loki13: OOh Laura… I am entering my first year of law school. I’m somewhat undecided as to what I want to do, but I might want to go into academia, or do corporate transactional work (I’ve heard of this M&A thing), or maybe litigation, or perhaps (depending on loan forgiveness) work for FIRE. Tell me, since I know nothing, what do I need to do to accomplish my goal? How do I reach them? I’ve heard these two people talking about the relative pros and cons of doing assigned classwork, and I’m confused…. do I need to read cases, or should I just purchase the commercial case outlines?

Well, Loki, you’ve seen the relative pros and cons laid out here in excruciating detail. I’ll bet reading and understanding cases is a lot more difficult than reading and understanding these arguments. If you can’t read analytically enough to make sense of this, and you’re not sure what you want to do anyway, maybe you don’t need to run up a bunch of student debt in law school.

I would already have been skipping over your comments, except that you appear to keep asking me questions. In my intellectually-limited world, people ask questions when they want an answer. Evidently, once they reach your dizzying heights, they ask questions but they want you to ignore them. So now that I am enlightened, I won’t respond further to you.

Largo: (BTW, TruePath, did you ever read Proofs and Refutations?

…a book by the philosopher Imre Lakatos expounding his view of the progress of mathematics Mathematics. The book is written as a series of Socratic dialogues involving a group of students who debate the proof of the Euler characteristic defined for the polyhedron. A central theme is that definitions are not carved in stone, but often have to be patched up in the light of later insights, in particular failed proofs…That would have been a class not to miss :) )

I don’t think I ever read that book. I read a fair bit of Lakatos when I TAed philosophy of science but none of his mathematical writings. So maybe I’m misunderstanding the point being made but my reaction is that this is totally obvious to anyone who seriously pursues mathematics. That is it’s obvious to anyone who spends time proving (even in exercises) non-trivial mathematical results.

As soon as you move beyond the simplest proofs you need to introduce new concepts to organize your arguments. At the most basic level this might simply be choosing the right inductive hypothesises and more complicated arguments will require lemmas and ultimately names for frequently used properties. So merely by tackling hard problems in a math class you directly experience the fact that sometimes you have to go back and modify your terms to give a nice proof. Moreover, even just digesting the definitions given one can’t help but notice that you use different definitions when you come back to linear algebra in group theory then you did the first time around.

I think this is the sort of thing that might not be obvious to those who merely appreciate mathematics (even if they’ve digested lots of advanced math) but comes for free to anyone who actually tries to do real mathematics.

I mean progress in mathematics is really nothing but appropriate revision of concepts and definitions. The reason we can teach algebra to even highly uninterested junior high students but the best greek minds struggled to solve even basic linear equations is that we represent algebraic problems in a useful symbolic format while they tried to represent them geometrically.

Laura(southernxyl): I’m not convinced that his approach to studying hurt him, Sandy.
Suppose you had the potential to play in the major leagues and you simply didn’t want to? Would you still feel compelled to copy the training program of someone who had actually played in the major leagues?

Are you purposefully avoiding the question? If someone didn’t want to make the majors (for example, they’d be satisfied being a high school coach) then it doesn’t matter what they do in the minors. They can hit however they’d like, because their performance doesn’t matter.

If someone doesn’t want to get good grades in law school, then it doesn’t matter what they do for studying. This passes for insight?

The question is, assuming you would like to do well in law school, is it better to read your cases or not? Your charming ability to combine skepticism with a lack of knowledge of the subject on which you’re skeptical is nothing if not… interesting, and explains why I’ve avoided your posts. I wish you’d extend me the same courtesy.

Oh Laura… I am entering my first year of law school. I’m somewhat undecided as to what I want to do, but I might want to go into academia, or do corporate transactional work (I’ve heard of this M&A thing), or maybe litigation, or perhaps (depending on loan forgiveness) work for FIRE. Tell me, since I know nothing, what do I need to do to accomplish my goal? How do I reach them? I’ve heard these two people talking about the relative pros and cons of doing assigned classwork, and I’m confused…. do I need to read cases, or should I just purchase the commercial case outlines?

please advise!

