tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post5891840607033149116..comments2023-10-30T08:41:06.178-07:00Comments on Inside the Law School Scam: Stanley Fish, SuperstarLawProfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-41428759359001351912011-12-23T08:35:57.984-08:002011-12-23T08:35:57.984-08:00Law school is useless, but it is disguised as a pr...Law school is useless, but it is disguised as a professional school. Most humanities and social science programs, and even many of the pure science programs -- though not the majority -- are useless too. They are research driven for the sake of research, not for some other, practical purpose. But unlike law, these don't masquerade as a professional school.<br /><br />Ah, but Prof. Fish wants the study of law to exist and to add something more. To that end, the academic study of law school (i.e., all law schools) are to law, what art history is to art. Music theory is to music. That may be fine on its own, but it is a grossly inefficient way to prepare students for the practical.<br /><br />People who want to be fine artists or musicians, study in studios or conservatories where they are taught to practice. theory and history are part of their training, but not the bulk of it. the same is true of medicine and dentistry. The study of law should be similar -- lawyers training law students in contracts, procedure, evidence and torts, with academics teaching jurisprudence and the conlaw topics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-14075300519367823252011-12-18T11:32:02.160-08:002011-12-18T11:32:02.160-08:00@5:46 pm:
I am also a practicing lawyer and I coul...@5:46 pm:<br />I am also a practicing lawyer and I couldn't disagree with you more.<br />How to find the deadlines for a response in the District Court for Blackacre is EXACTLY what should be taught in law school. You check the FRCP, the District Court's local rules and the judge's webpage. A person who doesn't practice much in federal court would not think to check the local rules or the judge's webpage. Once you learn this fact, it is obvious.<br /><br />Practicing law comprises thousands of little facts that are "obvious" once you know them. Until you know them, they are not obvious. If you don't know them, you will get in serious trouble.<br /><br />In theory, any intelligent law grad could spend thousands of hours reading all statutes, cases, local rules, trial transcripts, etc and recreate the knowledge needed to be a lawyer. For that matter, any intelligent person who never attended law school could do the same (or read all of the books needed to acquire the knowledge base to be a doctor, engineer, chemist, etc.).<br /><br />The existence of libraries does not excuse professional training programs of the obligation to actually teach the substantive knowledge of the profession.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-63006140396521710532011-12-16T12:27:35.815-08:002011-12-16T12:27:35.815-08:00Fish's comments don't surprise me. As a h...Fish's comments don't surprise me. As a humanities scholar, he wrote that literature should be taught because it's, well, literature. Teaching it can't and shouldn't be justified in any other way, according to him.<br /><br />Now, I love literature (but have come to hate "Literature" with a capital "L.") I would like for other people to want to read the classics and enjoy them. But I am enough of a realist to realize that most people won't, and that most students only read the classics because they're required. Even the vast majority of those who would and could study literature for its own sake won't have careers as scholars and professors. But, of course, Fish doesn't consider such possibiities. <br /><br />He always struck me as one of those people who thinks that being elitist is the same as being intelligent, or at least scholarly.Dona Furiosahttp://www.scholasticsnakeoil.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-91809172302991718672011-12-16T07:47:48.112-08:002011-12-16T07:47:48.112-08:00More practice readyMore practice readyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-64383926720703911642011-12-16T07:41:05.707-08:002011-12-16T07:41:05.707-08:00You could be trained within an inch of your life, ...You could be trained within an inch of your life, but when the business cycle brings bad economic times, lawyers are vulnerable. When permanent, structural changes constrict the market, lawyers, no matter how well-trained, will suffer. This is not the fault of any school. If schools that are not HYS wanted to have a different model, and bring forth mire practice ready graduates, they could do it. If you are right, those big firms will abandon HYS and hire graduates from those schools who strike out on their own course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-62843278742187175882011-12-16T07:10:20.338-08:002011-12-16T07:10:20.338-08:00@6:58: I can't speak to LP's specific moti...@6:58: I can't speak to LP's specific motivations, but elite schools are part of the problem.<br /><br />For one, they have long been passing the buck to firms when it comes to training. This makes grads more exposed to economic tides, as they absolutely must get that first law job right away.BL1Yhttp://www.constitutionaldaily.