Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Exams/Grades

This is labeled NIED #15 on my computer, but this is the second NIED column to be rejected (and it may be the shortest--but the notes I have added in this post may make it the longest).  The first was "Batman in Aurora" which became a "Special Comment" on Flying Houses rather than an Op-Ed for the BLS Advocate.  That decision I could understand.  There, I was not writing precisely about law school, but there was only a tangential issue discussing a potential expansion of tort liability (on which I am, unfortunately, not an expert).  As may be clear from this blog I am pretty much incurably obsessed with Batman due to my film project and I mainly wanted to write about Batman*. 

This column, however, is very much about law school, but was rejected because the editorial board of BLS Advocate agreed that the point I was trying to make wasn't clear.  I will let you decide for yourself and comment.  This is unedited.  

The next NIED column for BLS Advocate will be #16.  #15 will not appear on BLS Advocate unless by way of reference.  

NIED #15: Exams/Grades             

By this point probably no one who finds this article does not realize that law school grades are derived almost entirely from an anonymously-graded exam given once at the end of a semester. Perhaps there are a couple readers stumbling upon this piece that do not realize profs may boost your grade up to 1/3 of a letter based on your in-class participation.  Those are the two single-most-acknowledged elements of law school grading – at least for 1Ls. 2Ls, 3Ls (and 4Ls, now, as they have apparently become recognized as a class) have a possible third element: write a paper.  Obviously, if you want to have control over your grade, and there is a paper option for the course (“in lieu of an exam”), write the f***ing paper**. Those courses are few and far between, though, and many are 2 credits.  And Legal Writing, I think most will agree, is not exactly a walk in the park, though the past elements of control are present. 

***Grade school, high school, and college grades were comprised of a mix of quizzes, tests, exams, papers, homework assignments, and class participation. Taking out quizzes, tests, and papers seems like a relief from the student’s perspective, but there are still “homework assignments.” However, while some profs will threaten to lower your grade by 1/3 of a letter, my guess is that this is a rare occurrence that only happens to the student who completely does not give a f***(****), does not read, barely makes it to 50% of classes, gets high in the morning, and feels as if they can magically intuit the rules of the law for the course. Thus, there is a distinct possibility that the majority of students occupy some region in between super-smart-nerd and super-dumb-jock, and that no matter how strong your understanding of the course, no matter how many trenchant comments you make or questions you ask, there is always a risk that your mind will explode when the proctor yells, “BEGIN!” and you hear a hundred booklets being flipped over, and you know the professor has said no cheating, no study aids, this is a closed book exam—but maybe they say “limited open book”—just bring your Code—and they tell you “no writing in your Code” but you know, you know that students are writing in their Code. Or else they have a crib*****.

There is just as much (if not more) cheating going on at law school as there was in grade school, high school, or college. And this time—we’re expected to believe—our grades actually matter. Sometimes profs themselves are just flat-out negligent when writing their exams******. Last year I took an open book exam and I brought in one of my “practice answers” from a previous exam given by the same professor. The same question, verbatim, appeared.  I looked at my answer and thought to myself, “Well, this will be a nice way to make up some time.”

But then doubt seeped in—what if I hadn’t written a great practice answer? Sure, I had reviewed that answer with other students previously, but did I take all of their comments properly into account? Whatever, I needed the time, and it was a decent answer.  I started transcribing from my three-ring binder that held all of my study materials and I looked up at a proctor for a moment. He seemed to be looking right at me—like I was turning my head from page to screen, page to screen, page to screen, in a clear act of cheating. I didn’t want to cause any commotion, so I stopped, thought to myself, “Even if I can’t transcribe this, I know this, and I know it better now than I did then.”

But then again, I am an open book. Most students—I recall—at least those that had their practice answers with them—did just transcribe. Some people in another exam cried or else threw-up; others wrote more in their Codes than (ambiguously) permitted. Most of the time there is no great surprise and everyone seems remarkably sure of themselves and it is in those instances where I know that I just f***ed up*******.

All the mystery, stress, paranoia, cheating, and loneliness of exam-taking should be thrown out of the law school curriculum********.  Unfortunately we live in a world governed by the ABA, and though most people will agree that there could be better alternatives, we’re not permitted to consider them.  Keep teaching Property as a core first year course.  Keep grading anonymous.  Keep exams in the same basic format, even though you could get way more creative and actually test practical skills.  Keep the OCI system in place.  I must admit, it feels mighty good to be this helpless in a system purportedly teaching us to help.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law. 

NOTES

*See http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/batman-in-brooklyn-mission-statement.html (a very long piece on the Batman film I will make), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-dark-knight-rises-dir-christopher.html (a review of the newest film, qualified immediately below in this note), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/special-comment-batman-in-aurora.html (the piece referenced), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/07/killing-joke-alan-moore-and-brian.html (a review of a famous Batman comic), http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/06/dark-knight-returns-frank-miller-with.html (a review of a famous Batman graphic novel). As a side note, I saw The Dark Knight Rises again last weekend, and after a second viewing I will fully admit that it is a flawed film, and suffers from an extremely "non-creative" script.  The first half of the film is excellent, but I might go so far as to say the second half of the film is laughable (sample line: 1: So, you came back to die with your city? 2: No, I came back to stop you.  --Should be changed to-- 1: So, you came back to die with your city?  2: No, I just wanted a rematch.).  Regardless, my rankings stand (still feel Dark Knight Rises eclipses Batman Returns) and I still believe everyone should see it.  (Though--other side note--I am very much looking forward to the forthcoming review of License to Kill for The Bond Project....)

