Grades for me have served to stand-in for concerted thought as to what I'm actually doing here. I have convinced myself that if my grades are good enough, I'll have options because a strong transcript resonates across different realms of employment (this is essentially the point Ben made today about the fear of having paths foreclosed). No matter what it is actually decide I want to do with my practice, I consoled myself that having a strong strong transcript wouldn't be a detriment. Probably that's true, at least in bureaucratic employment fields where such factors matter, but focusing on grades has meant that I've spent little time thinking about my purpose in earning this license. This makes it more likely that I'll funnel into EIP, because it's easy and because I haven't really thought about what I would do instead. Grades aren't the only reason I haven't set about designing an alternative, but they are a part of it.

-- JessicaWirth - 17 Apr 2012

-- AgnesPetrucione - 17 Apr 2012

Grades are our security blankets, especially for the younger ones of us. For the past twenty-something years, we’ve pushed to get the top grade, because that’s what mattered to the admissions committee of a college or law school. And suddenly, in our first year of law school, Eben suggests that we abandon this familiar system, so well engrained in our synaptic configurations. Of course we’re going to be afraid.

The school does not really provide any way for us to evaluate our ability to cover the costs of our loans outside the context of a large firm or the LRAP umbrella (does it?). Any evaluation that does not circle around the secure, familiar concept of grades seems risky and unfamiliar. So I guess the question I have is, how do you go about finding out how you would cover your loans if you don’t pawn off your license to someone?

-- KirillLevashov - 17 Apr 2012

Agnes, I really appreciate your points. I came into law school with generally the same mindset.

I think a lot of the power of grades, EIP, and Firm work (Capital F firm, meaning large corporate law firm) stems from the familiarity of the system. As Kirill mentioned, grades are part of that system that supposedly creates access to "prestige" or monetary security.

In my discussions with other students, I've been surprised by two common sentiments: Firm work as a means to pay back loans, and firm work as a way to get training. I've thought about both a lot and the more I consider how I'm going to go about making a practice - and a life, really - outside of the EIP/Firm structure is frankly, terrifying. Part of this is based on personal fear, but also how I perceive the barriers to creating that practice. For example, if I wanted to work at a smaller public interest law firm, I run into two issues.

One, the LRAP program is easier to access through non-profit or governmental work. Private work is covered if it services largely the same community as a non-profit or governmental organization (ie, indigent defense). But, that determination is made on a case by case basis. This really only adds more uncertainty to the mix. If you take on certain unrelated cases just to cover the rent/overhead, it's not clear how that will affect your eligibility for LRAP.

At the same time, I have to consider that working with lawyers in those smaller civil rights firms is itself an exercise in gaining access. Many people in those firms have varied backgrounds in non-profit and private sector work, but they don't hire new graduates at nearly the same rates and gigantic firms. Probably, because I would have no idea what the hell I was doing. So, I can understand the catch-22 of experience. At first glance, it seems like I either need to set aside my convictions and pawn my license or hope, pray, and scrap for a chance to get into the (cash-strapped, hiring freeze prone) non-profit/government world just so I can pay my loans under LRAP. Either way, it's not exactly a direct route to the practice I envisioned.

I know that it can't be that simple, and I know I need to use creativity to somehow make it all work out. At the moment however, it seems a bit daunting. r4 - 17 Apr 2012 - 20:38:07 - JacquelineRios?

Jessica- Thanks for the link. It is interesting to hear how students at other law schools are handling EIP, and that they are facing some of the same issues Columbia students are struggling with.

Agnes- Coming to law school, I wasn't aware of the prevalence of firms and actually thought that most students did not end up working at firms upon graduation. Although I hear your first point about people selling out at a firm for the training and then trying to transition to public interest, I question how far fetched this thinking is. Early in this course we talked about where the belief of needing to go to a firm first comes from. Some may say, the fact that students do not receive the training they need while in law school makes students take up work at a firm. Unfortunately, I do not think this idea is completely far-flung. There is the practical standpoint that many public interest employers take in regards to limited resources. To train a budding lawyer often requires time and money. Time and money are often limited resources for public interest employers. The few public interest attorneys that I have spoken with have actually suggested going to a firm first to gain experience and skills. But perhaps this is also a question of being able to cover one's nut? Similar to Jacqueline's point, perhaps it is possible to find a lesser known public interest gig that will pay less but is willing to invest in you- but I'd imagine those are hard extremely hard to come by.

