Report offers insight on law students' thoughts on school

January 6, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An annual report released Wednesday by Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research on law school student engagement shows many students don’t feel prepared to practice law.

The Law School Survey of Student Engagement asks students at participating law schools about their experiences. Only two Indiana law schools have participated in the survey: Indiana University Maurer School of Law and Valparaiso University School of Law. Since 2004, 164 different law schools have participated. This year, nearly 77,000 law students from 77 law schools responded.

The data is helpful to law schools to figure out what they are doing right and what they need to improve as far as preparing students to become attorneys. It’s pretty interesting to see what future attorneys have to say about their education. The report breaks down what is going well (i.e., only 7 percent of 1L students reported coming to class unprepared), what could use attention (female students were less likely than male students to ask questions in class frequently), and what warrants further investigation (more than half of 3Ls who used career-counseling services at their law schools were unsatisfied with job search help).
 
The report notes that law schools are excellent in preparing law students academically, but aren’t as effective in transforming law students into lawyers. Only about half of 1L, 2L, and 3L students said they felt prepared to understand the needs of clients. Less than 60 percent reported they felt prepared to work with colleagues as part of a legal team, deal with the stresses of practicing law, or deal with ethical dilemmas.

Something else that stuck out to me: Younger students reported they were more likely than their older classmates to go to law school because they weren’t sure what their next step in life should be. These students who were unsure of what to do with their life also reported studying much less than other students.

The older students were more likely to say they went to law school to contribute to the public good. Younger students also were more likely to say they entered law school to work toward financial security, live up to career expectations others set for them, or to achieve prestige in their professional lives.

There is a lot of interesting data in the report, which is available on the LSSSE’s website.

What do you think about the results? Have things changed since you went to law school?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Not Surprising
    I am not surprised at all about the above findings. My experiance with law clerks is they tend to be immature, have no basic business knowledge, and have unreal expectations about what being a practicing attorney entails. They are all very smart though. Many law students are befuddled that there are far more law students than lawyer positions. My suggestions has always been the IBA or the ABA needs to limit (or assign) the number of seats a law school may have for incoming students. The AMA does this and exiting med students have no problem finding employment. Also, three years after law school should be an a "residency." After your residency (compensated), the young attorney should have to have five attorneys sign off they are competant (morally, ethically, subject matter so on). I laugh ever time I hear a law student say "I don't want to practice, I just want the background of law school for my career." I think to myself thats a waste of energy and time. A business who needs an attorney...well, hires an attorney. I have never heard a business person say "I need an inexperianced, non-practicing attorney for a non-legal related job." Ok, this was just a rant. Excuse they typos. Have a nice weekend all.
    • Mr. Boots Is Right
      I concur with Mr. Boots. The number of law school slots need to be limited like in medical school. There is so much unemployment and depressed salaries in the law now...it's all due to a saturation of attorneys, far more people are lawyers than there is work to do.

      The law school model needs to be blown up. It's crazy that people spend three years in law school and aren't taught squat about actually practicing law while there. Can you imagine medical schools taking an academic approach to their profession instead of a practical one?

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

    2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

    3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

    4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

    5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

    ADVERTISEMENT