Notes below represent edits/comments related to the "unpublishability" of "Exams/Grades."  

**Some might consider this to be an uncouth sentence and the use of the (expurgated) f-bomb to be entirely unprofessional.  However, I use this language to underscore the force of my advice.  I took one class with this option, and while the paper sounded like a huge pain in the butt to juggle with everything else, in retrospect several students told me they wished they wrote the paper.  Not only was it my highest grade, but it was as close to getting the "journal experience" (by which I mean, concentrating the utmost care upon every single word and citation, and organizing one's thoughts and research into a coherent and readable article) as possible for a non-member.  Bottom line: if you have the option, DO NOT take the exam.  You obtain a more robust educational experience, and you will be able to better control your GPA.

***Those past elements of control were present during the earlier stages of our academic upbringings.  

****Language used to underscore the degree to which a student must fail to participate to enable grade-lowering.  I do not like sitting in the back row of law school classrooms because I get distracted by all of the other students being distracted by facebook, news sites, gmail, or, most odious to the poor student, online shopping.  These students may still give a f*** despite their rank indifference to the professor speaking in front of them.  The students that stay up all night doing blow, sleep through class, and attend exactly 40% of classes (or fails to attend because attendance is not actually taken in many classes) and who manage to ace the exam--even they can slip from the professor's memory as being a "poor participant" due to their excellent exam performance.  This is one of the vaguer forms of "cheating" that occurs with surprising regularity.  However, this is an apparent contradiction of my point, and this type of student generally is not going to ace the exam--and if they do, then it is a sign that they must "give a f***" to a certain degree.  Bottom line: students inevitably brag about how little work they do to score incredibly high, and that may cause frustration in the listener if they cannot compete with them.

*****This is an "inside joke"/reference to the most difficult exam I have ever taken (and which I understand, was also considered the most difficult exam any student in that class had ever taken).  If the point here was unclear, it is understandable, but further specificity could be interpreted as slander, which I do my best to avoid in NIED columns.

******I would remove this line if published by BLS Advocate in accordance with the note directly above. I do not believe this professor is negligent--and indeed repeating a question from an earlier exam may not be considered negligence--but rather a gift to the students that made the effort to tackle every practice exam.  However, other professors are certainly negligent in the exams they give students:
They owe us a duty (to foster our understanding of an area of law)
They breach that duty (by testing a concept that they gave short shrift in class)
They cause an injury (to the student's grade because the student could not prepare to answer a question which the professor did not indicate would be tested on the exam)

They cause damages (which are extraordinarily difficult to monetize).

This could be the topic of a long rhetorical essay (and would need to proceed on a case-by-case basis, as some students are just whiners, and some professors will actually spend 5 minutes talking about something, actually put it on the exam, and actually expect students to appropriately focus their efforts on the most time-consuming topics, and quickly note the "5 minute topic") and I will stop here.

*******Language used to underscore the extraordinary sensation of failure and impending sadness caused by such an event.

********This final paragraph could be another major reason for "unpublishability."  Here I come out with guns blazing so my words may be taken poorly.  The point is that "law school reform" is a joke, and there must be real reform if we want to produce an environment where students will be encouraged by their experience and accordingly "be fair" in their practice of law and not discouraged by some of the rank inequalities (potentially causing "ruthless" and/or "morally bankrupt" legal careers) that arise in an "imperfect, though best possible" system.  Bottom line, and basic point to the article: exams are probably the #1 claim students may have against law schools for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and devising a better system where this is no longer the case is definitely possible.  But schools fear the wrath of the ABA.  They fear that "experimental" procedures will reflect poorly on the academic ability of their students.  It's perfectly understandable.  This does not mean however, that people should refrain my imagining alternatives, or writing about their feelings on the matter, even when they concede an important point.  Such passivity allows a totalitarian regime to continue to dominate its subjects and no person who claims to believe that the free exchange of ideas leads to positive societal developments can argue otherwise.

Reflection on 2L Year

It is not easy to sum up a 9 month period in a single blog post.  However, this post will not be as long as last year's (http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2011/05/reflection-on-1l-year.html) because I will not be listing my favorite cases (or, if I do, I will not go off about them, while watching Wheel of Fortune and having a moment of divine coincidence while writing about White v. Samsung and hearing Pat Sajak say, "It's good you make mistakes.  It shows you're human.  Not that there was any doubt about that.").  Regardless, there is still a lot of angst to sort through, and I question the intelligence of writing about "romance" on my blog, but I feel that it has been the aspect of my 2L year that has made it both tolerable and endlessly intriguing.