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-83379156924600784312011-12-16T06:40:41.494-08:002011-12-16T06:40:41.494-08:00Law school should be only 2 years. Ideally it wou...Law school should be only 2 years. Ideally it would be something available for the last 2 years of undergrad. It could also be available to those who had already graduated, but wanted to take the 2 year course--or that could be structured as an advanced degree like B school--attending some law program would be needed to take the bar. However, key is to keep something like the LSAT in place rather than to make the bar harder, since people studying actual laws and failing every year (like in Korea or Japan) is a big drain on society (there's only so much you can study for the LSATs). Ultimately, control on the supply of lawyers needs to be exercised by getting rid of the third and fourth tier schools.. there's no reason for them to exist.<br /><br />What law schools teach is pretty irrelevant.. law firms really don't care that much. Training programs would be difficult to implement. Much better to start associates off younger, with less debt and a lower salary. That could benefit everyone involved.<br /><br />The major problem is just cost of education generally, which is the worst for law school. Getting rid of effectively unlimited loans is a start. Another tool is to make all state schools radically cheaper.. increase class size, teaching loads.. lower salaries.. hire former lawyers for 100k.. tuition for top state schools drops to 10k. plenty of people would accept. If you can convince a lot of top students to go to a state school, suddenly it becomes higher ranked.. and private schools need to cut costs to compete. My two (or three) cents there...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-15940230333336386122011-12-15T21:57:23.752-08:002011-12-15T21:57:23.752-08:00Did ANY of you people call any of your professors ...Did ANY of you people call any of your professors or deans to state your views? No? That's what I thought. Pussies.<br /><br />*flexes*steroid guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-14907101768240710442011-12-15T18:58:07.047-08:002011-12-15T18:58:07.047-08:00How are YLS and HLS part of the problem that led L...How are YLS and HLS part of the problem that led LawProf to start this blog?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-51161463436522641982011-12-15T18:34:05.375-08:002011-12-15T18:34:05.375-08:00Can someone remind me why we're fawning over t...Can someone remind me why we're fawning over the prom queen of law schools? What percentage of these kids are EVER going to have a problem finding employment or in securing a livelihood?<br /><br />You didn't start this blog for Yale academics Professor Campos. Quit placating your yacht club acquaintances. YLS and HLS are part of the problem. If you can't see that - I'm not sure what to tell you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-7288455633520826972011-12-15T18:33:24.547-08:002011-12-15T18:33:24.547-08:00Of course! Two law school models of which both ar...Of course! Two law school models of which both are separately good, but separately equal! <br /><br />Really? <br /><br />Professor, your passion for academia is clouding your vision, but your heart is in the right place. If you're serious about prospective reform, it's clear that one of two models has to be adopted - either the vocational model or the theoretical model. You can't have it both ways. Pick one of the following:<br /><br />(1) Vocational - we "lock it up." Create a REAL pre-law major, not the bullshit standby for indecisive college students, with actual prerequisites and the LSAT becomes equivalent to a bar exam, with tests regarding actual legal questions. Law school is considered a profession akin to medical or dental school. The profession is monitored and regulated. Superfluous law schools are shut down. The USNWR is DONE - no more rankings. Legal academics are shunned and actual working professionals are put in their place. Lawyers come out ready and willing to *practice* law.<br /><br />(2) Educational - law schools really are designed to make you "think like lawyers." It's a race to the bottom in terms of salary. Prestige rules the day. The rankings continue and your *potential* value of a lawyer is viewed in terms of the rank of the law school that you attended. Legal academics are encouraged. This is essentially the current model that we have. It works great for T6.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-76269541226842344472011-12-15T17:46:24.915-08:002011-12-15T17:46:24.915-08:00LawProf,
I like the blog, but this is easily the ...LawProf,<br /><br />I like the blog, but this is easily the worst idea you have floated. I encourage you to give it more thought.<br /><br />I'm in practice and I will tell you that, in my experience, the following two statements are true:<br /><br />1. Law schools teach very little in the way of specific skills or knowledge -- as distinguished from legal writing or reasoning ability -- that is useful to a practicing lawyer.<br /><br />2. Most specific skills or knowledge useful to a practicing lawyer should not be taught in law school.<br /><br />Your post assumes a tension between these propositions. Allow me to offer some of the reasons why they're perfectly consistent.<br /><br />Let's say you're figuring out how long you have to respond to a motion -- in my view, that is something best done in context not only because the context affects the outcome, but because if you're simply lectured on it you won't remember. (I remember nothing -- nothing -- I learned in my bar review classes for just this reason: rote learning is useless, and in a world where you can look anything up easily it's just idiotic.)<br /><br />Now, you could have a "skills" class or a clinic where students do problem sets, like "You're in the federal District of Blackacre and you've been served with an X motion. Consult whatever sources you need to and figure out when you need to respond," and attach the Blackacre local rules, the judge's rules, the FRCP, and the state rules. But (1) teaching in this fashion is expensive (you will need far smaller classes) and (2) these specific skills are not difficult and do not really need to be taught in academic institutions or attached clinics or externships (for which they pay dearly in tuition dollars).<br /><br />What we need are young lawyers who give enough of a shit about their jobs that they will go and identify the right sources, figure out when that response is due -- and then write it really well, researching and marshaling all the best authority for their clients. In short, we need lawyers to think their job is bigger than the task at hand.<br /><br />I realize that problem as it exists today (and it does) was not created by law schools, but it sure would be exacerbated by transforming law schools into trade schools.<br /><br />Separately, I might add that all this whining about "young lawyers don't have practical skills" is really about money and practitioners not wanting to mentor. Mentoring is one of my favorite things, and the myopic prejudice against it is as counterproductive as it is pervasive. A generation ago, lawyers had no more practical skills than they do today. In fact, they likely had fewer since summer associate programs were a complete party and clinics didn't exist. What's changed is the emphasis on the bottom line in the new corporation-firm, and mentoring takes a back seat in that model.<br /><br />Finally, your blog is great for bringing attention to the hordes of unemployed and underemployed lawyers suffering crushing debt loads. I would note, as others have, that a successful push to trade-ify law would result in dramatically lower salaries for lawyers.<br /><br />PS Your "Bullshit" post was really interesting. This one is just a mess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-85876497813146964222011-12-15T17:17:46.706-08:002011-12-15T17:17:46.706-08:00So tired reading what law profs who have never pra...So tired reading what law profs who have never practiced and who had decades to deal with this issue talk about how schools should work now. You had years to fix all of this and what do we have? This current mess. Hilarious that any of you think you have anything important to say just because of your positions. You are part of the problem and not the solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-50839088004717096592011-12-15T16:49:13.425-08:002011-12-15T16:49:13.425-08:00Before I forget: In my opinion, recycling exams i...Before I forget: In my opinion, recycling exams is a type of white collar crime. Perhaps not literally (although, who knows?) but by analogy as a matter of discipline within the school. Students should be demanding to know what penalty the law school plans to level on Fischel and any other professors who engage in this type of rule breaking and abuse of power. <br /><br />With the caveat that I don't know any specifics, I would say that no salary increase for this year is the minimum penalty that would satisfy the deterrent, retributive, and rehabilitative goals of the criminal law. Perhaps the Chicago students could even cite some theoretical works in support of that position? :)<br /><br />Plus, the students should be able to choose P or grade *after* seeing their grades on the two remaining questions. They deserve at least that benefit given all the other grief accompanying this. And by forcing the students to make that choice before seeing their grades, the school makes it very easy for Fischel to grade the exams! Anyone who chooses a "P" will just get a quick once over. Way to reward rule breaking behavior!DJMhttp://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=38noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-10445542561266209022011-12-15T16:47:46.755-08:002011-12-15T16:47:46.755-08:00Powwow is not at all what I meant,-- bad keyboard....Powwow is not at all what I meant,-- bad keyboard. Anything is POSSIBLEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-11308044736457645642011-12-15T16:46:11.047-08:002011-12-15T16:46:11.047-08:00It is not imaginary at all. There are plenty of p...It is not imaginary at all. There are plenty of people who go law school In their mid -twenties after having completed college. I guess a separate program would be carved out for them to attend the program with the regular college students. Again, it is hard to imagine top schools doing this, fooling with their undergraduate program in this way. But I suppose anything is powwow or if you are talking decades from now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-58255423390748630772011-12-15T16:35:27.960-08:002011-12-15T16:35:27.960-08:00@315PM: Yes! Just like if you're 25 years ol...