Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Internet in Classrooms (Again)
We've talked about this before, but now the University of Chicago Law School has banned Internet access in the classroom. (Hat tip: WSJ Law Blog). The reason is so that students will pay more attention in class. But that makes no sense at all. Students who don't want to pay attention to lectures will always find a way not to pay attention. (Maybe the University of Chicago will try to ban daydreaming next!)
The truth is that law students are a highly motivated group that has paid a large amount of money for the privilege of learning the law. If a lecture can't capture their attention, the problem is probably not the Internet, but rather the person standing in the front of the class.
The truth is that law students are a highly motivated group that has paid a large amount of money for the privilege of learning the law. If a lecture can't capture their attention, the problem is probably not the Internet, but rather the person standing in the front of the class.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Good News for Public Interest Lawyers at Harvard
This was in today's New York Times:
You can read the full article here.
Concerned by the low numbers of law students choosing careers in public service, Harvard Law School plans to waive tuition for third-year students who pledge to spend five years working either for nonprofit organizations or the government.
You can read the full article here.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Twenty Minute Law School Success Tip
Is it really possible to improve your chances of getting good grades in law school and getting a good job afterwards in only twenty minutes? Yes, and it's incredibly simple: just make nice with your law school professors.
It's only human nature to treat people you know more kindly than people you don't. The trick here is to get your law school professors to see you as a human being rather than just another body taking notes behind a laptop in a cavernous lecture hall class stuffed with faceless law students.
Here's how it's done. After class, from time to time (but not too often!) approach your professors and ask a question. An intelligent question is better than an idiotic one, but do the best you can. Making any kind of human contact with your professor will improve your relationship. That's it. A few simple (hopefully intelligent) questions over the course of a semester can make a big difference.
What's the benefit? If a professor knows who you are, if you are on the edge, the professor will be just a little more likely to make the close call in your favor. In addition, professors often know potential employers in the local area, but if they don't know who you are, there's no way to get a recommendation that could get you in the door.
Now, making nice with your professors is amazingly effective, but you need to be careful because if done wrong, this can backfire horribly. Here are a few tips to keep that personal reaction positive.
First, do not just try to chat with the professor and certainly do not attempt to "schmooze" him or her. Law professors are not dumb and will see through this immediately. Instead, just ask a question. Law professors generally like answering questions. After you've got your answer, thank the professor and then...leave them alone, because while professors like answering questions, they also like their free time and when the class is over, they are ready to get on with their free time.
Second, do not be a pest. Do not stop your professors after every class. Do not ask lots and lots of questions. You want to be seen and known, but not dreaded.
Third, remember that the best time to talk to the professor is right after class-- not their office hours. While law schools require professors to hold office hours, hardly anyone ever uses them, and so professors come to think of that time as their own personal time, and although they will never say it, they will secretly be irritated at having that time "interrupted."
If you consistently make human contact with your professors in an intelligent, non-intrusive way, over time you will make a good impression and, at least with some professors, you will start to develop a real relationship that can translate into better grades and better jobs. It's simple, but it works and all it takes is twenty minutes over the course of a semester.
It's only human nature to treat people you know more kindly than people you don't. The trick here is to get your law school professors to see you as a human being rather than just another body taking notes behind a laptop in a cavernous lecture hall class stuffed with faceless law students.
Here's how it's done. After class, from time to time (but not too often!) approach your professors and ask a question. An intelligent question is better than an idiotic one, but do the best you can. Making any kind of human contact with your professor will improve your relationship. That's it. A few simple (hopefully intelligent) questions over the course of a semester can make a big difference.
What's the benefit? If a professor knows who you are, if you are on the edge, the professor will be just a little more likely to make the close call in your favor. In addition, professors often know potential employers in the local area, but if they don't know who you are, there's no way to get a recommendation that could get you in the door.
Now, making nice with your professors is amazingly effective, but you need to be careful because if done wrong, this can backfire horribly. Here are a few tips to keep that personal reaction positive.
