Reflections on First Year: Going It Your Own Way

19 05 2010

I have been in a reflective mood since I finished my last first year exam. I am also very aware of that fact that information about the Canadian law school experience is thin on the ground. Most google searches are not of much help to those of us in Canada who wanted to know something about what to expect in 1L. Now, some idea is better than no idea, but you also cannot believe everything you read.

I agree. So, allow me be the first to tell you to take anything and everything you read about first year law with a grain of salt whether it originated north or south of the border. That said, I did manage to survive the last year while earning a place on the Dean’s List, winning, along with my teammate, an intra-school moot, and working on the Faculty journal. So, while your mileage may vary, I do know a little of which I speak.

The Standard Stuff

Now, I’m sure you’ll read everything in this section somewhere else if you haven’t already. There is, I think, a reason for this – it tends to work.

  • Assigned Readings
    • You may or may not have ‘suggested’ readings during the summer before law school. Many people say not to bother, but I think they are useful because, if for no other reason, they make you a little less lost. What’s this business about ‘civil’ law? Or public vs. private? For those that are curious, I discussed Western Law’s suggested readings in a prior post.
  • Do What Worked Before
    • You were at least moderately successful in your undergrad if you’ve made it this far, so why re-invent the wheel? Law school is not your undergrad, granted, but it is still a university environment and you are still tested and expected to write. You know yourself and your process best, so take some time to reflect on what you are doing and whether it is working. If not, tweak it, but unless you are in serious trouble it won’t be worth starting from scratch.
  • Take Fall Term Exams Seriously
    • Often they don’t count or at least they don’t count for much. They are, however, your only real chance to take a law school exam before they do count – for a very great deal. For better or worse, first year marks a hugely important for you 2L job hunt. Even if you aren’t in law school for the traditional reasons, you may as well do them properly if only to test yourself. After all, you put in a lot of effort to get that far, why waste it with a weak finish?
  • Learn From Your Mistakes
    • Or ‘Take Fall Term Exams Seriously II’. When you get your marks back, check out your exam. Even better, check out your exam with friends (see the next point) and compare your answers and feedback. If you didn’t do well or, perhaps, as well as you hopped, then the only way you are going to know why is if you go over your answers and the professor’s comments. You don’t have to agonize about it, but it is worth being congnizant of your mistakes and this is doubly true for full year classes where the same prof will be marking your all important final
  • No (Wo)man is an Island
    • Similar to the next point, the concern here is that you need friends. ‘But the curve!’ you exclaim. I know a couple people who have told me they wished they’d had other people to work with in first term to have a better idea of the different ways a summary can be organized and even just to have someone to bounce ideas off of. The frustrating thing about the law can be how opaque it is until you talk it through and see it from different angles.
  • Maintain Health and Sanity
    • This may go without saying, but do you what you have to do to stay healthy, both physically and emotionally. It gets pretty easy just to order pizza because you’d rather not take the time to make dinner for the 5th time this week. Similarly, its all too easy to have friends that you see at law school, study law with, and who, when you’re finished with the academics, you socialize with by discuss the law and law school. While your enthusiasm for the law should be saluted, it will get a little tiring. Its worth keeping outside interests and remembering to eat well and bathe – most of the time anyway.

The Not So Standard Stuff

Law school is a lot of hard work and can be quite stressful if you let it be. The latter may or may not be a bad thing depending on how you deal with stress. Does it turn you into a sobbing puddle of mush? Then you might have to find a way to deal with it. Even if you are the type for whom stress is a motivating sensation, you will need to find a way to deal with it, because otherwise it will grind you down. That said, I think it would be a mistake to look at law school as just another degree. I’ve heard people say that practicing law, like many professional occupations, is less a job and more a lifestyle choice.

For me, I do not see law school much differently – it is also a lifestyle choice. So, you can count the hours you worked if you want to, but it won’t win you many friends and even fewer braging rights and it will certainly add to your stress level. Instead, embrace the workload. Accept that you won’t be able to do everything all the time and simply commit to doing your best with what you have. I must admit I didn’t realize how hard I was working until I stopped, but then it was over and it didn’t really matter anyway.

The final thing I will say is something my constitutional prof said to us a couple times during September and October: you will spend most of first term in a haze. Everything will seem new and intimidating and you will feel like you don’t belong. Just know that you aren’t the only one feeling that way and that the feeling does pass – usually sometime during November. Just in time for those mid-terms you should be taking seriously.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Law School

Law School Rankings

13 01 2010

I came across the 2009 MacLeans Law School rankings the other day. While its nice to see the Western has climbed a little bit since last year (up to 10 from 12 out of 16 common law schools), it was the comments that really got me thinking.

Criteria: But ya’ gotta rate something

First of all, I want to say I agree that ‘elite firm hiring’ and ‘Supreme Court clerkships’ aren’t the most representative of measures. You do have to measure something, though, if you are going to have a ranking. Perhaps we shouldn’t, but that’s a whole different issue. I think rankings come with a huge caveat emptor attached at the best of times (they tend to be elitist and favour quantitative measures over qualitative ones) and what makes a ‘good’ law school may not necessary create ‘good’ lawyers.

