The

Undeniable

Ruth

®

…and the Ruth shall set you free!

  • ASU Law Must Think We’re Morons

    ·

    Ruth Carter

    When I was a 1L, the school told us that the copy center at the law school had class outlines for sale.  There were dozens of outlines created by previous students available.  For some classes they are a necessity, and for others, it’s just nice to have another person’s outline to compare to your own and to have another person’s take on the material.

    Photo by Ryan Cassella, used with permission from WNPR

    Mysteriously, these outlines have disappeared from the copy center this semester, except for two “professor-approved” outlines.  Apparently, Dean Berman didn’t like that an outline for his Civil Procedure class was available.  It was over 100 pages long, and according to an email he sent to his students, it was almost verbatim what he said during his lectures.  The rumor is he didn’t want this outline to be available because he thought students should create their own outlines.  There was also another rumor that a different professor didn’t want students to have an outline for her class that clearly explained concepts because she liked it when students suffered.

    I think this is probably Berman’s mental logic: “I benefited from making my own outlines from scratch without outside help, so no one else should be able to have external help from others’ notes.”  It doesn’t matter what Berman likes or doesn’t like.  It’s about the students being able to learn the material.  If having another information source is helpful, especially if they’re willing to pay the school extra to have it, then so be it!  Just because the school doesn’t like it or encourage it in general, it doesn’t make it wrong.

    Here’s the moronic part – outlines are widely available and easily passed from student to student.  Student clubs have their own outline banks that they freely share with their members.  Any student whose judgment is so bad as to assume a 50-page outline will substitute for an 800-page textbook and a semester’s worth of lectures, shouldn’t be in law school in the first place.  Such assumptions only reflect the lack of confidence Dean Berman has in his students’ intellect and judgment.  The only thing the school did was cut off a revenue stream.  Given how much the school has had to raise tuition and class size, this seems like a really stupid thing to do.

    And to top all of this off, the school didn’t think to inform the student body about this change.  The outlines simply disappeared at the end of last semester.  This lack of transparency makes me question what else the school might be hiding from students, its consumers and future donors.

    Let me be clear, this is not a post demanding that the outlines be reinstated because I believe it’s an entitlement afforded to all law students.  I simply mean to enumerate one more example of a poorly chosen policy and the law school’s consistent inability to effectively instate such overhauls.  Not to mention the school’s now predictable attitude toward communicating with its students, that of don’t ask don’t tell.

    And since I’m on my soapbox, I don’t think Berman should be teaching class.  He has enough to do with raising money for the school.  According to this year’s students, he frequently cancelled class due to his other job duties and made them up with marathon classes.  I hear he’s actually a good teacher, but I don’t think he should be an instructor and an administrator.  If I was one of his students, I would have been pissed.

    Special thanks to my anonymous co-writer this week.

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Should you Accept a Job Where you Don’t Want to Live?

    ·

    Ruth Carter

    My classmate asked me to write about what a law student should do if they get a job offer in a state where they don’t want to move.  That’s a really hard question, and I don’t think that there is a hard and fast answer.

    The economy is not doing well and law school graduates are struggling to find jobs in general.  I’m sure a lot of people will say you should take any job you can get.  When I put this question out on Twitter, the best response was, “If you really will like the job, then the location doesn’t matter as much, at least in the short term.”  The only problem I have with this response is related to the fact that we don’t have a national bar in the United States.  When we pass the bar, we’re basically locking ourselves into one state unless there is reciprocity or we’re willing to take another bar exam.  If we weren’t locked into to a particular location, I would be more willing to support moving to a place you hate on a temporary basis.

