BAR/BRI Lawsuit

There's an article in the January 26, 2007 issue of the ABA Journal E-Report on the status of Park v. Thomson Corp., No. 05 Civ. 2931 (SDNY 2005). Park is a class action suit against BAR/BRI. In short, the suit alleges that more than 300,000 students and lawyers were monopolistically overcharged about $1,000 apiece for BAR/BRI bar review courses. That's a lot of damages. The ABA Journal reports that the SDNY has denied a motion to dismiss the claims. A similar article appears on Law.com--which goes into more detail than the ABA Journal article. Particularly interesting to me is how Judge Learned Hand's classic "30/60/90 rule" from the Alcoa case is relevant here: that 30% market share presumptively is not a monopoly, that 60% may or may not be, and that 90% market share presumptively indicates a monopoly. In this case, BAR/BRI has 80 to 90% of the bar prep market.

As for blogging about this case, perhaps the experience of Law Prof Eric Goldman should wave me off. He blogged about this case a few months ago; look what happened to him. Maybe I should proclaim my ignorance too.

Scratch everything I just said in this post.

New Practitioner and Student Blogs

I've found two new blogs that readers might be interested in checking out. One is The Online Lawyer. Blogger lawyer Nolelaw has described his blog as "somewhat unique in that I cover a number of different legal areas in my posts (from Contracts to Divorce to Lemon Laws to DUI) instead of focusing on one area in particular." Looking at the blog, he does indeed run the gamut, so it's an interesting example of small or solo practitioner outreach via blogging. One of his more popular posts, on the subject of Quitclaim Deeds, is located here.

The other blog is a student blog called loco delictis, which blogger frillgril describes as "a 1L's strange and unusual adventures in law school." Unusual with respect to the rest of society perhaps, but the value of this blog as I see it is that it is in fact representative of the modern law student experience. Which to me makes it not usual, although perhaps still strange. A recent post entitled Licking my Wounds is about grades (what else?)--make sure you read the comments.

On the subject of grades, I still owe readers a post about grades from my own post-exam point of view. I promise it's coming soon.

More on Computer Bans

In one of my recent posts, Computer Bans, I discussed whether computers should be banned from law school classes. It's a topic that has interested me partly because of the strong feelings it brings out in people, partly because computers are in some sense a distraction in class (like it or not), and partly because computers have revolutionized learning and the classroom in phenomenally positive ways. So it's not an easy topic--lots of pluses and negatives cutting against one another. And it's an important topic, too, since it pertains to learning.

I received a very good anonymous comment in response to that post. The first part of the comment was as follows:

I find that using a computer is beneficial only because it is what I am more comfortable with. Banning laptops in a classroom, to me, would be like telling a right-handed student they could only write with their left hand. Though there may not be a significant difference between those who type and those who write by hand, I foresee a significant difference between those who originally wrote by hand and those who used to type, but due to a ban, now write by hand.

That's an excellent point. Is banning laptops like making righties write with their left hand? Are some people so dependent on taking notes by computer that banning computers truly impairs their ability to take notes? In many cases, I suspect not--which means that in many cases, I suspect the analogy does not hold all that well. On the other hand (ha!), I suspect the analogy may be a very good one for some students.

Perhaps the point is that while I might suspect this or that, it's hard to actually know. So let's assume for a moment that the left hand-write hand analogy does hold in some cases. Is the question then one of cost-benefit analysis? For example, if the diffuse benefit of improving classroom dynamics (which benefits the whole class) is great, does it outweigh the specific disadvantage imposed on a few in the class? Or do we want to take the position that even if you could measure this diffuse benefit versus concentrated harm, such concentrated harm is not justified?

I sound like an economist, I know. My point is that these things are hard to measure, and even if we could measure them, harming a few people a lot through a computer ban might just be unacceptable from a policy perspective. So maybe things should be left as they are.

