Is a part-time job during law school a good idea?

[Ben]

22 minutes ago, GreyDude said:

I haven't experienced law school (yet, hopefully), but, having a little experience in post-secondary education, I know very few profs who recommend readings that they would agree were pointless. I expect this is a matter of just how goal-oriented the student is. Optional readings are usually for going more deeply into the material, beyond what is strictly needed to do well on exams. That's not pointless, but it's not attractive from a utilitarian point of view.

That said, re-reading the post that was being replied to, you're right about the message it was transmitting, and I'm not supporting the idea of doing nothing but study. That's silly, in my view. 

I don’t know anyone who did optional readings in 1L classes and never thought a prof put any thought into them whatsoever, if they ever existed at all. In upper-year paper-based classes, it makes sense to do the optional readings for the topic you decide to write on, since the mandatory readings usually won’t be enough to write on in any meaningful depth. Plus it’s essentially free research already done for you. 

[CleanHands]

29 minutes ago, GreyDude said:

I haven't experienced law school (yet, hopefully), but, having a little experience in post-secondary education, I know very few profs who recommend readings that they would agree were pointless. I expect this is a matter of just how goal-oriented the student is. Optional readings are usually for going more deeply into the material, beyond what is strictly needed to do well on exams. That's not pointless, but it's not attractive from a utilitarian point of view.

In addition to what the posters above said, experiences with undergrad education don't translate well here, given the distinctions in assessment. When you're writing papers or essay-based exams, optional readings can sometimes be beneficial. When you're assessed by applying very specific and important tests and ratios that are all included in the core course material to a fact pattern, with a time limit that makes it nearly impossible to canvass all relevant issues properly, optional readings are not just useless but actively harmful as they will distract you from narrowing in on what is important that you need to cover.

I'll grant that you did qualify your post saying the material was about things "beyond what is strictly needed to do well on exams" and was "not attractive from a utilitarian point of view," but I would say the disincentive to do optional readings in law school goes well beyond that.

Edited December 2, 2021 by CleanHands

[Whisk3yjack]

Your free time would be better utilized networking (perhaps at a local pub with your classmates) than doing the suggested readings. The real legal education is the friends you make along the way.

[123]

I don't want to sound like I'm discouraging people from working hard during law school. There's absolutely ways to productive ways to apply yourself. For law school, you want to get good at exam-writing. So do the practice exams available to you. In the broader project of becoming a competent lawyer, do clinics and ECs. I wonder if I'm a broken record on here about this, but especially for anyone who might practice in areas like criminal, family, employment, immigration, wills, etc., getting hands on experience during law school is one of the most productive ways your can use your time. 

[GreyDude]

Ok, so once I'm a law student myself, assuming that happens, I'll form an informed opinion and get back to you. 🙂 I'll also follow some of the advice. 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by GreyDude

[SNAILS]

Edit: The following post sounds a bit douche-baggy as though I am implying that I know more about law school than CleanHands does. This is not the intent. I am merely reflecting upon the aspects of the post I agree or disagree with.

On 12/2/2021 at 3:17 PM, CleanHands said:

When you're writing papers or essay-based exams, optional readings can sometimes be beneficial. When you're assessed by applying very specific and important tests and ratios that are all included in the core course material to a fact pattern, with a time limit that makes it nearly impossible to canvass all relevant issues properly, optional readings are not just useless but actively harmful as they will distract you from narrowing in on what is important that you need to cover.

The time limit of a law school exam is absolutely critical to the amount of depth you can get into in your answer. This may be news to some people on these forums who are not yet in law school, and it will be absolutely obvious to everyone else.

Law school exams at my school (and I suspect at most schools) are divided into fact pattern questions (application of the law) and policy questions (essay type questions often asking for your informed opinion based the reasoning behind why laws are the way they are).

Exams contain mostly the former and less of the latter. Some exams do not even have a policy element.

Optional readings are not going to do much for you for a fact pattern question. However, you do need to know how the law applies to hypothetical facts, and seeing how the laws is applied and how judge's structure their reasoning is helpful. Optional reading may help you build that skill.

There are some exams that might have a 30% policy question. The professor will let you know if this will be the case. Upper year students at my school agree that the difference between students who get an A and those who get a B will be the mastery of the policy question. The reason is that the majority of the class will get full or nearly full marks on the fact pattern questions, and the curve will depend on the policy question.

Performance on the policy question depends significantly on your knowledge of the finer points. Some optional readings are essential to understanding the finer points and other optional readings are truly optional.

Some students don't really care if they get an A or a B. If you do care, then strategic reading of the correct optional readings for the correct courses can get you an A.

Edited December 11, 2021 by SNAILS

[CleanHands]

@SNAILS I don't think your post is "douche-baggy," nor do I think that I'm automatically right in any disagreement about law school with a current student just because I have a JD. With that said...

2 hours ago, SNAILS said:

The reason is that the majority of the class will get full or nearly full marks on the fact pattern questions, and the curve will depend on the policy question.

I'm sure any law professor, if asked, can confirm that there is a huge variance in the grades they assign to fact pattern answers.

[123]

3 hours ago, CleanHands said:

sure any law professor, if asked, can confirm that there is a huge variance in the grades they assign to fact pattern answers.

Yeah, it’s not true that everyone gets full marks on the hypos. Before exams, many of my profs held exam prep sessions. They went through common errors and ways to pick up marks. Post 1L midterms, most of my profs went over the common ways students  lost marks. It was eminently clear that there was plenty at stake in the fact pattern. If it’s on the exam and is being graded, it counts and should be treated seriously. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by realpseudonym

[BlockedQuebecois]

12 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

Yeah, it’s not true that everyone gets full marks on the hypos. Before exams, many of my profs held exam prep sessions. They went through common errors and ways to pick up marks. Post 1L midterms, most of my profs went over the common ways students  lost marks. It was eminently clear that there was plenty at stake in the fact pattern. If it’s on the exam and is being graded, it counts and should be treated seriously. 

You’ve gotta love the confidence of a dude who is still in 1L, just finished his first set of exams, and has yet to get any grades back coming here and telling people everyone aces the fact patterns and all that matters are policy Qs, though. 

[HammurabiTime]

14 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

Yeah, it’s not true that everyone gets full marks on the hypos. Before exams, many of my profs held exam prep sessions. They went through common errors and ways to pick up marks. Post 1L midterms, most of my profs went over the common ways students  lost marks. It was eminently clear that there was plenty at stake in the fact pattern. If it’s on the exam and is being graded, it counts and should be treated seriously. 

I reviewed almost all of my exams with the prof after the fact and I would say most of them treated the policy questions as secondary (if they included one at all, several profs only used fact pattern questions).

[99problems]

5 hours ago, SNAILS said:

The reason is that the majority of the class will get full or nearly full marks on the fact pattern questions

I do not agree with this at all. For what's worth, professors seem to be more flexible in grading policy questions as they are in grading fact patterns. It actually makes sense since if an issue is not spotted, its mark is lost. But in policy questions, you can talk about a point that the prof has not considered herself and still get a mark for it.

One of my profs once said that the highest mark in her all-fact-pattern exam was 17 out of 100. There can be so many small issues that are readily missed.

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by not not a lawyer
Typo

[Pecan Boy]

13 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

You’ve gotta love the confidence of a dude who is still in 1L, just finished his first set of exams, and has yet to get any grades back coming here and telling people everyone aces the fact patterns and all that matters are policy Qs, though. 

I, for one, really like when he does his weekly session of rapid-fire commenting on 5-10 posts, providing invariably bad advice on each one

Edited December 11, 2021 by Pecan Boy