Suffice it to say, I've been quite a bit of a slacker recently. I haven't even read a blog for a good two weeks. Classes, of course, have been consuming my free time, but all productivity just flew out the window after the flip-flop spree. Fortunately it seems that my spring fever (finally validated by today's good weather) has hit a few other law students, so I feel a little better about not writing.
Who am I kidding? I was out partying. Of course I don't feel bad about not writing!
I've got spring fever -- bad. To celebrate, I'm going shopping for flip-flops. I can't imagine a sillier activity, but I'm doing it. If I hang around here for one more second, I just might lose it.
Did you know that even you can own Posner for less than five bucks?!
Waddling Thunder has come out of the closet and moved his blog to the Harvard blog servers, in the process revealing himself as a Harvard Law student.
Now that he's out, I must gently break it to him that (I think!) only Harvard and Cooley are really known for calling what is generally elsewhere known as "cite checking" as subciting. Until then, Waddle, I actually thought you were somewhere in D.C.!
My earlier advice on school selection and rankings has been endorsed by an actual lawyer. This is quite exciting. Greengourd's post is quite excellent and so you should go read it.
Ambivalent Imbroglio (not yet a lawyer, but sure to be a good one) was obviously much helped by visiting the law schools on his. He agrees that talking to as many random people as possible is a good way to find out about the school. And no, not the weird random-type folk, but ones stochastically selected from the general law student population. Ambivalent Imbroglio also passes along the location of the full U.S. News Rankings, so you are no longer stuck with just the ordinal list. I'd imagine that it won't be there for long. Personally, I think the reason that U.S. News uses fuzzy methodology:
Liable chats a bit about the importance of rankings to firm recruiters, while Andrew Sinclair denies they have any power in enticing recruiters to come on campus whatsoever (no permalinks, scroll down).* Law Student's Journal makes a good point about bias (which I alluded to briefly in my original post): no matter how good you are, and why you did it, the lower ranked the school you attend is, the harder you're going to have to work to prove yourself.
* This post was not in response to mine -- in fact it was earlier. I thought I'd link to it anyway.
UPDATE: If you have problems getting to the full rankings above, try this site. [Via Lawschool.com. And looky! I got a link!]
UPDATE II: And looky, another link, from JD2B! Let's just say that visitors to the site are at an all-time high.
UPDATE III: Oopsy. I forgot to publish the entry.
Looky! Looky! I made number 12 on Technorati's Top 50 Interesting Newcomers list!
Technorati explains this list is comprised of "interesting blogs that you may not know about, but people are talking about. It is biased towards blogs that have a moderate number of people linking to them, but who have had some interesting original content in the last few days."
The last few days?! Where has everyone been since August? Okay, I admit I've been going at it like crazy recently. What can I say? I am procrastinating from doing actual work. You know -- the kind that law students do.
UPDATE: The list was down for a bit (hence the white space referred to in the comments). It's back up, with me at 34. Still exciting, though!
What you're getting yourself in for:
Don't worry, dear. It gets even better. I overheard some crazy 1Ls heatedly discussing a most inconsequential area of law today during lunch. I strenuously considered marching over and shaking them. Hard.
Everyone expects that law students are seriously pressed for time. Sometimes, we even beg for more. Somehow, it is disheartening -- yet gives me a certain amount of retributivist pleasure -- to see law professors with the same problem. Perhaps Cronos would be a little kinder if they eased up a bit.
Since I doubt that will happen any time soon, I'd better return to this paper I'm supposed to be writing.
Okay, everyone laughs at products warnings. How could anyone be so stupid?
I left the pizza on the circular cardboard disc. And the oven-mitt inside the oven.
Let's just chalk this one up to absent-minded academics' tendencies, shall we?
What happens when a trial court judge gets overturned on the same issue thirteen times in thirteen years? The Court of Appeals lays the smackdown on him:
Ouch. It's worth noting that judges are elected in Ohio, not appointed.
[Via How Appealing]
I almost forgot! Happy One Millionth Hit to Howard!!
UPDATE: Try here if the first link is broken.
NewsGator is making it capable to get super snuggly with Microsoft. It's a news aggregator that works inside of Outlook, so you can have Total Information Awareness all in the same program. How fun is that? It's making it very easy for me to organize what I want to investigate further -- all I have to do is drag and drop the interesting post into a follow-up folder that I created. Plus, I don't have to open yet another application. This makes me a happy blogger. If you haven't tried it yet, and use Outlook, I highly recommend it.
Plus, getting in bed with Microsoft is just so much fun!
In 1966, Chief Justice Warren sent the following memo to Justice Fortas:
After consulting with several designers of considerable note, the enclosed robe is submitted for your consideration.
