I am in the midst of deciding how I should spend my first summer. I have two basic alternatives: study abroad or find a job. I would like opinions (in comment form) on which would be better in the long run, and why. Obviously the opinions of practitioners and upperclassmen are more valuable at this point than opinions from fellow 1Ls.
I know (with a fair amount of certainty) that I want to work in criminal prosecution when I finish law school, and I also know that I want to stay in Indiana. Although nearly all study abroad programs I found involved international business or human rights, I was able to find a study abroad program through Tulane University that focuses on Criminal Law. It takes place in Amsterdam, because of its proximity to the Hague, among other reasons. The focus of the coursework would be comparative criminal procedure, international criminal law, and terrorism (as seen in the European way, as a crime rather than something upon which to declare war). The downside is that it is costly, and I would have to take out additional loans to fund such a trip.
My other alternative is to find work in a prosecutor's office or courtroom somewhere in Indiana. More populous counties like Marion, Lake, Monroe, Tippecanoe, and St. Joseph have large court systems, but I would love to work in a rural office (say, Park or Adams county) just as much. I have also looked into the Army JAG summer internship program, and wouldn't be opposed to working there, either. All of these alternatives give me valuable networks for when I want to find a job in a prosecutor's office in three years. The downside is that many of these positions are unpaid, so I might still need to take out loans.
So, for all the practitioners, judges, professors, and upperclassmen reading this: in your opinion, which is the better alternative? Your help is much appreciated.
9.26.2007
9.21.2007
Terror-Management Theory and the Law
Today I made the hike up to the Psychology Building to listen to a lecture. The lecture, by University of Missouri-Columbia professor Jamie Arndt was on the topic of Terror-Management Theory (TMT). The topic of the lecture was "Is Death Hazardous or Good for Your Health?: Understanding the Impact of the Awareness of Mortality on Health-Relevant Behavior". The lecture was quite enjoyable, especially since I am sure I was the only law student there.
The basic premise of TMT (and I apologize to Professor Arndt if I falsely describe it) is that when you combine 1) the human biological need for self-preservation and 2) the fact that humans are unique in their knowledge of the inevitability of death, you get the potential for extreme terror. Some have called it a fear of death or a fear of annihilation. When we reach that point, we respond in one of two ways: we take better care of ourselves (trying to delay our inevitable demise), or we take worse care of ourselves (either through denial or, if death is soon anticipated, risk taking).
The experiments the psychologists in this area are running are quite interesting. Reminding people of their own mortality has been shown to increase their inclination to respond favorably to people who bolster their own worldview and negatively to those who oppose it. One test Dr. Arndt mentioned was a mention of death or cancer to a person who values tanning. The surveys show that they are more inclined to buy higher-SPF sunscreen right after the reminder of their own mortality. My business undergrad instantly kicked in and developed a marketing ploy for sunscreen manufacturers: put up a billboard with the words "Death" and "Skin Cancer" and nothing else. Further down the interstate, perhaps just a few moments later, advertise your product. The inclination will be for the individuals to buy your product, at least theoretically. Such advertising would work as well for churches and exercise clinics.
TMT has some interesting effects in the study of law (or else why would I have attended, other than for pure intellectual stimulation on a Friday afternoon). I am curious how it would impact death row inmates, for example. How would such an effect alter a person's feeling of the necessity for deadly force in self-defense? Are people who are reminded of their inevitable annihilation more likely to commit crimes?
The ideas for journal articles abound. And all I had to do was hike to the north side of campus.
The basic premise of TMT (and I apologize to Professor Arndt if I falsely describe it) is that when you combine 1) the human biological need for self-preservation and 2) the fact that humans are unique in their knowledge of the inevitability of death, you get the potential for extreme terror. Some have called it a fear of death or a fear of annihilation. When we reach that point, we respond in one of two ways: we take better care of ourselves (trying to delay our inevitable demise), or we take worse care of ourselves (either through denial or, if death is soon anticipated, risk taking).
The experiments the psychologists in this area are running are quite interesting. Reminding people of their own mortality has been shown to increase their inclination to respond favorably to people who bolster their own worldview and negatively to those who oppose it. One test Dr. Arndt mentioned was a mention of death or cancer to a person who values tanning. The surveys show that they are more inclined to buy higher-SPF sunscreen right after the reminder of their own mortality. My business undergrad instantly kicked in and developed a marketing ploy for sunscreen manufacturers: put up a billboard with the words "Death" and "Skin Cancer" and nothing else. Further down the interstate, perhaps just a few moments later, advertise your product. The inclination will be for the individuals to buy your product, at least theoretically. Such advertising would work as well for churches and exercise clinics.