First, do not just try to chat with the professor and certainly do not attempt to "schmooze" him or her. Law professors are not dumb and will see through this immediately. Instead, just ask a question. Law professors generally like answering questions. After you've got your answer, thank the professor and then...leave them alone, because while professors like answering questions, they also like their free time and when the class is over, they are ready to get on with their free time.
Second, do not be a pest. Do not stop your professors after every class. Do not ask lots and lots of questions. You want to be seen and known, but not dreaded.
Third, remember that the best time to talk to the professor is right after class-- not their office hours. While law schools require professors to hold office hours, hardly anyone ever uses them, and so professors come to think of that time as their own personal time, and although they will never say it, they will secretly be irritated at having that time "interrupted."
If you consistently make human contact with your professors in an intelligent, non-intrusive way, over time you will make a good impression and, at least with some professors, you will start to develop a real relationship that can translate into better grades and better jobs. It's simple, but it works and all it takes is twenty minutes over the course of a semester.
Labels: how to succeed in law school
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
How to Brief a Case in Five Minutes
At LexPrep's law school prep program, we focus on understanding substantive concepts rather than trying to teach mechanical study aids. Nevertheless, a question many law school students ask is "how do I brief a case." For those of you who have never heard of briefing a case, don't worry. You're not alone. But it is one of those study aids that you should know about, which properly used can be a great help. Unfortunately, most people do not use this tool effectively or efficiently.
In essence, briefing a case consists of summarizing a judicial decision so you can remember it later. Every case has certain universal elements. These elements are:
1. A statement of the facts that gave rise to the dispute.
2. A description of the proceedings in court that preceded the decision at hand.
3. A statement of the legal rules applicable to the particular situation.
4. A decision, reached by applying the legal rules to the facts as described.
Briefing a case normally entails writing descriptions of each of these elements. Many law students spend dozens of hours preparing case briefs, trying to internalize the facts and the law that each case teaches. While I certainly agree that, all other things being equal, the more you study, the better you will do in law school, case briefing can be taken to a ridiculous extreme, well past the point where there is any benefit in the exercise.
An extreme version of briefing a case will try to capture every critical fact, the complete procedural posture, every legal rule, and a full description of their application. These extreme "briefs" can span a full page or more for every single case you read in law school. But all of that detail isn't necessary and in fact can be downright distracting from the essential points of law that you actually need to remember.
So how should you brief a case? First, you should recognize that every case taught at law school represents an important legal concept. What you need to know is, for each case that you study, what that critical concept is. Most of these concepts can be stated in a sentence. They can all be stated in a paragraph. Very often the particulars of the situation that led the court to identify the critical concept is not all that important because you are learning foundational concepts that apply in many, many settings (caution: this is true in law school and not necessarily true once you are practicing law). Your case brief is everything it needs to be if it summarizes in a sentence or two the critical concept of the case.
Ok...so how do you identify the critical concept? There is no silver bullet that works for every case, but I suggest that as you read a case, you pay special attention to the very beginning where the court identifies the question that it is trying to answer (this is sometimes referred to as "the question presented"). Once you know the question, all you need to do is find the answer to the question (which in older cases especially can sometimes be a challenge in and of itself). Write down the question and the answer, and you have your five minute case brief with everything you need to remember for the exam at the end of the semester. You still have to read the case, but when you are studying for the final exam, you will be much happier trying to review a few pages of super-summaries rather than pages and pages of mostly irrelevant case briefs.
In essence, briefing a case consists of summarizing a judicial decision so you can remember it later. Every case has certain universal elements. These elements are:
1. A statement of the facts that gave rise to the dispute.
2. A description of the proceedings in court that preceded the decision at hand.
3. A statement of the legal rules applicable to the particular situation.
4. A decision, reached by applying the legal rules to the facts as described.
Briefing a case normally entails writing descriptions of each of these elements. Many law students spend dozens of hours preparing case briefs, trying to internalize the facts and the law that each case teaches. While I certainly agree that, all other things being equal, the more you study, the better you will do in law school, case briefing can be taken to a ridiculous extreme, well past the point where there is any benefit in the exercise.