@315PM: Yes! Just like if you're 25 years old and majored in English, you will have to go back if you suddenly decide you want to be an engineer or a nurse. (I am picking that last example as it is one I actually have some anecdata about--when my definitely-older-than-25 husband decided he wanted to pursue a career in nursing after years in a completely unrelated field, a solid plurality of the students in the classes he took to meet the science prerequisites were second-career folks.) <br /><br />Anyway, I'm having trouble working up a whole lot of sad for the imaginary late bloomer who finds himself in this situation. Besides, why would it be a bad thing for that person to have to stop and think before embarking on law training and its attendant nondischargeable debt? Right now, it's the "nontraditional" students (i.e., the older ones) who tend to be the MOST screwed by incurring 3 years of law school debt (on top of undergrad debt), because they tend to have greater financial responsibilities already than do the young 'uns--and they have fewer years remaining in the workforce (assuming they can even get a job, and let's not pretend that law firms don't engage in age discrimination) to pay off that debt before it gets sucked directly out of their Social Security checks.Jadznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-17914877356502957722011-12-15T16:08:21.249-08:002011-12-15T16:08:21.249-08:00I agree with what DJM is saying. In the clinic I t...I agree with what DJM is saying. In the clinic I took on mass incarceration during 2L year (IMO taught by one of the best teachers I've ever had) we had two class sessions per week where we did everything, including learning the law, discussing ongoing cases, meeting practitioners and policymakers, and talking over theory and policy. We had a meeting each week where we discussed the legal and practical issues involved in our client matters. I worked on larger cases where I sat in on strategy meetings with 10-15 people, each one responsible for a different facet of the case. Finally, I drove to prisons to meet and talk with clients. The whole thing was about 20-25 hours per week and was a 7 credit class. <br /><br />I would easily do two of those (meaning I would spend about 40-50 hours in the law school and take 14 credits a semester. Or I would support a system where you would take a clinic and select from 2-3 credit "labs" related to the clinic. For example, if you were in a litigation clinic, you could take Discovery Lab or Trial Practice Lab. <br /><br />Now as a 3L, I'm taking your typical slate of classes (Corporations, Professional Responsibility, etc), which I don't attend. I take about 2-3 days before the exam to get an outline and study on that. I am killing time until I graduate. And that's kind of sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-34554499752896864612011-12-15T15:42:45.177-08:002011-12-15T15:42:45.177-08:00Putting aside the undergrad proposal for now, I...Putting aside the undergrad proposal for now, I'd like to propose a more nuanced view of legal education. I think the undergrad idea has some merit (although also some real concerns), but whatever the degree tracks, I think we need to think more about the ingredients that go into educating an excellent, adaptive professional--one who has some capacity to respond to real clients and legal problems after graduation but also has the ability to grow both within an individual career and in response to huge market, global, and technological changes.<br /><br />I've taught both clinical and theoretical law, talked with a lot of practitioners, and studied the cognitive science literature on how professionals learn; based on those sources, I think an excellent professional education isn't all one thing or another. It's a mixture of theory, doctrine, supervised practice, feedback, and "skills" training that is far broader than many people realize. <br /><br />Both professors and practitioners often talk about skills without breaking that concept down. Many assume that these are technical things that are taught in clinics or learned on the job--and people bicker about which is the best place to learn them. But too often we fail to distinguish among the skills. Are all of them best learned in one way? Do they need to be sequenced in some way? Are skills best taught in isolation or in combination with doctrine or theory?<br /><br />The best legal education, I think, would combine all of these facets over time. For example, I think one of the most important steps we could take in law school is having students do client interviews, first with simulated clients and then with real ones, during the first year. This is what medical students do during their first year and it may be more important in forming client-focused professionals than the clinical rotations that take place later.