Specifically, I think the danger in a space as small as that occupied by  Canadian law schools is that measures such as elite firms (which, I’m assume, are necessarily in large, urban centres) and SCC clerkships (which, by definition, are limited) simply aren’t informative. The fact is most law schools in Canada have a large regional focus. Want to practice in Windsor? Well, you better either be from Windsor or go to school there if what I’ve heard is accurate. The same, to some extent, is true in London. I’m sure its even more true in provinces with only one law school. Similarly, as an Ontarian, I would pick Windsor (or any Ontario school) over UManitoba any day, not because of the rankings (indeed, Manitoba beats Windsor), but because I have no interest in enduring the weather and travel that would come with it.

Finally, I fear that rankings become nothing but self-fulfilling prophecies. “Oh, you want to clerk for the SCC? Better get into McGill then!” or “Oh, you have your eye on Bay St.? Hope you like UofT!” Don’t misunderstand me, if a particular school has an academic strength in a certain area that interests you, you’d be a fool not to consider it on that basis. But to pick a school because a ranking told you that it might increase your statistical odds would be utilitarian at best and at worst it would simply continue the cycle that these rankings thrive on.

Alternatives

Do you own research. There simply aren’t that many schools out there (unless you apply to them all and then, well, that’s your own fault). Granted it can be hard to figure out who to trust when you’re doing this insofar as the schools have a vested interest in sounding fantastic and alumni are similarly biased. Our Dean here at Western, a certain Dr. Ian Holloway, QC, makes a pretty good point when he proposes that in Canada there are no bad law schools. Rather it is only a matter of finding the one that is right for you. How you make that choice is up to you. The schools might make it for you between scholarships and rejections. It might be the lure of that shiny MacLean’s #1. It might be your love of sea air. It might be your significant other.

The point is, if you place too much emphasis on any one factor, you have no one to blame but yourself.

In Closing

Rankings make sense in the US. As a legal employer there are simply too many different schools to understand what makes each one stand out. Instead, you can get a rough idea by looking at where they sit on the list. Even then, though, I’ve heard it said that a good, non-Tier 1 regional school can top a Tier 1 (though perhaps not a T-14) non-regional school in some markets.

We simply don’t have that problem here, as you’ll be able to see by looking at most medium to large sized firms’ websites. You’ll see regional/geographic biases to be sure, but that doesn’t show up in the rankings. You can’t really blame MacLean’s though. Its not like their in the truth business. They’re only in the business business.

The moral of the story here is there is simply more to the story than the stats would have you believe.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Pre-Law

Expert or Teacher?: The Question of Quality in Post-Secondary Education

9 09 2009

I recently read an interesting article in the Globe and Mail that revealed that the big five research universities (UBC, UofA, UofT, McGill, and Montreal) have requested that governments shift the way they allocate funding for institutions of higher education such that they, the Big Five, can concentrate more on research and the other schools should begin to focus exclusively on undergraduate education. This created the expected furore among the many, many schools left out of this ‘elitist’ proposal. My own alma mater chimed in, as did several other universities who are, undoubtedly, doing fantastic research in their own fields.  The complaint seemed to be that size shouldn’t matter. Rather, it should be the quality of work that is rewarded.

I think two things need to be addressed here. First, is the charge of elitism. I think we might as well come out and accept that the world of academia is an elitist one. It starts with where and with whom you did your grad work, then its about where you did your post-doc, then it is about how much you publish and in which journals, and, finally, it is about how many citations your work receives. Even when you are getting references as an undergrad you are meant to, at least so I’ve been told, seek them from established professors; even if this means they may not know you, or your work, as well as, say, a teaching fellow who has taught you in several small seminars over the past three years.

Second, and frankly, size does matter. While there are exceptions to the rule, in both the UK and the US the schools with the highest research intensity also tend to be the larger schools on the respective blocks. Granted, they do specialize and, granted, there remain regional powerhouses that compete against each other. This, however, is more likely a product of the scale of the US population and economy than anything else. The fact is, that when it comes to research there is much that must be conceded to the scale of the institution. It means, perhaps, higher quality colleagues. Or, perhaps, it means more interdisciplinary approaches are possible. Certainly, it will mean that the school can build a better reputation as a leader and innovator in its own field or fields, both at home and abroad, if it is simply big enough to be noticed.

Undergraduate and Professional v. Graduate Degrees

This proposal raises a broader question: what should we look for in undergraduate (and, by extension, professional) education? The answer, at least to me, is simple: knowledge and skills acquisition. The question, then, is how best to go about developing that knowledge and those skills. Is it necessary to learn from the (wo)man who, literally, wrote the book on the subject? Or is it more important to not only read said book, but also have it expounded upon by someone who is both a cogent and engaging lecturer? This is not to say, of course, that those who are at the pinnacle of their field cannot, necessarily, give instructive lectures. Rather, it is to suggest two things. First, that they have other, more important, things to be doing that giving an undergraduate lecture course. Second, their brilliance and, perhaps, even their literary talent (though the latter is far from required it would seem) are no guarantee, contrary to popular opinion, of their ability as a teacher. Make no mistake, they should continue to supervise graduate students, but, as any grad student will tell you, that is a particular kind of relationship.

