I came to law school to supplement my graduate education with a set of skills that I could use to affect policy change, particularly on policies that disproportionately impact minorities and the poor. I believe that lawyers are uniquely positioned to do so through rhetorical argument, as well as a deeper understanding of how to create and change the law. Whether or not I'm right depends, in part, on my ability to think critically about what I learn in law school, which is why I'm taking this class.

Kahlil: I have a few questions. Do you think CLS provides opportunities to find the kind of employment you're interested in? For turning abstract values(here I speak out of my own abstractness, not yours) into vocational options? Is it encouraged? I incline toward the negative, although that may simply be the group-think imposing itself on the CLS environment, and not something inherent to the school.

I agree that we need to think critically about what we learn in order to achieve goals, but I would suggest we can take the idea further-- we should be thinking critically about law school as an experience, as well as the subject matter we are learning. Particularly, I think it is important to think critically and realistically about the path we are on, and where it is most likely to take us. Then, if we do not like our assessment, creative thought may help us direct ourselves elsewhere. Andrew Mc.