In which I am indecisive

Sorry to have been absent from this space so much. Life is less bloggable these days - full and interesting and all those good things, but just not providing much in the way of blog fodder.

Anyway, I'm currently obsessing about my schedule for next fall. The problem is that there are about 16 different classes I'd like to take, and of course, I can't actually take 16 (I can take 5 or maybe 6, depending on how many credits each is). And of course, what I take next semester will determine THE COURSE OF MY FUTURE CAREER FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!

(Okay, not really, but sometimes that's what it feels like.)

So I'm going to run through my plans here, and the pros/cons of different options, just because it might help me resolve some things. If anyone has input, feel free to weigh in!

American Indian Law I - am definitely taking this; it's one of the reasons I attended this school, because it offers American Indian law.

Legal Ethics and Professionalism - this is a required course, and I plan to take it in the fall; I'm hoping to get into the section taught by a federal judge, because getting to know federal judge would be a VERY useful thing. (I have to stop telling my classmates that's who this instructor is because now they all want this section as well!)

If I don't get into this section, I'm inclined to take Advanced Legal Writing and Research instead, which meets at the same time, so works well as a backup (also taught by a judge, a small class, I'm good at the research/writing so will probably get a decent grade because yay, not an exam class!, and I want to continue to hone my research and writing skills). But this would be a backup because fulfilling the requirement is preferable.

After this, things get a little murky...

I'm 95% sure I want to take the Gender and the Law seminar that's being offered. We have to take one seminar before graduating, but hell, I'd take all seminars if I could - they're very small (capped at 12), they're all about writing, you work closely with the prof and other students in the class, and NO EXAM! I think it's safe to say I have a much better shot at excelling in papers than in exams. Plus, I prefer papers (even if they drag out the pain longer than exams; I just feel like I have more control over them).

It's probably awful of me to admit this, but I have less than zero interest in business law. So I intend to avoid the core business courses: Income Tax, Agency & Partnerships, Corporations, and the like. I might take Wills and Estates sometime, but that would probably do it, and I don't want to take that in the fall.

I'm thinking Administrative Law, since it's a good basic building block for government/public law.

Now, if I plug these into a schedule, it turns out that I have Wednesdays and Fridays free. That would COMPLETELY rock, because I'd like to work/intern/extern/whatever, and having two class-free days would make that easier.

Problem is, that makes me reluctant to add any W classes, which rules out some interesting stuff.

So, the other things I'm considering:

First Amendment Law
Pros                               
• Con Law is cool
• Freedom of speech/religion is really interesting
• I plan to take Education Law in the spring, as well as a related seminar, and First Amendment is really relevant to these subjects
• Doesn't meet on Wednesdays
• If I read the schedule correctly, it won't be offered again while I'm in school, so this is my only shot
• Underenrolled the last time it was offered, which might mean that it will be a smaller class

Cons
• Maybe not the most practical course?
• Professor is not spoken of as one of the amazing ones (hence perhaps the underenrollment?)
• If I take Education Law and the related seminar, I might not need to take a separate First Amendment class, since it will be covered in those courses.

Employment Law
Pros
• Sounds interesting to me
• Probably useful for future employment
• I hear very good things about the professor
• Bigger than a seminar, but on the smaller side of the big classes
• Doesn't meet on Wednesdays
• If I read the schedule correctly, it won't be offered again while I'm in school, so this is my only shot

Cons
• Conflicts with First Amendment Law, so I can't take both
• Might not be as interesting as I'm thinking (I fear an overabundance of contracts)

Advanced Constitutional Law
Pros
• Really interesting topic this time round
• I hear good things about the prof
• Probably not offered again on this topic while I'm here
• Small class

Cons
• Meets on Wednesdays
• May be a seminar (not quite clear from schedule), in which case I may not want to take it on top of the other seminar

Family Law
Pros
• Really interesting topic (to me)
• The professor is supposed to be AMAZING