But first, the classes.  As some of you may know, I started writing a column for BLS Advocate this year.  I wanted to write a column about Exams, and about how students should "Review" exams they have just taken, for the benefit of future students.  Well, THAT, I am going to do.  That may be very boring so I will keep that to the end.

If you have been following this blog for any amount of time, you should probably know that I was on the verge of dropping out last summer.  I was destroyed by the 1L process.  I was destroyed by grades.  I was destroyed by the lack of comfort, the constant sense of unease I felt in not fully understanding the material, going into the exam, and having an internal mental meltdown where everything I learned, all the hours I spent doing the reading assignments, then outlining, then reviewing, then taking practice exams, then sending questions to professors, then annoyingly accosting classmates about "the right answer" resulted in nothing more than a B, B-, or C+.

This year, in the Fall, I did not do worse than a B+.  People told me, "It gets better."  People told me, "It gets easier."  People told me, "They work you to death."  All three statements were true, at least for me.  However, as previously noted, I do not think that necessarily would have held true had I not begun taking medication.

Medication may be controversial, to a degree (psychotropics and amphetamines, at least), but I seriously believe that law students are on way more medication than most people realize.  But that's not what I want to talk about.

"Romance" and law school do not coalesce for several reasons:
1) Dates cost money, and law students generally don't have any income.
2) Dates cost time, and law students generally don't have much of it.
3) When "FWB" comes into play, someone's feelings tend to get hurt at the end of the day.

Annoying personality qualities are revealed.  "True colors" come out.  And the gossip, the gossip of it all at law school is insane.  One friend told me, incredibly, (and perhaps it was incredible that I agreed with her, but I still do) that undergraduate students at NYU are more mature than law students at BLS.  While at first this appears to be an incredible statement, the size of BLS (vs. the size of NYU) makes it a veritable "devil's playground" for gossip.  Most people know a majority of the 1400 students or so here -- at least those that are "lounge lizards" or "library sleepers" or "smokers" -- whether by reputation, appearance, hearsay, or legend.  Most people at NYU do not know a majority of the 18,000 students or so there.  Smaller groups of friends are formed, gossip is not so vituperative, and "incest" (GENERALLY) occurs less often.

Regardless, many people try to make law school and "romance" work together symbiotically, and indeed I have written about "spouse-searching" at law school previously (here http://blsadvocate.org/2012/04/negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-not-in-love-legally/).  While I do not deny that I will continue to seek out a "worthy" or "willing" partner, I wish I didn't have to.  I wish I could stay single forever--but it gets boring--and worse, some people see it as "failure" or a reflection of a generally poor character, which I think is just so sad.  It's one of those judgments that makes life intolerable.

But being in a relationship also gets boring.  At least in my experience.

Moving on.

Here are the classes I took:
FALL
Debtors and Creditors' Rights (Hon. Glenn) - B+
Administrative Law (Prof. Araiza) - B+
Evidence (Prof. Pitler) - A-
Health Law Practicum Clinic (Prof. Porter/Medicare Rights Center) - HP
Interviewing & Counseling (Prof. Schultze) - A-
SPRING
Business Reorganizations (Prof. Gerber) - ?
Corporations (Prof. Baer) - ?
Consumer Counseling and Bankruptcy Clinic (Prof. Eyster) - ?
Employment Law (Prof. Minda) - ?
Trial Advocacy (Prof. Hynes) - ?

I did better in the Fall than I ever did in my 1L year.  My GPA was a 3.5.  It ruled.
However, I am nervous that the Spring will not offer as great rewards.  The exams were difficult, and somehow, I just felt less focused in a way, more rushed.

A brief review:
Debtor and Creditor was a great class, even though many felt that Glenn's lack of teaching experience may have hampered our ability to understand the bankruptcy system.  Whatever the case, I did not do very well on the exam.  I know this because I reviewed it with him.  I screwed almost everything up--though there were a few questions where I did get "parts" of it right.  Regardless, that exam was the hardest exam I have ever taken.  It was clear, when I made it to the final question (worth a relatively significant number of points) and I only had 10 minutes left to read the fact pattern and write an answer, that my timing had been seriously miscalculated.  Fortunately, that was the case for almost everyone, and I somehow managed a B+.  Getting to meet Judge Glenn and being there the day after MF Global filed for Chapter 11 and hearing his excitement that he would be assigned "the 8th largest bankruptcy case in American history" was cool.  He also invited us into a hearing on use of cash collateral, but unfortunately, I had other obligations.

Medicare Rights Center was that obligation, and I spent 168 hours working there.  It was a good experience, but I felt it was the one internship I have done since starting law school that was not a potential place to work after graduation.  They just didn't like me.  Or, maybe they did like me, to an extent, but we didn't work as well together as we might have.  I have no hard feelings though, and I have a deep amount of respect for that organization.  Moreover, it was the only time I had the opportunity to become "deeply involved" in a case, and the experience of winning was totally sweet.  (By the way, I am batting 1,000 when it comes to winning cases).