<br /><br />I think it's a great idea for law students to take 1 or 2 Fish-like seminars in fields of interest to them. Those seminars do play a role in developing professional expertise. But many doctrinal or theoretical professors don't realize that a lot of "Fish-like" reading, thinking, and discussion goes on in good clinics. In our criminal prosecution clinic, students learn a variety of skills (from mundane ones like how to respond to a discovery request to more complicated ones like how to interview an alleged victim and how to interact with the police). <br /><br />But they also read pieces on the theory of punishment and discuss those views--in the context of making their own prosecutorial decision. To me, this is the best of professional education: combining theory, doctrine, and a variety of practical skills. Last year, I saw a facebook post from a student in that clinic saying "best two hours in law school ever--discussing theory of retribution in the prosecution clinic." Excusing for a moment the fact that she was posting during class, I thought that was a wonderful tribute to the way legal education can and should be. (Just to be clear, I'm not praising my own clinic here--I teach a different one.)<br /><br />But that type of combo experience happens after a number of other building blocks are in place. The students do learn a number of important things from basic criminal law, even though they couldn't practice law on that basis alone (horrors!). And if they've taken seminars, those experiences can influence their performance in clinics as well.<br /><br />Training excellent professionals is very complex; I'd advocate taking a very nuanced view of all the ingredients and trying to figure out the best ways to deliver them. Law schools aren't doing that now--except in bits and pieces--but I'd avoid all-or-nothing reforms. All clinic, all apprentice, or all anything else may be just as bad as all theory. (I'm not saying that LawProf or any particular commenter has advocated all or nothing, but Fish's piece is phrased that way and the danger arises in thinking about these issues.)DJMhttp://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=38noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-77889429394711517932011-12-15T15:28:48.666-08:002011-12-15T15:28:48.666-08:00@2:53 I suggest that you may want to stay off the ...@2:53 I suggest that you may want to stay off the internet in general and blogs specifically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-11575150494699694092011-12-15T15:27:04.580-08:002011-12-15T15:27:04.580-08:00I just love that Fish does not address that his ve...I just love that Fish does not address that his version of an ideal law school reflects some intellectual's version of some kind of platonic ideal while priced at a coldhearted, vocational, extract-as-much-as-you-possibly-can, used car salesman, pay for the rest of your life charges. Interesting dichotomy. Willful ignorance and open hypocrisy are awesome things when you can afford it and when it benefits you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-43196899608282076792011-12-15T15:15:07.860-08:002011-12-15T15:15:07.860-08:00So what does a person who decides at 25 to become ...So what does a person who decides at 25 to become a lawyer do in this system, go back to college?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-39873616040517252842011-12-15T14:57:11.876-08:002011-12-15T14:57:11.876-08:002:42: I agree a radical restructuring along these ...2:42: I agree a radical restructuring along these or similar lines will require a combination of a big economic crisis for the present model (which seems bound to happen sooner or later) and a good deal of time to transition from one model to another. But I do think something like this could well come about over the course of the next few decades.LawProfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-26099275771743046402011-12-15T14:53:59.337-08:002011-12-15T14:53:59.337-08:00Exactly, CC. A pleasant fantasy and this whole di...Exactly, CC. A pleasant fantasy and this whole discussion is just like one those useless, but entertaining, discussions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-69085826764194020352011-12-15T14:42:18.203-08:002011-12-15T14:42:18.203-08:00When I was a third year law student, I definitely ...When I was a third year law student, I definitely had the impression that the thing was artificially extended to raise the minimum age of anyone who would end up with a license. Or, you have to collect a certain number of boxtops to get a secret decoder ring, and the number isn't exactly arbitrary, but isn't really based on the cost/value of the ring either.<br /><br />I went to law school to learn how to be a lawyer. This was a huge advantage for me, since from the very first day, I was interested in learning eg the rules of civil procedure: not because it was going to be on the exam, but because clients were going to expect me to know it pretty well when they walked in the door. (I'm not calling the person above who thinks getting an outline and last year's exams is the best way to get over a bad person -- but if he/she isn't acting as someone's lawyer, I'm not sorry to hear it.) Ok, the policy stuff was relevant -- you do have to understand the dynamics of the system -- and fun, but at the start, you have to understand how to give the customers the value they are paying you (a whole lot) to get.<br /><br />I think the model in the OP would be a great idea, if we were starting from scratch, or if there was some kind of crisis brought on by the collapse of no less than 100 law schools (which, I suppose, might follow the end of federal loan involvement). Failing that, though, it strikes me as a pleasant fantasy. Not unlike a great many of the policy discussions I sat through in law school . . .<br /><br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com