TMT has some interesting effects in the study of law (or else why would I have attended, other than for pure intellectual stimulation on a Friday afternoon). I am curious how it would impact death row inmates, for example. How would such an effect alter a person's feeling of the necessity for deadly force in self-defense? Are people who are reminded of their inevitable annihilation more likely to commit crimes?
The ideas for journal articles abound. And all I had to do was hike to the north side of campus.
9.13.2007
Absorbing Wisdom
I found myself a new hobby.
As I described in my last post, I found myself very interested in listening to the stories and knowledge of a variety of persons in the legal field. It has taken the place of reading The Economist in my weekly schedule, actually. And, thankfully, the law school offers a great deal of optional educational opportunities for people like me.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture on mental capacity and the legal ramifications of being on the fringe of such a category (i.e. those who are capable of making good decisions, but only just, and those who are not capable of making good decisions, but only just). The main thrust of the discussion was aimed at Alzheimer's patients, and how to treat them. For example, if a person my age says "When I'm old, if I can no longer remember my children, and cannot enjoy the intellectual pursuits I once did, I would like to be killed." Do we respect that person's choice when they become old, or do we count the older self as a new person?
The lecture was given by visiting Oxford professor Jonathan Herring, a very qualified speaker (nothing like hearing about Hoo-zee-er basketball in an English accent). I found it particularly interesting that in Britain, whether a person is mentally qualified is a question of law, while here in the States it is a question of medicine. I suppose that we Americans assume doctors are better at assessing mental incapacity than judges.
In the coming weeks, we have lectures on comparative British & American law, constitutional design in emerging democracies, and others. In October we have a pair of Courts of Appeal hearing arguments (one is a military court) in our Moot Court Room. You can be assured that I will be there for all these lectures and more. The law never ceases to amaze me (although, to be honest, Contracts can occasionally cease to do so).
I must rest up. Tomorrow after class I'm going to sit in on the Monroe County Court and hopefully hear some worthwhile legal argument.
As I described in my last post, I found myself very interested in listening to the stories and knowledge of a variety of persons in the legal field. It has taken the place of reading The Economist in my weekly schedule, actually. And, thankfully, the law school offers a great deal of optional educational opportunities for people like me.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture on mental capacity and the legal ramifications of being on the fringe of such a category (i.e. those who are capable of making good decisions, but only just, and those who are not capable of making good decisions, but only just). The main thrust of the discussion was aimed at Alzheimer's patients, and how to treat them. For example, if a person my age says "When I'm old, if I can no longer remember my children, and cannot enjoy the intellectual pursuits I once did, I would like to be killed." Do we respect that person's choice when they become old, or do we count the older self as a new person?
The lecture was given by visiting Oxford professor Jonathan Herring, a very qualified speaker (nothing like hearing about Hoo-zee-er basketball in an English accent). I found it particularly interesting that in Britain, whether a person is mentally qualified is a question of law, while here in the States it is a question of medicine. I suppose that we Americans assume doctors are better at assessing mental incapacity than judges.
In the coming weeks, we have lectures on comparative British & American law, constitutional design in emerging democracies, and others. In October we have a pair of Courts of Appeal hearing arguments (one is a military court) in our Moot Court Room. You can be assured that I will be there for all these lectures and more. The law never ceases to amaze me (although, to be honest, Contracts can occasionally cease to do so).
I must rest up. Tomorrow after class I'm going to sit in on the Monroe County Court and hopefully hear some worthwhile legal argument.
9.07.2007
Dinner Date with the Judge
One of the new things Indiana Law is trying on us is a 1L PRACTICE program, that ties in themes of ethics, professionalism, and career-planning. Last night we were fortunate to have a pair of speakers practicing in an area of the law in which I'm particularly interested. One is a county judge and former prosecutor here in Bloomington, while the other is a top criminal defense attorney. The actual presentation was quite interesting, as the two often disagreed and bickered (over such things as whose job is harder and who has better investigators).
As insightful as the presentation was, the most enjoyable part of the evening happened afterwards. One of my professors invited a group of students to dinner with the two speakers. The dinner conversation lasted about three hours, and I was glad that I accepted the invitation. I spent the first part of the night talking to the defense attorney, a highly regarded lawyer from Indianapolis. While I have no interest in working on that side of the courtroom, it was great to talk to the guy one-on-one. His golf-course living and iPhone were a testament to the economic success that such a position can offer.
After he left, we spent a while talking with the judge, exchanging law school stories and hearing tales of the most interesting folks to enter her courtroom. I felt like her life story was similar to mine, in regards to growing up, and our opinions of the legal profession. At the end of the night I was unhappy about leaving, as I could have absorbed her knowledge for at least a few more hours. Not all my comrades shared that enthusiasm, though. In the end, I found a good connection in a prosecutor's office and a courtroom.