Cons
• (Partly because professor is amazing,) very BIG class
• Meets on Wednesdays
• Is offered every year (obviously not a problem with the course, but it means I don't have to take it next semester)

Immigration Law
Pros
• Really interesting topic (to me)
• The professor is supposed to be AMAZING

Cons
• (Partly because professor is amazing,) very BIG class
• Meets on Wednesdays
• Is offered every year (obviously not a problem with the course, but it means I don't have to take it next semester)

International Law
Pros
• Quite interesting topic (to me)
• Doesn't meet on Wednesdays
• Can serve as a prereq to a few other courses

Cons
• Another big class
• New professor, so no reviews available
• Is offered every year (obviously not a problem with the course, but it means I don't have to take it next semester)

Trial Advocacy
Pros
• Taught by a judge
• Immensely practical if I do (as I kind of think I want to) go into litigation
• Small class (I think?)
• Doesn't meet on Wednesdays

Cons
• Offered every semester, so I don't need to take it now
• Meets late in the evening, making for a loooong day and a late commute home

Introduction to Intellectual Property
Pros
• Potentially interesting topic
• Doesn't meet on Wednesdays
• Can serve as a prereq to a few other courses

Cons
• Another big class
• Have heard mixed things about the professor
• Is offered every year (obviously not a problem with the course, but it means I don't have to take it next semester)

Hmmm, this was actually helpful... I'm thinking it looks like Employment Law might beat out First Amendment Law?

But don't worry, by this time tomorrow I'll have probably changed my mind again...

(Oh, before anyone brings it up, I'd like to do a clinic while I'm here, but I don't want to do so next year - the one I'm most interested in would really benefit from having completed some of the 2L classes first. Plus, a 3L was saying that a benefit of doing clinic your third year is that by then you're really sick of classes, and so it's a great break. You can pretty much only do one clinic for credit, so I'm going to hold off.)

Comments

[Seeking Solace]

You should think about taking some bar courses that are on the local section of your state bar. The last thing you want to do it try to learn that stuff during bar review.

Most school will not let you take trial advocacy until you take Evidence. Besides, it's a great course to take in your thrid year.

I loved Family Law. I also took Employment law. Administrative law is a good basic course.

[kelly]

Evidence. Seriously. There is no more useful course (though you will not be able to watch a courtroom drama without freaking out for several years). If you like individual rights/con law, crim pro is a great course. Also federal income tax. I know, I know, tax, how horrible, etc. I was dragged into it kicking and screaming, but it turned out to be one of the best courses I took. If you get a good professor, it gives you a whole new framwork for examining politics and social policy.
Also, I'd put off advanced legal writing until you find out if you make law review or a journal. if you do, lrw II will be a waste of your time.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Thank you guys! Very helpful comments!

I should probably have said that I am not planning to take bar courses just because they're on the bar. First, because I won't do as well in a class if it's not something I'm interested in (though I also realize I should take stuff outside my comfort zone), and second, the general attitude at my school is not to do so - that the bar review course will give you the prep you need, and that this school teaches stuff differently from on the bar anyway. (The occasional prof will say to take bar courses, but the majority do not.) It's not like I plan to avoid bar subjects because they're on the bar, but I'm not going to take them just for that, either. (My school's bar passage rate is pretty high, so I'm going to assume everyone who says we don't need to take bar courses to pass knows what they're talking about.)

Trial Ad doesn't have a prerequisite at my school (but it's only 2 credits and a prereq for advanced trial ad), but it's good to know that it's good as a third year class.

And I will definitely be taking Evidence! (For one thing, it's required here.) But the really really really awesome prof who teaches it isn't teaching it in the fall, so I'm going to wait till spring.

The point about advanced legal writing is a really good one - I'm definitely doing the write-on and hoping for law review, so I'll hold off on that. (I'd rather get into Legal Ethics anyway.)

And of course, the other thing is that I have no idea what fills up and what doesn't, so what I'm likely to get or not!