    Ohio state welcome sign, along US Route 30, en...
    Image via Wikipedia

    I asked my sister, Morena Carter, for her thoughts on this topic.  She’s a law student at the University of Akron.  When she finished her masters degree in European history and museum studies, she moved across the country to accept a job at the Cleveland Art Museum in Ohio.  I was baffled by her decision.  She had never lived in that part of the country and she did not know anyone there.  When it comes to moving for one’s career she says, “I think people should only apply for jobs that they think they might like at least a little bit or that might lead them to the job they really want no matter where it is.”  She took the job because it was an incredible career opportunity of her and if nothing else, having it on her resume would help her get a more desirable job.  She stayed at that job for the 4.5 years and is still happily living in the Cleveland area.

    My Dad has always said, “Figure out where you want to live, then get a job.”  I give this advice a lot of weight because I know if I hate where I live, no job is going to make it bearable.  I need to be able to enjoy my free time.  It’s also important to know what factors you need to be happy in a city.  My experiences have taught me that I do better in cities with minimal snow and that are within 90 minutes of a major airport.

    You shouldn’t completely reject a job if it’s in an unfamiliar place, but carefully consider the opportunities and the drawbacks of both the job and the area before making a decision.  Think about what you would be willing to give up for the right career opportunity.  If you’re going to move some place completely new, it’s important to embrace it and make a strong effort to get acclimated and meet new people.  It’s hard for people who aren’t self-starters to do this.  My sister and I agree that it takes a good 6 months to a year for a place to start to feel like home.

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Screwed by the ASU Tuition Classification System

    ·

    Ruth Carter

    One of the benefits of ASU Law School is that non-resident students have the option to be classified as a resident for tuition purposes after one year if they intend to stay in Arizona after graduation.  For one student, who will remain nameless, the system failed him.

    Money
    Image by TW Collins via Flickr

    To be considered a resident in the eyes of ASU, the student has to prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that they had been continuously physically present in the state for 12 months and intend to stay in Arizona indefinitely.  ASU assumes you’re only there to get an education.  A student can prove their intent to stay in Arizona with documents such as a tax return, driver’s license, car registration, bank account, insurance, voter registration, and proof of ownership of property in the state.

    My friend got into other law schools that are better than ASU, but he picked ASU because of Arizona’s strong legal market and the school’s high career placement for its graduates.  He complied with the rule regarding residency and submitted his application to have his residency status changed.  Surprisingly, his application was denied.  The committee claimed one of the reasons for the denial was that his financial support came from all student sources.  This is completely inaccurate.  He had a full tuition scholarship, but he paid for his living expense out of his savings.  Basically he was denied in-state tuition because he was smart and was fiscally responsible.

    He appealed the decision.  When a student appeals a residency decision, they have to appear before a 3-person panel and state their case.  The panel asks questions and then deliberates right in front of the student before rendering a decision.  Allegedly, my friend’s appeal was hijacked by one of the panel members from University Libraries.  According to my friend, she shared her assumptions about law students with her fellow panel members, such as law school applicants go to the best school they get into and that law school graduates can get jobs anywhere.  Apparently she wasn’t aware that passing the bar exam only allows you to practice law in one state, unless there is reciprocity.  The panel allegedly considered these assumptions about law students rather than the facts that my friend presented.

    Now, my friend is wicked smart and a great guy in general.  He has a summer associate position lined up, and if all goes well, he could be offered a job for after graduation.  His statements to the panel regarding future employment were not unrealistic.

    The worst thing the panel mentioned in their deliberation was his alleged lack of community connections.  Anyone who understands law school knows that students don’t have much time for a social life.    Furthermore, the panel said that he could have established intent if he had mentioned that he was a member of a church!  ASU is a public school and the panel never asked if he was member of a church.  The panel disregarded his connections with Teach for America, Junior Law, and Community Legal Services because he could have been involved in these organizations regardless of where he lived.  Isn’t the same true for a church?

    So, despite my friend following the rules, he got screwed over by the system and there’s nothing he can do but pay the more expensive non-resident tuition, reapply for residency, and hope if it’s denied, that he has a panel that decides his case on the facts and not their assumptions.

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta