Nathaniel Rattansey (1L)
It’s freaking October is the first thought that comes to mind as I write this piece—and by the time many of you read this it will be November. Take a moment to let that sink in (for my not so sentimental peers you can fast forward this part). Super clichéd statement ahead disclaimer: but it seems like only yesterday where I was standing in line with my fellow ‘glawdiators’ registering for O-week activities. This semester has been moving at a blistering pace and it’s shocking that we have already reached the halfway mark. What better a moment to reflect on my adventures so far?
“Think like a Lawyer”
Let’s start at the beginning shall we? Some of my peers have already written wonderful articles on the O-week activities and I’ll limit my discussion here to my classroom experiences. I have to admit when I first found out that law school was going to be starting two weeks earlier my initial reaction was something along the lines of: “I lose two weeks of August AND I’m paying 31k for fees? What kind of twisted place is this??!”
This was the first year that the administration instituted the two-week ‘Legal Methods Intensive’, aimed at training students to ‘think like lawyers’. Did the course live up to its lofty goals? Let’s just say I didn’t come out feeling like Harvey Specter. However I think the course was invaluable in introducing us to the various areas of law along with teaching us the basic skills in analyzing cases and writing briefs. Whether or not by design, the cases we read were interesting (is a mushroom a vegetable??) and I definitely started seeing the world around me in a new light. It also felt strange writing an exam to end the course; but it did give us a teaser of what to expect in December…
Students may grumble at the mandatory nature of the course. For example, I recall conversations with some students about how the course seriously hampered their ability to maintain their full-time employment until the end of summer. For these people, those two weeks were precious because it meant losing a paycheck—and with a hefty debt load, these are no doubt valid concerns. Others may have had to plan their vacations earlier in the summer or entirely forgo that all-inclusive trip to Mexico.
I truly think the overall benefit of the course has to be weighed against these other considerations. Yes, the two-week intensive cut our summer short; but it was (relatively) painless and gave us a solid foundation to tackle our first real courses in September.
“You guys are taking _______ right??!” (Insert tort/contracts/constitutional/property/criminal here).
Usually the above question is accompanied by a sporadic show of hands followed by an awkward silence. We stare out our professors blankly, they in turn chuckle or shake their head in disapproval—and then we all dive right back into whatever it was that lead us astray from the yellow brick road. It is in these moments where we are reminded that up until this year, 1Ls of the past had to endure courses all year long. Obviously there’s an argument to be made that the previous system is better insofar as it provides students with a more complete picture of the legal system. There is no doubt considerable overlap among the various areas of law—and learning six substantive courses throughout the year can provide students with a richer, deeper understanding of how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
Maybe it’s just me but….
Clearly as a 1L, I lack any prior reference point on this issue. The more pressing concern I have with the current semester system so far, lies in how we are being evaluated aside from our small groups. If one of the reasons moving to the semesterized system was designed to alleviate student stress as outlined by an article written for this newspaper (“To Semesterize or Not to Semesterize”, February/2014), I am not too sure if this goal is being realized since we must contend with the fact that the exams we write in December are for real. We currently do not have a formal benchmark to assess our understanding of the course material until the actual exam. One of the downsides of moving to the semester system seems to be that we do not have the luxury of writing an ungraded exam in December like the 1Ls of prior years. There in that scenario if the unthinkable happens—you know the scenario where we fail to reach our HH standards—at least we have another shot at perfecting our exam writing in April.
Furthermore, in discussions with my peers, it is curious as to why some courses have some form of midterm review session (in the style of a take-home exam/practice question or an in-class practice midterm) while other courses did not. Sure, we have an exam writing session set aside in Legal Research and Writing (LRW). But for me, this comes too late in the year. While we do get a whole a day set aside to tackle the finer aspects of exam writing and yes, we do receive the last year’s “top responses”—this is only valuable insofar as we have had the time and the opportunities to develop our writing to meet the expectations of the faculty.
Barring the exam session in LRW, the only simulated test-like for many students situation will have been the exam written in August during the intensive. Would it not be beneficial if all of the large section courses had some method of evaluation like an in class midterm that is ungraded but feedback is given on our professor’s expectations? In prior years professors marked two exams per course (December and April) and the question lies as to why this can’t be translated into the semester system.
In a content heavy semester, there is the countervailing argument that having midterms for our courses would in fact create an undergraduate-style environment. We all too well remember the dreaded month of October during those times—and moving to a full blown midterm system may negate any stress-relieving benefits premised by the new semesterized system. And hey maybe the lack of these opportunities isn’t a concern at all among a large majority of 1Ls and maybe I’m the only mad man screaming foul. (Shush 1L, either go through the fire like everyone else or there’s the door).
Moving forward, I think the challenge lies in finding an appropriate method of gauging student progress throughout the semester. While it may not be feasible to have simulated in-class style midterms, I do think it would be valuable if professors–consistently across the large group sections–provide opportunities for students to test their mastery of the material. This can take on the form of practice questions after every substantive section or even a take-home midterm that can be reviewed in class. Here, at least we would get a sense of what our professors expect of us and it would allow us to practice writing a solid exam answer. At the end of the day it should be about putting students in the best position to succeed and I think these suggestions implemented uniformly across our large sections would be incredibly useful.
Overall, I have to say these last two months have been exciting and intellectually rewarding. Between classes and extracurriculars (pub nights count right?) I have thoroughly enjoyed my law experience so far. In the next coming months I hope to share some more observations of our 1L year—stay tuned!
