deserve legal representation so buck up!
Tangent. Sorry. So there is stiff competition for public interest jobs, but another reason people choose the firm route is that they think it's going to be a good way to pay off their debt. But is that true?
According to my Public Interest Lawyering instructor (hereafter PI Prawf), it's really a load of crap—at least at GW. PI Prawf claims the median income at GW last year was about $65k/year. That means half of GW graduates are making less than $65k. Only about the top 8% are making the mythical $100-120k—the big firm starting numbers. Lots of PI jobs pay $40-50k to start, plus you might be able to get around $5-10k/year in loan repayment assistance—either from your job/fellowship or school—so the PI career could pay nearly as much as 50% of GW grads make, yet only 1-3% of GW grads are going to do public interest. The point is that the money difference between public interest and what at least half of GW grads makes is not really that big—certainly not big enough to be an excuse not to pursue a public interest career for students who are sincere in their desire to do so.
My thoughts on this are that an extra $15k/year (the difference between the GW median of $65k and the top you can reasonably expect from a public interest job, which I would say is $50k) can be significant—that's your loan payments right there. Also, I think statistics showing large majorities of law students expressing a desire to do public interest work are bogus. When surveyed, students are much more likely to say something like “I want to help people” than they are to say “I want to make buckets of cash!” So I'm skeptical of arguments like these that the lack of financial assistance for public interest lawyers is what keeps their numbers low. Still, if such arguments work to increase the number of law schools offering LRAPs or to increase the amount of funding those schools pay out in the LRAPs that exist, I'm happy to forget my skepticism and jump on the bandwagon. ;-)
And speaking of LRAPs, kudos to BU Law, which has just doubled its LRAP program.
For prospective law students who really do think they want to do public interest law and are trying to decide where to apply, the ABA offers a guide to Law School Public Interest and Pro Bono Programs, but it looks like it was last updated in 2003. The ABA is also trying to collect information about LRAP options at various schools, although EJW is also doing that (see below). Finally, the ABA is pushing federal legislation to provide some form of federal loan forgiveness for law students. You can find links to the legislation in the Law Student Division's legislation page—it's HR 198 and HR 507. If you are a resident in a jurisdiction that gives you representation in Congress (IOW, if you're not a DC resident), please write your reps and ask them to support these bills!
Finally, Equal Justice Works has just published The E-Guide to Public Service at America's Law Schools, its first attempt to give prospective law students some measure of the relative support for public interest law at law schools. It's certainly a start and it provides some really great data, such as average amount spent on LRAP per student (if a school has an LRAP), average debt load for students at the school, and much more. Unfortunately, not all schools participated so it can give only part of the picture.
The bottom line in the law school public interest money game is what we all know if we're honest: On average, public interest jobs pay less. However, when you add in LRAPs and job satisfaction, you're likely to come out ahead in a PI career if that's what you want to do. If you're using money as your excuse, you're just kidding yourself. Drop the excuses and just admit you want to do something else. On the other hand, if all they hype has convinced you that money was a barrier to a PI career but it's really really what you want to do—stop worrying. Make smart choices about where you go to school (forget US News; choose the school with the best LRAP!), apply for fellowships that provide loan forgiveness, work for passage of federal loan forgiveness, and just do what you want to do. Like every PI lawyer I've ever met says—it will work out, it won't be as hard as you thought, you won't be as poor as you thought, and you'll be so very glad you followed your bliss.
Posted 10:34 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack | 3L
Bar Exam Requirements
If you're a 3L like me, you really don't know where you are going to take the bar exam, but you know there are things you should learn as you try to make that decision. So where do you go to learn about the different exams—what each tests you on, the format of the test, dates of the test, deadlines for registration, etc? How about BarBri?
Whether you're enrolled in BarBri or not, you can still access the info they've compiled about the various bar exams. In fact, from two URLs you can access info about any state. Start with these:
- http://www.barbri.com/states/mt/index.htm
- http://www.barbri.com/states/mt/inc/mbe_exam_page.shtm
(Yeah, I know this is basic stuff, but I'm obviously taking this in baby steps, ok?)
