Hello!I am looking at a school that is a very good match for my broad academic interests. Lots of courses in things like capital punishment's history, human rights theory, comparative legal systems...The problem is, however, that none of these emerging and abstract topics are covered by the bar. Should I be concerned about this? Is there a significant benefit to attending a more 'black-letter' or rigid school?
Most law schools prefer to teach students "how to think like a lawyer" but do not prepare law students for any particular bar exam. As one Harvard-trained lawyer put it:"While I may have learned how to 'think like a lawyer' at Harvard, I had few concrete thoughts. I did not know, for example, the different degrees of murder, and for how many years in prison one could be sentenced for each. I did not know when a contract had to be in writing and when it could be oral. I did not know when a bank was liable for a forged check. In short, I knew about Law but did not know the laws."
It seems to me that you have 'academic' law schools and 'functional' law schools, and this explains why certain Cooley grads may be better versed in black-letter law than T1 grads.I suppose it depends largely on what you want out of law school and what your career goals might be.
Discussion
Resources
