Friday, May 05, 2006

Bad Reason for Attending Law School #10

I like to argue

Mike: Hey Russ, let me ask you a question…What would you say to someone who told you that they want to become an architect because they like to draw pictures of houses?

Russ: I’d say they don’t sound like they know what they’re talking about.

Mike: And Russ, what would you say to someone who told you they want to be a pharmacist because they like to put pills into bottles?

Russ: I’d say that they are missing the point of being a pharmacist.

Mike: So, then what would you say to someone that wants to be a lawyer because they like to argue?

Russ: I’d say that they don’t know what they are talking about and they are missing the point of the profession.


In my opinion, going to law school because you enjoy arguing is the worst reason to attend, but sadly, it’s all too common. Saying that you like to argue, and then deciding to convert this odd hobby into a career in law represents a fundamental misunderstanding of law school and the legal profession. Law is not about arguing; it’s about arguments. The difference between the two may seem subtle, but in reality, they are miles apart. Arguments have weight derived from logic and/or citation. Arguing is focusing on the delivery of arguments (by using volume, irrelevant anecdotes, etc.)

Being a successful law student (and eventually, a successful lawyer) requires that you know how to make a good argument. Unfortunately, the ability to make a good argument and the enjoyment of arguing for the sake of arguing are mutually exclusive traits. Those who enjoy arguing cannot be objective about it. They invest a personal stake in the argument, whether its ideology, or more often, pride. Instead of being able to objectively look at both sides of a situation and form a strategy for arguing either one, those who like to argue pick one side and will defend it to the death, no matter how inane or off base their points become. When facing an opponent who doesn’t fall for his or her impassioned yet inherently flawed argument, instead of conceding the point, or even agreeing to disagree, they become louder and more repetitive, in the hope that their opponent will have an epiphany and suddenly admit defeat. In reality, this strategy just makes them look obtuse and ignorant. Law school is for nerds, not hotheads. There's a place for these people, and it's not here; it's the AM radio bandwidth.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that the people who know how to make arguments are successful in law school, and the people who are there because they “like to argue” don’t fare quite so well. But can we fully blame those people who like to argue? Surely, this quality must have roots deep in their childhood. Maybe their parents saw little Jimmy disagree with everything his sister said, and told him, “One day you’ll grow up to be a lawyer.” The idea was planted in his head, and so as he got older, he would challenge anything and everything he encountered that he disagreed with, and more people would tell him, “You should be a lawyer.” Then, he graduates college and heads off to law school, where on the first day, he decides to argue with his professor. But the professor sees several people like him every year. He is ready for Jimmy’s logical fallacies and poorly reasoned points. The professor dismisses Jimmy, who’s arguing “skills” don’t appear as effective as he’d hoped. Poetic justice, I suppose. But maybe, instead of encouraging argumentative kids to become lawyers and further perpetuate this myth, we should call them what the really are: Assholes.