Continuing That Fine Berkeley Tradition
Many 1L's expressed frustration this fall that they were required to take (2) elective courses, regardless of the credit load. IP-ers could take intro to IP (which is now divided into two classes, totaling 5 credits) and satisfy the requirement. Con Law-ers, who will also be taking 5 credits, were required to take another elective, for a heavier credit burden.
I confess that I (a Con Law-er) wasn't particularly concerned with the issue. What do I care what other students are taking? I WANT to take classes. I think they are interesting and I like law school. But I could see their point. There is something unfair from a workload/study time/grade curve point of view -- if that's your bag, and all. Although I never saw the petition that was signed and sent to Dean O., I probably would have signed it. I'm in Berkeley, after all.
Long story short: "V" is for Victoria, "O" is for Ortiz, and apparently they letters may also stand for "occasional victory." Hat tip to the folks who put so much time into the petition while others of us were, err, blowing off studying. This email just came to 1L's from Dean O.:
Dear 1Ls:
Dean Shelanski and I have spent a good bit of time discussing the issues raised by the requirement that you each enroll in two electives regardless of the number of units that gives you for the semester. As many of you know by now, depending on your choices, some of you might end up with 17, 18, or even 19 units, a very heavy academic load.
Dean Shelanski and I are extremely sympathetic to the concerns of those students who are worried about such a heavy semester. At the same time, we are to some degree bound by the faculty decision that second-semester 1L students take two electives, regardless of unit total. Our concern in all of this is to balance academic requirements, professor preferences, and student needs. The issues many of you are facing in this regard have been increasing year to year, and therefore we are planning an in-depth review of the second 1L semester program by the Curriculum Committee, in order to determine what changes, if any, might be warranted.
In the meanwhile, as an interim matter, I will happily authorize those of you wishing to take one of the 5-unit electives to forgo enrollment in a second elective. However, I am asking that you each complete and leave for my signature (during the first week of the spring semester will do) a Petition for a Waiver of an Academic Rule, indicating your desire for me to approve the waiver of the two-elective rule.
Best of luck on your first law school finals!! Don't forget to come to the Goldberg Room (as early as 7 a.m. if you want) for breakfast on those days with morning finals scheduled.
Best,
Dean Ortiz
Boalties changed something substantive about their quality of life. "Mark it, Dude."
I confess that I (a Con Law-er) wasn't particularly concerned with the issue. What do I care what other students are taking? I WANT to take classes. I think they are interesting and I like law school. But I could see their point. There is something unfair from a workload/study time/grade curve point of view -- if that's your bag, and all. Although I never saw the petition that was signed and sent to Dean O., I probably would have signed it. I'm in Berkeley, after all.
Long story short: "V" is for Victoria, "O" is for Ortiz, and apparently they letters may also stand for "occasional victory." Hat tip to the folks who put so much time into the petition while others of us were, err, blowing off studying. This email just came to 1L's from Dean O.:
Dear 1Ls:
Dean Shelanski and I have spent a good bit of time discussing the issues raised by the requirement that you each enroll in two electives regardless of the number of units that gives you for the semester. As many of you know by now, depending on your choices, some of you might end up with 17, 18, or even 19 units, a very heavy academic load.
Dean Shelanski and I are extremely sympathetic to the concerns of those students who are worried about such a heavy semester. At the same time, we are to some degree bound by the faculty decision that second-semester 1L students take two electives, regardless of unit total. Our concern in all of this is to balance academic requirements, professor preferences, and student needs. The issues many of you are facing in this regard have been increasing year to year, and therefore we are planning an in-depth review of the second 1L semester program by the Curriculum Committee, in order to determine what changes, if any, might be warranted.
In the meanwhile, as an interim matter, I will happily authorize those of you wishing to take one of the 5-unit electives to forgo enrollment in a second elective. However, I am asking that you each complete and leave for my signature (during the first week of the spring semester will do) a Petition for a Waiver of an Academic Rule, indicating your desire for me to approve the waiver of the two-elective rule.
