Why you might consider Curriculum B

This is for Hanah (congrats!) and any other prospectives who might be reading – it’s an unorganized morning ramble, so please a) forgive the structure and b) write in with questions.  There’s a group of current Curriculum B/Section 3 students who are going to do some outreach to new/interested students – if you’d like to be on this list, please e-mail me at scoplaw@yahoo.com.

Well then.  Law School in general seems to be a somewhat dehumanizing experience.  While Curriculum B/Section 3 is still law school, in that it does not eradicate all of the concerns in the Kennedy article, it will probably give you a good shot of getting through the first year without losing your soul/mind. 

To qualify my statements, I’ve some difficulty contrasting B/3 to the standard first year curriculum as I’ve never been through the standard curriculum.  However, we do study the same controlling cases, and I do talk with people in the standard sections and occasionally debate points with them, so I can offer some kind of anecdotal contrast.  Please bear in mind that I’m a non-traditional student (early 30s) who comes from a humanities/lit background.  I didn’t have a strong poli-sci, legal philosophy, or American history background, but I’m more of a fox than a hedgehog and am politically engaged with a decent grasp of contemporary issues.

From my perspective, the most valuable thing that B/3 provides is philosophical and historical context which broadens our perspective on legal issues embodied in discrete cases.  Even if the interdisciplinary nature of the section is at times not what I ideally hope it could be, our readings/classes invite a different kind of debate/discussion among our section members than you see in the other sections, one which I think is of higher quality.  B/3 conversations often probe alternate legal formations – what could have been held in a case, and what the implications of that holding would have been.  This in turn leads to an examination of the pressures that drive individual holdings.  One of our professors once joked, “I just want to pause and make sure that you guys know there’s black letter law here – that the judges actually made a single holding on these cases.”  A lot of our conversation gets cut short on these issues (largely reasons of time) – but at least we have it. 

Frankly, I’ve seen several regular section students lost on “big picture” issues, holding the most incredibly dogmatic views on the law, as though the law were a) merely a set of rules to learn/apply, or b) a kind of hermetic, non-political entity.  I like to imagine that B/3 is a bit more critical, a bit more open-eyed than the other sections.

While Swanno, Scott, and I disagree on the political valence of the curriculum (there’s a lot of friendly disagreement in B/3), I’d say it’s leftist, though our few staunch conservatives/libertarians seem to do well enough, as do our deeply religious class members.  However, from my perspective, it’s not an openly radical left.  The professors (at least the ones who have been posed this question) are concerned that the B/3 will be populated by leftist types who have never really had their perspectives challenged – so they want to familiarize the students with counter arguments.  Often, instead of strongly presenting conservative/rightist thought, this challenge takes the form of a kind of broad philosophical, erm, gutting – every argument swirls away into the void of (moral) relativism, the difficulty of aggregating true preferences, the blurring of public/private, feasance/non-feasance, and unexpected consequences (of judicial decisions which then have to be corrected by the legislatures or by later judgments). 

On one hand this approach is important for personal growth and a balanced understanding of your own political and ethical stance.  On the other it’s grindingly paternalistic.  Many people find this approach frustrating – as though their value system is not being taken seriously, or is being torn apart.  I have a great deal of sympathy for that perspective.  I’m not sure if B is “worse” in this way than other curriculums – the challenge to your beliefs is overt and marshaled, giving it a certain kind of intensity, but that very challenge provides an opportunity for affirmation, resistance, and validation.  I suspect if you’re left leaning, you’ll at least have a sense of community afforded by fellow students with similar frustrations.  (As an aside, a lot of this is old hat for me – I’ve had my value system challenged repeatedly and often by learning in a rather caustic undergraduate environment and living in a very conservative region.  While I see the value in perspective-challenging for others, it seems largely a waste of time to me at points.  But that’s a personal frustration, one I think that many non-trads might experience anywhere.) 

To segue back to the “type” of class we are, mostly I think we’re people who crave a broad approach.  It’s also interesting to note the seemingly high percentage of artistic types among us.  We have several accomplished musicians, writers, actors, comics, etc.  We seem to be a bit older than average, certainly more Public Interest Law oriented than the other sections.  (Sometimes at PI events, it’s like a small B/3 party.)  Relatively speaking, we’re a pretty cohesive and friendly bunch – at least to the point where people from other sections comment on this often.  I think a few people made an effort early on to bridge any small cliques that might be forming in our section.  So while we have “groups” of people that largely associate with each other (largely based around study groups I think), there’s a kind of openness to the section – lots of note sharing, group excursions, dinner parties, open section parties, etc.  We’re certainly not a hippie commune, and there are people who are just flat out personally irked by other people in the section, but that’s pretty normal anywhere I think.  And we have a few complete tools – again, pretty normal.