Administrative Law was a great class, though not always easy.  Prof. Araiza is the #2 professor at BLS in my opinion.  He is utterly fantastic.  I will take any class I can with him next year, whatever the subject matter, though I hope he teaches First Amendment (aka Con Law III, which, I think, Admin Law should be Con Law IV)...However, I did not do very well on the exam, again!  My answers were not very well organized (though I must admit, I was significantly more accurate about "the law" on my Admin exam than on my D&C exam) and Araiza chastised me when we reviewed it together.  He kept saying, "I don't want to be mean....but what were you thinking?"  It was so funny!  I could never be mad at him.  His standards are high, but it can be one of the most fulfilling experiences when you have a Professor with very high expectations and you meet them, and he is satisfied with your performance.  I was pleased to get a B+.

Evidence is one of those "core classes" that most 2L/3L students will take, though it is an elective.  It is a fun class, and Prof. Pitler made it fun, though many did not appreciate his style.  He has great style, in my opinion, and because I did the work all throughout the semester, because I did all of the "problems" that we were supposed to prepare for class (in lieu of casebook reading), because I always volunteered to answer, he told me at the end of the last class that he really appreciated how well prepared I was.  I did not do great on that exam, either!  I reviewed it with him, and he told me I scored a B+, but he bumped me up to an A- because of my in-class participation.  There was no sweeter bump, as that was a 4 credit class (though it is conceivable that I got the same kind of "bump" for Civil Procedure last year, though my participation was anything but comparable).

Interviewing & Counseling is a class taught by Prof. Schultze, who is a legend around this campus.  His Negotiation seminar is more well-known, but the Interviewing & Counseling course was good--only, it seemed to focus a lot on Family Law.  Later, I would take a clinic with Prof. Eyster, which focused almost exclusively on Interviewing & Counseling in Bankruptcy Law.  Now, that was a very difficult thing to do, let me tell you, but it's one of the best skills you can get.  You can interview someone all day about their legal problem involving a breach of contract or a tort, or who was the better parent, or you can take a criminal defense case and dance around your client and hope they don't admit their guilt--but with bankruptcy, you have a client that has to explain how their financial life went to hell.  Sometimes they don't want to talk about -- this is private stuff!  Having been there myself, I think it's the area I'm most suited for.

Business Reorganizations was probably the single best class I took at BLS and Prof. Gerber is the #1 professor (Araiza is only #2 because he intimidates me - I like him, but I'm afraid that whatever I say to him ends up sounding like the words of an idiot, because he is an intellectual powerhouse).  It was fun, he was nice, and what was really great about him was his review session: we reviewed the exam from last year, and he stayed 75 minutes later than he expected the review session to last - and he answered every single question.  I told him, "Thank you for staying so late," and he said, "I don't have a life anyways."  He is hilarious and great and it is rumored that he will be taking a sabbatical next year--so I urge all current 1Ls (becoming 2Ls at this very moment, as the Property exam is ending) to take a class with him in two years.  I will be happy with a B+ in this class, but I am praying I may score as high as an A-.

Corporations is another "core class" like Evidence, and also 4 credits.  Corporations was very hard, but not as hard as Debtor/Creditor.  However, it was 4 credits, and I did not like the way we got all of our most important cases as the very end of the year.  Omnicare, Time, QVC, Revlon, ITT--these cases are huge, both page-number wise and in how important they are in the course.  Prof. Baer has a very good reputation and I generally agree that she taught the class well, but I felt that there was a bit of a disconnect there.  In particular--we were expected to do an incredible amount of "review reading" and "supplemental reading" which was simply impossible (even with a relatively long reading period for me personally).  She warned me not to miss the forest for the trees, so to speak, and that this was a basic, "survey" course.  And yet!  And yet on the exam we are expected to be able to make fine distinctions based upon long, complex fact patterns with little or no explanation of the practical meaning of certain phrases.  This wouldn't be so difficult if the exam was open note, but it was not!  The exam, which I took yesterday, was the third hardest one I have taken (Contracts with Prof. Taylor takes the #2 position),.  I rushed like hell.  I screwed up stuff about Shareholder Rights Plans (which, even though I named my study group "the Poisoned Pills," I could still not really get what the practical effect of "redeeming the pill" meant).  There are really interesting stories behind some of these cases, and some of the opinions were great (my personal favorite #1 case of the year was In re Citigroup Shareholders Derivative Litigation (2009) which basically alleges that Citigroup "should have known better" than to invest in asset-backed mortgage securities--it is basically the greatest opinion of the past 5 years because it encapsulates everything that was rotten about the Great Recession--and yet, Citigroup cannot possibly be held responsible for the shit-storm we've all had to wade through (and indeed, is directly responsible for many of us being in law school now), though Schlensky v. Wrigley is fantastic if you are a Cubs fan).
While I enjoyed the class (indeed, if I were ever to become a Professor, I would want to teach it), I am very scared about what grade I might get.  I will be happy with a B+--and I hope the boost works in my favor in this class.  If I get a B, I will probably shoot myself, though it is certainly conceivable that, my exam answers earned no more than a B, or even a B-.  With a B, and a boost, a B+ will be O.K.  I really wanted to CALI this class, and I thought I could do it, until I looked at the fact pattern.  I was super confident going in, and then everything fell apart.  There is basically NO WAY I could get an A.  If I get an A-, I will be very, very happy.  (And keep in mind, while all this talk about grades might seem obnoxious, I only care so much because my scholarship is dependent on these things).