An extreme version of briefing a case will try to capture every critical fact, the complete procedural posture, every legal rule, and a full description of their application. These extreme "briefs" can span a full page or more for every single case you read in law school. But all of that detail isn't necessary and in fact can be downright distracting from the essential points of law that you actually need to remember.
So how should you brief a case? First, you should recognize that every case taught at law school represents an important legal concept. What you need to know is, for each case that you study, what that critical concept is. Most of these concepts can be stated in a sentence. They can all be stated in a paragraph. Very often the particulars of the situation that led the court to identify the critical concept is not all that important because you are learning foundational concepts that apply in many, many settings (caution: this is true in law school and not necessarily true once you are practicing law). Your case brief is everything it needs to be if it summarizes in a sentence or two the critical concept of the case.
Ok...so how do you identify the critical concept? There is no silver bullet that works for every case, but I suggest that as you read a case, you pay special attention to the very beginning where the court identifies the question that it is trying to answer (this is sometimes referred to as "the question presented"). Once you know the question, all you need to do is find the answer to the question (which in older cases especially can sometimes be a challenge in and of itself). Write down the question and the answer, and you have your five minute case brief with everything you need to remember for the exam at the end of the semester. You still have to read the case, but when you are studying for the final exam, you will be much happier trying to review a few pages of super-summaries rather than pages and pages of mostly irrelevant case briefs.
Labels: how to succeed in law school, law school, pre-law, study techniques
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Money Isn't Everything After All
We recently noted that some big law firms in New York recently hiked starting associate salaries to the astronomical figure of $160,000 per year. The press is now reporting that more California firms are moving to match the pay increases that big law firms in New York recently gave to their associates. Interestingly, these pay increases are not being met with universal dancing in the streets. A Law.com article has this interesting observation:
So the moral of the story? Be careful what you wish for....
Check out the full story: "Associates React to Jones Day and Weil Gotshal Salary Raises"
More than 80 percent of respondents to an American Bar Association survey in November said they'd prefer to work fewer hours for less money. More than 30 percent of respondents would like to work 20 percent less and said they'd give up between 25 and 30 percent of their pay in exchange.In addition to lifestyle, the pay increases are also causing associates to worry about job security. If the legal market takes a downturn, law firms saddled with high associate salary costs may start downsizing.
So the moral of the story? Be careful what you wish for....
Check out the full story: "Associates React to Jones Day and Weil Gotshal Salary Raises"
Labels: law firm life, law firm salaries
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Good News for LSAT Takers
Good news and LSAT are generally not two concepts that go together. It's hard to paint a pretty face on a half-day, high-stakes test that plays a big role in where you go to law school. While the test will always be grueling and generally miserable, a recent study by Kaplan, a major LSAT prep company, has found that seventy-four percent of the 194 law schools it surveyed have changed or are planning to change the way they count multiple LSAT scores. In the past, if you took the LSAT more than once, schools would average your scores, diluting any gains from a second attempt and reducing your score if you did worse the second time. Under the new approach, if you take the LSAT more than once, law schools will consider only the highest score. This means pre-law students taking the LSAT will have a clean second chance to do better. On the other hand, a second chance means submitting to the horrors of the LSAT a second time, so in the end it is probably still better to do your best the first time around.
Read more about the Kaplan survey: "Bar Assn. Recommends New Policy for LSAT."
Read more about the Kaplan survey: "Bar Assn. Recommends New Policy for LSAT."
Labels: law school, LSAT, pre-law
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
First Year Associate Salaries on the Rise
Just how much can you really make as a first year attorney at a big law firm? If you go to work in New York, the going rate for a brand new lawyer fresh out of law school with no experience is now...$165,000. Consider that the median household income in the United States is only $46,000, and any way you slice it, that's a lot of cash. If you don't work in New York, first year salaries are only just a bit less stratospheric, with first year attorneys now pulling in about $145,000. Even this difference may not last, as different law firms weigh their market strategies. Given the high cost of law school, starting salaries like these are going to be irresistible for most law students, which will make the competition for these high wage jobs fiercer than ever.