If the color combination is too subdued and lacking in color, the following suggestions may be helpful.
Of course, this momentous decision may not be unanimous as the Chief Justice might think it would add fervor to the accusations already made, so he would probably favor Blue and Gold (University of California colors.)
Mr. Justice Black would obviously object because the present color of the robe, and his name, are synonymous.
Mr. Justice Douglas might prefer a “robe of many colors” as worn by Joseph in the Bible, to match the vivid neckties he formerly wore. However, he may have an open mind as he has recently been wearing more subdued and somber neckties.
Mr. Justice Clark would no doubt take offense as he is so loyal to the color of the “yellow rose of Texas.”
Mr. Justice Harlan will dissent regardless of the color.
Mr. Justice Brennan naturally, being of Irish heritage, would insist most emphatically on Kelly green.
Mr. Justice Stewart might object to the crimson red as it might detract from his bronzed sun-tan. Royal purple might be a substitute, but might raise the question of a number of “reigning monarchs.”
Mr. Justice White would surely agree that the color white should be ruled out – because of the obscenity cases.
Perhaps your next alternative, Abe, would be to consider the furs of the animal kingdom, such as zebra, mink, silver fox, moleskin, kangaroo, beaver, raccoon, and Persian lamb. On second thought, this leaves the road open to those (opponents) who might should “dirty skunk,” and, Abe, that would be difficult to “weasel” out of.
If I can be of any further help, PLEASE don’t hesitate to command me.
Servicefully yours,
Of course, my vote is predetermined. I’m for the crimson robe, with leopard trim and corol – I think corol is correct – but maybe it’s part of an automobile, like the exhaust pipe. I don’t think I said anything as silly as the statement quoted in the papers – but maybe I did. If the robes are too awesome, maybe bathing suits would do. But the Court has always guarded its secrets, and this is no time for initiating disclosure.
As seen in this month's referrer logs:
Well, somebody isn't very happy!
I've been downing copious amounts of caffeine all day in order to compensate from a serious sleep hangover. Now my eye is twitching and I know I won't be able to fall asleep for another couple of hours. To top it all off, the clock is an hour ahead of what my body says it is. Who thought it would be a good idea to force me to wake up an hour early? Did I mention my persecution complex?
Damn. I love law school.
UPDATE: Let the record reflect that I just put nine cans of Diet Coke into the recycling bin.
Waddling Thunder has a great follow-up on my post about law school rankings and selecting the right school.
I am forced to clarify my offhand remark about specialty areas. I said yesterday "If you care only about one or two specialty areas of law, the focus should be on the quality of the curriculum and faculty in those areas, not on data like volumes in the library." First, I was more making a sideways jab at U.S. News than advocating selecting a school based on specialty areas. Second, I was attempting to address some concerns that law school related ramblings are too elitist in nature. Obviously, since I do not have the regional perspective, I've done a poor job of it. I shall adhere to my snobby ways in the future so as not to create any confusion!
This sort of concern should really only be used to evaluate two very similar schools. For instance, if you've been admitted to both Harvard and Columbia, you might compare the two on the strengths of their intellectual property curricula and faculty. This comparison, of course, should only occur if, after your evaluation of other relevant criteria, you did indeed decide that Harvard and Columbia were virtually interchangeable.
The new U.S. News & World Report rankings, as well as Brian Leiter's, have been released. Chesslaw* has compiled a variety of sources on the continuing controversy surrounding the ranking of law schools.
Few bloggers have commented on the rankings, except to announce them and give them the usual perfunctory brush-off (the funniest yet - Prof. Volokh failing to mention he was an evaluator for the Leiter rankings. It makes me wonder if he even realizes it). I myself get quite a few questions on rankings in my inbox, so I thought I'd give it a shot.
I think it's fair to say that most of us -- students and faculty alike -- realize that rankings are important to future law students when deciding where to attend, especially when they have little actual knowledge of what a school is like, but otherwise have little value merely as lists. What value they do hold is in the individual data. It takes a lot of analysis to figure out what kind of role this sort of data should play in your own decisions.
In order to begin making your own analysis, you need to begin to think seriously about what aspects of your legal education will be most important to you. If you really only care about your earning potential, you'll need to look at job placement numbers and starting salaries (which of course, really are functions of the other indexes). If you care only about one or two specialty areas of law, the focus should be on the quality of the curriculum and faculty in those areas, not on data like volumes in the library. If you are committed to living and working in a certain regional area, you must go to school in that area, or find out which law schools are targeted by recruiters from that region. In short, actual rankings are worth little, but a great deal of the work of collating the data pertinent to your evaluation is already completed for you.