Best of luck on your first law school finals!! Don't forget to come to the Goldberg Room (as early as 7 a.m. if you want) for breakfast on those days with morning finals scheduled.
Best,
Dean Ortiz
Boalties changed something substantive about their quality of life. "Mark it, Dude."
Labels: 0L/1L Advice, Classes/Professors, DO
posted by Patrick Bageant at 10:41 AM
27 Comments:
Back in the day some of the older Boalties were deriding the two electives requirement that came at the expense of Civ Pro II. I think after three years, I see their point. If they are going to reevaluate the program, they should combine CP I and CP II to the one year class that it truly is and require only 1 elective. That would solve nearly all the problems.
way to go crybabies. this was definitely a problem that needed to be solved by petition, and not by, say, thinking about the credit weight of the classes you enroll in, or alternatively, by manning up and not crying about it.
I don't know. I think its actually one of boalt's virtues that you get to enroll in 2 electives as a 1L. At lots of schools, they make CP II and Con law part of the 1L curriculum and you get zero choice for a whole year.
I took 18 units my 2nd semester. My electives were IP (when it was only 4 units and 1 class for the same amount of work) and antitrust. I'm not going to lie, it was a ridiculously stressful and difficult semester, but I wouldn't' change it. I learned a lot about subjects i was actually interested in, which makes a huge difference in how much casebook reading you can handle.
Plus, you 1L weren't even subject to the lottery system. There's no excuse for complaining about high unit loads this time, you have the option to take 2 unit classes.
While it probably is a good idea to review elective selection, its not perfect, I just hope we don't use 1L electives altogether. Getting to take courses I actually cared about really helped me survive the first year.
Ashley, I once shared your world-view myself. I argued as such on these very pages (I can't seem to find it now). But the problem is, as Patrick's comment above illustrates, when you have CP II as an elective, it creates a ridiculous demand. It's one of the most important courses to take in law school. Even if you're not planning on litigation, jurisdiction is simply too important. You really cannot learn that stuff on your own. And as any judicial extern/clerk can tell you, there's a crap of load of jurisdiction issues in fed courts. Those 1Ls unable to get into CP II are screwed if they get jobs in fed courts.
The flexibility is nice, and it's a great draw of the school. But not at the expense of creating a hellish enrollment for CP II.
I wouldn't go so far as to say 1Ls who haven't taken CP2 are screwed if they get jobs in fed court. I know a number of people who externed after 1L year without the benefit of CP2 and without that being an issue.
Not saying it's unimportant, but I don't think 1Ls who do not take it need to freak out about it.
Thanks, 12:36. I completely agree. What a bunch of damn babies. I'm a 2L, and last year I wound up taking 17 credits thanks to the Boalt system (also, I was in IP, which was 4 units for the same amount of work that you now get 5 credits for *and* an extra class to count toward your electives). I didn't bitch and petition the damn school (well, I bitched privately...).
But if the school is going to start making changes based on petition, then I want to petition to get my extra credit hour from IP last semester.
Back when us 3Ls were 1Ls, WOA was only 1 credit. Therefore, the "high" credit concern is a little artificial.
I think making civil procedure II required for the second semester is a good thing to consider.
WOA was 1 credit last year, too. Tell me that didn't change for the 1Ls this year.
Did WOA really go 2 units this year?! I was one of those in IP last year for 4 units as well. I want my 2 units added!!!
I would have to disagree about 1Ls who didn't take CP II being screwed for fed court jobs. Maybe its different at the district court level, but I worked for a 9th Circuit judge and jurisdiction didn't come up as an issue for ANY of the 6 externs.
All the briefs come to chambers with a staff attorney memo saying whether state or federal law applied. Maybe its different at the district court, but it definitely didn't screw me not to know jurisdiction.
That being said, I will take it before I leave, and it probably should be a degree requirement.
