That's funny, it's almost like these results could be explained by a weak correlation between the content of the bar classes and the bar exam.

PNAS paper at best, IMHO.

1:57: Except for St. John's, which has a 2006 bar passage rate only a couple of points lower than Cornell's.

I'm shocked! Next someone will tell me that the bar exam has nothing to do with the actual practice of law.

St. John's has a high NY Bar passage rate because it is a three year NY bar course.

Another reason crappy law schools have a lot of black-letter law classes may be that they can't attract talented scholars to each more sophisticated and innovative classes.

"The worse a law school is, the more of its offered courses are "black letter law" courses."

How does that make sense? Do the best law schools only offer Mickey-Mouse classes like "The Law in Bugs Bunny Cartoons" and "Painting-By-Numbers and the Founding Fathers"?

I am a corporate finance lawyer - as far as I am concerned, Secured Transactions is probably the only worthwhile course I took in law school. Sorry you didn't like it, Lat.

1:57's comment, and the responses there to, are interesting. What would happen if they controlled for quality of school? Hypothesis: black letter law classes have little effect on bar passage rates for top tier schools, but improve bar passage rates among lower tiered schools.

1:57 seems to be inferring a bit too much. The study was done at one particular law school, and then redone at another. All it shows is that the people who did better at that school, also did better on the bar. So, I would infer, they were smarter and/or more motivated, and that mattered more when it came to the bar than what classes they took.

My guess is that 2:44's hypothesis would hold up empirically.

2:39: are you making fun of my Poverty and the Law class? Because I loved it!

Seriously, though, numerous non-mickey mouse classes are not bar prep. My antitrust and M&A classes are more relevant to my practice than various "bar" subjects like family law, T&E and criminal law. Admittedly, crim. pro. has had use beyond the bar exam, what with my [extended] family.

' "The worse a law school is, the more of its offered courses are "black letter law" courses."

'How does that make sense? Do the best law schools only offer Mickey-Mouse classes like "The Law in Bugs Bunny Cartoons" and "Painting-By-Numbers and the Founding Fathers"?'

IF by 'best' you mean 'highest ranked,' then yes.

Black law letter classes don't necessarily make it easier to pass the bar.

But as an associate at a Vault.com top 10 law firm, I find it pathetic how little associates know of certain things.

For example, in my firm, full of Harvard/Yale/Columbia/NYU grads, most of the litigators never took a class in Evidence or Trial Ad. Many of the corporate assocs never took a class in Corporations or Bus Org. That makes no sense at all to me. Sure they were able to bar/bri whatever was needed for the bar exam, but I've seen in practice litigators (Who work on federal cases) that don't know jack about basic hearsay/non-hearsay rules.

It's pretty sad. Besides the whole job thing and repaying student loans, going to a top law school and not taking essential classes is a waste.

I actually loved black-letter classes because they were such excellent intellectual building blocks. I also thought there was a guarantee that I'd actually learn something in those classes unlike, say, International Law or something else lacking a clear statutory/common law/Constitutional focus. I'm not saying the former's more rigorous than the latter, but I'm very grateful that I had a "classical" law school education.

Maybe I'm defining "black-letter" too broadly, though.

"Elite" law schools tend to offer fewer black letter classes because they want to perpetuate the myth that law is an intellectual profession and not just another trade. All this also emphasizes that the bar exam is easy to pass after cramming for a few months.

Not sure how many of you use Firefox, but I just downloaded their new "AdBlock Plus" and Lat's page, as well as every other web page I view, is completely devoid of ads, pop-ups and banners.

VERY COOL!

""Elite" law schools tend to offer fewer black letter classes because they want to perpetuate the myth that law is an intellectual profession and not just another trade."

No, they offer it, but they don't require these classes taken. Then these idiots who go there take dumb classes and then as litigators at DPW/S&C/STB/Wachtell type places confuse admissions by party-opponent EXCLUSION from hearsay with declarant unavailable - statements against pecuniary interest EXCEPTION from hearsay.

You would think someone who knows they are going into litigation at a top law firm would eventually take one evidence course and one trial advocacy course before graduating, but I guess elite law school students are extremely illogical.

Corollary hypothesis:

Black letter law courses matter less among top tiered schools for a variety of elitist and non-elitist reasons:

1. Improved quality/ discipline of student (elitist reason)
2. Improved motivation to pass immediately, ie, very good job lined up, more at stake if failed. (slightly elitist reason)
3. Better ability to study for bar because less likely to be working in 8 weeks before the bar exam than a non top tier student. (non elitest reason)
4. Better study materials due to firm paying bar/bri expenses (non elitest reason)

2:53: Sadly, I took Evidence, passed the bar, and still have trouble with hearsay/non-hearsay/exceptions to hearsay.