Employment Law with Prof. Minda was a long, strange trip.  I opted to write the paper, and I hope he likes it.  Personally, I think this paper is brilliant, but it is a big mess too.  It's 14,000 words.  120 footnotes.  I'd try to publish it, but I'd need to edit it significantly, and of course, in that process all the good stuff would get taken out.  Regardless, interesting class, I enjoyed it.  And while writing the paper was sometimes quite hard (my topic was on the staffing industry, which is shrouded in secrecy) it was extremely fulfilling.  I hope to get an A in this class.  It is doubtful that I will get an A+.  I will be happy with an A-, however, I will not be happy with a B+.

Trial Advocacy with Prof. Hynes was great, though I felt he was a "Taylorist" in the sense that he may have felt there was "one best way" to make an opening statement and conduct direct examinations and cross-examinations.  He seemed to give us more leeway on summations, but he did not give much feedback on ours.  He told me I had "great style" which was nice to hear from someone so eminent (he is the D.A. of) Kings County) and he agreed, tentatively, at the last minute to play himself in my upcoming film, Batman in Brooklyn.  I don't know what kind of grade I'll get, but I'd be very pleased with an A-.

The Consumer Counseling and Bankruptcy Seminar, finally, was great.  I loved the office I was placed into, and Prof. Eyster generally made the weekly seminars an interesting detour.  What was strange about this is that, it was 4 credits, and my health law practicum was 3 credits, and I had to work 168 hours at Medicare Rights Center, but only 140 at my bankruptcy firm.  There was a bit more classwork for this, but we had to keep journals just the same of every day.  I think the clinical program should be revised to make it more equal, since I'll be getting a grade for this class (hopefully A-, if not A) and only got a High Pass for the health law clinic.

This has been a very long post about nothing in particular, but it is for BLS students that may want to know a little bit more about the classes they can take and the professors that taught them.  I hope to write a final column soon about the Journal writing competition and Bluebooking.  I am now going to resume my bender. Thank you.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Cubs Win World Series...Against Miami? (BLS in 2015)

This went up yesterday on BLS Advocate.  However, this piece went through several drafts.  The first draft was extremely inappropriate for several reasons--it is not something that I would want to attach my name to--it is one of the few times I would NOT vigorously support my own right to free speech.  Thus I felt some editing was in order, and this was my second draft.  My editor at BLS Advocate (who has been wonderful and who I will miss very much after this year is over--which is basically, now) thought it needed one more go through.  So, draft #3 is on BLS Advocate, and draft #2 is on Flying Houses.  Draft #3 is probably better but draft #2 is a more direct reflection upon the election, and so dovetails nicely with the post below.  Enjoy!  Or write hate mail!

                By now, the election is over.  Part of me wants to write before I know the results and part of me wants to write after I know the results.  I’m going to write now, an hour and 13 minutes before the polls close.

                I am assuming that I am going to lose.  I am assuming that this race is nothing more than a popularity contest, and that BLS students are generally apathetic about the SBA.  Only the SBA cares about the SBA.  The only thing that matters to the students is whether they will get their free beer and pizza or not.  Then they turn around and say, look at the way the SBA is using their money.  What a waste. 

                I ask a 3L to vote for me and she refuses and I say why and she says she has no stake in this school and I say what do you mean you will be an alumni and she says I don’t care I will never give back a dime to this school and I say why and she asks me if I have five hours and I say sum it up in five seconds and she says it’s a shithole. (And I will agree, that, when we don’t have wireless internet, and we can’t enter our classes naked with a towel, it may be considered a shithole [Ed. the latter complaint is based upon the events on April 16 and April 17, when classrooms were inexplicably hot to the point that students needed to get up and leave because they were going to sweat through their suits]).

                If you really push students to say what’s wrong with the school, AND BACK UP WHAT THEY SAY, they generally don’t know what they’re talking about.  Hearsay spreads like telephone. 

                People seem to think I am powerless—one girl told me today, “you’re certainly aggressive.”  Well, tough.  Live with it.

                If we don’t get aggressive, we’ll never get anything done.

                So what’s gonna happen in 2015? 

                I’ll tell you what’s gonna happen in 2015.

                I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone, we’ll all be gone. 

                “You” means current BLS students – whether friend or enemy.

                The school’s tuition will be, oh $52,000?  Maybe?

                Most of the same teachers will be here.

                The 50/50 rule will still apply.

                90% of the class will be employed 9 months after graduation.

                $106,000 will be the median salary.

                The time is now 5:01 PM and I’ve just gotten off the phone with a senior in high school from Loomis Chaffee—my alma mater.  I told her, after an extremely long-winded monologue about my one-act play that was banned at Loomis, the classmates at law school that I have from Loomis, this election, and the election that took place my freshman year at Loomis, that I would give her $20 on the condition that someone at the Loomis Chaffee alumni relations department put me in touch with a chapter 11 attorney at a big law firm in New York City for the purposes of an informational interview so that I will know (since I can’t get in their doors through OCI) how I can transition into that job in three or four years, so that I will know what I must accomplish.  I told her that if no one ever got in touch with me, I would not donate next year.