This brings me to a discussion I saw recently on lawstudents.ca. Now, I’m not forgetting my own advice since I am not going to engage with the debate in question directly. Rather, I want to draw it into the present discussion as an example of both the kind of elitism of which I spoke and of the distinction I want to draw between undergrad and professional degrees on the one hand and graduate degrees on the other. The debate in question hinges on whether or not you will receive the same quality of education outside of UofT and Osgoode. The initial premise is based upon the supposition that in order to receive a quality education one must learn from a leader in the field. This, of course, blatantly disregards not only the fact that other schools also have leading academics, but also that some fields will have more than one leading name.

More over, this position is based upon the idea that in order to receive a quality education at all it must be from such a leader. This, I would submit, is patently false, at least as it pertains to non-graduate degree programs. In fact, some of the best instructors I had during my undergraduate career were only associate professors or, for that matter, teaching fellows who didn’t even have their Ph.D. yet. Did we read the biggest names in the field? Certainly. Did I have a worse appreciation of their positions for not having heard it from the horse’s mouth? I doubt it. Indeed, of the instructors I did have, some of the worst were some of the best known.

What Does This All Mean?

Granted, this is all highly anecdotal, but it does demonstrate that there is no necessary connection between the quantity and quality of published material and the ability to teach. Now, if we accept what I said above, that the purpose of both undergraduate and professional degrees is to impart a certain amount of basic knowledge and skills, then it suggests that the research credentials of the faculty alone will not prove a sufficient indicator of the quality of such degree programs.

This should prove doubly true of professional programs where the end goal is to produce individuals who will then be in a position to join a professional body upon the completion of their program. It will be my ability to understand the law as it is now in the context of the facts of a particular situation and then render some form of actionable advice by which I will be judged as a lawyer. It will not be my ability to discuss the finer points of Rawls’ burdens of judgment as they apply to a piece of legislation currently under debate in Ottawa. This is not to suggest that undergraduate and professional degrees should not provide a rigorous and theoretical understanding of their subject matter. Rather, it is to argue that they should do so in a way that augments, but that does not supplant, their original purpose.

How I Choose My Degree Programs (And How Those Choices Won’t Change)

In choosing both my undergraduate and professional degree programs I want to satisfy two requirements. First, I wanted a program that would provide me with a broad background in the subject. When you start studying any subject for the first time you will necessarily have a shaky grasp of what exactly it entails. For example, when I began Political Studies at Queen’s back in 2005 I was convinced I was going to studying International Relations and go on to do an M.A. at the Norman Paterson School. Instead, I discovered Political Theory, something I was only vaguely familiar with before second year. Had I gone to Glendon at York, like I had been planning on since the start of grade 12, I would have gone straight into an IR program and never looked back. Similarly, when it came time to decide on a law school, I wanted to ensure that my choice would keep my options open. I didn’t want to back myself into a corner, for example, by committing to a school that was well known for its Intellectual Property program, but nothing else.

Second, I wanted a program that would lead to a degree that would be able to stand on its own. I wanted a program that, if I did nothing else afterwards, would stand me in good stead in the job market. It was this reason in particular that made me choose Western Law over some of my other options. As I mentioned before, Western’s articling stats are had to beat. Add to this its ‘national reach’ and it became clear that Western Law was the school to attend if I decided I wanted to practice once this was all over and done with.

If I decide I want to continue my education, either in the law or politics, then it will be at that point I will make an effort to attend the best schools my marks and finances allow. Until then, though, I will be perfectly happy right where I am.

The Point Is…

An undergraduate or professional degree should be an introduction, a grounding, in a subject. If something strikes your fancy, there will be plenty of time and opportunity to study it in depth and with some of the best and brightest. Indeed, the effort to specialize right out of the gate evokes the lamenting tones of Billy Joel’s Vienna. This breadth appears all the more important in the context of a legal education. Granted, you can study for, and pass, the bar exam without ever taking a course in family law, but doing so somewhat cheapens the exercise. You’ll be in a position, once you’re called, where you will be able to hold yourself out as an expert on a topic of which you may only have the most cursory of understandings. In this respect, I think the core curriculum of Ontario’s law schools doesn’t go far enough, but that is a topic for another post.

What I do find objectionable about the Big Five’s suggestion is that they don’t go far enough in divesting themselves of undergraduate and professional programs. Yes, they want less undergrads, but they also want other schools to give up, for all intents and purposes, their post-grad programs entirely. If what we need is the kind of focus, scale, and intensity, in short, a critical mass, of research that only these large schools can provide, then it would seem fair to ask them commit, whole-hog, to that project. If direct instruction by the best and brightest is unnecessary in a first-level program, then why are those leaders wasting their time?


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Uncategorized