Annoyed and awed…

This post has been shuffling around my head for a while now. I wanted to dive head-first into it when I read the article because it drove me crazy.

It is no secret that law is probably my least favorite profession. As Tom Hanks once put it, “It’s like doing homework for a living,” and pretty much every lawyer I know has essentially agreed (I do not, obviously, dislike lawyers; that would be ridiculous). So it was –once again– quite serendipitous that I happened upon a New York Times article (Nov. 20, “What They Don’t Teach Law Students: Lawyering” by David Segal) that spoke about how the one thing NOT being taught in Law Schools was how to be a lawyer. Newly hired law firm associates are taught the “meat-and-potatoes” of lawyering by watching and working with their superiors. Law Schools are more about theory and history of law. Law Schools devote their time and money to Law Review Journals and other Academic endeavors.

At, first, I felt almost vindicated. I dedicated years of my life to my profession, and I feel that I came out of school knowing how to do what I was being hired to do. And to be honest, because of the special deal worked out between the school where I worked and the school where I was being taught, I got my entire Master’s degree for about $300. Quite the bargain. How can Law Schools justify charging six figures for a degree that cannot possibly translate to concrete skills?

But then I thought how wonderful it must be to learn how to think like a professional. I think the #1 thing that prevents decent teachers from becoming great teachers is that they think like their students when they should be thinking like professionals (don’t get me wrong: it is important to think like a student at times– just not all the time). Our metacongnitive skills help us to create sense and meaning for our lessons, and the more we do that, the more relevant our classes can be. That makes us more valuable teachers, and contributes to the overall climate of the school. That is certainly valuable.

So I come out of it feeling neutral– kind of. It still bugs me that a teacher has to work 20 years to even come close to the salary a first-year lawyer can make, even when the teacher is working at least as hard and affecting so many more lives than that lawyer. It also annoys the hell out of me that lawyers seem to be first on line to slam teachers (I say this safely because lawyers often become politicians) for the salaries they earn. I think it’s because the operative word here is “earn.” It would seem that a lot of people think teachers don’t “earn” their salary after a few years. And perhaps some don’t. But for the love of Pete, do not lump me or my colleagues in with those types.

It also isn’t lost on me that the most lucrative law positions are for private law firms, and that a public school teacher would see an equal in a district attorney or a public defender. If I thought for a second that private education was more lucrative, I’d hop that bandwagon in a second. But the truth is, private education by and large is no better and is certainly not more lucrative. So it’s really apples and oranges to compare the law and education professions.

My takeaway on this is that while I clearly feel I got a great education and am striving to do the same for others, what I consider counts as an education is widely varied. That’s what makes this “reform” stuff such a difficult task.