                If BLS does the same thing, we can solve our funding problems.  The school must make an effort to implement this permanent solution to a purportedly temporary problem.  If it does not, then BLS in 2015 will look exactly the same as it looks in 2012. 

Finally, let me say this: the Cubs will not win the World Series in 2014 (or 2015 – the image from Back to the Future Part 2 is unclear) because the Miami Marlins will not be in the American League.  However, it is not for this reason that this prediction will be inaccurate. 

The prediction will be inaccurate because the Cubs are a team that is fundamentally based upon the idea of lovable losing and ridiculous drunken celebrations of victories that are inconsequential in the long run, but oh so sweet in the moment.  The prediction will also be inaccurate because Theo Epstein is at the helm.  Theo Epstein is regarded as a wunderkind that will implement “moneyball, etc.” strategies in order to win.  Profits will go up if the payroll is kept relatively low and the team is successful (though, the Cubs will always be popular).

The Cubs are basically the same thing as Brooklyn Law School.  Except they are a for-profit corporation.  Remember, Wrigley v. Schlensky, people?  We don’t want to put the lights on because we don’t see how that’s going to increase our revenue. 

Nicholas Allard is basically the same thing as Theo Epstein.  However, we know less about him.  Theo took the Red Sox to their first championship in many, many years.  The Cubs got Theo because they wanted him to take them to their first championship in 106 years (most Cubs fans are in agreement that Theo’s “system” will “pay off” in 2014).  The General Manager of a baseball team is like the Dean of a law school.  You’re in charge of building the team.  The Professors at law school are more like the coaches of the baseball team.  The President of a law school is most like the owner or controlling stockholder of the baseball team.  (I am not going to follow up this sentence with anything.)

I’ve taken this metaphor way too far for my word limit.  Thanks for your support.  Here’s hoping the world still doesn’t suck in 2015 for the Cubs, and for BLS students.  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Not in Love (Legally)

                 I have observed an interesting phenomenon in law schools generally: students that arrive single will often meet their spouse during the course of the three years they are here.

                This happened with several friends of mine which will remain unnamed—one of them met their spouse through membership on a journal, and another through placement in the same first year section.  It would seem as if these are the two most common “places” within law school where future spouses meet, but I would imagine a similar concept holds true for Moot Court, or certain classmates on the same career path that end up in more than a few of the same courses. 

                There are basic assumptions about what it means to be a law student and a lawyer.  One of those assumptions is that, one day (perhaps) we will have money, and since we will have money, we will be in the “right” position to start a family.   If you fail to take the right first steps, you may graduate alone, and you may then be afraid of dying alone.  To paraphrase one of our career counselors, compare walking down the street alone, to walking down the street with a girlfriend or boyfriend—more people check you out in the latter situation, no?  This is a metaphor for presenting an effective case for yourself as a job applicant – but the purported truth of such a hypothetical is troubling.   (Not to mention the inference that, those are who are in stable, happy relationships are more likely to get a job.)

Interviewing is only like dating to a degree—you interview in the hopes of a job that will last more than a year or two—but it is unlikely to expect lifetime employment.  Rapid-fire dating and one night stands may be fun up to a point – but once that point is reached, more “practical” dating becomes the rule.  A lifetime relationship is sought.

Law students are probably not the most physically attractive (or morally attractive) people out there.  However, law students are picky because they don’t have much time—they only want to spend time with someone they could actually see themselves marrying.  It follows that, when work and companionship are combined, the stress of dating subsides, a partner is found, and no time is lost.  If that is the only proof to my theory, so be it.  You may ignore what I say, and that is fine, but when you go out into that cold place known as reality and you lack the benefit of an immediate mutual interest, have fun trying to convince other bar patrons about the awesomeness of the automatic stay. 

On the other hand, claiming that one day you will win a $100 million toxic torts judgment may potentially be an effective hook.  We know we have plenty of interesting things to talk about, and some are more talented than others when it comes to engaging “outsiders” in that interest, but generally, “bar scoping” is limited to what you look like, what you do and how much you make.  Nobody cares about whether you are a proponent of judicial activism.  Other lawyers may scoff at such bar conversation – but if not, you may have a winner.

So maybe, when I graduate single, it will be different from the five years I spent in between college and law school, going out to bars, trying to meet someone, anyone, to place a succor on the loneliness of existence.  More likely is that I will continue to be cheap, claim that bars are exploitive, and write similar op-ed pieces until I die.  Only they will be published on my blog and not BLS advocate. 

The moral of the story is this: treasure what time you have left and don’t waste it by sitting alone in your room drinking and smoking.  It is unfortunate that I cannot practice what I preach.  I can’t change society and I can only change myself—but, with limited exceptions, I’m not open to changing myself to “fit in.”  There is a Black Flag song called “Society’s Tease” whose lyrics I will now appropriate to drive home my point:

    Always
                Wherever I go
                Playing some stupid role
                Sometimes I look at the world
                And I just want to say,
                “NOOOOOOOOOOO.”
               
