If they want to teach law students how be professional, they ought to have a “legal marketing” class. Because if you can make enough rain, you sure as hell don’t need to be at most of those early am firm meetings, though you should be prompt for tee off.

As for being unfair to students in class, either going to class is a plus or it is not. If cold calling is good academics, greater frequency should be even better. Also, every other academic institution says the smaller the class the better. Why are bigger classes for law school suddenly desirable? Those going to class are the beneficiaries of a higher faculty-student ratio courtesy of the no-shows.

While I overstated the case earlier, when students do not come to a class, professors might very well take it personally as a reflection on their teaching. And, from the comments, it seems that at least some of them should. Deeming the students “unprofessional” is a lot easier psychologically than facing the possibility that their pedagogical skills are deficient or superfluous.

The one good point is that class participation may demonstrate skills not measured by the exam. But attendance is hardly a stand-in for participation, much less the quality of any participation that takes place. What if the offending student engages in stellar participation on the occasions he/she is in class? The silent backbencher is still valued more highly. If one seriously wanted to pick up an oral skills dimension, it could be done more formally and with greater accuracy by having the panel grade moot court performance. This is far more objective, and allows the reticent equal time with the loquacious.

Finally, the idea that making it to class promptly and without fail is a requirement for the legal profession can only come from people who have not been out there for a while. Lawyers are perennially and famously running late, rescheduling appointments, seeking to extend filing deadlines etc. Sit in court one day for status hearings. Statuses are frequently missed, and judges will then reschedule without blinking an eye.

The notion that sleeping through constitutional law means that one will not show up for jury selection or an important meeting is extremely far-fetched. How many don’t show for the exam? Show me the studies that show that students who missed more than X classes are late for more meetings or miss more court calls than other lawyers. How many of them are fired for non-professionalism? Come on. This is a non-problem driven by professorial hurt pride. They should learn that in the professional world, you need a thicker skin.

That said, I think attendance policies get harder to justify in pure lecture courses, where I feel it really is up to the student to determine how they, as an individual, can best devote their time to learning the material.

I went to a “top five” law school. After my first semester I rarely went to class. (This is because I fell in love with moot court.) While I did not graduate at the “top of my class” (no rank published), if the reported curve was correct (who knows), I was in the top 25% based on my average grade.

Now, it does seem to me that class is invaluable for the first semester. But after that, much of it is same tune, different words, as GeeGuy points out.

The only reason not to allow a student who has missed “too many” classes to sit for the exam is the fear that he will pass anyway, or worse, do well. But such a result would conclusively disprove that strict class attendance was necessary in the first place.

I think professors who demand attendance are exhibiting self-importance that smacks of insecurity. That is, they desperately need to believe that their teaching is more than merely valuable to mastering the material. To prop up their egos, they need to believe it is indispensable. They cannot demonstrate this through the exam itself, so they do it by fiat. Alas for them, they will still be self-important and insecure.

Finally, I think compulsory attendence will do a disservice to those who do attend classes perfectly, and get good grades by dint of their rapt attention, careful notes and hard work. Coercing those with lesser dedication to attend class at the same rate will lessen the high-attendance students’ competitive advantage by forcing the curve upwards–unless, of course, compulsory attendance rules provide zero benefit. So, at best, an attendence policy either benefits the unworthy at the expense of the worthy, or has no academic benefit whatever.

BUT. For four reasons, I am on the way to changing my mind. First, law students are adults, but they are entering a field that makes certain demands on them. It isn’t unreasonable for law school to teach something about professionalism. In their jobs, they will have to attend meetings they don’t want to attend and do things they don’t want to do. Law school is a great place to start for that.

Second, for professors who cold-call (I do not), students who choose to attend are penalized by those who do–if you don’t attend, the prof can’t call on you.

Third, students in their first semester do not have the information necessary to determine whether class is worth their time.

Finally, there are additional externalities here. More students in class fosters better class discussion.

I am still on the fence, but these are the pro- arguments.

Customer is somewhat more complex in this context, isn’t it? Can you also buy the grades you desire? Can you actually buy a degree or do you have to pay cash and also perform according to stated requirements?

Customer is somewhat more complex in this context, isn’t it? Can you also buy the grades you desire? Can you actually buy a degree or do you have to pay cash and also perform according to stated requirements?

After the first half year or so, though, once I started to understand the analysis of issues, I found that more and more I could grasp the material simply by studying it on my own.

Most of what we learned in law school and what we do as lawyers is not really that complex. I think that, for the most part, success is based not on the rules, but our ability to think our way through them and analyze the issues they create. I suppose that could be taught, but it was not, for the most part, taught by the classes I attended.

That said, I agree with DF Crane. Indeed, I’ll go one farther. I sometimes didn’t buy the case books, and I never actually read them, because the authors, too, were too absorbed in their own musings to actually focus on the basics. Profs tended toward the other extreme, laboring with dopes who shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place while the rest of us dreamed of lunch.

Perhaps my view is jaded, however, as I actually practiced law as an associate all through–and even before–law school.

Frequency the professors were WEEKS behind on their syllabus (if they ever handed one out). Often they just let the class discussion ramble with no point or desire to reign the class in.

In 1st year Torts I realized that I had read too far ahead of the professor (half way between where he was and where his syllabus said he should be) and that I had no clue what the case was about. I had done the work and felt penalized for it. I left during the break (2hr class). I spent th rest of the semester in the library reading Torts (outlines, flash card, restatements) on my own.

I pretty much did the same thing for the other classes once I started in Torts. At the end of 1L I was 4th in my class. I never looked back.

Although there were 5 professors who I considered it worth my valuable time to attend. They made it worth attending. So, I attended their classes.

Law school is graduate school. While most of the my fellow students may have acted like children, by the time you reach grad school it is really time to treat people like adults.

In conclusion, I felt that the level of instruction in my law school was so lacking that I felt ripped off. My company paid $100k to send me to law school. I paid nothing, and yet I feel I paid too much for the instruction I was provided.

Everyone’s a winner at Law Schools Where You Choose.

Oh

Whooo!

Aye

Yeah, yeah, yeaah

Oh

Hey

Ooh, ooh, yeah

It’s all about the choice.

It’s all about respect.

It all revolves about freedom.

We strive for excellence.

We strive for satisfaction.

There’s no confusion, it’s the student’s call.

The best to go to.

The best to be from.

That’s all it ever, every want ‘o be.

We’re not just talkin’. (No)

There’s no disputin’.

Don’t wanna grandmother me.

Everyone’s a winner at Law Schools Where You Choose.

(Everyone’s a winner. Oh yeah. Hey hey.)

When It’s Your Choice You Really Cannot Loose.

(All right. All right.)

The word is out. They’ve already paid their dies.

(We’re a happenin’ place. Oooh yeah.)

Everyone’s a winner at Law Schools Where You Choose.

Okay, it’s pretty bad. But that song is still stuck in my head sometimes.