>For me the most beneficial/ transferable experience I had was being an
intercollegiate debater. In both in debate and on law school exams one had to
organize arguments logically and rapidly, and quickly gather supporting data
and examples. Beyond debate, I recommend a couple of business law courses, a
course in logic or philosophy, a couple of accounting courses and a government
internship as beneficial.
I certainly wish that I had taken a couple of business law courses BEFORE
attending law school. Business law courses help one to
- familiarize herself/himself with legal terminology and the "forest" into
which the "trees" of first year law school are sewn
- determine taste and aptitude for legal reasoning and a discipline which
spends more time balancing merits of various legal principles and arguing
shades of gray than in reaching finite answers (Many business majors have
little tolerance for this.)
- determine a taste or tolerance for the tediousness and process of legal
research
- understand law in the context of business applications
Whether one takes additional legal courses, pursues a legal studies minor (in
business or political science) is a matter of personal choice. Major in
something one likes (and hopefully has some marketability). Not everyone who
wants to go to law school can do so successfully (because of lack of financial
resources, time or psychologically/or family stamina). The legal studies
minor might serve them well and allow them to participate in the legal process
as a paralegal or government agency employee.
Carol Miller
===== Original Message From "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>ALSBers,
>
>Here at Syracuse we have a really awesome course entitled Intro. to the
>Legal System. It is more a LE course than a B-Law. It has never
>emphasized black letter rules, but is big on analysis and process. It is
>the required course for all Management students and some others across
>campus. I enjoy teaching it, even after twenty-something years of doing
>it. I wish I had had a course like this before I went to law school--not
>for the content, but to demystify that first year. I was pretty clueless
>through most of it. A former student just wrote to say that the course
>put her "at ease" in the early days of law school. However, she quickly
>added that three weeks into the first year, the "at ease" time was over.
>I think that is the message we should give our law school-bound
>students. A course or two may give you a taste of what you are in for.
>If you hate our courses, you probably aren't going to like law school.
>Our courses might give you an idea of the jargon and the process of law,
>but law schools are going to tear you down and build you up in their own
>image.
>
>
>That said, I also don't think students aiming for law school should load
>up on law courses as undergraduates for all the reasons I've seen posted
>to this list. Time was when we had a major here. We tried to dissuade
>anyone who was heading for law school from majoring in Law & Public
>Policy. Most ignored us ("It's the only thing I like," they would say)
>and most of them got into law school. Maybe law school admissions people
>are a little more open-minded than they used to be. I still think the
>better advice is to guide students toward econ., logic, music
>appreciation--anything that will sharpen their reasoning ability and
>make them better citizens of life. But tell that to a twenty-year-old
>whose idea of long-range planning is to get into law school next year .
>. . no matter what.
>
>
>P.S. I recently heard that Poli. Sci. is out as a "good" major for
>getting into law school and that econ. and business are in. Who decides
>this stuff?
>
>
>Fran
>
>
>Kenneth Schneyer wrote:
>
>
> As some of you may remember (although I myself sometimes wish to
>forget), I presented a paper (poster presentation, actually) on
>preparation for law school 'way back at the Quebec conference. The
>paper was the result of my two-year effort to create an
>"interdisciplinary legal studies" major as preparation for law school.
>I learned some things which have proved very valuable since:
>
>* Regardless of the level of quality (i.e., not being black-letter
>law) we imagine our courses to have, law school faculty (and
>consequently law school admissions officers) continue to believe
>(rightly or wrongly) that undergraduate law courses give students bad
>habits they have to "unlearn" in law school. This gives a candidate
>with a lot of undergraduate law courses a competetive disadvantage when
>compared to, say, an applicant with a lot of undergraduate mathematics
>or philosophy courses.
