A different fight

In all my thinking about my future in law, I never considered having to grapple for a position that I was more than qualified for and possibly not get it because of my gender. The race card is pulled more times than I want to even think about or care to imagine, and I feel at least mentally prepared to fight for the color of my skin. But an article on a New Zealand news site pointed out that old fashioned sexism is still alive and well. New Zealand may not be the U.S., but the "gender jungle" exists all over the world.

There aren't many women like McArthur in the legal fraternity. In her national firm, only six of the 50 partners are women, even though there are more female staff than men. In other New Zealand law firms, just over one in 10 of all legal partners are women. "I sometimes look around the table and think, `Oh my God, there are so few of us'," she says.

With number like this, it's more than scary to step out into the legal world as a woman. In 2007, I would have argued that intellect, dedication, work ethic, and a handful of other quality trait would determine whether you are rewarded for your work, but that is a fantasy land. Now, more than ever, we are seeing that women are still making less than men, still getting passed over for positions they are more than capable of holding and not receiving the same recognition at a man would in their same position. Facts like this shock me, because I was starting to believe that my efforts would be what got me to where I needed to be.

The more unfortunate thing is that this is true not only of big law firms, but of the small ones too. So it is possible that I could meet discrimination and hardships anywhere. The silver lining here is that I'm up for the challenge!

Let's try a combination of church and state...

In this age of separation of church and state, many people go through their careers with their religion on the back burner, most not ignoring it altogether, but being mindful not to mix it with their jobs. People finds this easier to do, and safer, because you never know who you will offend with your religious views.


Some constitutional law classes begin with the professor challenging a student with probing questions about the separation of church and state.
Others start with a five-minute prayer.
Or they might if they're one of the growing number of Christian law schools in the country. The idea at these schools is to intertwine, not separate out, the tenets of one or more branches of Christianity into the legal curriculum.


In a recent article in the Houston Chronicle, several law schools around the nation are highlighted for their emphasis on Christian aspect of law. While some schools merely teach the law it self, some aim to "graduate lawyers whose understanding of the law is rooted in 'the absolute truth of the Bible' and the foundations the Bible provided for American law." This begs the question, should religious principles be a part of legal education, or is the separation of church and state what students need to become a bias effective lawyer after law school.



Some constitutional law classes begin with the professor challenging a student with probing questions about the separation of church and state.
Others start with a five-minute prayer. Or they might if they're one of the growing number of Christian law schools in the country. The idea at these schools is to intertwine, not separate out, the tenants of one or more branches of Christianity into the legal curriculum.



A Christian based legal education would be just what I need. Although some students may feel that it is unnecessary to have the Christian background, I feel it may enhance my journey through law school.

The process is hard enough, with late nights, extremely difficult tests, competition and the subject matter itself, with that extra boost of the religious emphasis, making it through law school may not be so taxing. Since I am a person that has fully relied on God to get me through every part of my education, I would still need that support in the toughest period in my life. What we have to keep in mind is that these christian based law programs are an option, no one is forced to attend these schools. If Christian based teaching is what you need, you can attend and get the same excellent education as a student in another law program.

The article also talks about the broader perspective the Christian based school give and how open students are to talking about their faith more than at other law schools. This atmosphere generates understanding and a sense of balance in the curriculum, which may be things that other schools lack.

I'm still on the hunts for the law school that is right for me. I will compare a dozen or more schools before I get to the one that fits me, but I will definitely keep my eyes open for one that puts God first!

Oh, that other "next step"

"Law school is not a destination, it is a journey."

Upon graduating from law school, one tends to be at the same crossroads as they may have found themselves years before when they were close to high school graduation and had not chosen a college yet, or when their time in college was coming to an end and they had not yet applied to a graduate program. With the accomplishment of a law degree comes the next step, the real world application of what you learned. But are law students ready?

Many students fail to realize that much of what they learn during those 3 to 4 (sometimes 5 and 6) years that have not been explained by a judge and advise clients on how to comply with them. So with some law curriculum that have been in existence for 150 years, law schools are taking a step back and evaluating what is taught, all in an effort to maintain the school's edge, and keep students competitive.

An article in the New York Times named top law schools, Harvard, Columbia and Stanford to name a few, all looking to revise their current curriculum.

"That question is being tackled — seriously — at a variety of law schools around the country as they undertake a broad series of changes to their curriculum. The changes range from requiring new courses for first-year students to expanding clinical programs to adding electives in the later years to encouraging law students to take courses in other graduate-level programs at their universities.
What certainly stands out is that the dominant model in law school education is focused almost entirely on the development of thinking like a lawyer,” said William Sullivan, a senior scholar at the Carnegie Foundation and the lead author of the report. “And by that, what they mean is being able to be good at legal analysis.”

With that, students can look to fresher courses in future law school years, and this can give many students the advantage they may need to compete for those coveted top ranking law firm positions. This will also give student a sense of satisfaction, because now, more than before, students can say that updated curriculum are giving them more of their money's worth.

