as to this hard/soft sciences issue: first, much of this argument seems to assume that our brains are identical and that we don’t have different mental strengths and weaknesses. that assumption is as silly as assuming that you are stupid if you don’t go to graduate school (or college for that matter). as a result these comparisons inevitably turn into career justification excercises. as a former lawyer and law teacher, i will say that lawyers and law students rountinely make the mistake of assuming that their skill set somehow marks them as smarter. it doesn’t. in my opinion, the problem is common in the legal world: if you are in it, you assume that everyone else wants to be in it. i encourage lawyers and law students to avoid confusing the need or desire for a lawyer with a desire to be a lawyer.

If those bodies were composed mostly of women, I could understand it, since there have only been a few women of distinction in the entire history of science and math. What we have in the judiciary and legislature are a bunch of clueless men.

How can we deal with issues like global warming, energy resources, stem-cell research and intellectual property if we continue to follow the lead of the inconoscenti?

I’ve noticed that many members of my cohort–those who took the bar and have actually continued to practice law–are a sorry lot, generally divorced, depressed, doped-up and denouncing law as a career for anyone, like their own children, that they actually care about!

As others have said, the plural of anecdote is not data. Law is not a low-pressure endeavor. So what? There are some low-pressure law jobs (we call them professorships and judgeships). There are people who can’t handle the pressure of working at a law firm and some who can. Denigrating the entirety of lawyers because you didn’t want to do it seems pointless at best.

Of course, I have short hair, no tattoos or piercings and enjoy what I do, so perhaps I am not the sort of person to whom your critique is directed. However, given your remarks, perhaps you should bag criticizing other people for pretension.

Law is not more or less difficult than math or science. In fact, I would argue that good legal analysis is as rigorous as any mathematical proof or scientific experiment (and having worked with some scientists, they can be hopelessly obtuse about the legal consequences of their actions). There are separate bodies of knowledge and there is no point in denigrating any of them

The “hard” in “Hard Science” does not really refer to the fact that math and science are opaque to lawyers, but rather that they are not wishy-washy “science” like psychology, sociology and anthropology, for example, in which experimental proof is elusive.

While it clearly does deal with human beings, law has no corner on “nuanced reasoning” as much as it does on posturing, up-dressing, ass-licking, political-correctness, and having the presentable spouse.

As a scientist, I take great solace in the fact that I can practice my art on the most remote planet, while the lawyer can’t even practice in the nearest state, let alone in a foreign country! Imagine rising to the top of your profession, as did Einstein in 1905, after proclaiming that you repudiate the religion, schools and patriotism that sickens your country!

i think the stats reflect 3L’s realizing that they don’t want to be in school, not that they don’t want to be lawyers. those guys left during the first or second years (unless they were using affirmative action scholarship money to finanace their lucrative software business). and, b/t/w, there is nothing “hard” about math or science. law is more difficult (and more interesting) because it involves human beings and nuanced reasoning, rather than robots, numbers and right answers. but maybe you’re right and i’m the exception: a happily married, tattooed, government attorney who would recommend the law as a profession to anybody who had a genuine interest in it (as opposed to an interest in big bucks and 6-month vacations).

I myself spent most of my 3rd year in 1982 writing software for big money and have continued the same, for bigger money ever since, averaging some 28 weeks vacation per year without looking back. In those days, law school was almost free (at UT Austin) and they gave me an Affirmative Action scholarship, so how could I refuse? Once accepted, I really didn’t have to study hard to get the JD degree. And anyone who can do science and math really has no business in the law, particularly when considering that you would be spending the rest of your professional career dealing exclusively with types like judges and legislators who are proven flunkies in hard science. (In my class of 140, there were only 3 hard scientists!)

I’ve noticed that many members of my cohort–those who took the bar and have actually continued to practice law–are a sorry lot, generally divorced, depressed, doped-up and denouncing law as a career for anyone, like their own children, that they actually care about!

I think that the third year should exist as a combination of bar preparation and clinical experience. It is ridiculous that law schools do not even pretend to prepare students for the bar exam or for actual practice. Why not use the much-reviled third year to correct these flaws in the system?

That said, I don’t think you can take this seriously because the methodology has to be questionable. Almost noone does pro bono work their first year, and as DJS noted, the first year is filled with required courses, so there are no opportunities for clinical work. Unless there’s some explanation of the questions asked in the article (which I can’t read, not being a subscriber), I’d say this is just page filler.

(60 hours isn’t enough time to learn much about the law, so I don’t think the third year is superfluous, unless you want to systematically strip out every interesting course and replace it with Wills & Trusts or Admin Law (jurisprudence, out; civil liberties, out, etc.).)