Anyway, given all that, I’m sure you will be advising students in other walks of life that doing the work their teachers assign really isn’t that important.

No, Loki. I will advise students in any walk of life to try to crystallize their goals as best they can, and to figure out what they have to do to reach them. What I will not do is try to impose my goals onto them, or tell them that they can only succeed by doing what I did.

I’m flattered to be the topic of such heated debate. FYI: It was always my goal to pursue some kind of alternate track, not the big bucks $$ (what today would be a starting six figure salary; in my days [JD, '99], it might not have been in the sixes yet). I wanted to do well (which we all define in a relative sense; and I think I achieved the goal of “doing well”), but knew that I didn’t need to make honors, law review, whatnot to achieve my career goal.

I understand if I put more hours into work, I would have done better. I always slept 8-9 hours. And INCLUDING the 15 hours of time spent in weekly class lectures I probably worked on average of 40-45 hours a week; that means 25-30 hours doing more than just sitting in class; more of it was spent putting the material together than preparing for class, however.

Though, again, I reiterate, looking back, if I wanted to boost my GPA by doing more work, I don’t think spending more time preparing for classes would have paid the highest dividends. Rather, taking better notes and more time putting it together for the end would. I didn’t perfect my note taking until my LL.M. years.

Intuitively, exams are extremely “teacher” oriented. It’s black letter law + teacher’s interests. It makes sense that what comes out of the teacher’s mouth would be most important.

If Jon is just as smart as the top students — which, frankly, his blogging seems to demonstrate — then obviously his approach to studying hurt him and limited his job choices.

I’m not convinced that his approach to studying hurt him, Sandy.

Suppose you had the potential to play in the major leagues and you simply didn’t want to? Would you still feel compelled to copy the training program of someone who had actually played in the major leagues?

And once again – if a law student has the ambition and the potential to have a career as spectacular as Loki’s – would that student not have enough sense to figure out whose strategy she needs to copy without everybody pointing it out over and over?

Laura(southernxyl): Loki, please. You said that Jon demonstrably had not succeeded, with your little asterisk that explains that top 1/3 at Temple is not good enough. Do you even read your own writing?

I think I was the one who made that point first. Think of it this way. If Jon wasn’t as smart as the top 100 or so students in his class, then finishing where he did is obviously fine. If Jon is just as smart as the top students — which, frankly, his blogging seems to demonstrate — then obviously his approach to studying hurt him and limited his job choices. It’s like listening to a very gifted baseball player tell people to follow his unique training program — that never got him higher than rookie league — and then explain how many people apply for his highly desirable job as a high school coach.

If my goal were to make the major leagues — or even to be the very best minor league player I could be — I’d try to copy the training program of someone who had actually played in the major leagues.

I don’t need to explain what a loser Jon is, because he’s not a loser. I happen to think that he is often (normatively) wrong about some matters, but I usually respect his methodology, and on occasion (such as, I believe, an issue involving some history with the Senate) we’re on the same side. I have the feeling he thinks I’m misguided as well. So it goes.

To address two separate issues:
1. Jon didn’t agitate me. You did. If you bothered to look through the thread, after the usual sturm und drang, we settled down (being reasonable people).

2. As to why I think this is important, it’s because students’ first year at law school (let alone what they think going into it) is filled with fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They don’t know what they’re doing, and they only get feedback in the form of finals; so most have no idea if they’re doing things right until January…. and that matters. So I happen to think the more good info out there, the better, and given many people’s proclivities, I think encouraging students to not do their work is bad advice. I’m oversimplifying of course- Jon did stress the importance of writing your own outlines (very important!) and learning some black letter rules; but the foundation for all of that is to do your assignments. I was never in a class where it hurt, and usually it was the difference between getting a good grade (or a book award) and just getting by. In addition, while I think it is demonstrably wrong, it helps to showw it- apparently it suckered you in.