It interests me even more in the idea of law school, because now I feel like the schools are really looking out for the students and their future accomplishments. And with the big names in law starting the trend, it will not be long before other, smaller schools follow suit.

The Job Market

The job market has been strained for careers across the board. From the lack of educators in class rooms to the shortage of black engineers, the opportunities for advancement after college has a bleak outlook for recent graduates.

Recently, my mother sent me an article that focused on the job market for fresh-out-of-law-school hopefuls. The article talked about how that even if you graduated from the top of your class from a prestigious law school in the country, you still have room to fret, because a position at a high paying firm (which is where ALL law school graduates want to be) is not guaranteed. This exerpt from a Wall Street Journal article makes it plain.

For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better. Big law firms this year boosted their starting salaries to as high as $160,000. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from a supply-and-demand imbalance that's suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000.

The problem is not that the jobs aren't available. The fact is that the market is wide open for attorneys. But that top paying, most lucrative positions may have dried up. How did this happen? I would think that with a graduate degree, especially a law degree, would virtually make one a shoe in for a great paying career. The article touched on the fact that in 2006, a low number (about 14%) are in jobs that pay more that $100,000 per year, while the average starting salary remains at barely above $60,000. While the latter amount sounds absolutely perfect to me, it may not be enough for some of the outrageous student loans that recent graduates have accrued.

Experts attempt to reassure us that actually having a law degree does open doors, many more than with just a bachelor's degree, which makes me feel better. But, after 4 years of undergraduate study and and other 3 years of a graduate program, many people are expecting a handsome payback. And who can blame them?

While some attribute the problem to supply and demand, others, like Bruce MacEwen, believe that it is not that lack of top firms needing young, fresh lawyers, it is the lack of SMALL time firms. I would even go so far as to argue part of the problem is that new lawyers are looking to be the next late Johnnie Cochran, when they should be looking to start from the proverbial bottom and work their way to the top.

The Wall Street Journal even took an interest in this and ran story and looked at what they call the dark side of the job market. The scary part is that many law school graduates are not working in the capacity that they might have wished. The article said that many are taking contract work, and not making enough to make ends meet (and when I say "make ends meet, I mean paying off loans that the article said may top $100,000).

All of this is not enough to stop my determination to proceed into the law field (even after reading about the possible $100,000 i may get into)!

The Next Step

In May, I will be taking the biggest step of my life, out into the real world, to fend for myself and make decisions that will determine the course of the rest of my life. It's only fitting that the decisions I make be ones that ensure my happiness, foster creativity, learning and hard work and of course makes me plenty of money!

Last semester, I started thinking of going in to law. It's an exciting field where I can do all the things I love: take risks, help people, argue, and earn a living that will put me and my future husband and possible kids into a handsome tax bracket. So I started doing my research. Top schools, tuition prices, areas of strength, the general experience, black students and how they measure up to other ethnic groups and locations. I have learned a great deal in all of this: LAW SCHOOL IS GOING TO BE SCARY!!!! I have read countless e-dairies and newspaper and magazine articles, listened to law students, professors and lawyers and have come to the conclusion that law school is not for the faint of heart. Luckily, I'm up for the challenge.

I know that if I just get in, I will do well, maybe even better than my peers, but the fear and difficulty of getting in is becoming a road block. Several season law students had similar fears and were gracious enough to post their law school experiences, advice and horror stories. Below are just a few. Maybe they will be the ones to get me through...

Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil
http://www.threeyearsofhell.com/archive/005536.php

First Year Law Student 1LS) Advice
http://law-career.blogspot.com/2007/08/advice-to-1ls-at-start-of-school-year.html

Discussions!
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php?topic=94380.0

What's really going on?

The media is all in a uproar about Dan Rather's recent litigation against CBS and whether he is justified in his actions. Many media professionals and others are at a mental tug of war about Rather's intentions with the law suit since he was handsomely compensated at the time of his termination. Should he be opening old wounds by dragging CBS through this, or should he go after the network that unfairly let him go after apologizing for an honest mistake that was made.

In a recent post on Contactmusic.com, Josh Howard, executive producer of 60 Minutes, the show that aired the story that ultimately put Rather in hot water with CBS, was upset about the comments Rather made about his involvement in the Rathergate issue. Howard said that Rather made it seem like he had a minimal role in the scandal and down played the things he actually did to make the story work, by making himself out to be, as Howard calls it "just a narrator". Some of these things include Rather working with all the sources, doing every interview and working closely with document experts.

In all honesty, Rather has every right to be upset at the chain of events that has lead up to the point of this recent law suit. He has lost his coveted job and much of his creditability, and is losing more and more each day with the media coverage of the lawsuit. It looks like a bunch of finger pointing and careful playing of the blame game, of which Rather should be in the championships. But does it just come down to someone taking responsibility for what was done, either on Rather's end for messing up with a false story, or on CBS's end, for cutting a man loose who didn't deserve to be treated as such.

I'm wondering, when will it end? Will Rather ever get his "good name" back from the media that he served for so long? This is one of those things where we just have to wait and see, because we can rest assured that coverage of this event will clog the news feeds for a while...