Posted 11:44 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L
Blogroll Dive #1
Introducing what I hope will become a regular feature here at the imbroglio—the Blogroll Dive, in which I click through some of the links in the blogroll on the left and share with you brief bits about what's up with these people. So, without further ado, the Blogroll Dive for today, the mostly-GW edition:
- Idlegrasshopper: Going on “near-permanent hiatus.” I hate it when that happens—especially to a fellow GW blogger.
- Jack&Coke: Also bailed. Come on people! Where's your commitment? Your dedication to the cause!?
- Life,Law, Libido (or L-Cubed, for short): Also gone, and that is the deepest cut off all. Scott has been around for years (although unless I'm missing something, he's left us no link to his archives). I have begun to understand, I think, the types of forces that lead 3Ls and new J.D.s to stop blogging, but it's still a loss to see people like this stop tapping the keyboard for us. Best to you, Scott, and thanks!
- Caravan4Christmas: Ok, here's the dedication to the cause. “I am learning a lot about building an organization from the ground up.” Sounds challenging, but she's still going strong.
- Actusreus: He posts infrequently, but it's always great. Check back once a month just in case he's posted a new satirical gem.
- Extreme Indifference to Human Life: Reckless Murder likes the baseball.
- A Mad Tea-Party: Leaving the GW blawgosphere for some delightful news: Alice is back! Hers was one of the first law blogs I read and loved, but after posting only rarely for many months, then not at all for many more, she officially retired last March. Now, although she's not returning to the Tea Party, she's started a new blog that appears to be part personal, part professional. Oh, and she's not Alice anymore, she's Brandy. Apparently, she's always been Brandy, but, well, only a few knew. And Brandy is a happy lawyer, which is why she's decided to reveal her identity and start a new blog:
Congratulations, Brandy/Alice! I'd thought many times over the last months and even years of removing the Tea Party from the blogroll, but now I'm very glad I didn't!So, what's the point of me saying all this now? It's that you can take the traditional legal industry and career paths and unhappiness and walk away from it. Despite what everyone in law school tells you, you are not doomed to that particular life. You don't need it, not for your career, and not for yourself, and certainly not for the people around you. And your clients sure as hell don't need it. Happy lawyers are good lawyers. 
Posted 11:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | blogrolldiving
Patent Bar Question
Blawg Wisdom currently features a question about whether there's any value for 1Ls in taking the patent bar. Since I know nothing about this, I beg any reader who does know something to get on over there and share. You all did a great job responding to the last request, so it would be great to keep all that helpful sharing going.
Thank you!
Which Island?
I'm looking at the employers who will be interviewing at the Equal Justice Works Career Fair next month and I had to chuckle at these instructions for applying to Hawaii Legal Aid:
Yeah, don't forget your preferences for island, if any.
Sounds awfully tempting, doesn't it?
Disoriented
The DC NLG Disorientation was great. I didn't take copious notes, but it's just always great to get to talk to and learn from lawyers who are in the trenches everyday fighting what I see as the good fight.
The keynote was by distinguished civil rights attorney John Brittain of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights. He's also the former president of the NLG, and former Dean of Thurgood Marshal School of Law. He presented three propositions on which lawyers with conscience should base their careers:
- Human rights are superior to property rights
- “A lawyer is either a social engineer or a parasite on society,” and “I'd rather die fighting on my feet, than live begging on my knees.” (Both quotations attributed to Charles Hamilton Houston.)
- “Tell no lies and claim no easy victories.” (Attributed to Amilcar Cabral.)
We also heard some interesting thoughts from solo practitioner Thomas Ruffin, including:
- Once you graduate and pass the bar, there's no difference btwn you and any other lawyer. You can go into court for anybody else in the jurisdiction where you've been admitted to practice law. A corporation, George Bush, the richest capitalist, the governemtn—these cannot go to court for others. They can go to court for themselves, but not for others.
- Never succumb to an employment situation that compromises what you want to do in your practice. You can always practice law. Never feel you cannot quit a job and go to another job. As long as we are admitted to a bar, in good standing, even if we have to practice in the homeless shelter where we're living, we can still practice law. [This is a cool idea; however, how many people in the homeless shelter have $150k in student loans to worry about?]
- There are a lot of things that can be accomplished in the realm of “people's lawyering.” Political prisoners need lawyers like you can be.
- About criminal law: If you practice criminal defense anywhere in this country, you'll see a lot of shysters.
- About losing: It can be a good lesson. It humbles you. Learn from it and redouble your energy for next time.