Moral of the story: never turn down a dinner date with the judge.
As insightful as the presentation was, the most enjoyable part of the evening happened afterwards. One of my professors invited a group of students to dinner with the two speakers. The dinner conversation lasted about three hours, and I was glad that I accepted the invitation. I spent the first part of the night talking to the defense attorney, a highly regarded lawyer from Indianapolis. While I have no interest in working on that side of the courtroom, it was great to talk to the guy one-on-one. His golf-course living and iPhone were a testament to the economic success that such a position can offer.
After he left, we spent a while talking with the judge, exchanging law school stories and hearing tales of the most interesting folks to enter her courtroom. I felt like her life story was similar to mine, in regards to growing up, and our opinions of the legal profession. At the end of the night I was unhappy about leaving, as I could have absorbed her knowledge for at least a few more hours. Not all my comrades shared that enthusiasm, though. In the end, I found a good connection in a prosecutor's office and a courtroom.
Moral of the story: never turn down a dinner date with the judge.
9.05.2007
The Getting Involved
Week two. So far, so good. Classes are exactly how I thought they would be, which is comforting, even though the classes themselves are not. I've settled into a cozy routine of sleep, work, and class. And of course I leave Saturdays open for college football (Go Hoosiers!) and going out.
But, I haven't felt involved yet. In high school, I was in about a dozen extracurriculars (more, possibly). In undergrad, I participated in a few (limited more by my working than by lack of interest). And I feel like those experiences were priceless (volunteering to help poor individuals file tax returns, for example). So now that I'm in law school, I feel like I should get involved, if not to meet new people than to keep busier.
This week has been "get involved" week, where we get fed free lunch every day and find activities with which we want to get involved. My interests vastly outnumber the hours of free time I have, though, so determining which are best has been tricky.
First of all, I needed to join one of the legal fraternities. I settled on Phi Alpha Delta, mostly because of the size of the network and the names of the more famous members. This group should take care of my need and desire to participate in service projects.
I then needed to find a group to give me outreach in the political environment (especially since one of my libertarian friends turned liberal the other day). Since my choices were American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society, the choice was obvious. I chose the smaller Federalist Society, mostly because I needed a place to talk to fellow conservative-leaning libertarians and network nationally. Who knows who might one day support my campaign?
I then needed something to help get me involved in the practice of law. IU has three practice programs, and the one I chose is the Inmate Legal Assistance Project (or Program?), in which I will travel to the federal prison in Terre Haute and assist inmates with legal issues. This should help me fill my need for justice while offering basic skills like, I don't know, talking to clients.
Lastly, I needed a place to feel political and contribute to the betterment of the law school. I thus decided to run for 1L representative to the Student Bar Association. The election is next week, but I have felt a great deal of support from my classmates. We have buttons made up, and all-around positive press. Even if I'm not elected, the experience of politicking is making me feel alive. As I've always said: "Life is politics."
So what do you think? Did I get involved enough?
But, I haven't felt involved yet. In high school, I was in about a dozen extracurriculars (more, possibly). In undergrad, I participated in a few (limited more by my working than by lack of interest). And I feel like those experiences were priceless (volunteering to help poor individuals file tax returns, for example). So now that I'm in law school, I feel like I should get involved, if not to meet new people than to keep busier.
This week has been "get involved" week, where we get fed free lunch every day and find activities with which we want to get involved. My interests vastly outnumber the hours of free time I have, though, so determining which are best has been tricky.
First of all, I needed to join one of the legal fraternities. I settled on Phi Alpha Delta, mostly because of the size of the network and the names of the more famous members. This group should take care of my need and desire to participate in service projects.
I then needed to find a group to give me outreach in the political environment (especially since one of my libertarian friends turned liberal the other day). Since my choices were American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society, the choice was obvious. I chose the smaller Federalist Society, mostly because I needed a place to talk to fellow conservative-leaning libertarians and network nationally. Who knows who might one day support my campaign?
I then needed something to help get me involved in the practice of law. IU has three practice programs, and the one I chose is the Inmate Legal Assistance Project (or Program?), in which I will travel to the federal prison in Terre Haute and assist inmates with legal issues. This should help me fill my need for justice while offering basic skills like, I don't know, talking to clients.
Lastly, I needed a place to feel political and contribute to the betterment of the law school. I thus decided to run for 1L representative to the Student Bar Association. The election is next week, but I have felt a great deal of support from my classmates. We have buttons made up, and all-around positive press. Even if I'm not elected, the experience of politicking is making me feel alive. As I've always said: "Life is politics."
So what do you think? Did I get involved enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)