>* To some extent the criticisms are (still) justified -- but it's
>not really our fault. The orientation of lawyers to legal topics isn't
>(or shouldn't be) the orientation of businesspersons or the general
>public to legal topics. Put differently, if you're teaching your
>business students as though they were law students you're probably doing
>them a major disservice. Only lawyers think that "thinking like a
>lawyer" is always (or even usually) a plus. But students tend to carry
>on the mode of thought or analysis they learned early on in their
>training in any field. I still tend to approach philosophical topics,
>for example, in the way I was taught to in my first introductory
>philosophy course (albeit with a hopefully greater level of
>sophistication); ditto for economics. Thus, students given extensive
>law courses in undergraduate school will (naturally) tend to carry on
>their non-lawyer modes of thought into law school.
>* Apart from grades, difficulty of courses and LSAT scores, law
>school admissions officers look for various factors that make students
>interesting or unusual and will thus give them added perspective on
>their legal training. The single topic that is least likely to give
>that extra, unusual spice is legal studies. Even cooking courses are
>better for this purpose!
>* The "you've read your last good book" and "gather ye rosebuds"
>arguments are still true a large extent. Law school is often awfully
>narrow -- why narrow yourself two years earlier than you have to?
>* Pre-law and criminal justice students still have the lowest
>average LSAT scores of all majors. (Math & science students tend to
>score highest.)
>* Law students need a lot of good preparation in writing, logic
>and analytical reasoning. Some legal studies courses provide these
>things to some extent, but not to the extent, say, of equivalent courses
>in English, Philosophy and Mathematics.
>* On the other hand, there's no question that one or two
>undergraduate business law or legal environment courses can be a
>valuable "weeding" device to help students determine whether they even
>like law. A student who finishes Legal Evironment I having realized
>that she detests contracts, torts, constitutional law and property will
>hopefully have realized that life is too short to waste in law school.
>Contrariwise, the undergraduate economics & law course I took (which
>involved the close reading of several unabridged Supreme Court cases)
>let me know that I had a taste for law -- that is, I loved reading the
>cases!
>
>I continue to tell my students who want to go to law school to take no
>more undergraduate law courses and to focus on other things that will
>make them more interesting.Ta,Ken
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [log in to unmask] [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
><mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
>Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 7:49 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Legal environment option as law school prep?
>
>Twenty years ago I would have urged the law-school bound student to take
>logic, writing, history, political theory, basically under the theory
>that they will get plenty of law in law school and ought to broaden
>themselves while they can ("Welcome to law school. You've read your last
>good book."). And maybe I still would, on an individual basis.
>
>But for general advice, now I have a different view. Undergraduate law
>courses are not all rule-based in the way they seemed to be 20 years
>ago. Moreover, undergraduates seem more inclined to fill electives with
>golf, marriage and family, etc. sorts of courses (altho I supposed both
>golf and marriage and the family are not unrelated to the practice of
>law), and the broader sorts of courses we teach, especially if ethics
>and negotiations and international law are included and if written work
>product is required, may do more for their general intellectual
>development than the options they might select.
>
>
>In the undergraduate committee recently the finance department was
>advancing the argument that it made more sense for students to get
>academic credit for internships at investment firms (part-time school
>year jobs) than to use the credits taking golf. I pointed out that they
>did not have to take golf, that they could take a foreign language or a
>writing course or a political theory course or an advanced statistics
>course. Eyes rolled. Business student elective selections sometimes are
>not inspiring.
>
>
>Now I would not discourage a law-school bound student from taking more
>business law; it might be the most intellectual and demanding course he
>or she might be likely to select. Also, the proposed language makes it
>sound as thought business law courses are something that will *damage*
>the student.
>
>
>I know I am leaving myself open to funny comments about UF students,
>lounging in the sun and all, but I suspect it is not just Florida
>students looking for easy electives (altho not all students everywhere
>could be lounging in the sun all year as they are here). Subliminal
>message: Come to Florida this winter; we need your tax money).
>
>
>Ginny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>David Reitzel <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
><[log in to unmask]>
>10/07/2001 04:17 PM MST
>Please respond to "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
>
>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>cc:
>bcc:
>Subject: Re: Legal environment option as law school prep?