Labels: law firm salaries, law school
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Getting Educated in Law School
Earlier this month, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching came out with a grim report on the usefulness of law school education. The report entitled, "Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law," finds that, while law schools do a pretty good job teaching students basic legal doctrines, law schools do a pretty lousy job getting students ready to practice law.
You would think that as a professional school, law school's would have no other purpose than to prepare their students to enter the legal profession. Unfortunately, most don't.
The life blood of law school is learning and understanding the nuances of legal doctrines that are enunciated in reported judicial decisions. According to the Carnegie Foundation report, law schools actually do pretty well at conveying these doctrines. But just knowing all the rules won't make you the quarterback in the Superbowl. You have to be able to read the field as well.
Students get into law school by being smart, but smarts are only the ticket to admission to practicing law. To succeed, students need other skills that are often ignored by law schools. For example, I have argued that young lawyers need to know how to network; they need to understand how to talk to clients; and they need to know how to manage their time. More often than not, these soft skills play a larger role in determining success than just being a good lawyer.
One reason that law schools may neglect the practical side of practicing law is that law professors often have only limited experience as practicing attorneys, and some have no experience at all. Unless you plan on becoming a law professor, however, you should try to learn as much as you can about practicing law before your first day on the job.
If you can't learn about the practical skills lawyers need from your courses, what can you do? Fortunately, most law schools offer a terrific opportunity to get hands on experience in a safe environment. These are called clinics. In a clinic, law students represent real clients on real legal matters under the supervision of an experienced attorney. Interacting with real people makes the dry legal doctrines covered in the casebooks come alive in a way that no amount of reading can duplicate. Along the way, you will also be confronted with the difficult ethical and moral decisions that real lawyers have to grapple on a routine basis. Clinics are not a perfect solution, but a law school education that consists of memorizing rules in casebooks is necessarily incomplete.
With that said, let me add one small caveat: do not neglect your casebook studies in the pursuit of practical knowledge. Understanding the basic legal doctrines is important, even fundamental, to practicing lawyers. Moreover, mastering those doctrines is critical to getting the best grades in law school, and those grades can play a decisive role in what job opportunities and career paths will be open to you after you graduate. Nevertheless, learning legal doctrine is only one part of a lawyer's education. To complete your education you will need practical skills that can only be learned by watching real lawyers in action. And for that part of your education, you are on your own.
Read a summary of a "Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law."
You would think that as a professional school, law school's would have no other purpose than to prepare their students to enter the legal profession. Unfortunately, most don't.
The life blood of law school is learning and understanding the nuances of legal doctrines that are enunciated in reported judicial decisions. According to the Carnegie Foundation report, law schools actually do pretty well at conveying these doctrines. But just knowing all the rules won't make you the quarterback in the Superbowl. You have to be able to read the field as well.
Students get into law school by being smart, but smarts are only the ticket to admission to practicing law. To succeed, students need other skills that are often ignored by law schools. For example, I have argued that young lawyers need to know how to network; they need to understand how to talk to clients; and they need to know how to manage their time. More often than not, these soft skills play a larger role in determining success than just being a good lawyer.
One reason that law schools may neglect the practical side of practicing law is that law professors often have only limited experience as practicing attorneys, and some have no experience at all. Unless you plan on becoming a law professor, however, you should try to learn as much as you can about practicing law before your first day on the job.
If you can't learn about the practical skills lawyers need from your courses, what can you do? Fortunately, most law schools offer a terrific opportunity to get hands on experience in a safe environment. These are called clinics. In a clinic, law students represent real clients on real legal matters under the supervision of an experienced attorney. Interacting with real people makes the dry legal doctrines covered in the casebooks come alive in a way that no amount of reading can duplicate. Along the way, you will also be confronted with the difficult ethical and moral decisions that real lawyers have to grapple on a routine basis. Clinics are not a perfect solution, but a law school education that consists of memorizing rules in casebooks is necessarily incomplete.
