I came across this blog post written by an Associate Professor of Law, Derek Muller, wherein he defines and describes law grads based upon what he deems successful and, quite frankly, it really steams my clams.
- Real Lawyers (Required bar passage, full-time, long-term)
- “Advantaged” Non-Lawyers (JD advantage, full-time, long-term)
- The Professionals (Professional, full-time, long-term)
- Career Baristas (Non-professional, full-time, long-term)
- The Temps (any employed position that’s part-time, short-term, or both)
- Giving Up (unemployed, not seeking)
- More Debt, Please (graduates pursuing a graduate degree full-time)
- Return to Sender (employment status unknown)
I left a comment but they apparently didn’t want to publish it.
Derek Muller, by the way, has been a lawyer for all of six
minutes years and by his own definition is not a ‘real lawyer’. In this extrapolation he was trying to be tongue and cheek about his descriptions of law grads based upon the employment status of these same graduates as published by USNWR. But the truth is, it’s offensive to the majority of law grads. Probably the most offensive to me was using the term ‘Real Lawyer’ to describe those he believes to be the elite – those who have long term jobs working for someone else. No one else is described as a ‘Real Lawyer’. This approach showcases in neon lights the incredible prejudices all students face in law school and the profession. No matter what you do, if you are not employed full time by another and performing as a lawyer, you’re not a ‘real lawyer’. Is this really what law schools want to tell their graduates who are struggling? It came across to me like this baby law prof was just sticking out his tongue at everyone else and singing, ‘nanny,nanny, boo,boo. You can’t catch me.’
Check out the list and let me know what you think.