All --I know that there is some concern floating around about the lack of availability of spaces in the con law classes for this spring. As you all know, the Faculty last fall voted to give preference to 1Ls in Con Law classes for this spring. What this means, is that 1Ls do have priority.
However, I met with Dean Hirsh** on Monday to discuss this issue and to let her know that people are not happy. We are working to secure at least 20 more 2L/3L spots in both Prof. L** and Prof. D**vir's classes but we cannot guarantee this.
That said, the 1L spots will not fill up in these classes -- it is statistically impossible. Any unfilled spots will go to 2Ls and 3Ls on the waiting list. What this means is that you should definitely be signing up for waitlists for these classes. I know this isn't exactly the solution that some of you would want. If you have any helpful ideas about this please post them here and I will compile the results and send them along to the administration.
Thanks to everyone who has already emailed me. Who knew the Constitution was so hot right now?
I'm not sure if this counts as a helpful, but the administration needs to be aware that a lot of 2Ls feel that they're completely turning their backs on our class. Between construction (which they were less than up-front about when we were undecided admits), the economic collapse, and sweeping changes to the Civ Pro 2 and Con Law curricula that just happen to leave us caught in the middle, our class has been screwed pretty royally. I would hope that this is something that will be kept in mind should they decide to drop any more bombshells on the class of 2011 in the future.
ReplyDeleteI know this doesn't fit into the category of "helpful comments," but I think the Admin should get a better sense of what things look like from this angle: it definitely feels like there has been a high-level decision to just write off the Class of 2011. Massive tuition hikes, three years of construction, terrible job market, and a total failure to phase in curriculum changes over time so that no one gets stuck with gaping holes in their legal knowledge (remember CPII? No? That's because you didn't take it). If they are going to raise our tuition while subjecting us to jackhammering noise in class, the least they can do is make sure that we can take all the classes we need in order to not fail at our summer jobs (assuming we have those).
ReplyDeleteNote to self: don't gchat your friends whilst posting to the BHSA blog. Sorry for the repetition btw posts 1 & 2...I guess it's a common sentiment.
ReplyDeleteIf you want something that's useful for your summer (read: firm - it's always firm) job, you should take ALR, not Con Law, and a skills class, not Civ Pro II. It's highly unlikely that that partner is going to call you in with a question about venue or jurisdiction or the Due Process Clause.
ReplyDeleteAs a 1L, I'm incredibly frusterated with the lack of communication between the administration and our class. We were urged to take Con Law, it was NOT sufficiently communicated to us that we were REQUIRED to take two electives if we opted out of Con Law, regardless of how many hours.
ReplyDeleteA large number of my classmates registered on the assumption that one 3-credit elective was sufficient, as long as we had 12-16 hours of credit, like it says on the registrar websites. E-mail inquiries were not answered. Now, after registration is over, the information has trickled out, and we're stuck. Blocked out of Con Law, blocked out of other electives. We recieved no e-mail, no information on the registration homepage, nada.
This is totally maddening, especially since Boalt uses the "we let 1L's take electives" as a bragging point-- for those of us who came here for that reason, this is a big let down.
#4, if I had a dollar for every time I've had to preface the answer to a question with, "I haven't taken Con Law, but..." ...I wouldn't need a firm job. It's rare that a case will hinge on it, but everyone expects you to know it (maybe because everywhere else, they take it during their 1L year). Also, it is pretty fundamental stuff; there's a reason why everyone else takes it early. I can't believe that 1Ls who don't want to take it are being coerced into doing so at the same time that 2Ls who want to can't get into it. This is a MESS.
ReplyDeleteCPII is similar--everyone else took it in their first semester, so they expect that you know it, too--and if you are a 2L who hasn't managed to fit it in by next semester, you don't (but the current 1Ls do).
Here is the key issue for the administration to grasp: change is ok, but you need to enact is in PHASES. It is great that the faculty has decided that Con Law should be encouraged for 1Ls. Most other schools use this model, if not requiring 1Ls to take Con Law, and it makes sense. But the faculty also needs to remember that it specifically DISCOURAGED 2Ls and 3Ls from taking Con Law. In two years, this problem will be alleviated. Until then you need a TRANSITION plan (like construction!!) that is fair to everyone.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that would have helped, and could help next year, is more Con Law in the fall. This year having one class with a visiting professor that conflicted with BOTH Civ Pro IIs was not acceptable or kind. Perhaps next year more fall classes could be added, and a 2L and 3L specific con law course in the spring with a tenured and loved professor (NOT a random visiting prof) would alleviate some of the anger.
@1:36pm - I disagree. I have worked at two separate law firms in SF, and have gotten both questions about jurisdiction and the due process clause. Con Law is assumed knowledge around a law firm - you don't need to know everything about it, and it's fine if you have to look something up, but you need to have a basic understanding of the legal issues involving the Constitution, the major cases, and the current debates. And as for jurisdiction - this is an element of every case. Sure, the partner doesn't expect you to know as much about it as he or she does, but it's something you will need to learn eventually, one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteEven if you don't work at a firm or as a litigator, keep in mind that unless you don't care about practicing law, you will need to pass the bar exam - which means you will need to know this stuff, at least until August of the year you graduate...
I agree with most of the comments above, but as someone who's taking Con Law with the "random visiting prof", I want to say that she's doing a bang-up job, better than almost all of the tenured faculty I've had at Boalt. Tenure doesn't reward teaching ability, it rewards publication, and I can think of some highly-paid tenured faculty who couldn't seem to care less if their students learn (one of them "taught" Contracts last year). Meanwhile, visiting gigs mean that Boalt can audition talented outsiders and bring in fresh blood/ steal talent from other schools.
ReplyDelete