Every lawyer you meet has studied law the same way: read a case, go to class, have the professor use the Socratic Method on you, then get an internship and learn to be a lawyer. However, the system has been under a lot of scrutiny this summer, and I wonder if reform is really on the horizon.
I start my second year of law school in a few weeks. This past month, I received a great 'welcome back!' in the form of a scathing article in the New York Times targeting the institution of law school while using my school dean as an example (see article HERE). Davis Segal, the NYTimes reporter, wrote about how many law school hopefuls apply without really knowing what they are getting into, and law school doesn't care to disillusion their visions of graduating school with a starting salary for six figures. Ranked as a third tier school, NYLS can be criticized for numerous things: an increasing amount of students, high tuition, and the brand-new glass-front building; however accepting students that don't care to analyze the job market and make an educated decision about their future is not the school's fault.
While what Mr. Segal says is true, I think many people miss the point of the article. He makes it seem that NYLS (and law schools, in general) are at fault for this educated and in debt mass of students entering a less-than-hopeful job market. Commenters fear for their children currently bogged down with the LSAT, as well as complain about how bad NYLS or their law school really is. However, as a law student myself, I am trying to analyze it and take it for what it's really worth - an awakening to the fact that the law school institution might be a little archaic, and that many (but certainly not all) students are applying to law school in hords in order to make unrealistic instant income.
Check out NYLS's response HERE.
0 comments:
Post a Comment