Anyway, given all that, I’m sure you will be advising students in other walks of life that doing the work their teachers assign really isn’t that important. Because, you know, a teacher would never test on it.

I do have a problem with someone offering advice on how to succeed at something when that person demonstrably has not succeeded at that thing (not life, not happiness, but the thing under discussion)*.

If Jon has “demonstrably not succeeded” then why are you so agitated about his offering his views? Surely law students who have the potential to “succeed” don’t need you to explain to them what a loser Jon is?

I do have a problem with someone offering advice on how to succeed at something when that person demonstrably has not succeeded at that thing (not life, not happiness, but the thing under discussion)*. If someone were to advise you, “Well, I received below-market returns with this strategy, but it’s really the best strategy” then that strategy as an investment strategy is questionable, even if that person is happy with their life.

Notice- I didn’t say “success at life” or “success at being happy”. I was talking about being successful at law school; that means getting good grades. That’s what the analogy was for. In other words, Jon was offering advice on how to get good grades in law school when his grades weren’t that great. That you fail to see this after I’ve written it repeatedly shows how much you’re reading into my statements. As usual.

And no, most law schools have a forced curve. If everyone followed my advice, they wouldn’t finish in the top 5% of their class (of the top 1/4). But guess what? Most people don’t. I did a lot of academic tutoring for 1Ls my second and third years, and the one thing that always amazed me was how many of them thought they didn’t have to do the reading- they’d just get an E&E and (maybe) an Emanuels and they thought they were set. So my best, easiest, first piece of advice for any student that wanted to do better was always the same- read the cases. Do your assignments. Because your grades will improve due to all the people who aren’t reading the cases.

It’s an amazing concept- do the work that’s assigned to you. It works in grade school, middle school, high school, college, and, yes, law school.

And finally, I never said that Jon has not succeeded in life. He’s happy, and he’s doing what he wants. He’s happier than some of the people that did the Clerkship/BigLaw track. And that’s awesome. But he didn’t succeed at the law school grade game.

Try to wrap your head around this analogy (without misrepresenting it): Bill Gates might not be the best person to ask for how to get the best grades at Harvard. He wasn’t successful at the undergraduate grade game. I’ll withhold judgment about how that impacted his overall life. ;)

They won’t, you know. They’ll still stratify. They could all take exactly your advice on how to study and still 3/4 of them will not graduate in the top quarter of their class. So tell me why they should definitely take your advice, and not Jon’s, since you can’t guarantee that you can get them where they need to go anyway?

loki13 says:

And by the way Laura, you have studiously avoided the issue–

given your knowledge of law schools, do you think that students will get better grades, in general, by:

I don’t claim to know about law schools, Loki, I only claim to point out the illogic and the snobbishness in your comments. But since you asked, I would venture to guess that what students have to do to get good grades differs by student and by professor.

Perhaps you missed Jon’s comment, in which he said this:

And though I didn’t graduate from Yale or an Ivy League school, I did graduate from a good state law school and had one of the VC Contributors as a law professor (for whose class I got an A — when our school had a 2.85 curve).

given your knowledge of law schools, do you think that students will get better grades, in general, by:

a) Doing the assigned reading (and then supplementing) OR
b) Not doing the assigned reading (and using just supplements).

Well? I thought Jon’s position was a little counter-intuitive from my experience (admittedly, there’s a lot of reading in law school), but I’m sure you could shed some light on it.

To reiterate, the basic debate between Jon and I is that I think case reading (doing your assigned work) is important, and he doesn’t believe it to be as important — for *succeeding in law school* (also known as getting good grades). We’ve talked about other issues, such as the importance of knowing how to read cases in practice, but that’s the main point.