With that said, let me add one small caveat: do not neglect your casebook studies in the pursuit of practical knowledge. Understanding the basic legal doctrines is important, even fundamental, to practicing lawyers. Moreover, mastering those doctrines is critical to getting the best grades in law school, and those grades can play a decisive role in what job opportunities and career paths will be open to you after you graduate. Nevertheless, learning legal doctrine is only one part of a lawyer's education. To complete your education you will need practical skills that can only be learned by watching real lawyers in action. And for that part of your education, you are on your own.
Read a summary of a "Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law."
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Truth about Law School Costs
So how much does law school really cost? Answer: a lot. According a report published by Equal Justice Works, the total cost of one year of law school at a private school, including tuition, books, and living expenses, is a staggering $40,000 per year! If you attend a public law school and are lucky enough to get in-state tuition, according the report, you're still looking at average costs of nearly $25,000 per year. In other words, your three year trip to law school is going to cost between $75,000 and $120,000. That's a lot of coin.
Ok, ok so law school costs a lot of money? Should you care? We've already discussed how big law firms pay big money in exchange for big time commitments and how starting salaries at big law firms can be as much as $135,000 per year. So you're going to make all of that money back and then some, right? For those of you who get jobs at big law firms and have the endurance to survive, that is undoubtedly true. The true problem with the crushing price of law school, however, is that it limits your options.
For example, according to the Equal Justice Report, the typical entry-level salary for a criminal prosecutor or a public defender is around $45,000. If you want to work in some other public interest job, the salary picture is even worse, with the typical entry-level position paying only $40,000. At those salary rates, students who took on a high amount of debt to pay for their legal education can't afford to even consider these career paths.
Now it is true that some law schools offer loan repayment plans for their graduates who enter public sector or public interest jobs, but those law schools are still very definitely the minority. So when it comes to managing the costs of law school, you are pretty much on your own. A common strategy for young lawyers carrying heavy debt loads is to work for a large law firm for three or four years, use the money from the high salary to pay down the law school debt (instead of buying BMW's and Armani suits, for example), and then move on to the work they really want to do once they have more financial freedom.
Because this strategy is so common, however, there is more competition than ever for coveted spots at the big law firms. Law students who in other circumstances would go to the District Attorneys office or to the Sierra Club instead apply to the law firms. There is nothing you can do about that competition, other than get the very best grades you can in law school as early in the process as you can. Good luck!
Download and read the entire Equal Justice Works Report: "Financing the Future: Responses to the Rising Debt of Law Students."
Ok, ok so law school costs a lot of money? Should you care? We've already discussed how big law firms pay big money in exchange for big time commitments and how starting salaries at big law firms can be as much as $135,000 per year. So you're going to make all of that money back and then some, right? For those of you who get jobs at big law firms and have the endurance to survive, that is undoubtedly true. The true problem with the crushing price of law school, however, is that it limits your options.
For example, according to the Equal Justice Report, the typical entry-level salary for a criminal prosecutor or a public defender is around $45,000. If you want to work in some other public interest job, the salary picture is even worse, with the typical entry-level position paying only $40,000. At those salary rates, students who took on a high amount of debt to pay for their legal education can't afford to even consider these career paths.
Now it is true that some law schools offer loan repayment plans for their graduates who enter public sector or public interest jobs, but those law schools are still very definitely the minority. So when it comes to managing the costs of law school, you are pretty much on your own. A common strategy for young lawyers carrying heavy debt loads is to work for a large law firm for three or four years, use the money from the high salary to pay down the law school debt (instead of buying BMW's and Armani suits, for example), and then move on to the work they really want to do once they have more financial freedom.
Because this strategy is so common, however, there is more competition than ever for coveted spots at the big law firms. Law students who in other circumstances would go to the District Attorneys office or to the Sierra Club instead apply to the law firms. There is nothing you can do about that competition, other than get the very best grades you can in law school as early in the process as you can. Good luck!
Download and read the entire Equal Justice Works Report: "Financing the Future: Responses to the Rising Debt of Law Students."
