The Shark

are law students scared of the internet?

[brian lauter]

Last week I wrote an item about Advanced Advocates, a social media website that is basically Facebook for law students. I invited all of you to be my AA friends, but, judging by the number of email notifications I’ve been receiving, I’m either not very popular, or the service is not catching on. I think it’s the latter this time.

It doesn’t matter, because there are plenty of other social media options out there.  The real problem law students are encountering, according to Laura Bergus over at the Social Media Law Student blog, is how to go Web 2.0 without destroying their prospective careers.

Apparently, some law school career services centers have been telling their students to remove themselves from social media websites to prevent potential employers from discovering all of the horrific drunken pictures they’ve been tagged in.

Since abstention from social media is completely unrealistic in this day and age, Ms. Bergus came up with what the Law School Innovation blog dubbed Social Media Best Practices for Law Schools (part 1 and part 2).

Ms. Bergus actually wrote her items back in February, but I was reminded of them last week when I joined LinkedIn and accidentally sent out invitations to every single person whose email address has ever appeared in my Gmail account.

Unfortunately, the Social Media Best Practices for Law Schools items don’t explain how to avoid my situation. They do, however, provide some useful tips for keeping those youthful indiscretions private and convincing some poor, unwitting employer to take a chance on you.

Check out the items, then hit me up on TweetLaw and let me know what you think.

reading law professors the riot act: get those grades in, ma'ams and sirs.

[brian lauter]

The first thing I noticed, 1L year, about law school grades was how long it took to get them.  The second thing I noticed about law school grades was how bad they were.  Just kidding...

Finals usually end in mid-to-late-December, and grades at most law schools don't come in until mid-to-late January.  Fair or not, this is just a fact of life for most law students.  George Washington University Law School, however, is pushing its students' patience (and anxiety) to the brink this year.

Yesterday, the Blackbook Legal Blog reported that some GW students have still not received grades from last semester.  That's right, an entire section of 1Ls has been waiting for Crim grades for over 100 days.  As a Blackbook commenter noted, second semester finals at GW start in three weeks.

And this isn't the first time GW has tested it's students late-grade tolerance.  Back, in February (week six of second semester), Nota Bene reported that two elective classes had yet to receive their grades.

I know that professors are busy people, and that it's important that they grade carefully and accurately, but that argument only goes so far.  Most professors teach one, maybe two, classes a semester.  How long can it really take to grade 50 finals?  Even 100?  And why does it take so long to report Scantron tests?

Late grades hurt students' employment opportunities, but what they say about professors' priorities is the real slap-in-the-face.  Student tuition pays professors' salaries; grading should be their first priority, from the time students finish the final, until the last grade is reported.

I think most professors take their grading duties seriously and approach them with the reluctant diligence we expect, but maybe it's time to start punishing those that don't.  A few years ago, Florida State set strict grading deadlines and (illegally?) started fining professors $10 for every grade they turned in late.  The plan seems to have worked there.  Something for GW to consider?

3Ls take advantage of that useless year by parodying the uselessness of law school.

[brian lauter]

We’ve been posting a lot of gloomy employment content lately, most of it about 3Ls getting offers rescinded and having trouble finding jobs. It’s important to remember, however, that being a 3L isn’t all bad.

3Ls have their pick of classes; they’ve already “streamlined” their study techniques; they’ve attained leadership positions in extracurricular activities that allow them to pass grunt work down the ladder; and they often have money from their 2L summer to throw around.

And let’s not forget the biggest perk of 3L year: a whole lot of free time.

The primary product of this extra free time, at least during the spring semester, seems to be law school video parodies, many of which are made available on YouTube.

Today’s YouTube Video of the Day is actually on Vimeo and comes from the kids at NYU Law Revue (lyrics transcribed here).

Please Repeat the Question from Amanda Bakale on Vimeo.

Just can’t wait for more? A week or so ago Bitter Lawyer compiled a list of five law school related YouTube videos.  A few of them are pretty good.

here come the symposia.

[brian lauter]

It’s almost spring in the northern hemisphere (sorry southern hemisphere, you’ll have to wait until September) and that means it’s law school symposia season.

Last Friday, the UC Davis Law Review held a well-received symposium on the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Among the many notable attendees were Professor Diane Amann of IntlLawGrrls and Deborah Pearlstein of Opinio Juris, both former Stevens clerks.

