How can I change my approach to law school?

-- By MayurPatel - 19 Feb 2025

Passive Navigation

Being the younger sibling in my family often meant I could coast along the paths that had already been carved out for me. I benefited from my older sibling’s experiences, absorbed his advice, and even learned from his mistakes without having to take risks of my own. While convenient, that dynamic quietly and unintentionally fostered a habit of passive navigation because I rarely sought out deeper engagement and simply followed the roadmap that was already there. Over time, I became accustomed to observing rather than leading, letting my academic journey unfold without deliberate direction.

It was not until Professor Moglen pointed it out to me that I realized that instinct had followed me into law school. My habit of passive navigation showed up in subtle but meaningful ways. I hesitated to speak in class, rarely asked questions beyond mere clarification inquiries, and avoided attending office hours. This was not due to disinterest, but because I was still approaching law school in the same way that I had approached so much else: as a quiet observer rather than an active participant. Professor Moglen helped me understand that legal education requires active engagement, curiosity, and self-direction. And to meet that challenge, I had to step out from the comfort of following and learn how to lead, especially in my own learning. I needed to understand how law school should work for me, and how I can make the most of the next two years.

What I Can Change

To ensure that law school works for me going forward, I need to be deliberate in how I engage with my education, structuring my efforts and mindset around deeper learning instead of just performance. This begins with a shift from being a reactive student to a proactive one, who takes ownership of their intellectual growth.

Engaging With Professors

One path forward is deceptively simple: I need to talk to my professors more. Not just when I’m confused or preparing for exams, but to move beyond passive learning and engage in conversation with those who have spent years thinking deeply about the law. I used to believe that law school, with its focus on grades and securing internships, was designed to prioritize “what will be on the exam” over curiosity. But I have come to realize this belief did not come from my professors; it came from me. I assumed grades mattered more than learning because I never took the time to ask the deeper questions or have the more meaningful conversations with anyone else.

Only recently did I learn that one of my favorite professors from the fall semester is a renowned international human rights scholar and even teaches a course in that field. It is a subject far removed from the conventional biglaw track that I have been focused on, and one that I now realize I would be open to exploring more deeply because I enjoyed the professor’s teaching style. Engaging with that professor, as well as with others whose work inspires a different kind of curiosity, is an important step toward broadening my intellectual experience and my sense of possible career paths.

Collaborative Learning

Reflecting on my 1L year, it seems that collaborative learning was not necessarily emphasized. Much of the process was solitary as I independently completed readings and studied for exams. Even study groups were often framed around efficiency rather than true intellectual exchange. However, even if collaboration was not built into the curriculum or was not required, it was also not actively discouraged. As Professor Moglen pointed out to me, nothing in the design of our 1L class prevented students from working together. For me, without institutional prompts, that kind of engagement remained optional and easy to overlook.

That being said, looking ahead to my second and third years, I see the law school’s experiential learning programs as critical opportunities to engage in collaborative learning. Participating in a clinic offers a way of encountering the law that does not just ask me to memorize doctrine, but to apply it in service of real problems while in conversation with supervising attorneys, clients, and fellow students. In particular, the Entrepreneurship and Community Development Clinic stands out as a meaningful avenue for that kind of engagement. The opportunity to support small businesses led by low- and moderate-income entrepreneurs feels like a powerful way to connect my legal training with community impact, while also learning through collaboration.

Asking Why

Finally, another shift I hope to make is in how I engage with doctrinal material itself. During 1L, it was easy to fall into the habit of identifying rules and memorizing blackletter law. But that approach often leaves the deeper questions untouched. Moving forward, I want to train myself to consistently ask why the law is the way it is—what policy choices it reflects, what values it privileges, and who benefits or bears the costs. Developing that habit of inquiry not only helps me draw connections across different areas of law, but also reveals the tendencies of the legal system and sharpens my awareness of its real-world consequences. Some classes have already offered a glimpse of what this kind of learning can look like. In Professor Harcourt’s Criminal Law course, much of our time was spent wrestling with the underlying theories of punishment: why we punish, what social order is preserved, and at what cost. Although I wish I had fully appreciated the depth of those conversations in the moment, they have since made it clear to me that engaging seriously with those foundational questions is essential to developing a deeper, more critical understanding of the law.

Conclusion

Going forward, I will take ownership of my legal education by actively engaging with professors, collaborating through clinics, and questioning foundational doctrines. Law school should be a space where I lead my own learning journey, and offers me the best opportunity to change how I have been approaching my learning experience in the past.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, MayurPatel
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.