« on: March 31, 2009, 07:58:06 AM »
I've been reading Bar review supplements like BarBri and you review all of this law before taking the bar. If anything, these books teach it more effectively than our professors. Moreover, I'm amazed by how much important law our professors don't teach us.
Thinking like a lawyer? As long as you're anal with a bit of analytical thought, you're golden.
Useless wonkery? There's plenty of it, but we're not interested in the distributive consequences of allowing subcontractors to revoke a bid before it's accepted by a contractor. I don't want to be an academic. If I really gave a damn, I would have enrolled in an Econ PhD. program and written a law-heavy thesis.
Reading cases? You can learn to read a case in two or three months. Furthermore, cases are incredibly ineffective for teaching the law, which is mostly why we use them.
Exams? Exams are a game. It's all about your performance on a one-day issue-spotter. It's the most irrelevant skill ever.
Class? Yeah, the Socratic. That's real useful. Now I can waste thirty minutes of my time daily while some kid tries to answer some unanswerable question like, "Where is Judge Traynor on your pantheon of great judges?" Or listen to my professor hem and haw about Cardozo.
Prestige? If you consider grinding through thousands of pages and reducing them to several key points to be "prestige," then be my guest. I can see why clerks hire the people with the best grades. All anyone cares about is will over skill grinders that can sit in a chair and research for hours. Yes, these people are smart, but it's a specific intelligence type that has little to do with everyday notions of intelligence, and law school simply obfuscates it by getting you to think that there's anything more to it.