You, of course, choose to ignore all this and go on the offensive ‘cuz gosh darn it, I’m so mean (pot, kettle, etc.). But for your reference, I did not damn 3/4 of the Temple (law school- you missed that, as usual) graduated to the staus of “unsuccessful”. I merely made the observation that someone who did not do great, at a school that is out of the top 50, is probably not the end-all be-all of advice for study tips.

Feel free to offer your substantive comments. I have yet to see any, but I love surprises!

But here’s a quick summary since you seem to have trouble grasping the idea-
you can succeed in life, and in the law, if you graduate at the bottom of your law school class. But that’s not germane to the question of what works to succeed at *law school*. And, since you’re not really hip to the legal profession, you aren’t aware of how competitive the field is; with the current economy, students who finish at schools similar to Jon’s with similar class rankings at this moment are unable to find any jobs. Students who go to school more highly ranked than Jon’s (note- I didn’t say better) and have a higher class ranking than Jon’s are having trouble finding jobs.

But you wouldn’t know that, would you?

Wow Laura– projecting much? Perhaps the burger fumes got to you?

I don’t flip burgers, Loki. Perhaps you have missed the comments where I mention what I do.

I do have a problem with someone offering advice on how to succeed at something when that person demonstrably has not succeeded at that thing (not life, not happiness, but the thing under discussion)*.

*This is not being snobby. Law schools are very competitive. Jon certainly did better than 99% of the population would have done. But finishing top 1/3 (not top quarter) at Temple, which is a good school (but not one of the 50 best) are not credentials that would lead most people to think they have the best advice for law school.

Maybe you need to look up “snobby” in the dictionary. You have just damned 3/4 of graduates of Temple to the status of “unsuccessful”. I’d be hard-put to come up with a better example.

There are plenty of millionaires (cough, Joe Biden) who did worse than me, but had to take an alternate route to success and riches.

My sister in law graduated from a worse law school (Widner in Del.), I think at a lower class rank, failed the bar twice. She started off working in a restaurant in a non-lawyer position, moved to being an associate for a sole practitioner that paid not well. She eventually worked her way up to partner in a big Phila. area firm and makes that good 6-figure salary. She has fire in the belly and has a very charismatic personality (in addition to being an attractive person; I know that shouldn’t count, but it does).

If you looked at my life track in high school you wouldn’t have predicted my outcome (though if you looked at my diagnostic standardized test scores at age 10, you would). I was an extreme under-performer in high school, due to attention deficit, lack of motivation and so on. I attended the community college where I now teach for my first year of college and ended up with over a 3.5 undergrad GPA. That’s what counts for grad. school; your high school failures disappear and if you do well at a community college; you can get into at least a good state school.

Sadly I know of a lot more of my friends who did well in high school (when they were under their parents control) but blew it at college, when they were on their own.

Jon Rowe: Ultimately 80+% of licensed practicing attorneys are probably not “successful” and that begs the question of whether it’s ethical for law schools to be churning out so many JD failures every year.

Jon-

I don’t know that I agree with your statistic (80% is too high, IMO), but I agree with the sentiment behind it. There are too many law schools turning out too many grads, and too many false promises of huge salaries and rewarding jobs. What people in our field understand is that it is amazingly competitive, and even low- (and non-) paid work that is prestigious, like ACLU, FIRE, or government programs (SEC, DOJ etc.) are very hard to get into. In short, first year grades (and a few extras, like LR and MC) predetermine your job opportunities.

The real crime lies not in the top 100 schools, and some of the good schools below that, but in some degree mills that mainly serve to separate students from their tuition with little, if any, hope of getting a job in the legal field. Even worse, some of these schools fail large numbers of their students after taking their tuition money to keep their bar passage rates acceptable. It’s sad and pathetic.

There’s a lot of people out there right now seduced by the idea of a legal career that are flippin’ burgers (as Laura so eloquently put it), and they certainly didn’t have that as their measure of happiness.

So, yeah- we need fewer law schools and JDs produced every year. It’s a disservice to the people coming in.

I wrote my last comment before I read your last. It seems I anticipated some of what you wrote in there.

