On Legal Education and Real Education: A Reaction to Scott Turow’s Bestseller, “One L”

Aspirations are free but fulfillment costs greater risks. Our goals, as we perceive them, are better off as concepts rather than undertakings because soon enough, we come to realize that it is a necessity to put our lives at stake in exchange of greener pastures. The risk is that, one wrong move can totally ruin us and for that, we find our pursuit monstrous and foreboding.

For aspiring lawyers, the first year of law school is a major breakthrough in their lives. I, for one, admit that I believed my first year was a step towards the fulfillment of my goals and aspirations, which appeared to me, was just a few steps away. Eventually, law school disproved my first impression.

Upon reading Scott Turow’s “One L”, it reminded me of my first formative years in law school and all the circumstances I have undergone to continue living my dream. Turow narrated his experiences while thriving to “learn to love the law”. He took into account all the incidents he went through in Harvard Law School, the oldest but most prestigious law school in United States and even in the world. “One L” is actually a coined term used to refer the freshmen in Harvard Law School. Turow, in the book, revealed the tacit competition prevalent in the institution—a competition not only among the students, but also between the students and the professors and even more, a competition that creates a ruckus within themselves. The book unmasked a world, hidden in the prestige of scholastic endeavor, as a collaboration of hope, passion, pressure, comprehension, pain, remorse and faith. Turow then emphasized that education is attained not only through books and publications but most importantly, by experiencing reality.

“One L” is more than just a description of Harvard Law School. Somehow, it manifested the reality in every institution, as perceived by every student. Hence, here follows real education.

Intelligence is a prerequisite to success. Entering and most significantly, getting through law school entails lifelong prestige and honor for a person. But to attain it, determination, perseverance and intelligence must be possessed by a student. Without any of these, entering would be preposterous, much more survival.

The academic institution then tends to the most intelligent and outstanding students in the country. Intelligence is very much rendered importance since the mastery of the law is one of the criteria for a competent and credible lawyer. A lawyer, at all times, must protect and master the law as it governs life—our daily routines, our rights, our goals and career, our every action. And as protectors of the law, lawyers should attain the same honor and respect that is directed to law. In a law school, every student yearns to establish that same honor and respect. A law school then becomes an assembly of “people that would own the world”, as implied by Turow. The list of remarkable academic and extracurricular achievements of a student is one’s own gate pass to be granted with premium legal education. Similarly, Turow related to his readers how outstanding students are in Harvard Law School. It somehow becomes quite disappointing to people who think highly of themselves for it shakes them to a reality that there are people way better than they already are. With these given circumstances, every student strives to outshine each other and claim dominance. In a crowd where everyone seems to be shining with self-made glamour, it is suicide not to keep up with the competition.

Competition has become typical to all law students. It seems to have diffused in the air they breathe, though no one openly admits it. As Turow puts it in his book, students desire to validate their presence and dexterity by establishing good impressions. Learning then surfaces as a mere result of a challenge for competency and supremacy. Good grades and a professor’s good impression are the driving factors why students study and excel, somewhat defeating the purpose of learning things “by heart”.

Competition is not at all bad. Perhaps it may create shrewd but vicious individuals who assert their authority rather aggressively, but it encourages an environment of dedication and determination to acquire excellence. Nevertheless, there’s no good brought by too much competition.

With the effects of competition blatant in the institution, students felt the need to demoralize the obvious attempts of other students to endorse themselves by showing off in classes. This situation was depicted in the story and likewise in any ordinary classroom setting. The majority of students hence develop hostility to these “learned exhibitionists” as a consequence of their surmounting insecurity. Seeing this, Turow shared that a self-conflict materialized—his hesitation to contribute in classroom discussion for the fear of appearing as a “show-stealer”. This kind of outlook portrays cautiousness but being swallowed by inhibitions, impedes one from being educated. As a quote would say, “Without courage, wisdom bears no fruit,” a student’s diffidence overshadows one’s zeal for learning, leaving just a marginal and diminishing impact of education. However of course, overconfidence is not a better option. Overconfidence transpires when a person is being overwhelmed by too much competition that he or she vies for dominance for self-satisfaction. Given that a law school is a throng of competent scholars, to expose oneself in unhealthy competition creates a personality that is, problematic.

Turow emphasized that when one enters law school, one gets “to meet his or her enemy”. Partly because the proponents of the law exude intelligence, their perspective on things deviates from the ordinary. Certain beliefs and attributes are being conveyed to the students further resulting to a psychological metamorphosis. For instance, traditionalists depend on moral and emotional values as criteria for judgment. However, most proponents of the law refute the influence of emotions especially sympathy in making judgments. They uphold the law as the only rightful basis for judgment. For the conformists, detachment from emotion would be vile and inhumane but for the unorthodox, it would ensure justice. Turow elaborated that with this environment, a student of the law “meets his or her enemy”. The conviction that only the law provides objectivity to certain situations causes people to be indoctrinated. People, law students in particular, begin to depend too much on law in their reasoning that somehow turns eventually into an obsession. It does not necessarily mean that believing in the law is bad; but the complete isolation from emotional perspective creates the “heartless enemy”. Going back to Turow’s narratives, he expounded his view on this matter when he comprehended Sechmann’s intention with all his hypothetical questions. These hypothetical questions are implications that most lawyers, with their conformity to the law, forgot what it’s like to be quite human—to use their emotions to consider others. The “enemy” that any law student meets is nothing but himself, a self that became a product of an objective but detached education.

All the insights shared by Scott Turow somehow exist in the society we are in today. Turow simply tells us that more than the education provided to us through books and lectures is a type of education that we establish for ourselves—the education catered by real life. It is not enough to rely on academic knowledge for us to believe one can conquer life’s challenges. The key to success is our capacity to balance our academics with the knowledge we acquire by experience. That is the real test of intelligence.