Law Professor Eugene Volokh's view on Gunners Forum

[VincentChase]

If I have something to say, I say it. I don't keep track of a quota or anything dumb like that and as a result I will have days where I raise my hand 3-4 times in a class and 0 times in another class. I like to think that I add to the discussion, but if I don't who cares? Your not graded on class participation so there is really only positives to participating more, provided you're not obnoxious about it (i.e the prof knows who you are, you get questions answered, etc). The whole being overly socially conscious thing is a weird aspect of law school.

As someone who teaches UGs, I can tell you that it helps me remember their names more and probably fosters a better impression of them (provided they aren't obnoxious). I have never had to write a rec letter for a student who did not talk or participate in class because, aside from a test score, I don't know anything about them. When it comes time to sign up for clinics, research, or general networking, I'd rather err on the side of getting my money out of the tuition I'm paying by asking questions, regardless of the stage fright or malaise of students who are merely in class to fill a seat. Just my 2 cents...

You raise a good point.

How do you silent people approach professors for recs? Get to know the during office hours? That's reasonable.

What would the reasonable quiet student, knowing what he knows or should know, do?

Go to office hours and pretend you have questions.

[Kohinoor]

I honestly don't understand the "I'm too cool for speaking in class" vibe here.

I'm not too cool...I just usually don't have a compelling reason to say anything.

Since when was a compelling reason a prereq? I genuinely had points last term where i raised my hand out of boredom and asked the first question that came to mind.

[prezidentv8]

I honestly don't understand the "I'm too cool for speaking in class" vibe here.

I'm not too cool...I just usually don't have a compelling reason to say anything.

Since when was a compelling reason a prereq? I genuinely had points last term where i raised my hand out of boredom and asked the first question that came to mind.

Eh, guilt tends to get me before boredom does.

[gregw8705]

Last semester I had a class where the professor called down the row every day. It was a "small-section" class of about 25, so this may not work as well in a larger class, but everyone present was called on during every class period. Sometimes the questions were too nitpicky about facts or procedural history (although she justified precision in explaining the procedural history because it was first semester Civil Procedure), but were mostly about legal reasoning, hypos, etc. I think the forced frequent participation led to volunteer participation and more widespread involvement when she wasn't calling on people and simply holding class discussion with whomever volunteered.

In all my other classes (all twice as big with 50-60 students) only a handful (6-12 tops) would participate on a regular basis. In this class, I can't think of anyone who dominated discussion or anyone who typically went long without volunteering an answer, question, or comment at some point. Perhaps this can be attributed to the class size or the teaching method (or simply that the small sample size of students in the class were unusually willing to participate), but there are ways of increasing involvement if you know how to teach and don't slavishly follow the way it has always been done.

[prezidentv8]

don't slavishly follow the way it has always been done.

What like the rest of law school for the past...hundred or so years?

[Snooker]

@wiseowl vs. phd debate

I don't think law school classes prepare you to be ready for the practice of law from the get-go. Simply reading cases and writing law school exams doesn't mean you can show up in court and win a case. There are clinics, but seriously a decent clinic at most schools has a long waiting list for it. Nor will law school classes really be intellectual like a PhD program, because it's a professional school aimed at training you to do work.

A competent lawyer can make good money, but a fresh graduate is fairly helpless. Why? A new graduate isn't competent. A doctor or a dentist has 2 years of supervised experience under his belt, but a new lawyer will be lucky to have taken a clinic for half a semester's time.

[prezidentv8]

@wiseowl vs. phd debate

I don't think law school classes prepare you to be ready for the practice of law from the get-go....Nor will law school classes really be intellectual like a PhD program, because it's a professional school aimed at training you to do work.

Interesting how true this combination of statements is.

[CordeliusX]

I am more interested in Gunners' view of themselves. How do they justify their attitude?

[wiseowl]

@wiseowl vs. phd debate

I don't think law school classes prepare you to be ready for the practice of law from the get-go. Simply reading cases and writing law school exams doesn't mean you can show up in court and win a case. There are clinics, but seriously a decent clinic at most schools has a long waiting list for it. Nor will law school classes really be intellectual like a PhD program, because it's a professional school aimed at training you to do work.

A competent lawyer can make good money, but a fresh graduate is fairly helpless. Why? A new graduate isn't competent. A doctor or a dentist has 2 years of supervised experience under his belt, but a new lawyer will be lucky to have taken a clinic for half a semester's time.

that's the problem. law school still just prepares you to "think like a lawyer". employment outlooks for a lot of us would be a lot more secure if we could actually be a lawyer the day after we pass the bar instead of four years later.

[Snooker]

You can, sort of. Most schools have a big advocacy program where you are able to take trial practice or a clinic for every term at school until graduation. We even have some transactional type courses, like negotiation. The transactional preparation isn't so high in general, but I think a couple people in a given law school will get a bit of transactional training.