In other words, the left hand-right hand argument is a compelling one, so thanks to this commentator for sharing it. It's a good example of powerful advocacy. And if the commentator had stopped right there, I might have simply conceded the point. But then comes the really fun part of the comment:

I do not understand why a professor would want to handicap students. Does a game of solitaire bruise your ego that badly? It seems that a student who engages in laptop activities that are not class related would perform poorly and the problem should correct itself. If not, then what is the problem? It may be the devilish sense of schadenfreude that law school has instilled, but please support the laptop revolution.

Hmm. Here, the comment misses the point. The point is not my (not so tender) ego. At least in my classes, a computer ban would not be about ME. It would be about the students, believe it or not. (And if you don't believe it, that won't bruise my ego.) Here's what I mean.

ONE: As a lawyer, you have to learn to pay attention, and sometimes even take notes on a legal pad (gasp!). Lawyers are professionals, and paying attention is a professional skill. So is asking students to do it in class such a bad idea? Yes, we all multitask, but are you really going to answer your phone, send an e-mail, shop online AND interview a client at the same time? No, you are going to just interview the client, and not always using a computer. So a computer ban might help model that behavior in law school--since the students are there to become lawyers. And with all the current criticism of how law schools are not practical (including comments on this blog), this would be a very practical approach to training people to focus, which is essential in law practice.

I concede that a ban for this reason would be paternalistic. But that alone does not mean it could not be beneficial.

TWO: Shopping during class, or watching movies during class, or IM'ing during class--doing anything non-class related during class--can be very distracting TO OTHER STUDENTS. I have had students (this academic year, mind you) tell me how distracting it is when people with computers do this in class. A computer ban would help those people.

THREE: I am not sure how well I am going to articulate this point, but here goes. If a teacher asks people in a class to not do something, and then people do it anyway, and the teacher then takes action to prohibit that behavor, why is the teacher the problem? Let me requote the comment: "I do not understand why a professor would want to handicap students. Does a game of solitaire bruise your ego that badly?" I would answer with a question of my own: If I tell students not to use computers in class for non-classroom activities, and then they do it, why is that somehow my shortcoming?" How would I be engaged in "taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune" (the definition of Schadenfreude) if I were to prohibit computers in class in that situation? All rhetorical questions, of course.

This third point of course ignores other possible benefits of computer bans, such as improved classroom discussion and closer attention to the lecture (as opposed to transcription of the lecture).

* * * *

The more I think about computer bans, the less sure I am that a computer ban is what I would want to do--even though it might have some benefits. It's a complicated issue, and the comments I have received on this blog have been very, very helpful for me, so please keep them coming.

Let me close by pointing out the irony in this case: if students didn't use computers in class for non-class activities, didn't distract others in class through this behavior, and didn't focus on transcription of lectures versus participating in class discussion, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In other words, I wonder whether the focus of criticisms and discussion should be less on professorial egos or shortcomings and more on the reasons why such bans have been implemented by some, and considered by others. That's why I find the "analogy of the hands" compelling, and discussions of ego off the mark.

New Student (to be) Blog

I have found a new student blog--actually, a student-to-be blog. Reasonable Expectations is a blog on "a new mother's thoughts on parenthood, applying to law school and life in general." Which is an interesting, different angle on the law school experience. I'll be reading this one.

Computer Bans

Recently I blogged about whether computers should be banned in law school classes. That post can be linked to here. Today I found another several articles on the subject. The articles involve Professor June Entman of the University of Memphis.

Anyone in my classes this semester will note that I currently allow laptops in class. I like computers. I like the flexibility, power, and portability that they provide students (and faculty, and lawyers). I'm not a dinosaur (yet). Yet they may have their downsides, especially in a classroom. Read the following articles describing Professor Entman's laptop ban and see what you think. They appeared in USA Today, OrinKerr.com (see also Kerr's original post on the matter, in which he did not support Entman), and Conglomerate.

I should note that this is not exactly breaking news--Entman's ban took place in the spring semester of 2006. But "not so recent" does not mean "not so relevant," so I am taking a detour from recent posts on exams to revisit the issue. Let me know if you have thoughts on the matter.

