The question is, should law school be teaching us competition in preparation for our careers? I think this question harks back in many ways to whether we think law school is a "vocational school." If you really think law school is just about making you into a good associate at X firm, then maybe depriving us of sleep and pitting us against one another early on is a great thing. But, if law school is about teaching you how to think critically about the law and getting you to thoroughly analyze the material that you're working with, then a system which discourages collaboration is antithetical to that idea.

-- KateVershov - 19 Feb 2008

-- AdamCarlis - 19 Feb 2008

Law firms pit their associates against each other? That would be an incredibly inefficient way to run any business/organization. I understand that at some firms the partners are out to get each other (some firms peg partner compensation directly to what their group brings in... works in sales organizations but seems like a bad idea at a law firm) but it would seem to me that the firm would want associates collaborating to improve the quality of the work product.

Or is the competition at the firm about who makes partner? It seems as though most associates quit the firm way before the 10 year mark... are they really so worried about a partnership competition that won't take place for 10 years that they are willing to burn their peers? I would find that surprising. But then, I also find it surprising that some students actually won't help others during exam time.

I think there are several reasons law schools use a curve... none of which have to do with training us: 1) Employers need some way to evaluate the students. The curve provides a very easy method for doing so.

2) The school wants a way to evaluate the students as well. Again, the curve and the tests we take are one way to do that.

3) This is how it has always been and it is what everyone does. It is difficult to resist that inertia.

-- SandorMarton - 20 Feb 2008