                Somewhere
                Something went wrong
                Where love plays stupid tricks
                But I’ve got a plan
                The world will finally be saved.

                Christopher J. Knorps is a 2L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law.  You may find his other work at flyinghouses.blogspot.com.  He also invites you to the electrifying conclusion to this week (Sex & the Law Week)—the HLPA Open Mic!  Please sign up on posted fliers to perform “a” Vagina Monologue, or your own original performance. If you are too shy to read, please come to watch the action, as a voluntary $5 donation will get you complimentary dinner and drinks.  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress - Super Priority Administrative Expense

Around this time of the semester, it’s important that you keep your priorities straight.  As a 2L, I can only speak to my present experience and my experience last year.  3Ls, I will attempt to anticipate your priorities. 

                In order to measure this model appropriately, I am going to use the inverted pyramid that Dean Gerber has supplied us with in his Business Reorganizations class. (Please see www.blsadvocate.org to see all images).  The inverted pyramid is the priority scheme for Chapter 11 claims.  There are 9 levels.  If you are at the bottom (equity/shareholders) you stand the greatest risk of receiving zero, so any task at the bottom may in fact, not be given any time at all.

                We will start with 1Ls as I know them best.  Now, as a BLSPI mentor, I was recently instructed to e-mail my mentee and tell them to “stay strong” during this week, as it’s a particularly brutal one.  Moot Court Trial Division tryouts were this week – and if you participated, it was likely that you could not do any other homework until your tryout was finished.  The anxiety of it all was crushing.  And then, when you entered that room, the judges told you to, “Have fun.” 

                Moot Court is probably a senior secured claim/lien for anyone dying to get the chance to act like a lawyer before they officially become one.  Almost everyone I know on Moot Court (trial, at least) has told me that it has been the most rewarding experience in law school for them, period. 

                For individuals such as myself, who were 2Ls trying to do the impossible –that is, make Moot Court and a Journal through an open note —who had the draft of the paper intended for the open note due Friday - it presented a quandary.  Clearly, for me, moot court/open note occupy high rungs on the inverted pyramid.  However, I doubt I will be advancing to the next round (I ended up the one getting crucified on cross, not the defendant—and update: I did not advance), and so one more claim will be allowed to fit. 

                For the sake of simplicity, I will offer my suggestions for prioritizations now.  You may fill in your own pyramid if you like, but I include my own personal one in the illustration, and the “generic one” for all 2Ls in the text below.

 

1Ls (Who Want to Work for Skadden, et. al.):
 1) Studying/Outlining/Exam Practice – GRADES (note: Moot Court may be occupying #1 if you are called into the 2^nd round) – YOU MUST BE IN THE TOP 10% TO BE CONSIDERED FOR OCI;
2) Class Participation;
3) Getting a Summer Internship;
4) Making Friends and Influencing People (partying, dating, etc.);
 5) Journal Competition;
6) Getting to Know Professors;
7) Getting Involved in the City Bar;
8) Thinking about Transfer Opportunities;
9) Staying Sexy.

               

  (A short revision for those 1Ls that have no interest in the big paycheck – because, you know, about 1-3% of the classmates in our year will actually be getting those jobs – becoming as involved in Pro Bono Projects as possible is probably the best thing you can do if you are a public interest person, and that should be in your top 3 (probably #3, as it’s possible for the internship to follow naturally from the Pro Bono work).

2Ls:
1) Grades/Moot Court/Journal (if you didn’t make OCI, and you’re not working as a summer associate, grades should still be top priority – if you are on Moot Court or Journal, I believe these take top priority—If you are on both, Moot Court takes priority in terms of TIME over Journal, which varies by deadlines);
2) Getting Internships or Clinics for the Fall and Spring;
3) Getting a Summer Internship/Job;
4) Making Friends and Influencing People;
5) Defining Your Area of Focus;
6) Pet Projects (Writing Contests, Clubs, Shot-by-Shot Remakes)
7) Building Relationships with Professors;
8) Staying Sexy;
9) Making Yourself Stand Out

3Ls:
1) Securing a Job after Graduation;
2) Moot Court/Journal;
3) Getting Internships or Clinics in the Fall and Spring;
4) Making Friends and Influencing People;
5) Grades;
6) Staying Sexy;
7) Chilling Out (if you are so lucky to be able to!);
8) Publishing Articles;
9) Defining Your Reputation/Leaving Your Mark.

           

     Of course, dictating priorities is always controversial, but I do believe there is one generic, straightforward, guiding principle that controls: law school can be extremely boring at times, and you need to find the part about it that you love, and put yourself in that happy (or, more accurately, “fun”) place as often as possible.  For me, it is being 29 and getting to hang out with 23 year olds and getting to act immature.  Those lost years I spent working in the wilderness of the low-wage sector with few friends or similarly-situated co-workers have been recompensed by making new friends in the same situation, with a slightly wider age range.  No matter what priority scheme applies to the “reorganization” of your professional persona, appropriate management of priorities is a simple, yet useful method of reducing stress.