Law School Rejection - Take This!

For those of you in the process of waiting for your law school admission results, I have come across the following very useful letter. Please feel free to use it.

Dean Robert A. Jackson
Chair - Faculty of Law Admissions Committee
75B Madisson Hall, Clark University
Timmons, ON B49 6B1

Dear Dean Jackson,

Thank you for your letter of February 2. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me a spot at your law school.

This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually
large number of rejection letters from law schools. With such a varied and promising field of candidates, it is impossible for me to accept all refusals.

Despite Clark's outstanding qualifications and previous experience in rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at this time. Therefore, I will assume a spot at your law school this September. I look forward to seeing you then.

Best of luck in rejecting future law school applicants.

Sincerely,
Marty B. Kendall

Answering my Mail

So much for my recent holiday (blogiday). As always, there's a lot going on in the law career world, so where to start? Perhaps the best place to begin is by responding to some recent comments on this blog. Much of the purpose behind this blog, after all, is to address gaps--between law school and law practice, between profs and students, between law school education and law school academic success, and so on. And critical to that mission is two-way communication. So here goes.

Comment #1: Why I (Don't) Like Law Profs

This is a great comment, posted recently in response to my Blogiday post:

Law school professors really overrate themselves. At the end of the day, they are nothing more than liberal arts professors who just spend their lives writing law review articles that nobody reads and who develop "theories" that are rarely if ever, used in real world practice. Do you honestly feel like your teaching leads to any PRACTICAL outcome?

Ouch. Somebody is clearly goading me, so let me rise to the bait and respond in two different ways.

My first response is "Yes, I honestly do feel that my teaching leads to practical outcomes." Otherwise I would not do it. If I wanted a career path that was a scam, it would be a scam that made a lot more money.

Second, one of my favorite sayings is, "All generalizations are bad." (Think about it.) To suggest that all law profs are "liberal arts professors" engaged in useless pursuits lumps the good with the bad, both at law schools and in the liberal arts. The implication that some academicians don't impart value, and therefore all of them are useless, is a fallacy of logic. It also smacks of knee-jerk anti-intellectualism, whether intentional or not. That sounds harsh, perhaps, but don't forget that I practiced law for 9 years and served as a judicial clerk too. I have enjoyed both law practice and teaching, and from my first-hand experience I see significant value in both. I am in academia by choice, not by default.

My point is not that you should love all law profs and hold them in awe. Rather, my point is that some do impart value. How many, and how often, is the more appropriate point to debate.

Comment #2: Toxic Torts (and Contracts, and Crim Law, and . . .)

One reader pointed to a panel at the 2007 annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) titled aptly, if not succintly, "High risk/high stakes student problems: New approaches inside and outside the classroom for addressing substance abuse, gambling and other self-destructive student behaviors." That session (discussed in a recent article in Inside Higher Ed) addressed how law school's "mixture of lofty expectations and a high-stress environment" can lead to mental stress and substance abuse. It's an article worth reading, especially now that fall 2006 grades have been turned in at many schools.

Much of the problem is that students are officially or unofficially ranked against one another in law school. Most of them have been at the top of the curve their entire lives, from kindergarten on. Inevitably, however, there is a further shaking out in law school, and some people used to being at the top of the class no longer are. That is hard to deal with.

This is a topic I will return to later, but in the meantime, thanks to this reader for the link to this article.

Comment #3: Moral and Practical Law Schools

Another (or perhaps the same?) anonymous commenter points to another article in Inside Higher Ed on the subject of "moral and practical law schools." That's an interesting topic, since many people believe law schools are neither. It's a subject of interest to me, and I agree with this commenter that this is recommended reading for anyone interested in the subject.

* * * *

So now that I am caught up on my mail, in my next post I will provide some observations on exam-taking, since I just finished grading hundreds of essay exam questions. This won't be a gripe session. It will be an opportunity for me to set forth some thoughts on what works and does not work on law school essay exams.