[loyal reader]

IMHO you should focus on classes you NEED, not on classes that sound "interesting." Ask yourself: will you ever go to trial? (if so, do the trial course ... if not, don't) -- would you ever do a custody case or a divorce? (if so, family law; if not, don't) -- international/immigration, do you really need them? *You can always do continuing ed or trainings down the road, to get up to speed on these other areas. Plus you'll have to master a lot of it anyway for the bar.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Well, it's kind of hard to know what I need when I don't know what I'm going to do! Plus, depending on who you talk to, you need ALL these things.

(When I say something sounds interesting, it partly means something that I could see myself doing in a job in the future. So when I say immigration sounds interesting, it's because I think working in immigration would be interesting, not just because it's abstractly interesting. I'm probably just as likely to do an immigration hearing or help someone with their visa in the future as I am to do a custody case or divorce. Immigration probably does win out over international, since at the moment I don't want to live/work abroad, but I also don't want to rule out doing some kind of international law in the future.)

But again, most of the people I talk to here encourage us to think about law school as a liberal arts degree - I think partly going on the theory that since NO ONE comes out of law school knowing how to practice, we should take things that train our minds, not just because they sound "necessary" (in a profession where what's "necessary" keeps undergoing changes).

I mean, if I'm going to have to master a whole bunch of stuff for the bar anyway, why not take the classes that appeal to me now? If I'm going to have to teach myself one or the other sets of material, I might as well just take the interesting stuff because I'll have to teach myself SOMETHING no matter what.

[karen]

But again, most of the people I talk to here encourage us to think about law school as a liberal arts degree - I think partly going on the theory that since NO ONE comes out of law school knowing how to practice, we should take things that train our minds, not just because they sound "necessary" (in a profession where what's "necessary" keeps undergoing changes).

Oh, dear. That's a terrible idea. Look, the employment situation is pretty dismal these days -- you should focus on what will get you a job so you can pay your loans. It's a very expensive professional degree, not the Grand Tour.

[Seeking Solace]

You have to remember that bar review is a 10 week crash course. It's really hard to learn certain courses during that time. The bar review course handles maybe a couple of hours on a subject..if that. Having a background in a particular subject will make the studying for the bar much easier, and allow you time to focus on the subjects that you are not strong.

Do not shy away from topics that you are not interested in because you concerned you will not do well. I took a few courses, Commercial Paper, comes to mind. I thought it was going to boring, but in the end, it was a great course and very useful.

Also, it's true that you are not ready to practice when you leave law school, but if you take the right courses, you are going to look better to an employer. Employers do want to know what courses you took. If you take courses that you only "like" or feel that you will do well in, a potential employer may wonder if you are willing to challenge yourself and go outside your comfort zone.

I don't mean to be harsh, it's just that I have "been there and done that". It's OK to take something interesting, but you can't just rely on what you learn in bar review to get you started. It is s tough market out there and you need to have the skills.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

I definitely understand the points that people are making. My point is that when I say something sounds interesting, I mean that it sounds like something that will help me get a job, but a job that interests me, which is foremost a job in the public sector/government/public interest, not in the more traditional firm. (I'm not ruling firms out, but if I do work for a firm, it's not going to be business/corporate law - it's just not.) So I am planning to put together courses that are practical, and of interest to employers, just different employers. What I consider "interesting" is still a pretty broad range of courses, folks!

Again, my law school has an excellent bar passage rate, so whatever advice they're giving about what classes to take (and these are not things anyone's telling me, personally, in secret - these are the things that people are saying at general advising sessions for all students) isn't hurting people bar-wise. (I think that's one of the reasons we require Evidence - I've heard that this is a terrible subject to have to teach yourself.) And while the economy is terrible, yes, my region is not as hard hit as some places (I live in one of something like three cities in the country which have not seen housing values fall this year). Moreover, I pay in-state tuition at a state school and have a husband who pays almost all of our living expenses, so while I will have debt, and that will suck, it won't be the kind of atrocious debt that many people leave law school with. This maybe gives me a little more flexibility than some people.

