Federalism: Coming Soon To A Theater Near You
posted by Dan Filler
‘Tis the season for law school orientation. First years are brought in for several days of immersion in both “law” and “school”. For the first of many times, students are told about the three branches of government, the structure of court systems, and the relationship of states to the federal government. I figure that about 10% of this material will stick. That’s fine, however, since these themes surface again and again in most first year courses.
Orientation is also time to talk a little about the law school experience. We expose students to a bit of the Socratic Method, whatever that means in a law school circa 2006. We tell them that everyone makes mistakes in class, and that these errors are an essential part of the pedagogy. We urge students to tend to those ultra-competitive instincts. We remind them to prepare for class and, maybe, to brief cases. Naturally, there’s also a bit of the dog and pony show, as various clubs and organizations make their pitch for a few of those precious spare 1L hours.
In many cases, orientation focues on legal ethics. At Drexel this year, we showed students The Smartest Guy In The Room – a documentary about the fall of Enron – and had them ruminate over the meaning of it all.
But does orientation matter? That’s a question I’ve never fully resolved. In two or three or four days, we essentially provide trailers of the law school experience. Federalism Coming Soon To A Theater Near You. Perhaps the biggest value of orientation is exposure to the language of law. People walk away knowing what the legislative branch is. (I know – people used to learn this in high school. And some still do!) But I’m not sure whether students would do any worse if they showed up for class Monday morning, bright and early, completely flummoxed by Pennoyer v. Neff.
Perhaps the ethics piece is the big one. But here again, the cynic in me rises up. Somehow I doubt that the deceitful 1L will behave differently as a result of an hour of ethics “training.” Nor can we expect most students to walk out with a clear understanding of what attorneys may or may not do. Indeed, I don’t want them to think of these professional rules as any more fixed than the other rules we teach. After all, the duty of zealous advocacy is in tension with many other apsects of legal ethics. And if zealousness is disappearing as an ethical priority, is that a good thing? And what of the view that these rules are merely guild protection, an effective way of resisting state regulation?
Can we do without orientation? I’d love to hear others’ views – particularly the perspectives of current law students.
August 28, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Posted in: Law School (Teaching)
Print This Post
Responses (4)
Bubba - August 28, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Frankly, I believe that bear wrestling is the most important part of the orientation process…
Shrimp Boat - August 28, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Your orientation presentation on statutory analysis (what does a spill-proof container mean?) is still one of the funniest things I have ever seen.
Maryland Conservatarian - August 29, 2006 at 9:43 am
A conflicting tee time meant the only part of orientation I remember making was the evening reception…but that was worthwhile
LM - August 29, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Wow, well it looks like I missed out on all the fun during my 1L orientation. The closest thing we had to bear wrestling was a trip to the state courthouse. But even then, the bears didn’t wrestle so much as they did playfully swat at one another.
Other than that, my recollection of orientation has been whittled down to only two other memories: 1) a spoof done by the dean and a few upperclassmen, in which we were taught the dire consequences of failing to turn off our cell phones prior to class (and, I suppose, an underlying lesson on Respect); and 2) the importance of “professionalism” in the legal . . . profession.
The first point was well-taken . . . for about two weeks. After that, we were treated, daily, to 30-second interruptions by an ever-varietal ringtone, be it The Hatdance, Bach, or the Black-Eyed Peas.
The second point was, fortunately, more or less respected by members of my 1L class (that is, no one tore pages out of library books). (As a sidenote, perhaps the effectiveness of ethics “training,” as you called it, Dan, has a lot to do with the continual emphasis on ethics and professionalism. A one-time seminar on ethics probably isn’t enough to drive the point home.)
I have only a vague and hazy memory of discussing case briefs (and how to write them), but from what I can recall, this exercise probably wasn’t of much use — issue-spotting and case analysis aren’t easily taught in a day, or half-day, as the case may be.
I’m not sure that orientation should be done away with completely. I think it’s important to set the ground rules prior to the first day of classes. It’s also important for students to have a chance to meet other classmates and make their initial acquaintances before being thrown into the lion’s den. But perhaps this introduction to law school needn’t be covered over a span of 4-5 days. 2-3 days may suffice.
Leave a Reply