Community college professors, I’d imagine, are happier with their positions that most 4-year and graduate level professors. If we teach spoiled rich kids it’s only because said kids find themselves at a community college with classmates from the real world.

These full time positions are super competitive as well. Though the CCs tend not to care about things like law review, placement at top of the class. You need good credentials plus a lot of experience adjunct teaching (which doesn’t pay diddly) with good student evaluations and the right personality and temperament. You need to be able to teach well to students, like ordinary jurors, who don’t necessarily have strong academic backgrounds.

Like I noted, I make a good five figure salary with great benefits. I’m sure there are plenty of six-figure practitioners who would switch positions with me in a heartbeat.

I always knew I didn’t want the misery producing big law firm job which is why I didn’t try out for law review or moot court. I’m grateful to be where I am today.

But ultimately I think Loki has a bizarre definition of “succeeding” in law school and at the practice of law. Graduating from where I did and with my GPA certainly counts at “succeeding” at law school. I never attempted a full time gig at the practice of law. As soon as I graduated I started working part time for an attorney, teaching part time, and getting my LL.M. part time.

But a lot of folks who graduated at my level hang their own shingle or join or start small firms in towns and whatnot. And at the end of the day they may take in a nice middle class 5, perhaps low six figure salary. Some who start out small eventually become millionaires many times over. Except for the last example, that seems not to be “success” according to Loki?

Ultimately 80+% of licensed practicing attorneys are probably not “successful” and that begs the question of whether it’s ethical for law schools to be churning out so many JD failures every year.

I have nothing but respect for Jon doing what makes him happy. More power to him. I am sure that, as he wrote, there are those enjoying six figure incomes that would trade places with him.

I do have a problem with someone offering advice on how to succeed at something when that person demonstrably has not succeeded at that thing (not life, not happiness, but the thing under discussion)*. If someone were to advise you, “Well, I received below-market returns with this strategy, but it’s really the best strategy” then that strategy as an investment strategy is questionable, even if that person is happy with their life.

I don’t post about my personal life (almost never) but I think anyone who has read here for a while knows that I have a plenty of things that make me happy outside of my work. I am lucky because I do work that I love, and I have a great family.

All of your faux outrage and ignorance about law school doesn’t hide the salient fact- if you want to succeed, you have to do well (and first year grades and membership in law review and moot court count disproportionately toward this). If you have different goals, then you don’t. But I hope you feel nice in your smug superiority for lecturing people you don’t know about subjects you aren’t familiar with.

*This is not being snobby. Law schools are very competitive. Jon certainly did better than 99% of the population would have done. But finishing top 1/3 (not top quarter) at Temple, which is a good school (but not one of the 50 best) are not credentials that would lead most people to think they have the best advice for law school. Since his advice was to not do the assigned work, and my advice was to do it- well, YMMV. Personally, I think it’s kind of a waste of your own money (since I paid for my school on my own) to not do your work. But if slacking is your measure of success, and wasting your own, or your parent’s, money, is how you define happiness, then more power to you.

People that… um…. did well in law school and are actually *lawyers* point out that maybe the advice of a person who didn’t do great in law school and is a community college professor is not the best advice to follow. Somehow this is bad– why?

Maybe because you reiterated that about 14 times, and if the law students who read this are as bright as you say they are, they’d have picked up on Jon’s professing at a community college after you’d sneered at him for it once or twice?

But if you are after success in the traditional way it is measured in our field (and top government programs and NGOs are super-competitive), then perhaps our adivce is better to follow. Do you know why?

Do you really, honestly think that people who are after success the way you measure it, and have a reasonable chance of getting there, need you to explain to them, over and over, how Jon’s way of getting through law school is utter crap?

I only know what I did to get the order of the coif, magna, law review, multiple book awards, and so on.

He modestly said. And if you can’t attain to what Loki has done, or if you just want a personally fulfilling career that requires a law degree that you didn’t have to shut down your life to get, then you need to just drop out of law school and go flip burgers. Because there’s really nothing else for you.