The symposium, which featured a broad discussion of Justice Stevens’ life and work, was taped by CSPAN for later broadcast and will soon be available on UC Davis’ iTunes site as well as the UC Davis Law Review website.

UCLA School of Law also hosted its 33^rd Annual UCLA Entertainment Symposium last week. The two-day event featured presentations by Harry E. Sloan, the CEO of MGM, and Peter Bart, Editor-in-Chief of Variety.

In upcoming symposia news, Santa Clara University School of Law will host a symposium March 13 and 14 (this Friday and Saturday) entitled “The Future of Criminal Justice.” Speakers will address the prosecutions of Omar al-Bashir, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and Augusto Pinochet.

Finally, Berkeley Law will hold its spring 2009 symposium March 12 and 13 (tomorrow and Friday) entitled “Beyond Law’s Divide: Effective Strategies for Redress in the 21^st Century.” Speakers will discuss new theories and practices for redress in the new century.

free food thieves are among you. they may even be you.

[brian lauter]

Yesterday’s item about law school free lunch etiquette got me thinking. Last year, Abony talked about “free food guilt” – the feeling of responsibility and remorse one gets after violating one’s moral duty to not let perfectly good food go to waste.

I understand her point, but when I read “free food guilt,” that’s not the first thing I thought of. Free food guilt to me, is the feeling of responsibility and remorse one gets after taking free food provided in connection with an event without attending said event.

Free food guilt affects most of us, forcing us to make a crucial decision: forgo a free lunch or risk an hour of boredom. It’s the wallet or the mind, and since we’re talking about people who voluntarily chose to go to law school, I think the decision is pretty easy for most.

Some, however, choose to have their free lunch and eat it to. Shunning the lunchtime social contract, they simply take a plate and leave. There seem to be a couple of techniques for free food thievery (let’s just call it what it is, nevermind the paradoxical implications).

Some free food thieves prefer the Confidence method: they wait patiently in line, nonchalantly pick up a few food items at the table and then mill about, talking to event hosts and their friends. You may notice, however, that they tend to keep to the back of the room. This isn’t a coincidence. Once the event starts, take a look around. They’re gone.

Others prefer the bolder Smash and Grab method: they spot a friend toward the front of the line and wait with them for a minute, pile their plates to the brim with whatever is available, and then walk purposefully away, avoiding all eye contact.

As cunning and ruthless as free food thieves seem, do not assume that they are immune to the free food guilt described above. Although free food thieves do not let free food guilt govern their behavior, many past free food thieves admit that gnawing free food guilt is something they continue to wrestle with weeks, months, even years later.

hungry law student? take charge. start that second line.

[brian lauter]

As we’ve noted previously here at The Shark, free food is an important part of law school. On any given day there are likely several lunchtime events or meetings at your school offering a wide variety of complimentary pizza.

Professor Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy has also noticed the importance of free food at law school and, earlier this week, took a courageous stand against bad buffet table layouts.

Professor Volokh’s simple tip – put the table in the middle of the room instead of against the wall so two feeding lines can form – is wise. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen huge lines form because tables are smashed against the wall.

As with any good business plan, consumer awareness is vital. Several times during my law school career I’ve seen food tables set up to allow for two lines only being utilized by one line. In these situations I usually walk right to the front and begin the second line. My rationale is that the first person to think of the fairly obvious step of forming a second line is probably also the hungriest.

Commenters to Professor Volokh’s post also had some good food table tips:

· Have cream/sugar and coffee on separate tables so those who are adding condiments don’t hold up the coffee line

· Have salads and desserts separate from the main food line

· Place napkins and utensils at the end of the buffet line so people will have their hands free for loading their plates

· Have one line for every 50 people you anticipate

These all make sense, unless you’re the host and you’re just trying not to run out of food.

pass/fail: coming to a fourth tier law school near you.

[brian lauter]

Ready for a bold, largely unsupported prediction?

Within the next 10 the majority of U.S. law schools will switch to non-letter grading systems.

Yesterday TaxProf Blog mentioned some statistics from Law Quadrangle that highlight the results of law school grade inflation in the last 50 years. Check out the TaxProf Blog link for colorful charts and Garrison Keillor references, but here are a couple of highlights indicative of the trend:

· In the 1950s, the mean law school GPA was 2.53. In the early 2000s, it was 3.28.

· In the 1950s, 1% of law school students graduated with a 3.5 GPA or higher. In the early 2000s, 26% did.