Are our institutions of higher education cognizant of this disconnect? I believe they are well aware. Professor Moglen's comment today about the nonsensical structure of our curriculum perhaps gives credence to this point. By structuring the curriculum in a way in which courses build off of one another, and by providing students with opportunities to perfect the art of lawyering (rather than perfecting the arbitrary art of taking a law school exam), law schools would be producing lawyers who are better equipped to practice soon after graduation (which I assumed was what we were paying for). But by not providing or limiting these opportunities and basing the curriculum on the convenience of the faculty (ie torts in the second semester, property in the first), students continue to need to sell their time to the private sector so that law schools have a packaged product to offer firms and US World News Report- canned meatballs if you prefer. -- AbiolaFasehun - 17 Apr 2012 Are our institutions of higher education cognizant of this disconnect? I believe they are well aware. Professor Moglen's comment today about the nonsensical structure of our curriculum perhaps gives credence to this point. By structuring the curriculum in a way in which courses build off of one another, and by providing students with opportunities to perfect the art of lawyering (rather than perfecting the arbitrary art of taking a law school exam), law schools would be producing lawyers who are better equipped to practice soon after graduation (which I assumed was what we were paying for). But by not providing or limiting these opportunities and basing the curriculum on the convenience of the faculty (ie torts in the second semester, property in the first), students continue to need to sell their time to the private sector so that law schools have a packaged product to offer firms and US World News Report- canned meat balls if you prefer. -- AbiolaFasehun - 17 Apr 2012 Jessica, I just wanted to second Agnes and say thank you for sharing the campaign - it's fantastic!

I agree with many of you that grades act as a security blanket and as Ben discussed in class today, a way to keep as many potential career options on the table as possible. But I find it interesting that there seemed to be an undertone in the conversation, in class and now, that good grades equal EIP. I think they are two separate issues, both of which are completely engrained in Columbia and obviously other law schools as well.

First, the pressure for good grades comes from all spheres of the legal world. I had just as many public interest organizations as big law firms ask for my transcript in this last set of interviews and the pressure to be on Law Review extends to students interested in a spectrum of issues ranging from human rights to corporate transactions. From the moment we start Legal Methods and hear that it only gets much, much worse to the subtle reminders about the Curve, we are inundated with the importance of getting that A, regardless of what kind of career path we have in mind. And in the event that we are fortunate enough to find a professor or some other mentor within the law school, it's a little disheartening that whatever they may say about grades, they definitely got good ones. Now there's definitely something to say for Eben's method of hiring lawyers sans transcripts but my limited experience shows that the practice doesn't extend to every non-EIP organization.

Second, while grades obviously play an important role for students participating in EIP, I think that the Early Interview Program is a separate institutionalized problem. I agree with Jacqueline that as students, we are presented with very few options for covering our student loans apart from selling our souls to law firms or finding a practice within the confines of LRAP. And I also agree with Abiola that the class structure and lack of practical experience opportunities plays a part in the mentality that we need to be trained in the law when we graduate. But this required "field training" after paying $150,000 to learn the law, seems like a disconnect. Regarding the validity of the mentality that it is a necessary fork in the road to public interest work, I have no idea but it seems suspect.

My biggest issue with the grading system is the lack of feedback and the entirety of the grade relying on a single exam. I understand needing some way to evaluate students and possibly separate them based on varying levels of effort, comprehension, and eventual performance, because in a perfect world those measurements would be part of a larger number of indicators of future success. But obviously something is wrong with our current system. Students know it, teachers know it, and practicing lawyers know it. Recent grading system experimentation even suggests that law schools know it. I mentioned in class today that I believe the general lack of feedback in this system generates fear due to uncertainty. And as Eben pointed out, if a grade doesn't accurately reflect your knowledge of the material then it isn't teaching. Thus, the system fails in attempting to distinguish those students who really get it, from the ones who happened to reread the critical footnote the night before. I guess at the end of the day, I'm finding less of an issue with having grades and the Curve, and more of an issue with the teaching (or lack thereof) that it promotes.

-- AlexandraRex - 17 Apr 2012

Abiola - I think your points are very valid are grounded in reality.

I think we have to realize that we are not done making decisions and exploring our options yet, but that we are in the process of doing so. I think a lot of the anxiety I am feeling from my classmates comes from thinking there is no way to do what we want, and live comfortably at the same time. But... have we really explored all options? I can't say I have. And until I have, I don't intend to go the "easy route" of working in a firm, even if for a few years, because for me, that is not the easy route, but actually a very difficult one.