As for the liberal arts comment: I truly believe this is meant in the classical sense, where liberal arts = well-rounded & balanced, not "whatever you feel like." They tell us to take courses in lots of different areas, even ones you think you'll hate, and their point is that you *shouldn't* specialize at this point.

I am definitely ruling out some courses as impractical - we offer "Creative Writing for Lawyers" which sounds incredibly fun, but I doubt will help me in the future. Ditto "Law and Literature." And while I'd love to take the advanced Con Law classes, I agree they're probably not as practical as some other offerings (since it's not like I can get a job as a Supreme Court justice out of law school! or, you know, ever!).

And yes, I am ruling out most of the corporate classes, but that's partly because there are SO MANY other courses that are useful and practical and that I really WANT to take! But I will probably take something business-y at some point. I'm just not going to take all the classic corporate courses solely because they're on the bar.

So I am looking for "practical" courses - I'm just also looking for the subset of courses within that category that are also interesting to me. I refuse to think it has to be one or the other.

For one thing, I want to take small classes with papers and do a lot with my writing and research because I want to clerk when I graduate, so these are important and useful things for me to do. And these are my strengths, and higher grades will open doors, too.

I don't mean to sound like I'm rejecting everyone's advice just because I don't like it - I truly appreciate the input and perspective. But when I say I'm not taking bar courses for the sake of them being on the bar, I am thinking very seriously about what subjects will give me the background I need to do what I want to do. That may be bar courses, but it may not.

I mean, I just left one profession - I don't think this new one is going to be rainbows and butterflies, but I'm also going to do my best to make it what *I* need it to be. I'm not doing this just to get ANY job, I'm doing it to get a job I WANT. I've spent my whole life telling myself I have to do the safe, recommended, proven, secure path, and that I'm somehow not allowed to try for the cool, exciting, different stuff (or what I see as cool, exciting, and different, which may well look ordinary to many), even though other people do such things, because for some reason it will never work for me. It's like the assumption that doing something I like can never ever be practical and I will starve in the gutter if I try it. And all that's happened is that I've closed off opportunities for myself before even trying to find out whether they were possible or not. I'm just not going to do that anymore.

(Seriously, barring perhaps First Amendment and Advanced Con Law, which of the courses I've listed are so intensely impractical? I live in a very tech-heavy area, and IP is a prereq for all the tech law courses offered here. Immigration, family, and employment law are all major practice areas. The gender and law course is maybe less "practical," but none of the seminars are "practical" - they're about writing a law-review-article-like paper - and we have to take at least one seminar.)

Sorry to rant so much. I guess I feel strongly about this! If at the end of all this, I change my mind, I promise to come back and tell you guys so you can say "I told you so." :-)

[Amy]

I think it is a good idea for you to get exposed to different aspects of the law so you will have a better idea of what kind of law you want to practice. I went to nursing school thinking I wanted to do maternity and become a midwwife but the different clinicals changed my mind. I also think it is great that you have this blog and people who comment as a support while you go through this phase of your life journey. I give you a lot of credit for continuing to comment on history blogs as well.

[Dr. Moonbeam]

Hey NK - I just read something that you might find interesting, esp. since you're probably taking that Gender and the Law class: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090402.html

[ozma]

You are making me want to go to law school again!

I always this strong periodic desire to go to law school. However, I have a very weak desire to be a lawyer. Hence, I have not gone to law school and probably never will.

But I'm pretty envious. This is exactly what I would love to be doing right now and I would LOVE to take most of those courses.

I say: Take the things that interest you and honestly, lawyers learn most of the stuff they know on the job anyway. Or at least they used to. (All the lawyers I know have been practicing for a while...but none of them studied what they ended up doing to any great degree...The ones in govt--who are most of the ones I know--were more like generalists. Maybe legal hiring has really changed.)

