Category Archives: Law School

The US News Law School rankings are leaking out. Some years we get a lower score than the year before, and then I think I shouldn't carp about the whole thing for fear of it looking like sour grapes. Some years we get a higher score than the year before, and then I carp.

The idea of ranking law schools is not ridiculous. The way US News does it is very ridiculous. The survey data relies on the opinions of people who in most cases may be very informed about a few law schools but as a class are not likely to be particularly well informed about many law schools — even though they may be judges, hiring partners, law Deans and professors. And increasingly the survey data is self-referential: people have heard school X has a high/low ranking, so it must be good/bad, right?

At its grossest level, there is no doubt US News captures something real: the top N schools (10? 14? 15? 20? 20+?) really are better than the middle N or lowest N. But are the middle N significantly better than the bottom N? Sometimes, yes, but only sometimes. Here the picture gets very cloudy — not least because “better” ought to be “better for whom”; once you get away from the most elite, best resourced (i.e. high endowment), most prestigious law schools, what is best depends on factors that are personal: urban/rural, North/South, East/Middle/West, large/small, best in town/best town and so on.

The US News systems are designed to churn. Changed numbers sells magazines. Having the numbers stay the same doesn't. Yet it's hard to believe many schools change very much from year to year. Yes, once a while a school suffers a crisis or an epiphany, but those are pretty rare events.

There are inbuilt biases in the US News scoring system that favor small schools, and schools in cities with high starting salaries. Not to mention that in South Florida the market has more medium-sized firms than in other cities our size, and those firms rarely make offers until a candidate has passed the bar, notably depressing the 'employment at graduation' rate.

I sympathize with aspiring students who need a guide to the perplexed when sorting through their options. It's such a shame that the information market's first-mover advantage has allowed such a crummy measure to dominate.

This guy may give good job-seeking advice, but his research methods seem positively unethical to me. They also raise some legal issues. Here's how he gathered his data for How To Nail An Interview:

If I could be the one asking the interview questions, not answering, I could see first hand what made candidates stand out. I could then take that knowledge and cater my behavior in any future interview to give myself the best chance of getting hired.

First, I needed to create a “corporate presence.” I found a company that rented office space by the hour. It was in a downtown Seattle high-rise, had a killer view, and came with a secretary, who'd call me once an interviewee arrived. It was perfect.

Next, I posted a job on craigslist for a marketing coordinator at a “soon to launch” web company. Literally minutes after the posting, resumes poured in, 142 on the first day, 356 in the first week.

Finally, giving the interview wasn't enough. I wanted to be able to go back, review the footage, and dissect answers, body language, everything, to really see what makes someone look good or bad. So before scheduling any interviews, I got online, bought a couple of small cameras, picked up a couple lamps and lamp shades, and with a drill, some super glue, a little bit of cardboard, and electric tape, I constructed 2 hidden camera lamps.

He's smart enough to realize there's an issue here, but I don't think he got any legal advice (or got bad advice) when he decided a standard form release would do the job:

Of course to make sure everything was legally kosher, everyone was required to sign and fax back an appearance release waiver before an interview was scheduled. The reason, “some company meetings will be filmed and we needed proof you'd be comfortable appearing on a video blog if hired.”

Two problems here: First — although I suppose it's an issue of state law where it happened — the release for filming “company meetings” seems unlikely to stretch to job interviews. Not to mention FAKE job interviews.

Second, seeing as the company was fake, even if the release was otherwise valid and applicable, why isn't this a case of a release procured by fraud, which is therefore invalid?

I think he's a lot better at giving interview advice than making legal judgments. Most of his advice about what to do and what to avoid actually seems quite sound.

In the course of an internal email exchange at the law school about advice for law exam takers, Professors Caroline Bradley and William Widen sent in the following sound and pithy advice which they have kindly allowed me to post here:

Caroline Bradley said,

I think that the advice I really would hope more people would take would involve:

1. reading the question carefully – you should answer the question the professor asks, not a different one you would prefer to answer;

2. thinking before beginning to write so the answer is organized and so you don't include irrelevant information;

3. answering the question rather than trying to show how much you know or how much work you have done – relevance is crucial;

4. not making assumptions or inventing facts in a hypothetical;

5. spelling out the analytical steps you are taking rather than merely writing down your conclusions.

William Widen said,

1. Just as a good advocate will take account of the judge who is presiding over the case, the student should take account of advice given and preferences expressed by the particular professor in the course. This does not mean that you must agree with the views expressed by the professor on open points or points of policy, but answers should, as appropriate, address matters focused on in the course.

2. Take the time to carefully read the instructions for each question. Some questions may ask you to write a response as if you were a judge or writing a memo for a client. To the extent possible, be mindful of any role you are asked to play or any context in which you are asked to place yourself. If the question asks you to adress three points in particular, address those three points clearly in your answer. Be responsive to the questions asked and provide responses in the appropriate format.

3. In a standard issue spotter/essay question, professors often want you to demonstrate both knowledge of particular legal doctrines and their parameters AND how those doctrines and parameters might apply to the facts in the question—including identification of alternative theories and ways of looking at the facts. A bald statement of legal doctrine (merely reciting boilerplate or treatise type language) is usually a bad idea. Don't make conclusory statements about doctrine like: there is a contract in this case because there was an offer, an acceptance and consideration. Rather, in addition to identifying the parameters of the doctrine, also identify the facts in the problem that constitute an offer, an acceptance and consideration, identifying why the particular facts fit the parameters of the doctrine as well as any problems with that application. Don't assume that the first doctrine that comes to mind is the only doctrine that is being tested. Take a few minutes to consider alternatives to your first impression—perhaps outlining an answer on scratch paper. Don't assume the professor will read your mind—if you cite to a case explain briefly why that case supports or does not support the position you are taking. Demonstrate on paper your thought process so the professor can evaluate it.

4. Avoid careless misstatements of doctrine. For example, in the UCC the staute of frauds applies to sales of goods with a price of $500 or more. Don't identify the rule as applying to goods with a “value” of $500 or more (when the correct term is “price”) or identify the rule as applying to goods with a price of “more than $500” when the correct formulation is “$500 or more.”

5. Be alert for chances to support your answer/choice of applicable doctrine by reference to the rationale or policy that supports the rule you are using.

6. Don't waste time telling the professor to have a nice summer.

7. Don't waste time telling the professor that you are now running out of time. Write a few more responsive words or sentences.

8. Budget your time so you do not get zero points on one question. Often it is very hard to make up for a zero on one question with a detailed answer to another question. If time is short, provide at least an outline of your answer to each question.

9. Do not waste a lot of time merely reciting the facts in the problem. The professor wrote the question and knows the facts. He or she wants you to apply the law to the facts not merely summarize the facts.

Personally, I always recommend reading Getting to Maybe — but the above is much much shorter!

I know that a number of Deans, Law School admissions directors and even professors have been worrying about a possible slump in the future demand for legal education if and when it appears that law firms are more interested in firing than hiring associates. Well, no fear, I read that Congress is coming to the rescue: Year Of Law School Now Mandatory For Nation's 25-Year-Olds :

Under the provisions of a bill approved by Congress and signed into law Tuesday, every 25-year-old American, regardless of prior life commitments, is now legally obligated to enroll in a full year of study at one of the nation's accredited law schools.

Yes, it's only The Onion – America's Finest News Source, but that doesn't mean its a bad idea. Also many Onion headlines about the Bush administration turned out to be true a few years later, so why not this one?