1Ls: losers of the earth
[Disclaimer: The following should not be construed as legal advice. The author is not an attorney--merely a law student (and not a very good one @ that) sharing her experiences. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in this post.]
---
There's a saying about law school: "First year, they scare you to death. Second year, they work you to death. And third year, they bore you to death."
That saying didn't make sense to me until after I spent some time in law school. I should be @ the "work to death" stage but I'm more @ the "bored to death" stage. This is the only time in law school that I've ever been ahead of my class. :wishy:
Most law school programs last three years (possibly four years if it's a night/part-time program). In California, there's a Bar (the association that governs attorneys) rule that says one must complete his/her legal studies w/i five years or start over again. But the majority of students enroll in the full-time, 3-year program. Considering all the work that law students have to do, I don't know how some ppl manage to do the night/part-time programs and work full-time (and have a life?).
First year is extremely rote but nerve-wracking. Partly b/c of the all-important class ranking (more on this in a later post). And partly b/c 1Ls (pronounced "one L") are learning a whole new way of studying and preparing for class. All one pretty much does in law school is read incomprehensible cases and then discuss them in class. Everybody (school, profs, TAs, etc.) tries to push the new students into a singular way of approaching class, and it doesn't always work. For example, 1Ls are told that they need to brief each case before class. That means, reading the case and then breaking it down to five main components:
1. Procedural History
(how the case got to that particular court, which lower court(s) heard the case first, what the lower courts ruled, which party brought the current case before the current court.)
2. Facts
(sounds simply, right? Nope . . . not all facts are equally important. Some facts might be interesting but are useless b/c they're not necessary to the analysis of the case. Also, facts may vary depending on the court frames the issue.)
3. Issue on Appeal
(could be more than one issue. Sometimes hard to spot/find.)
4. Court Holding
(The answer to the issue. The rule derived from the case. Again, sometimes the holding is hard to spot b/c judges like the ramble. Judges may throw in several rules and law students have to keep in mind that any rule that's not directly related to the current issue on appeal, is merely dicta and isn't binding like the holding/rule.)
5. Reasoning
(Why the court ruled the way it did. This is the MEAT of cases/law school b/c this part teaches us how to think like lawyers. "Reasoning" can get pretty interesting b/c some times it doesn't make any damn sense. Take into account the different ways of reasoning and combination of those methods, throw in a bunch of fallible humans, and you've got a crapshoot.)
----- Socratic Method
Besides case briefing (which pretty much falls to the way side by 2nd semester), law school is different b/c of the "Socratic Method" of teaching. This means that professors teach by asking the students questions. I don't think I ever experienced fear until the first time I was on-call my first year of law school. I used to go to civil procedure w/ terrible stomach pains every morning in fear/anxiety that Prof Civil Procedure would call on me.
In first year, students are usually placed in sections and they remain in that section for the whole year. Profs have the power to humiliate you in front of your peers--ppl that you're going to see everyday for the whole year--and first year, it seems that profs take full advantage of this power. I don't blame them for trying to inject a bit of humility in a group of cocky "gov't major"-types though.[1] I'd abuse this power too if I could.
Different profs have different ways of teaching; but all of the ways are usually a form of Socratic teaching. Some profs "cold-call," meaning they give no warning about who they will call on that day. Some profs put a group of students "on-call" for the week or for a particular case/problem. Some (but very few) ask for volunteers.
B/c law school depends so much on the Socratic Method, it's also important for profs to know who their students are. Hence the seating chart. @ my school (and I'm sure many other schools), the profs paste a picture of you above your name on the seating chart. Now the profs can pretend they really know who you are before they tear into you.
----- First-Year Curriculum
Almost all law school assign the same First-Year curriculum to their 1Ls. This means that when you arrive @ school, you already have your section/classes picked out for you. The typical 1L curriculum includes:
Contracts
Civil Procedure
Torts
Criminal Law
Property
(and maybe) Constitutional Law
These classes are the foundation of almost any other class one will take in law school.
-----
Almost each class has a major, definitive case that screams the subject (Pennoyer v. Neff? CIVIL PROCEDURE!!!) I'll talk about those later on b/c the cases are funny; but I'm running out of time/steam. (Who gets the harpooned whale that washed up on the shore? The harpooner or the finder?!?) (Can an old woman sue her young nephew for injuries caused when he pulled a chair out from under her?)
Also, later on I want to talk (rant) about the bitches who make law school tough. The ppl who hide books or rip pages out to fuck over their peers. In my section/year, we had a group who kept a spreadsheet of names and "secret" exam numbers so that they could match up your name w/ your grades. Two years later, it still boggles my mind that they could waste so much time doing something so immature and unethical.
-----
[1] For those of you who have never taken a government or political science class, you will never know the pleasure of being trapped in a room of ppl full of themselves. Ppl who think they are the shit b/c they ask 10-minute long questions w/ 5 parts and 3 subsections per part. WASPy conformists who think the world revolves around them and that their every thought/utterance is the only correct way. Ppl who think they are important b/c they like to read books w/o pictures. Not all gov't/poly sci majors are like this, but enough to make me label this personality as a gov't major type.