I externed as a 1L without CPII. Not a problem at all. If there's actually a very meaty jurisdictional issue, the likely that it will go to a 1L extern is very slim. And many jurisdictional issues aren't that hard to deal with even if you haven't had CPII.
I disagree with Armen as well. I took Civ Pro II first semester, 3L, and attended sporadically. I learned what I needed to learn for the final and left it at that. I've clerked at the District Court and the Ninth Circuit and haven't found anything more than the cursory knowledge necessary. I've learned that law school is great for giving you a foundation in understanding subjects and for how to approach them, but actually remembering the specifics of black letter law isn't really necessary.
Civ Pro II aside, isn't the point here simply that the administration is doing too much hand-holding? I mean, first of all, a two-elective requirement seems silly if a person can satisfy the requirement by taking four units (that is, two two-unit courses) but cannot satisfy it by taking one course for five units. Why can't the administration say something like: you are required to take X number of units; we recommend that you take Y number of units, and you probably shouldn't take more than Z number of units, and then just let everyone figure it out from there (whether they take one, two or four courses)? We're all semi-responsible adults here, right?
3:49 you're ignoring the marketing point. Boalt likes the current system because they can tell prospective students that they get to take two electives - a bonus over most top law schools. A requirement that 2nd semester 1Ls take at least 15 or however many units is not nearly so sexy sounding.
Remember, taking two electives sounds great, at least when you're a prospective who's still interested in law...
Laura, your point completely missess the mark. Boalt would be able to tell prospective students "we let you take 2 electives your 1L year" regarldess of whether they REQUIRE them to take two electives or whether it's optional.
I'm confused about the title of this post. Do you mean continuing that fine Berkeley tradition of whining until you get what you want?
I'm with Patrick here. There was a nonsensical situation for people who wanted to take Con Law, the students worked together, approached the administration, and the administration reacted reasonably. How on earth is that "whining"? Well done, 1Ls.
Vetter for CP2 to 190!
It seems the only thing that is unfair or new is the change of Intro to IP from one 4 unit course to seperate 3 & 2 unit courses, which allows the 1L's taking both Intro to IP classes to take less units in their 2nd semester of their 1st year.
I really don't see how this is a huge deal deserving of a petition. Yes, your 2nd Semester of your 1st year has lots of units for most people. It has been that way for a while. It seems like a lot of work, but then you get into your 1st Semester of your 2nd year, with OCIP and everything, and it doesn't seem that bad. This semester is a good time to get some units in.
That some people have the option to take less units doesn't seem like it should be worth a petition. It was already the case that people could take 3 + 2 unit electives or 4 + 5 unit electives.
Or are you specifically complaining about Con Law? That makes even less sense. Everyone has to take con law at some point. If it is such a big inconvenience for you to take con law + a 2 unit course, then take con law a different semester. Con law isn't a pre-req to that many courses.
Everyone has to take 85 units, everyone has to take con law, everyone has to have 2 electives the 2and semester of your 1st year. no one forces you to take any courses which give you a percieved disadvantadge.
Also, units aren't really that good a predictor of courseload. If you have taken Intro to IP, you understand how much stuff is shoved into that class, which actually makes it pretty fair. On the other hand, con law really isn't much more work than the typical 4 unit course.
conlaw is a 4 unit course, no?
if not, I would like my extra credit now please. tyia.
When GL teaches Con Law, it is a 5 unit course. He tried it last year (as a 5 rather than 4) and apparently liked the results, so kept it that way. I took it at a 5 and it was great.
we all know that course units bear little relationship to the amount of work a course is. 3 credits of "negotiations" is not the same as 3 credits of federal courts.
is calmail down?? or is it just me.
no problems here. but I use a mail client.
calmail was going really slow for me earlier today, so it wasn't just you.
Dammit Armen, why'd you take the You Know What Day post down? It was going to be the centerpiece of the "lighter side" half of my Blawg Review.
Post a Comment
<< Home