So before saying, "It can't be done!" and resigning to our fate, we have to, through our law school career, strive to gain the tools in order to reach our goals. I don't have anything concrete to offer, because like I said, I am not done exploring and making decisions yet. But one thing I do think can contribute to avoiding law firms, in the sense that it allegedly provides training, is to get involved in internships and other opportunities that will train us to become lawyers in the way classes don't.

(I'm sorry, I don't know what I did, but I tried to fix the mix-up as best as I could. It looks like Alexandra and I were editinga t the same time, and caused some issues. Alexandra, sorry if any of what you wrote got screwed up.

-- AgnesPetrucione - 17 Apr 2012

I complete agree with you, Jessica. For the longest, grades represented the freedom of options to me – something very important when one grows up in a community where there are so few options. That was much true in my case, and I’m sure that resonates with many others as well. It was common for most kids in my neighboring high schools to either drop out for the sake of dropping out or to have babies or to help support a family. I was fortunate enough to attend to a magnet school, which was marginally better than the public schools in my area, and I was convinced that getting good grades would help me not end up like them. This sounds horrible, I know. But I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that way, so I’ll move on. Anyway, grades certainly brought plenty of options my way when selecting colleges. The doors my grades open was so satisfying that I was almost set on this path that would’ve watered down my educational experience to just some means to an end. But I was fortunate enough to go to a really small liberal arts college where learning for the sake of wanting to learn was really the focus. What made this true is the really small classes I took (my biggest class had 20 students, but I know a biology 101 class had about 90 students) and the relationships with my professors. The contrast between my relationship with my college professors and here is like night and day. In college, there was no way anyone could hide from a professor when there were only 15 to 20 students in a class, so a student-teacher relationship was formed without much effort. For me, it was quite normal to see my professors on a regular basis outside of class. I’d often see them at the local coffee shop and would not think twice about sitting down for a quick chat. My classmates and I would have dinners with a few of them. To be sure, grades were still important for me, but they really took on a different meaning back then. In my classes, I felt part of an ongoing, important conversation such that grades were pushed to the background. I didn’t think about them so much during the semester but it only became relevant come finals. However, at the law school, grades are at the forefront of our minds from our first day in class. Students (and this certainly cuts both ways) also don’t value as much building a relationship with professors. I remember telling someone early on in the semester that I was planning to visit a few professors during office hours, and he looked at me with this puzzled face, as if saying: “Why? It’s not even close to finals yet.” For me, getting to know my professors was just so ingrained in my behavior as a student from my undergrad years that I thought it was not really something anyone would question. And it was also interesting that the first thing that came to my friend’s mind was that my conversation had to do with exams. It didn’t, and I don’t think is the only reasons students should visit professors at all. Anyway, I soon had to accept that fact that I couldn’t expect to replicate the relationships I built with my professors in undergrad (even with putting great effort on my part, I don't think this school's structure is really conducive to fostering these relationships), and it’s a real shame, but I am certainly grateful for knowing what a fruitful student-teacher relationship it like because it’s really powerful one.

-- LizzieGomez - 17 Apr 2012

My main issue with grades is that we spend so much time focusing on the exam and doing well on the exam, that we miss out on doing what we should be doing: i.e. learning how to be good lawyers. There's a reason why we hear all the stories about students (especially at CLS) not caring about classes as 2Ls, and definitely not as 3Ls; from the first year of law school, it becomes ingrained in us that the only real value to grades is getting a job at EIP. To many of us, the only thing that matters with respect to classes is getting the highest grades possible. And since the only thing that affects our grade is how well we do on the exam, there's a focus on doing well on the exam and not necessarily learning and retaining anything valuable from the class. Think about it - how much Civ Pro, Contracts and Property (or Torts) do you remember from last semester? After EIP, if we're all fortunate enough to have jobs, many of us will care significantly less about our grades than we did as 1Ls.

But this may not be a bad thing. If we don't care about grades, and we have the opportunity to pick our own classes, clinics, seminars, etc, then maybe we will have the opportunity to get the experience we SHOULD be getting out of law school. Maybe we'll be able to focus on doing the work we want to do and learning the things we want to learn. That's what I'm HOPING will happen to me as a 2L and 3L, but I know that pressure to take courses like Corporations, Admin Law, Taxation, etc will crowd out a lot of room for studying what I really want to study, and I may just end up in classes that I don't care about. Hopefully we will all be able to strike a balance.

-- JasonPyke - 17 Apr 2012