   

             Christopher J. Knorps is a 2L with very strange priorities.  One of them is to hold an Open Mic on Thursday, April 5^th, in Geraldo’s, from 7-10 PM.  He hopes you will consider performing, or at least attending.  The event is free but there will be voluntary $5 donations taken for Sanctuary for Families, and free food and beverages.  There will also be performances of Vagina Monologues.  Please e-mail Christopher.Knorps@brooklaw.edu if interested in performing or reading or singing or dancing or playing.   

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress - It's Six O'Clock - Do You Know Where Your Internships Are?

For my 5th column for BLS Advocate, I decided to write about the anxiety of failure to secure a summer internship by spring break.  This is also the first time there has been substantive editing of my column, so here on Flying Houses, you get the un-edited "crappy" version with run-on sentences, tangential parantheticals, and just plain awkwardness.

I do think the version on BLS Advocate will be vastly superior to this (the opposite of the Facebook incident...) but I choose to present this for its "cheekiness."  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: It’s Six O’Clock – Do You Know Where Your Internships Are?

                I am writing this on March 4 (and it may, or may not, be published by March 7^th).  Either way, at present we are two months, or sixty days away from the end of the year.  If you are one of those fortunate individuals who knows what they are doing this summer (or, in the case of 3Ls, after this summer), congratulations, you can live with slightly less anxiety than the rest of us.  However, I don’t think I’m in the minority of 2Ls when I say I don’t have one yet, and I’m getting a bit concerned. 

                I have a theory: with each year of law school comes diminished opportunities.  I believe that it is surprisingly, perhaps remarkably easy for 1Ls to obtain summer internships.  You’ve just been burnt out, and now it’s time to see if you can be a good office worker.  If you are a 1L and are not sure what you are doing yet, don’t worry. 

                Last year, I spent most of Spring Break applying to jobs on Symplicity and doing a bit of reading for class.  I did not concern myself with outlining (nor do I plan to do so this Spring Break).  Last year, I probably sent out about 40 resumes and cover letters.  Here, I can check how many….

                  67.  67 last year.  And 34 this year.  However, I was surprised to see that many of the places I applied to last year were also applied to this year (which is, in large part, a result of the PILC Fair), and so I probably have many more cover letters that I can easily craft—except I must admit that I now I take a very different approach to writing cover letters.  At this point I am able to pop one out in 5-10 minutes.  I’m not sure how I feel about the “fine paper” distinction for resumes and cover letters – I spent $24 at the Court St. Office Supply store, mailed out 9 applications to judges with fancy envelopes, fancy resume and cover letter paper, transcripts and writing samples, and I heard nothing back.  (I should also note here that – one should be able to infer from my comments two columns earlier, that I was not so fortunate in what I thought would be my “big break”—but this is not a column about my life, but all of our lives – and such specificity should be discouraged—unless you want me to tell you in person…)

                The point I was trying to make before I got all caught up in numbers is that I did not have an internship at this time last year either.  And then, without warning, it hit.  After a preliminary interview to be a research assistant that I bombed on March 21 last year, I was contacted by a flurry of organizations (all governmental – none non-profit) around April 4^th.  Four different places called me in two days, and I ended up taking the internship that I interviewed for first.  (Additionally, I was formally offered an internship with KCDA sometime in early May, about a month too late.  And I look at my e-mails now from a coordinator that say, “Are you interning at KCDA?” and I remember writing back, “I have not heard anything yet – but yes, I would accept the internship if offered it.” A former roommate interned there last summer and he said that there were like 100 interns from BLS at KCDA.  I had a friend from University of Michigan come in to intern there.  It would have been great – but I cannot say that it would have been as fun as NYCTA).  By April 6, I knew I would be working there.

                So 1Ls: Relax.  If you don’t know what you’re doing by May, you may still get an unexpected last minute offer from KCDA if you applied for that a couple months back….

                2Ls: I don’t know how we’re supposed to feel at this point.  I will say I have noticed two trends: (1) Overall, more 2Ls have internships at this time than we had as 1Ls last year; and (2) If we do not have an internship by now, we are freaking out a little bit more than last year.  My theory is that, with each year, securing summer employment becomes more difficult—but for those that do secure employment, they secure it earlier each year.  Thus, increased anxiety at earlier points is only natural for those of us that don’t. 

                3Ls: If you don’t know what you’re doing after the summer yet….um……I really don’t think I’m in any place to offer you any advice, except to say (1) I won’t be surprised if I’m in the same position as you this time, next year; and (2) if you’re under 30, don’t worry so much–you’ve got time.  Oh, and start planning for bankruptcy, and a killer argument that you suffered an undue hardship and therefore deserve a discharge of your student loans – join that class-action, or start a new proceeding and remember your basics on collateral estoppel from civil procedure.

                Christopher J. Knorps is a 2L at Brooklyn Law School.  He is Treasurer of the Health Law & Policy Association, and would like to invite you to its Open Mic event on April 5.  Please e-mail Christopher.knorps@brooklaw.edu if you are interested in reading or performing.