Labels: law firms, law school, public interest law
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
The Pursuit of Happiness
For successful, usually well-compensated professionals, lawyers tend to be a pretty unhappy bunch. For people not in the business, this is a complete mystery. But like a detective novel whodunnit, the answer to the mystery is simple once you know it: life in the law often means little control over the rest of your life and that lack of control is all too often a recipe for unhappiness.
Here is a useful analogy (shamelessly borrowed from an article by Jonathan Clements). Nearly everyone finds the morning commute a source of unending frustration. While books and essays have been written about finding spiritual enlightenment in situations as grim and awful as living in a Nazi concentration camp, no one (that I know of) has ever sung the praises of being stuck in traffic. The reason is that traffic is unpredictable. If it was always gridlock, you could adjust your expectations and be ready. The problem is you never know what to expect, and that uncertainty makes most rides exercises in disappointment.
How is a lawyer's life like the morning commute? Especially for junior lawyers, the problem is that they have very little control over their own schedules. It may be Friday afternoon, but you still are not sure whether you will have to work on Saturday. You may be lounging at home on Saturday, but you still can't fully relax because you are not sure whether your blackberry will go off and you'll be called into work. In other words, your schedule is uncertain, just like the morning commute. When it's good, it's good, but when it's bad, it's awful.
So are there any coping strategies? Yes, but they're not easy to do. You can schedule time with family and friends and then move heaven and earth to keep those appointments. For example, if you're meeting friends for dinner and a big project comes in, go to the dinner and then work through the night to get the project done. You will still have to suffer through the work, but you will not have disrupted your dinner. Even more importantly, by making a firm commitment and being sure in your own mind that you will keep it, you will have avoided the psychic pain of worrying about the uncertainty of whether you will be going to dinner or not.
If that doesn't sound like a great solution, that's because it's not and it's very difficult to sustain, which is why young attorneys leave overly demanding law firms in droves that law firms have to replenished every year through massive recruiting drives. Uncertainty and unpredictability are inherent in the practice of law. That's why it is all the more important that, in areas where we can exert some control, we flex our muscles and set the boundaries that work for us. And then maybe we could all be just a little bit happier.
Here is a useful analogy (shamelessly borrowed from an article by Jonathan Clements). Nearly everyone finds the morning commute a source of unending frustration. While books and essays have been written about finding spiritual enlightenment in situations as grim and awful as living in a Nazi concentration camp, no one (that I know of) has ever sung the praises of being stuck in traffic. The reason is that traffic is unpredictable. If it was always gridlock, you could adjust your expectations and be ready. The problem is you never know what to expect, and that uncertainty makes most rides exercises in disappointment.
How is a lawyer's life like the morning commute? Especially for junior lawyers, the problem is that they have very little control over their own schedules. It may be Friday afternoon, but you still are not sure whether you will have to work on Saturday. You may be lounging at home on Saturday, but you still can't fully relax because you are not sure whether your blackberry will go off and you'll be called into work. In other words, your schedule is uncertain, just like the morning commute. When it's good, it's good, but when it's bad, it's awful.
So are there any coping strategies? Yes, but they're not easy to do. You can schedule time with family and friends and then move heaven and earth to keep those appointments. For example, if you're meeting friends for dinner and a big project comes in, go to the dinner and then work through the night to get the project done. You will still have to suffer through the work, but you will not have disrupted your dinner. Even more importantly, by making a firm commitment and being sure in your own mind that you will keep it, you will have avoided the psychic pain of worrying about the uncertainty of whether you will be going to dinner or not.
If that doesn't sound like a great solution, that's because it's not and it's very difficult to sustain, which is why young attorneys leave overly demanding law firms in droves that law firms have to replenished every year through massive recruiting drives. Uncertainty and unpredictability are inherent in the practice of law. That's why it is all the more important that, in areas where we can exert some control, we flex our muscles and set the boundaries that work for us. And then maybe we could all be just a little bit happier.
Labels: law firm life
