Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Better to have a concentration, or be a "generalist"?  (Read 382 times)

Brooklaw

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Better to have a concentration, or be a "generalist"?
« on: April 19, 2005, 01:37:02 PM »
Hey ppl. I was just looking over the concentrations that the school i will likely attend gives. But then i got to wondering, does it really make sense to limit myself with just one area? Do any of you 2/3Ls have any opinion on this?

Personally, i think it would be better for me to be a renaissance man. I could have some knowledge of tax law, criminal law (beyond 1L course), IP law, Business law, et cetera. Of course, i would only take courses in areas i was really interested in.

Any opinions ppl?

Thanks

JD_MSA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Better to have a concentration, or be a "generalist"?
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2005, 03:36:06 PM »
I took classes I was interested in and "accidentally" ended up with a concentration in dispute resolution.  Personally, I think the required/bar courses provide a broad foundation--anything beyond that depends on personal preference.   

kristin1644

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Better to have a concentration, or be a "generalist"?
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2005, 08:17:27 PM »
I've noticed at my school that just because you concentrate in something doesn't mean you can't take other courses the you are interested in just to get the experience.  And just because you concentrate doesn't mean that you have to practice in that area--the way our advisors put it, if having the concentration helps you get the job, tell the firm you have it.  If it doesn't help you (or, obviously if it hurts you), don't tell them.  Simple as that.