Unfortunately, a lot of data that is essential to your evaluation just can't be compiled into a single number (for example, the loan repayment program and the requirements necessary to receive grants). You'll never be able to tell by numbers and information what kind of atmosphere a school has. Campus visits are in order. (But don't get sucked in by a good time -- I think they're best for eliminating bad choices, not selecting the right school.) A school website will never reveal how much bureaucracy the administration lumbers under. A list of campus groups isn't going to tell you which ones are actually active and fun. Find out from real students -- not the hand-picked administration toadies -- what the school is like. Roam around campus, find some students who aren't in a terrible hurry and just ask. You'd be surprised at the good advice you can get this way.
Selecting a law school shouldn't be about picking the best "objectively" ranked law school you get into -- it's about selecting the best law school according to your own subjective rankings. So go forth and evaluate.
* Purveyor of the Chesslaw Law Blogs page, as well as a quite a few more really great links resources. Check out this great page of books! Perhaps I need not answer a single "how to pick a law school" question ever again. Henceforth, my stock answer shall be to read all of these books.
Please, try not to make your course selection this complicated! Next thing I know you'll be using those little tabs on your manuals that the psychotic students use on their exam outlines. Then we'll move to the highly complex highlighter color-coding scheme, and I'll lose it.
I suppose as long as nobody tries to use the bundle of rights metaphor, I can handle the psychosis.
From Dear Prudence, Slate's advice column:
Dear Law,
It may have been thoughtlessness, or the professor may have felt the pleasure of her company vitiated any need for her to actually play host. The bar of justice, alas, is not the bar where you all met. For the future you might bear in mind the concept of "caveat invitee." And whereas this woman may be a fine mentor, "Experientia docet ..." which translates as "Experience is the best teacher."
—Prudie, learnedly
I just got an email to take the LexisNexis Challenge: answer eight true/false questions, get two hundred Ultimate Rewards points. (I'm only 10,680 points away from the Coach slim duffle!)
Question 6: People who use LexisNexis have great looking hair.
Unfortunately, the answer is "False." Damn. I was really hoping that Lexis would pave the way to shiny, beautiful, bouncy hair.
It's that time of year again. After Waddling Thunder posted his list of course selection priorities, I thought it was imperative that every first year student know the real deal.
Timing. Course selection should not only allow for sleeping in as late as possible, but also for the fewest days of class as possible. It is essential that you are at the law school for as few hours as you can be. After all, you have way more important things to do, like imbibing and sleeping. Don't make the mistake of signing up for those Friday morning classes!
Cost/Benefit Analysis. Be sure to pick the classes with the most bang for the buck. That is, the courses you select should be easy As. How ghastly would it be to get a B, darling? The horror!
Interesting Subject Matter. Stuff the doctrinal and code classes and take the really cool classes that are absolutely unrelated to anything you'll find in practice. Either you're going to learn everything from your bar review course or from your time as a new associate in a big firm, or you're just not going to need it.
Fellow Classmates. Make sure you don't take the classes that attract all the uber-tools. Of course, you'll never get away from them, but classes are better if they don't have the really annoying students that you have come to know and "love" during first year.
Price. Under pretense of being an uber-tool yourself, hunt down the professor and ask to see next year's syllabus. Look up the books on Amazon and make sure you won't be spending too much. It's not like you'll ever read them again anyways, and the resale market is in the can.
By following these simple rules you're sure to have an exciting and enjoyable second year!
My real advice? Content above all else. Interesting professors* can’t really add anything to dull content. Everything is just a gimmick if they’re selling you a boring class. However, a great class plus a great professor equals pure law school utopia. Choose wisely. Don’t listen to sagacious 2Ls and 3Ls that blather on about how you should take bar classes and that you'll be doomed if you don't take a tax class.
There is a vast chasm between interesting and good professors. Avoid ones that sing, dance, or do any sort of stupid human tricks.
The Nalgene phenomenon has baffled and disturbed me since college. I simply don’t understand the allure of the Nalgene. It’s a water bottle, people! What makes it better than a recycled Poland Springs bottle? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Can somebody – anybody – please explain this to me?
Acting on a hot tip, I was able to inch myself just a teensy-weensy bit closer to world dominance. I now own Outside Counsel.
Bill, I'm sorry, but you answer to me now.
UPDATE: Joining the evil empire is Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Great work, everyone! I'm going to get the HR people on "repackaging" those executive compensation packages!
At the close of a heated class discussion on the interpretation of a particular statute:
End of discussion.
UPDATE: ASU Law Devil has a similar experience.