I excuse your ignorance from a desire not to read my posts and a basic lack of knowledge about how law schools work. For the first:

1. Success is achievement of goals, period.

Hmmm…. wow, it’s almost like I *never* wrote this, just above:

“There’s nothing wrong with having different goals– helping the homeless, teaching at a boarding school or a community college, writing the great American Novel, becoming a solo practitioner in your small town.”

2. Most people who go to LAW school do so because they want to succeed in the LAW profession. There’s a number of ways to do that- clerkships, academia (usually after clerkships), BigLaw, goverment work, NGOs, etc. What many people don’t realize is that positions that are underpaid (like ACLU, or SEC) are very competitive to get into. Even working as a state prosecutor in some places requires very high class placement.

3. Yes, if you reach your goals, you are a success. If you go to LAW school, and write the Great American Novel, and become a novelist, and that’s what *you* want, more power to you. You are a success. If you go to LAW school and stay at home to raise a family and are happy, then you are a success. But that has nothing to do with succeeding at LAW school and succeeding in the LAW profession. So if your goal is not to succeed at the LAW profession, then you don’t have to do well. Of course, you might not want to go to LAW school. By the same token, if you don’t want to do very well, if you want to become a solo practioner, then you don’t have to do as well at LAW school. But as someone who actually went there and knows the people who go there, I find that people actually try to do well, because most of them want the more competitive positions (either lucrative or not, they still require high class standing).

4. I managed to write all that without a glass of water. I enjoy writing about things I know about. Apparently, the converse it true for you.

Let me tell you what success is, Loki, since you seem to have reached the lofty heights you currently hold without ever learning this basic fact.

Success is achievement of goals. Period.

And let me tell you another fact which will be a new eye-opener for you today.

Everyone doesn’t share your goals.

Maybe you need to have a glass of water and sit down now.

See, I can do it too.

You keep on saying that I didn’t do well. But I graduated in the top third from a good state school. If that’s not doing well then the overwhelming majority of JD grads are wasting their time. Now Biden, he didn’t do well, but he still, like me, has a JD from decent non-first tier law school.

Laura(southernxyl): If I didn’t know better, I’d think some folks were mad because they are now beginning to suspect that they worked way too hard in law school.
Cause the whole “this is what worked for me, so if you say anything different worked for you, you’re a liar” thing is a little out there. Also, “you can’t get the career I have doing what you did, and the career I have is the only one worth having” — hm, bit of a stretch.
Rather, I think Loki and Sandy are enjoying putting Jon on the defensive.

This is how inane this thread has become.

1. This might be one of the few time Sandy and I have agreed.

2. People that… um…. did well in law school and are actually *lawyers* point out that maybe the advice of a person who didn’t do great in law school and is a community college professor is not the best advice to follow. Somehow this is bad- why?

3. Basic logic Laura- I never said my way is the only way. I only questioned Jon’s advice. Why? Because he was advising law students how to succeed, which means (I believe) both in law school and in eventual outcome. He did that despite not doing well in law school by the usual metrics and not practicing law (or teaching at a law school). Try imagining this- Hey guys, I didn’t do that well at MedSchool, and I’m currently teaching at a community college, but here’s my advice for how to succeed. Does it sound quite the same to you now?

4. Unlike Lake Woebegone, not everyone is law school is above average. That’s pretty devastating for the many type-A personalities out there. Not everyone aspires to practice BigLaw, or go to the top small specialty firms, or clerk, or go into academia, or work at the top regional law firms, or work for SEC, or become an AUSA, or work for the ACLU, or go in-house with a top international firm…. but most at least start with those aspirations. There’s nothing wrong with having different goals- helping the homeless, teaching at a boarding school or a community college, writing the great American Novel, becoming a solo practitioner in your small town. But if you are after success in the traditional way it is measured in our field (and top government programs and NGOs are super-competitive), then perhaps our adivce is better to follow. Do you know why?