How can you not take Evidence if you want to be a litigator (notwithstanding my lack of facility for the subject)? Wouldn't you just be intellectually curious about it?

2:44

The problem is, by only cramming these subjects for bar/bri, they are easily forgotten after the bar exam. That's why top law firms are full of litigator who not only haven't taken evidence or trial ad in law school (or corp. assocs who never took corporations or bus org??), but they prove it too by showing that lack of knowledge (I've seen it firsthand). It's pathetic.

Congrats on beating the WSJ Law Blog to this item, Lat.

2:53-

"How can you not take Evidence if you want to be a litigator "

I wonder this too. I wonder how you can't take CORPORATIONS or BUSINESS ORGANIZAIONS if you want to be a corporate lawyer.

It makes no sense at all, but that's why elite law school grads are not better lawyers than TTT grads. Elite law school grads are just people who work much harder and took expensive SAT/LSAT review courses. They cared so much about getting into a top law school that they didn't even think about taking advantage of that top law school education.

That's why more and more elite bIGLAW firms are looking at the cream of the crop from 2nd tier and TTT. The top students tend to be better lawyers than most of the elite law school grads.

2:53-

"How can you not take Evidence if you want to be a litigator "

I wonder this too. I wonder how you can't take CORPORATIONS or BUSINESS ORGANIZAIONS if you want to be a corporate lawyer.

It makes no sense at all, but that's why elite law school grads are not better lawyers than TTT grads. Elite law school grads are just people who work much harder and took expensive SAT/LSAT review courses. They cared so much about getting into a top law school that they didn't even think about taking advantage of that top law school education.

That's why more and more elite bIGLAW firms are looking at the cream of the crop from 2nd tier and TTT. The top students tend to be better lawyers than most of the elite law school grads.

3:04: I think that students from top schools are under the impression one can pick up Evidence and its ilk on the fly and students from lower-tiered schools aren't confident enough to think they can. Not saying either scenario is true/untrue - just an observation.

I was told in law school that if I didn't take my state's civil practice course I'd fail the bar exam. Refused to take it and passed.

so i shouldnt have taken animal law my 3L year?

3:01 - Yeah, because at biglaw, you're in court all the time and need to know that rule against hearsay and its exceptions inside and out.

"3:01 - Yeah, because at biglaw, you're in court all the time and need to know that rule against hearsay and its exceptions inside and out."

No, but you should know it. And if you are at Quinn or Paul Hastings, you need to know it.

3:09 - hilarious. Are you serious?

EliteBIGLAWLawyer - You sound very insecure. Knowing evidence rules can't compensate for that.

"I think that students from top schools are under the impression one can pick up Evidence and its ilk on the fly and students from lower-tiered schools aren't confident enough to think they can. Not saying either scenario is true/untrue - just an observation."

I think it's true for the bar exam, but who retains things learned only in cramming sessions for an exam.

If you have a good teacher and take a course, you will retain more knowledge of say evidence than your counterpart who just bar/bri's it. That's my point. My point isn't about the bar exam, it's about actual practice.

I just don't get why people at top law schools aren't taking courses for subjects they need/should know for their future practice, evidence for litigators or Corporations(!!!!) for corporate associates. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

"I think that students from top schools are under the impression one can pick up Evidence and its ilk on the fly and students from lower-tiered schools aren't confident enough to think they can. Not saying either scenario is true/untrue - just an observation."

I think it's true for the bar exam, but who retains things learned only in cramming sessions for an exam.

If you have a good teacher and take a course, you will retain more knowledge of say evidence than your counterpart who just bar/bri's it. That's my point. My point isn't about the bar exam, it's about actual practice.

I just don't get why people at top law schools aren't taking courses for subjects they need/should know for their future practice, evidence for litigators or Corporations(!!!!) for corporate associates. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

"You sound very insecure"

I'd rather be an insecure litigator with extensive evidence knowledge than a secure "litigator" who went to a top law school and didn't take evidence or trial ad.

Can someone be properly called an Electrical Engineer if they never took any EE courses in school?

There is no excuse for a future litigator to avoid evidence or trial ad in law school, and likewise, no excuse for a future corporate assoc to avoid a class in corporations (!)

"3:01 - Yeah, because at biglaw, you're in court all the time and need to know that rule against hearsay and its exceptions inside and out."

No, but you should know it. And if you are at Quinn or Paul Hastings, you need to know it.

So you work at Paul Hastings, huh? When did they become a trial-heavy firm? Please.