>
>
>
>
>Thanks, Marsha. I too wish I had taken a business law course before
>taking the LSAT way back when. I had neither a business law course nor a
>business degree. My real question, though, given that I accept and
>advocate a business law course (or two) as beneficial to law-school
>bound students, is whether the 15 units of law courses beyond
>our business core course (BA 18) should displace 15 hours of science,
>philosophy, English literature, engineering, non-law business studies,
>and the like.
>
>
>
>Marsha Hass wrote: It is my experience that _initially_ a student who
>has had a business law course _does_ have an advantage over a student
>who has not had a business law class. That advantage is short-lived but
>is nonetheless of use. Further, I think that as the student progresses
>through law school a good business law background does provide a
>perspective sometimes NOT available through the law professors and
>non-business majors. As a practicing attorney, I was thankful that I
>had obtained my MBA - and thus had a "business" perspective. I wish
>that I had, indeed, taken a business law course as an undergrad. Seeing
>a "bigger picture" might have helped me through the minutia.Marsha
>----- Original Message -----
>From: David <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Reitzel
>To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:19 PM
>Subject: Legal environment option as law school prep?
> ALSB Members:
>
>
>A question surprising to me has come up as my department at Fresno State
>(Finance and Business Law) reviews our Legal Environment option: Is the
>option appropriate for students planning to enter law school? I think
>not and have so advised my students, since throughout my now long
>professional life, I have accepted the law school counsel that
>undergraduates preparing for law school should concentrate on non-law
>academics to develop their reasoning and writing skills, and to acquire
>a deeper knowledge of the world of which law is a part. Accordingly, I
>advise truly law-school-bound students to limit their undergraduate law
>studies to whatever law courses their majors may require (though
>pointing out that such courses may, in fact, be at least marginally
>helpful for LSAT purposes).
>
>
>I've been confident of this position. Others on the faculty seem less
>so, and one stated that "many [some?] of our colleagues [presumably ALSB
>colleagues] would say that David is wrong." Hence, my questions to the
>ALSB membership: Is the business school's legal environment option
>appropriate as preparation for law school? If it is, why? (For purposes
>of discussion, please assume that our law courses are well-taught, focus
>on relevant policy, and give due attention to business functions,
>including consumer interests).
>
>
>Of what does our option consist? Beyond the four-unit BA 18 ("Business
>and the Legal Environment") in the general business core, the option
>requires the following coursework:
>
>
> (1) Three required business law courses (9 semester units). They
>are:
>
>
> BA 150, Law and Business Activity (UCC topics with property
>as intro).
> BA 151, Law of Business Organizations.
> BA 155, Government Regulation and Control of Business.
>
>
> (2) Two electives (6 units) from the following:
>
>
> BA 101, Business Ethics.
> BA 154, Real Estate Law.
> BA 156, Labor Law (not taught for many years).
> BA 160, Estate Planning.
> BA 163, E-Legal: Technology Law (new course, title in
>doubt).
> HRM 157, Legal Aspects of Human Resource Management (labor
> and employment law).
> BA 177, Legal Environment of World Commerce.
>
>
> (3) Approved upper division courses (9 units).
>
>
>Currently, I intend to propose a catalog disclaimer for our legal
>environment option, somewhat as follows: THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OPTION
>IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR STUDENTS PREPARING FOR LAW SCHOOL. IN
>CONSULTATION WITH THEIR PRE-LAW ADVISORS, STUDENTS INTENDING TO ENTER
>LAW SCHOOL SHOULD CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OF PREPARATORY
>STUDIES. A convincing rationale that favors the option as law-school
>preparation may convince me to tone down the disclaimer or drop it.
>
>
>I'll greatly appreciate comments, supportive of my position or not. If
>you want to comment but prefer not to "go public," please e-mail me at
>[log in to unmask] I'll not reveal your identity.
>
>
>--
>Yours,
>
>
>David Reitzel
>Professor of Business Law
>Sid Craig School of Business
>California State University, Fresno
>
>
>
>--
>Yours,
>
>
>David Reitzel
>Professor of Business Law
>Sid Craig School of Business
>California State University, Fresno
|