Law students, however, are steered away from courses providing practical training, and wind up trying to master large masses of substantive law they will probably never encounter in practice. To remedy the boredom of trying to master all this law, they are encouraged to take other courses to maintain their interest, esoteric stuff like Bioethics & Law and Feminism & Social Movements. There is something of a faculty war at many schools where the law professors try to steer students into these ivory tower courses, and clinical/writing faculty try to rescue them from the mistake.

[OperaAttorney]

You can, sort of. Most schools have a big advocacy program where you are able to take trial practice or a clinic for every term at school until graduation. We even have some transactional type courses, like negotiation. The transactional preparation isn't so high in general, but I think a couple people in a given law school will get a bit of transactional training.

Law students, however, are steered away from courses providing practical training, and wind up trying to master large masses of substantive law they will probably never encounter in practice. To remedy the boredom of trying to master all this law, they are encouraged to take other courses to maintain their interest, esoteric stuff like Bioethics & Law and Feminism & Social Movements. There is something of a faculty war at many schools where the law professors try to steer students into these ivory tower courses, and clinical/writing faculty try to rescue them from the mistake.

Some of us take esoteric stuff like Feminism & Social Movements to protect our GPA's.

[06072010]

I want to be an engaged intellectual but frankly I almost never think a law school class is a proper place for intellectual engagement. Am I going to have some stellar insight on the facts of the case? Will I have an amazing counterpoint to the judge's reasoning? Some novel theory of law, perhaps? Or do you think it's more likely that I'll conclude that there are competing factual, legal, and policy considerations, but I personally (with little to no rationale) find factor x to be the most compelling, which suggests that y decision is the right one?

180

[06072010]

I am more interested in Gunners' view of themselves. How do they justify their attitude?

See Gatorlion, supra.

[06072010]

I am more interested in Gunners' view of themselves. How do they justify their attitude?

See Gatorlion, supra.

supra, huh? Nice latin.

You gotta be fucking me. I use them as a punchline, you bandy them about like a three-year-old that learned the C-word. (lolol)

[VincentChase]

You can, sort of. Most schools have a big advocacy program where you are able to take trial practice or a clinic for every term at school until graduation. We even have some transactional type courses, like negotiation. The transactional preparation isn't so high in general, but I think a couple people in a given law school will get a bit of transactional training.

Law students, however, are steered away from courses providing practical training, and wind up trying to master large masses of substantive law they will probably never encounter in practice. To remedy the boredom of trying to master all this law, they are encouraged to take other courses to maintain their interest, esoteric stuff like Bioethics & Law and Feminism & Social Movements. There is something of a faculty war at many schools where the law professors try to steer students into these ivory tower courses, and clinical/writing faculty try to rescue them from the mistake.

John Roberts spoke at my school this fall and he addressed just this. He was quite disapproving of what he called "Law and ..." courses. I think Scalia has been on the record somewhere or another with the same opinion.

I can't say that I disagree with them. I'm just a lowly 1L/2L (Michigan summer starter), but so far I like the blood-and-guts courses. Everyone at my school raves about how they can't wait to take "Icelandic Bloodfeuds." I guess I personally would rather take Tax or Education Law or even a Constitutional law course. They way I look at it, I'm not a PhD student, I'm a law student. I want to go out in the world equipped with a breadth of knowledge about the mechanics of the law. We get enough policy in those courses to keep it intellectually stimulating without having to take "Critical Race Theory." IMHO.

[OperaAttorney]

You can, sort of. Most schools have a big advocacy program where you are able to take trial practice or a clinic for every term at school until graduation. We even have some transactional type courses, like negotiation. The transactional preparation isn't so high in general, but I think a couple people in a given law school will get a bit of transactional training.

Law students, however, are steered away from courses providing practical training, and wind up trying to master large masses of substantive law they will probably never encounter in practice. To remedy the boredom of trying to master all this law, they are encouraged to take other courses to maintain their interest, esoteric stuff like Bioethics & Law and Feminism & Social Movements. There is something of a faculty war at many schools where the law professors try to steer students into these ivory tower courses, and clinical/writing faculty try to rescue them from the mistake.

John Roberts spoke at my school this fall and he addressed just this. He was quite disapproving of what he called "Law and ..." courses. I think Scalia has been on the record somewhere or another with the same opinion.

I can't say that I disagree with them. I'm just a lowly 1L/2L (Michigan summer starter), but so far I like the blood-and-guts courses. Everyone at my school raves about how they can't wait to take "Icelandic Bloodfeuds." I guess I personally would rather take Tax or Education Law or even a Constitutional law course. They way I look at it, I'm not a PhD student, I'm a law student. I want to go out in the world equipped with a breadth of knowledge about the mechanics of the law. We get enough policy in those courses to keep it intellectually stimulating without having to take "Critical Race Theory." IMHO.

[VincentChase]

Are you rolling your eyes at me or the class title?