· In the 1950s, 18% of law students graduated with between a 3.0 and 3.49 GPA. In the early 2000s, 61% did.

A while back, when top ten law schools were one by one switching away from letter grading systems, I joked about transposing my law school transcript into Super Honors/Honors/Pass/Low Pass/Substandard Pass/Restricted Credit/Fail format (I think I ended up with a Pass + GPA).

The joke was that my law school would never be able to switch to non-letter grading because it isn’t ranked high enough. The conventional wisdom is that only high ranked schools can afford to switch to non-letter grading systems because employers already assume their graduates are of superior quality. Lower ranked schools still have to find ways to allow employers to differentiate the good students from the bad.

My question is: At what point do law school letter grades become so inflated that they convey even less information to employers than non-letter grading systems?

If nearly a third of law school students graduate with a 3.5 GPA or higher, and 61% graduate with a GPA between 3.0 and 3.5, it seems unlikely that letter grades really help employers sort out good and bad prospects any better than non-letter grades.

Considering that grade inflation is likely to continue, I think its going to become easier and easier for lower ranked schools to justify getting rid of inflation-tarnished letter grading systems and switching to Honors/Pass/Fail style systems.

I just picked 10 years because it sounded good, but I do think these changes may not be far off. Pass/Fail isn’t just for Yale anymore.

aw, give the little gunner a break.

[brian lauter]

Yesterday's Courtoon hits gunners where it hurts most: grades.

Gunners get a bad rap. I mean yeah they’re annoying, but if it wasn’t for them you would never snap out of your laptop-induced daze to listen to what is actually going on in class.

Think about it from their standpoint. They’ve spent hours and hours preparing off-topic ingenious arguments and tangential meaningful stories that they’re now willing to share free of cost with you, the unwilling public. Is it too much to expect a little gratitude and admiration in return? Yes.

Think about that the next time you break out your gunner bingo card. If you still can.

wanted: scholar-king adept at indoctrination and soliciting money from dummies.

[brian lauter]

***Now Hiring***

North American law schools seek ambitious, attractive applicants for well-paid law school dean positions. Applicants must possess superior fundraising abilities and should enjoy working with numbers.

Looking for a challenge? These positions are perfect for doctrinaire, socially awkward law professors looking to test their complete ignorance of administrative leadership against the practical realities of running a large institution of learning!

Ideal candidates will have no ties to the hiring schools, but will have held quasi-prestigious positions at higher ranked schools.

Ability to relate to students will be considered, but, be assured, students will have no idea what your responsibilities actually are. Demonstrated dedication to ignoring student pleas for more practical legal education is also a plus.

27 positions available. Law schools reserve the right to revoke employment at any time. All positions begin upon completion of extensive background check.

Conservatives need not apply.

and here we thought the great law school hoax is that you'll learn how practice law.

[brian lauter]

If you’re in law school, you probably know about law school debt.  What you probably didn’t know, but maybe suspected, is that you’re a victim “of an unfolding education hoax on the middle class that’s just as insidious, and nearly as sweeping, as the housing crisis.”

"Who is the purveyor of this hyperbole?" you might ask.  Well, its “the capitalist tool” herself, Kathy Kristof, writing for Forbes Magazine.  In an article entitled “The Great College Hoax” appearing in the February 2 edition of Forbes, Ms. Kristof unloads on our beloved institutions of higher learning.

First, she slams the “education industrial complex” that has “cultivated the image of college as a sure-fire path to a life of social and economic privilege.”  

Then, she moves on to law school.  Paraphrasing Professor Richard Sander of UCLA Law, she argues that law schools “lure in minority students to improve their diversity rankings without disclosing that less than half of African-Americans who enter these programs ever pass the bar,” and that law schools “goose employment statistics.”

Professor Sander and Ms. Kristof actually make a good point regarding the employment statistics.  We know law schools game employment numbers to improve their U.S. News rankings, but I wonder if any stop to think about misleading effect their “patently spurious” statistics may be having on incoming students.  As Professor Sander says, it does sound a lot like a conspiracy “tinged with consumer fraud.”

All of this should lead the average, debt-ridden law school student to one big I-can’t-believe-I-didn’t-think-of-this-sooner conclusion:  Forget a lifetime of loan payments.  Fraud, misrepresentation, unfair competition – these are your tickets to financial freedom.  Sue your school.  You might win, and if you don’t, maybe they’ll give you a couple of externship units for the effort.