Should You go to Law School?

Hmmm… here’s one professor’s take at Forbes.  I don’t know him, but I’ve got to say that he’s not very cognizant of realities, imho, at least if he seriously believes this and it’s not a Modest Proposal type thing.

Here’s how he describes what should make the decision:

Are you interested in pursuing Justice, in making the world/your country/your state a place  governed by the Rule of Law, freer from predators and safer from tyrants than it currently is?  Are you interested in helping the 50% of Americans with legal problems who cannot currently afford legal help to resolve them?  Are you interested in soberly attempting to understand and solve the incredibly difficult, and incredibly interesting, intellectual problems that underly so many of today’s legal disputes, and that are so misconstrued by a journalistic profession obsessed with political correctness?  IF so, welcome to law school, we need you  badly, you will find your studies fascinating and enriching, and you will be able to make a real difference in the world.    There is no subject more difficult than Law, because of its encyclopedic nature (nothing is irrelevant!).  And there is, I think, no subject more important today.

On the other hand, if you’re in law school because you didn’t know what else to do after your BA, because you hate Math (and erroneously think Law doesn’t require Math skills) and the sight of blood, therefore couldn’t be a physician, and have no goal other than to make a lot of money, and if you dislike work but have always relied on your IQ and adrenaline to ace all your courses, well, you chose the wrong generation to go to law school.  Get thee out now whilest  a partial refund of  tuition is still available.

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

11 thoughts on “Should You go to Law School?

  1. 5

    Not sure I’m following you, David. Are you suggesting that good motivations for attending law school include: “you didn’t know what else to do after your BA, because you hate Math (and erroneously think Law doesn’t require Math skills) and the sight of blood, therefore couldn’t be a physician, and have no goal other than to make a lot of money, and …you dislike work but have always relied on your IQ and adrenaline to ace all your courses”?

    Likewise, are you suggesting that it’s wrong to go to law school because “you [are] interested in soberly attempting to understand and solve the incredibly difficult, and incredibly interesting, intellectual problems that underly [sic] so many of today’s legal disputes, and that are so misconstrued by a journalistic profession obsessed with political correctness?”

    I’m interested to know exactly where you disagree with this professor’s advice.

    1. 5.1

      More subtle than that. The last paragraph assumes alternatives that do not exist for a lot of people. The first one assumes that jobs that will pay debt exist for those who pursue public interest. It’s a caricature of the reality that most people face.

      Btw, I went to law school precisely because I sucked at math, hated blood, and I have never regretted a moment…

      1. 5.1.1

        The first one assumes that jobs that will pay debt exist for those who pursue public interest.

        Fortunately, some people do it anyway. That’s why I support the public law loan forgiveness program sponsored by my law school.

        The last paragraph assumes alternatives that do not exist for a lot of people.

        I’m a little frightened by the notion that people are in law school because they have no alternatives…

        Btw, I went to law school precisely because I sucked at math, hated blood, and I have never regretted a moment…

        Glad to hear it! Judging from your present employment, it’s pretty clear that you weren’t chasing the money! 🙂

        The advice you quote above is not terribly different from the advice that I give. If you don’t have very specific passions/objectives and/or very specific skills that you plan to leverage, then skip law school and go find a career where you can actually distinguish yourself. Likewise, if you don’t already have very marketable skills (such as the technical chops required to be a good patent attorney) then you better go to a top law school and excel there. The last thing the planet needs is another generic, disillusioned attorney from a mediocre school, who can’t find employment that pays anywhere near enough to satisfy those law school debts. (As opposed to those remarkable souls who actually do public interest law because they want to, regardless of the income or lack thereof. They’re out there.)

  2. 4

    Are you interested in pursuing Justice

    The law has never particularly been about justice. The law has been about ordered dispute resolution, which either by trick or belief becomes “justice.” When you look at things like what has been going on in Ferguson, you can see how important the law is when it’s absence is felt.

    and that are so misconstrued by a journalistic profession obsessed with political correctness

    This is a weird shot out of left field. Is it a nod to the fact that lawyers aren’t particularly well-liked? But lawyers are like congressmen (or perhaps vice versa) – the group are despised but everyone likes their own.

    because you hate Math (and erroneously think Law doesn’t require Math skills)

    Hahahaha. As someone who knows something of math, I assure you, law does not require math skills, but you’d expect that from someone working in a sociology branch. link to xkcd.com

    Okay okay, that’s not fair, as there is some philosophy in there, just not a lot.

    if you dislike work but have always relied on your IQ and adrenaline to ace all your courses

    Its funny that clearly these people exist, and yet no industry suggests they can survive there. I’m not aware of a single industry that isn’t lead by people like this. In my experience it’s just the opposite – people who are excellent at doing busywork become just that – excellent at doing busywork. It’s usually lazy people who advance society.

    Ned: ” Are you interested in helping the 50% of Americans with legal problems who cannot currently afford legal help to resolve them? ”
    Huh?

    There will always be more americans with legal problems than can currently be serviced by lawyers, as hot air is one of those things which begets itself. If you have fewer lawyers, only the most important disputes will be litigated. More lawyers, more disputes in the legal system. A lawyer without work to do? Pretty soon you’ll find out that things you didn’t know were disputes in fact are.

    anon: focusing on inundating students with the empathy-less enormous reading load and “getting the right answer” – which is not geared to “justice” per se, but rather a voluminous re-gurge back of the particular viewpoint of law that the particular professor believes in

    So glad that justiceless situation only applies to students and professors and doesn’t carry over into lawyers and judges/juries.