5. Supplements are everywhere. Anyone can read the black letter law, read hornbooks, read E&Es, and read Chemerinsky for ConLaw and Federal Courts (inside joke there). And guess what? Everyone does. They’re called average students. The students who do better do the little things that matter- like read the assigned cases. Because all those shortcuts I mentioned are shortcuts. Amazingly enough, most professors realize that students use supplements, and they actually have questions on their exam that, well, can turn depending on a real understanding of your readings that they assigned to you.

But hey- what do I know? I only know what I did to get the order of the coif, magna, law review, multiple book awards, and so on. I mean- it worked for me, but I must be an outlier. Instead of listening to the advice of lawyers, I highly recommend people listen to Laura (no idea about the law) and Jon (very nice and knowledgable fellow, but self-admittedly not the greatest law student). Your classmates will thank you. ;)

I learned even more in my clinical classes and a small group seminar, but I do not think I would have done as well in those classes without the background I gained in the pre-requisite courses, which were taught Socratically.

I’m not even saying I never will litigate. But if I do, it will be on my terms, similar to how Randy Barnett got involved in Raich or Michael Newdow. I doubt I’ll ever get to argue before the Supreme Court; but if I do it will be on my terms.

Cause the whole “this is what worked for me, so if you say anything different worked for you, you’re a liar” thing is a little out there. Also, “you can’t get the career I have doing what you did, and the career I have is the only one worth having” – hm, bit of a stretch.

Rather, I think Loki and Sandy are enjoying putting Jon on the defensive.

If you are a typical person thinking about going to law school, you’ll be lucky to end up with credentials such as mine. You are far likelier to end there than with Eugene Volokh superstar credentials. For a JD student to get a Supreme Court clerkship is like an aspiring musician getting a record contract with a big label (highly unlikely).

If that’s not worth it (given the cost of law school) then you probably shouldn’t go to law school to begin with. There is a good article at National Law Journal that suggests if you don’t go to a top 14, law school might not be worth it.

Again, I’m not sure what to say. I am impressed at the belief you have in your natural talent. You claim to have not been much of a case-reader in law school, and to have practiced little, and to currently only read cases occasionally (in subjects that interest you),

Let’s see it’s been 13 years since I was a 1L. Despite all of the reading I missed I’ve still read thousands of cases. And the areas of law that interest me — what I keep up with regularly — happen to be Supreme Court constitutional law issues — 1st, 14th Amendment issues and whatnot. In other words the area that I regularly follow is about as intellectually demanding as it gets.

I don’t doubt if I had to make a transition to litigation, there would be a rough learning curve that would smack me in the face; but I think I’d probably be able to adjust within 6 months or so.

It would probably surprise you and SM to know that I’ve published for the same journal as a current sitting Supreme Court Justice (who published AS a Supreme Court Justice) (though my article was much smaller than his; I don’t want to be accused of misleading anything — it was in a different issue as well).

I don’t think the journal will publish me again, not because what I write is bad, but because I’m known for having a different worldview than it.

Maybe one day I’ll be Vice President of the United States.

[You have scroll down to Biden's law school credentials to get the joke.]

SM: You are right that most law professors at state schools graduated from schools like Harvard or Yale, have prestigious clerkships and whatnot. In other words, they come from a different world than their law students (unless of course we are addressing Harvard, Yale, Stanford JD students only in these threads).

I don’t believe I accused JD law professors of “lying” to students (if it came off that way, I didn’t mean it). I think a lot of profs are genuinely mistaken about the effectiveness of the Socratic method and the necessity of always being prepared for class to learn the material. And I think a lot give bad advice in terms of the hours needed to prepare (again, the advice we were given — three hours of prep for every one credit hour of class — was ridiculous).

My advice remains the same: Figure out what works best for you. Try to read and brief all of the cases in the first semester and then after that start experimenting.

Nuff said.