Essay by Paul Barron
It comes as no surprise to generations of law students and law professors that, in general, classes taught to second-and third-year students are less effective from a pedagogical point of view than are first-year courses. Even the most “stimulating” among us notice the vast difference in interest, excitement, preparation, and participation in our first-year courses, compared with those we teach to upper-class students. The “buzz” that often occurs in my first-year contracts class is far more rare when I teach secured transactions, basic bankruptcy, and labor law to second-and third-year students.
There are a number of reasons for this. First, by the second year, and certainly by the third year, law students have become increasingly disinterested in the semi-Socratic, appellate case analysis of a particular area of the law. Students, like everyone else, become bored whenever any nonpurely pleasurable activity is repeated too often. This boredom increases even further when students believe a skill has been essentially mastered.
Second, some second-year students and, even in this age of shrinking job opportunities, many third-year students have had a taste of “real life” practice during the summer. The immediacy of dealing with the needs of a client is simply much more exciting, even when working on the periphery of the matter by doing research or other nonclient contact activities, than working through the intricacies of discreet areas of evidence, land-use planning, and even “people oriented” courses such as family law.
Third, students tend to typecast themselves by the end of the first year. Students in the lower two-thirds of the class see little hope in reaching the top part of the class. This is particularly true, given the belief of most students that there is no direct relationship between their level of knowledge, let alone what they do in class, and their performance on the ubiquitous end-of-semester examination, the usual determinant of their grade for the course. Moreover, unless they reach the very top of the class, they realize that many of the advantages that are to be had by top-tier grades, such as journal and moot court membership, have already been decided by their first-year grades. This loss of interest in grades translates into a loss of interest in course work in general.
Fourth, third-year students are increasingly caught up in the need to find a job after graduation. This seems to have two somewhat different effects. For the highly motivated, this often results in campus interviews that seem invariably to overlap with the beginning or end of classes, or out-of-town trips that mean missing class altogether. Even if this type of student is in class but managing a large-volume letter-writing and networking campaign, there simply may be not enough time for class preparation. The other group of third-year students seem to be enervated by the job search process. This is not a particularly bountiful period for legal jobs. In light of this reality, many students make an initial effort at finding a job, are unsuccessful, and essentially give up on the process. This often leads to frustration, animosity toward the law school, and unhappiness with career choices. All of this, in turn, undercuts interest in classes.
All of the above factors influence student behavior in yet another way. They tend to lead students to “practical” activities. These include skills-related courses such as trial advocacy, negotiation, mediation, client counseling and clinics; advocacy and other skills practice through moot court competition; and working part-time for a law firm. Many of these activities are time consuming. When students make choices in allocating their time, preparation for and attendance of the traditional classes often receive short shrift.
Of course, this bent toward the “practical” is not in-and-of-itself a bad thing. As the job market tightens, more graduates go into small firms and solo practice. These students do not have the luxury of the large firm “apprenticeship” system that trains the new graduate in practical skills. Therefore, they need to obtain all of the skills training they can in law school.
About the Author
Paul Barron. Professor of Law, Tulane Law School.
Citation
70 Tul. L. Rev. 1881 (1996)