We’re also a bit rebellious/pushy.  We leaned on the administration until we got our lone second semester Friday class switched to a Monday so that we’d have 3 day weekends.  Nothing like going out on Thursday and sleeping in on Friday.

I’m sure sectional character will vary from year to year.  But there’s no reason committed B/3ers from next year couldn’t cultivate a similarly helpful and mature atmosphere.   

Our year is trying to leave a legacy for future years by creating a stronger institutional memory for B/3, a B/3 alumni association, stronger avenues for feedback and student input for readings, class structure, etc.  It’s a work in progress you can join - something pretty unusual in legal education.

Now – to the outcome-oriented questions most prospective law students have:

Career:
I very much doubt B/3 will adversely impact your legal career.  It may well give you a huge leg up.  The school tracked alumni for 6 years and found they did at least as well as alumni from other sections (in terms of jobs, clerkships, etc.)   Employers don’t really care about your first year if you do very well in your second year classes.  I’m not sure how B/3 correlates with job satisfaction, but I’ve a sneaking suspicion it would be pretty high.  Anecdotal evidence:  the editorial board of the Law Review here is predominantly Section 3 alumni.  B/3s do well in mock trial, moot court, etc.  It’s not like you’re “missing” something by going the B/3 route. 

Workload:
I suspect it’s a bit higher than average, but completely manageable.  I do the majority of my reading (many do all the readings, I slide some of that time into reviewing notes/arguments a bit more than most) and, at the end of my first semester, am in the middle of my class.  I still have time to go out at least once a weekend.  I write a lot.  I blog.  I have side poetry projects I work on.  I bike at least every other day.  I’m maxed out, but I’m fine – getting plenty of sleep and exercise.  Granted, I don’t have a TV.  Also, I’m not dating anyone, if I were, I’d have to scale back here and there.

Bottom line: you’ll have enough time for your own life, but on average probably a bit less time than some of the other students here.  It largely depends on who you are and what you want.  If you’re gunning for all As, in any section, you’ll spend more time on your studies.  Personally, while the As and the tip-top-track route would be cool, it’s not worth the psychic damage that putting my life completely on hold for 3 years would cause. Then again, I’m sure there are some people here who could take that route on 4 hrs a day – I’m just not one of those. 

Study Materials:
While there aren’t specific commercial study materials for B/3, there are plenty of old outlines (freely shared – our year will be posting many for each class on the web) and (duh) the black letter law in the country is still the same.  For the Torts element in Bargain, Exchange, and Liability, I use Emanuel’s standard Torts.  (Which is not to suggest you can skip lectures or anything.  There’s no way in hell you could get the B.E.L. perspective from Emanuel’s, which is just an aid to current black letter law.)

Let me re-emphasize this – we study the same law, the same cases, just from a different perspective.  We might go through less squibs, but really, who wants a lot of case reading anyway?  I’d rather work off an outline and do some long term thinking than get squibbed to death hunting for black letter law in a casebook.

In sum:

Drawbacks – more reading, personally challenging on an ethical/political level, a bit of conversational isolation/confusion/prejudice from other sections.

Advantages – cautiously leftist, varied readings, more thinking/rhetoric, ethical/political self-examination required, broad perspective, self-selection resulting in relatively more community than other sections, B/3 as a flexible work-in-progress. 

Comments

[Winner]

"Employers don’t really care about your first year if you do very well in your second year classes"

LOL. Not if "employers" encompasses "law firms."

[Scoplaw]

Well, I suppose I should qualify that. If you do well in B/3 and then well in your second year, I can't see how that would greatly differ from doing well in any of the standard curriculums. And, in fact, B/3 students have the same rate of firm employment after graduation.

Care to share your thoughts "winner"? Been through the process? Do any hiring yourself?

[pjm]

Leaving aside the fact that I have no interest whatsoever in going to law school, you really make it sound like an experience worth having. I wonder if anyone does CS that way? (Heh. Yeah, right.)

[Alice]

Do you have an alternate email address? I just tried to send you an email at scoplaw@yahoo.com and it got returned to my inbox

[Scoplaw]

Try skalding@gmail.com