https://twitter.com/rawiniathompson/status/358796481152565249
Jeff Redding thinks the debate over shortening law school misses the real problem with legal education today:
This big-picture problem concerns many, many law students’ lack of exposure to political theory, history, sociology, and other disciplines which help make up what we call the liberal arts. Rather, what I often see are incoming law students who—to no fault of their own—have majored in fields like marketing, finance, and accounting, or even physical therapy. … I call this a problem for a number of reasons, some of which I will develop further in future posts, but for now I’d like to mention how difficult this kind of undergraduate education makes it to get law students (incoming and otherwise) to understand why there are legal disputes in the first place. Put succinctly, I commonly get responses in class and on exams (and in papers) that suggest an underlying befuddlement at why everyone in a given dispute can’t just apply ‘the rule.’
Previous blog debate on the subject here. A reader continues the in-tray debate:
Your readers miss the point entirely. Yes, it’s very nice to take wonderfully interesting classes – I loved the clinics and seminars I took my third year – but why should they be mandatory at a price of $50,000+? That is just insane.
Your reader who taught “street law” may have enjoyed it, but it is entirely useless and irrelevant to the day-to-day experience of a practicing attorney. And the idea that anyone who wants to be a lawyer should have to take these interesting classes, and sink deeper into debt to do so, is pure pie-in-the-sky bullshit.
Can you fathom medical school students being forced, after mastering all the science know-how and specializing in one area (which law students don’t even do), they had to do a fifth or sixth year where they took fascinating classes on the role of medicine in our society, or a seminar on the big toe? If it’s entirely irrelevant to their practical career paths, why force that debt load on them?
If I could take a year to study such nonsense as “Wealth, Democracy and the Rule of Law”, or just get a masters in early colonial American history or comparative government, I would do it in a heartbeat! That’s not the question. The question is: would I step up and pay $50K for the privilege to do so? Well, maybe, but first I have to finish paying off my goddamn law school loans.
Another:
Your readers’ comments are interesting, and I think there are a lot of interesting sub-issues involved with this discussion. I agree that students need more practical experience. The ABA is definitely run by people with some old-fashioned thinking, so that organization needs a shake-up. The number of people who go to law school who really shouldn’t is also a problem. Bankruptcy law regarding loans is insane. The bar exam is just institutionalized hazing and in no way reflects whether someone is qualified to practice law. There is no shortage of problems with law school, but the third year might not be the worst one.
Many people do get that extra practical experience through internships and clinics in your third year. Most people would be honest that during their first-year summers, they were mostly idiots, but by their third years they had a better sense of what they were doing. Perhaps for people like that, a better plan would be to front-load classes in those first two years and then allow firms and the government to hire third-years for full-time paid jobs as paralegals (or paralegals-plus). This way they could focus on the practical skills and get paid. Ideally they would not have to pay tuition, but I am not holding my breath on that one.
We should be discussing all these issues, but I think that the third year of law school really helped in my case. I am a tax lawyer, and tax is one of the areas of the law that is so complex and that changes so often that many people go on to get another law degree (an LLM) specifically for tax law. I frankly recommend it for people trying to break into tax law because it really can matter on your résumé. If I am hiring someone for a tax law job, I need to know that person knows more than just basics like constitutional law and contracts. I also want them to know how about corporate accounting and depreciation and capital gains and a host of other issues. An LLM gives people a background that can help with the hiring process.
I personally don’t have an LLM in tax, but I was able to secure a tax law job by interning in tax jobs every semester and summer after first year and by taking every tax and business class available in my law school during my second and third year in addition to the general bar exam classes everyone takes. My third year was basically my LLM. I had a hiring attorney tell me I was hired from my second-tier law school because I basically had an LLM already. So my third year saved me the money I see so many people putting into LLM programs after law school.
Not all kinds of law require an LLM, but if you aren’t spending your third year taking classes focused on exactly what you want to do with your law degree, then it is a wasted year and a wasted line on your résumé. And if you don’t know what you want to do with your law degree, then why are you shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for one? The third year should be your year to focus on practice and specialization year, but you have to know how to use it. Don’t waste it on Madden like Elie Mystal did.
The Dish 