Why not: Learn alot, as much as you can about as much as you can--be broad and do what interests you?

[karen]

New Kid, I was objecting more to the advice in general -- I don't think your course selection necessarily fell into that trap.

Why not: Learn alot, as much as you can about as much as you can--be broad and do what interests you?

Because it makes more sense to listen to lawyers and legal recruiters, and not people who have periodically toyed with the idea of going to law school.

It's a fine attitude when you're an 18-year-old matriculating at Bryn Mawr. It's not so fine when you're a 40-something with minimal savings in professional program.

It's true that students out of law school are not ready to practice. This does not imply, however, that what you do in law school is irrelevant to your preparation to practice. If nothing else, it's a strong signaling mechanism to potential employers.

[karen]

And while the economy is terrible, yes, my region is not as hard hit as some places (I live in one of something like three cities in the country which have not seen housing values fall this year).

I'm pretty sure I know where you live, and the thinking is that the market problems will hit cities like yours in 1.5-2 years. As Big Law jobs in NYC, Boston, etc. start to dry up and starting salaries stagnate or even decline, the thinking is that many more T14 students will choose to start careers in their hometowns or other smaller markets, making the job search harder for grads from less elite schools.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Oh, sure, that may well happen. I didn't mean to suggest we were entirely immune. That's still not going to prevent me from choosing the career path that's most appealing to me, and defining what's "practical" based on that.

I mean, honestly, after being in academia, "bad jobs markets" are entirely relative. And I find it a little disturbing that "interesting" is automatically assumed to be the opposite of "practical." That's kind of a sad comment on attitudes to one's work.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

(Responding out of order because the comments showed up out of order!)

I think I'm not characterizing the advice very effectively. There was no suggestion not to look at what you want to do after graduation and not to take things that would be relevant/practical to what you want to do. Rather, I think saying "treat it as a liberal arts education" was more intended to prevent people from loading up only on courses in one area because they think it's what lawyers are "supposed" to do (and then finding second semester 3L year that they love subject X, in which they've taken no courses because they've only taken courses in subject Y). The goal is for people to get a well-rounded education. (Unless, I suppose, you know for certain you're going to do nothing but, say, tax for the rest of your life - but most people don't really know what they want to do, or change their mind once they've taken some other classes anyway.)

I certainly didn't mean to imply that what you take in school is irrelevant to future employment. My sense is that this school has had a greater problem with people taking things because they think they "should," and then feeling stuck in a certain field, than with people taking all frivolous courses that employers won't care about.

[karen]

Fair enough (although I can’t help be a little worried about someone who thinks that pursuing a PhD in the humanities counts as the “safe, recommended, proven, secure path”! ;)

[New Kid on the Hallway]

I can understand that. :-) In my defense, I went to grad school right after the Bowen report came out, which claimed that there was going to be a shortage in the nation's professors. I got told explicitly that "In the next 10 years, 1/3 of the nation's faculty will die or retire, so this is a GREAT time to get a Ph.D!" So at the time, it did look like the safe thing! (Maybe it also makes more sense if I say that the other route I considered was writing fiction? ;-D)

(And I hope my responses to your comments don't come across as irredemably cranky - I do appreciate your perspective, especially since most of the people reading over here are still on the academic side of life!)

[karen]

No, you sound quite reasonable! If I'm testy, it's because I've had two advisees in the past two weeks assert that if Big Law jobs don't materialize, they're going to get jobs with ACLU -- as if the ACLU was a safety and not home to some of the most competitive legal positions in the country. I'm probably overly sensitive to signs of law students not bothering to learn about the legal market even when (in your case) they're not really there!

[Turtle Wexler]

I forgot to tell you the classes to take! My advice is better than anyone else's, because I have absolutely no background in law. (NB: I would actually take tax, but you've nixed it. I left on your for sure courses.)

American Indian Law
Legal Ethics
Employment Law
Immigration law
IP