It's a totally absurd notion that by the time you're actually playing any kind of lead role in trial, such that you'd have to think on your feet to make oral objections (read, as a junior partner, at earliest, even if you're at a trial-heavy place like quinn), you're going to do this on the basis of remembering an evidence class as a 2L in law school.

And if you think you need to remember your evidence class in order to draft a motion in limine, I guess you're just not that bright.

Yale's unorthodox curriculum not withstanding, I suspect most top tier students take courses consistent with their future area of practice: I wanted to do business litigation so I took antitrust (two courses), trial advocacy, sec reg, and several other practical courses not on bar exam. The transactional attorneys took M&A and corporate finance, etc. Meaty courses, very relevant to our practices, and not on bar.
Sure, some bar prep courses (evidence, contracts, civ pro) are also relevant to my practice but a curriculum composed entirely of bar prep courses is not necessarily any more relevant to a more prepared me for my current practice than a curriculum composed of zero bar prep courses.

"Elite" BIGLAWyer, you obviously didn't go to a top school, so you can be excused for not knowing this, but at the top schools even the "black letter" classes like Civ Pro and Evidence are far more focused on deep legal theory than on memorizing the rules. I did not consider my HLS evidence class to be "black letter" at all. My torts class (essentially a lecture on economic theory) even less. So maybe your question ought to be "why do people go to top-ranked law schools (where they don't offer bare-bones "black letter" classes at all)?

Maybe you should ask your boss.

2:33, you have no idea what the law school teaching market is like. Even bottom-tier toilets can attract top scholars.

3:28: Believe it or not, we don't simply memorize rules at lower-tiered schools. That said, if all your tort class was was a lecture on economic theory, you really missed out.

THANK YOU 2:43!!!

3:35 (1), how did I miss out exactly? Because I can't spit back the elements to Utah's tort for negligent interference with prospective business relations?

Even the letters of their law courses are BLACK!! . . . oh wait . . .

3:28, hopefully you are not working in tort law, because at least knowing the name of the tort would be helpful. But when you are representing Coca-Cola and Pepsi and Enron and not actually ever meeting a real client it will not matter.

"Maybe you should ask your boss." --3:28

Hey 3:28, maybe YOU should ask YOUR MOM!!

3:45, FYI: large law firms don't have "tort law" departments. And I'm not sure why client contact would be relevant to this....

First

3:45, I don't know where to begin.... Here's a first pass:

1. If you're in a national practice, and your clients are potentially getting sued anywhere in the country, you're not possibly going to know the names and elements of every possible bullshit state tort claim the plaintiff might tack on to its complaint.

2. But rest assured, you'll know the name of the tort as soon as you see the complaint.

3. But I practice IP lit anyway, not "tort law."

That all makes sense now. See, us lower schools spend three years memorizing the names of every states torts.

You know, some people do practice tort law. This morning, I saw a lawyer advertisement on a city bus telling me to call me 1-800-TORT LAW immediately.

Apparently that's what 3:45 did.

This is why G'town now teaches The Law of 24.

3:43: I simply meant that it's a fun class and the facts of the cases are among the most memorable in law school.

3:47: You'd be hard-pressed to find a large firm that doesn't have Toxic Tort/Products Liability practice groups. Also, tort law is the building block of a ton of civil claims - even high falutin' ones.

"This is why G'town now teaches The Law of 24."

Looking at the GULC course catalogue, I'd love to see a competition to design the most irrelevant (to the future practice of law and to life in general) 2L and 3L curriculum. (Ground rules: courses must not have scheduling conflicts and the taker would have to be eligible to graduate at the end of her 3L year.)

Great idea 4:36. Lat, how about an open thread?

3:28 - sounds like Nesson and Rosie. I feel your pain.

I'm not sure how black letter classes help when the most of the teachers never practiced any law themselves. One of my worst classes was Civil Procedure, which was taught by this weenie from Yale coming off one year at Paul Weiss and a 7th Cir. Clerkship. At my D. Ct. clerkship, I wondered what the fuck that guy was teaching when I actually had to deal with those issues myself.

"I'm not sure how black letter classes help when the most of the teachers never practiced any law themselves. One of my worst classes was Civil Procedure, which was taught by this weenie from Yale coming off one year at Paul Weiss and a 7th Cir. Clerkship. At my D. Ct. clerkship, I wondered what the fuck that guy was teaching when I actually had to deal with those issues myself."

Now aren't you glad you got that elite education? You were better off going to a TTT, or at least a solid 2nd tier school. Even many elite BIGLAW firms shy away from Yale Law grads because Yale Law more so than any other law school in the country is all name, no substance.