    ——————–

    In any case, as long as we live in a free country we will have arbitrarily low standards for conduct without repercussion. As long as we have those low standards people will continue to pursue them and the law will be a mechanism by which goals are achieved. The call for an ethical group of law candidates is irrelevant so long as the society as a whole is doggedly capitalistic and inherently “free” in nature. If you order your society such that making money is an inherent good, and acting poorly is not necessarily a bad, you’ll get people who pursue money at the expense of other “good” things, and they will employ lawyers to do it. tl;dr – You can’t say “greed is good” and turn around and complain when people act in a manner they think will get them the most money.

    1. 4.1

      Random, People who cannot afford lawyers will always exist. Criminal defendants are provided lawyers at state expense. Tort victims have the continent fee. Real Property typically involves filling out form prepared by banks and title insurance companies. Taxes? We have software. Wills. Ditto.

      Etc.

      So, what in the world is this person talking about. What pressing need is there for layers for the less wealthy? I just don’t get it. What are they talking about?

      1. 4.1.1

        Ned,

        If you are unaware of the pro-bono gap that exists across the land, you are more out of touch with reality than I thought.

        The sun has apparently set sooner than you realized on the twilight of your career.

  3. 3

    ” Are you interested in helping the 50% of Americans with legal problems who cannot currently afford legal help to resolve them? ”

    Huh?

  4. 2

    The problem I see (and perhaps this is implicit in your comment regarding “not very cognizant of realities”), is that the entire law school experience is geared to an absence of “ethics.”

    The vetting process to get into law school values type A over-achievers who – as a gen eralization – are more willing to “do what it takes” whatever that “what” entails.

    The success parameters in school require a Darwinean approach as you are not measured against some objective scale, but are in direct competition to the rest of the students, breeding a ‘success-drive’ that is inherently hostile to others (I still remember law school library material sabotage). Those unwilling to succeed and “play the game” are happily invited to make up that bottom fifty percent – those willing to play the game for the coin thank you for your sense of “ethics.”

    The curriculum “norming” experience focusing on inundating students with the empathy-less enormous reading load and “getting the right answer” – which is not geared to “justice” per se, but rather a voluminous re-gurge back of the particular viewpoint of law that the particular professor believes in, drives the removal of ethical considerations in the learning process (this is also a reflection on the divide between academia and practitioner viewpoints – but that’s a different story).

    As far as this somehow being a different ge neration, I do see some verbiage from my alma mater’s attempts at changing the law program, but the structural points I note remain firmly in place. An optional “sensitivity” style “ethics” class (and even a mandatory legal ethics class) late in curriculum – after the boot-camp style norming has already occurred will only serve as gloss or – even worse – highlight the areas to be manipulated in order to appear ethical.

    As far as “Modest Proposal” in caps (written in a satirical format for effect…?), that may be the best explanation, given the introductory paragraphs on how the after-effects of “success” in law school are measured (and with the adage of “you get what you measure” kept firmly in mind). Clearly, climbing over the bodies of your fellow students in order to “succeed” (as measured by the rewards available) simply do not match the rhetoric offered as to why the effort to succeed should even be started.

    1. 2.1

      (and I would also add that many “solutions” to currently perceived legal problems are imbued with a decidedly “ethics-free” The-Ends-Justify-The-Means type of thinking – while this is not an indicator of law students of today, it is an indicator of a by-product of law students of yesteryear)

      The better – or perhaps better phrased as more realistic – view of ethics and law students is that at that stage of a person’s life, you cannot teach or instill ethics, and the real game is to see how much of a person’s ethics can be kept safe from the process.

    2. 2.2

      I would also note that if those who are unwilling to “play the game” decide to opt out, the situation would spiral to an even worse state, as the big rewards would still go only to those willing to “eat their young” as it were, and the pool of competitors would be filled with a greater percentage of ethics-less people.

      In other words, the advice as to who should be in law school – as put forth in the article – cannot succeed, because (in a very large part) of how law school is.

      You cannot expect a different output without changing the mechanisms of the process. Trying to “flood” the inputs with more “ethics-driven” students must necessarily involve changing the admissions process (as well as the entire success-grading process).

  5. 1

    The problem I see (and perhaps this is implicit in your comment regarding “not very cognizant of realities”), is that the entire law school experience is geared to an absence of “ethics.”

    The vetting process to get into law school values type A over-achievers who – as a gen eralization – are more willing to “do what it takes” whatever that “what” entails.

    The success parameters in school require a Darwinean approach as you are not measured against some objective scale, but are in direct competition to the rest of the students, breeding a ‘success-drive’ that is inherently hostile to others (I still remember law school library material sabotage). Those unwilling to succeed and “play the game” are happily invited to make up that bottom fifty percent – those willing to play the game for the coin thank you for your sense of “ethics.”

    The curriculum “norming” experience focusing on inundating students with the empathy-less enormous reading load and “getting the right answer” – which is not geared to “justice” per se, but rather a voluminous re-gurge back of the particular viewpoint of law that the particular professor believes in, drives the removal of ethical considerations in the learning process (this is also a reflection on the divide between academia and practitioner viewpoints – but that’s a different story).

    As far as this somehow being a different generation, I do see some verbiage from my alma mater’s attempts at changing the law program, but the structural points I note remain firmly in place. An optional “sensitivity” style “ethics” class (and even a mandatory legal ethics class) late in curriculum – after the boot-camp style norming has already occurred will only serve as gloss or – even worse – highlight the areas to be manipulated in order to appear ethical.

    As far as “Modest Proposal” in caps (written in a satirical format for effect…?), that may be the best explanation, given the introductory paragraphs on how the after-effects of “success” in law school are measured (and with the adage of “you get what you measure” kept firmly in mind). Clearly, climbing over the bodies of your fellow students in order to “succeed” (as measured by the rewards available) simply do not match the rhetoric offered as to why the effort to succeed should even be started.

Comments are closed.