Another potential source of 3L impatience is the growing suspicion that your professors are not really that much smarter than you.

What is the difference between a law student and a law professor, after all? Don't say "experience as a lawyer", because that's definitely not true. If your professors were lawyers, they usually spent 1-3 years at a firm, doing whatever mindless grunt work you'll be up to this summer.

You already know that professors tend to be mystified about any area of the law not relating to their own field of research. After your first year of classes, you know as much about torts as 93% of your law professors (nobody seems to choose torts as an academic specialty). We'll call this a horizontal knowledge limitation.

What about in their fields of expertise? Maybe, maybe not. I get the sense that there is also a vertical limitation – a law prof who's taught 1L civil procedure for 20 years knows it better than you ever will. But if you go take Federal Courts, you'll probably have the drop on him when it comes to Article III standing.

Is it the quality of their ideas and writing ability, manifested in their law review articles? Well dude, tell you what. Go read a few articles by your favorite professors and tell me if a) the quality of the 'scholarship' corresponds to the quality of the class experience and b) if you're generally blown away by their brilliance. I'm betting you'll either be bored silly, or just mystified, as the topic seems to be targeted at a minuscule community of interest.

I don't say this to knock law professors. What would we do without them? I just mean that the progress into 3L is a little bit like pulling the curtain back on the Wizard of Oz, inch by inch. Law professor = professional law student? You tell me.

24 Apr 06