Well the New Year begins . . . anew.

2010 retrospective

2010 was OK. As far as years go I give it a C. Lets start at the beginning. January to May 2010 was second semester of law school. For those who are new, law school is about the 5th "major" and probably the last I've had in my tenure as a student. I say "probably" only because since I finished with graduate school I've worked on a couple of papers and am working on another big one with my old lab. I don't really expect anything to come of this - other than the papers - but if the right mixture of buzz, funding and life situation presented itself I'd seriously considered putting in another 3 years for a PhD.

So anyway, second semester law school. I don't dislike law school, but I don't exactly like it either. Within the law community is the sentiment that a JD is a dynamic degree that can be used not just to become a lawyer, but to also use in business, education, governmental and a breadth of other disciplines too. What this really means is that a JD means the same thing that a bachelors meant 30 years ago. It's a general degree you get so that you can "get a job". This makes sense, and really is a good way to promote itself.

To note, law school has utterly met my expectations. Before I went, and even before deciding to even apply I sat down and predicted the entire experience. To the smallest detail these expectations have been met. To name a few, I predicted: that it wouldn't be particularly intellectually satisfying, the people would either bore or annoy me, that it would be a fuck tonne of work for only modest returns, that I'd only get average grades, professors wouldn't be inspiring, and that I'd probably get really depressed at some point. All of that happened. But I want you to know that even though those predictions are written negatively I don't mean for them to ... er... "mean" that that way. I don't perceive these things as being negative - I perceive them as being neutral. Law school - like medical school before it - is optimal for personalities who can be fairly categorised and defined. Thus, if you "fit the mould" you'll be fine in law school. And if you fit the mould and are smart you'll "win" law school. But if you don't then you have to find a way to survive.

When I was teaching in high school a couple of years ago I came across a self-help pamphlet for parents trying to figure out their children in the school's counselor's office. The title was "Your Gifted Child". Euphemistically, "gifted" means smart kids who don't do well in school. Or perhaps more accurately, smart kids who do not meet the expectations of themselves or their parents. These children don't do as well as they could not because they have behaviour problems or whatever, but because they don't streamline properly.

My performance tends to follow that of the instructor. Thus, if the teacher is competent I'll do fair (to my personal standards), if they are exceptional I'll do exceptional, and if they are terrible I'll do terribly. However, "competency" is predicated directly upon deliberate care and personalisation. Thus, it is impossible to be exceptional if the teacher does not proactively care about how his students are doing, and does not care about me personally. So a teacher may be able to explain things eloquently and clearly, but if he doesn't actively make sure I am understanding things and cares how I am fairing overall the best he can ever be as an instructor is "competent".

This is how every instructor is in law school. All of them are parsimonious and kind. They all enjoy their subjects and enjoy teaching. But the problem is that none of them really care about the individual students. The students could be cardboard cutouts with tape recorders in front of them and the teachers would still act the same way. Thus, they are more concerned with the act of imbuing knowledge rather than the imbuing itself. The same was true of medical school as well except with the caveat that there actually were some incompetent teachers too.

So that's basically how I feel about law school. It's just competent.

If you're actually following from the beginning this began as a critique of Spring 2010 semester and ended as a critique of law school in general without much specific details of law school. This post has also become a little too long so I'll summarise in a couple of sentences.

Spring 2010: School was meh as expected. I got to know a few more students, but really only solidified one friendship. I got a Siamese cat named Mia. I started to become depressed.

Summer 2010 part A: Summer school. School was as predicted. I spiraled into depression. I started hanging out with different "groups". The "Cotillion Crew" - the rich frat people, a whole lot nicer than you'd expect and they know how to have a good time. "BLSA" - Black law students association - fiercely loyal and more diverse than you'd think. The "Smoking Circle" - a hodgepodge of people almost all of whom smoke cigarettes (I do not however) and play a lot of videogames. This is how I began my philosophy of "friend agnosticism". Being depressed, I mostly wanted to die, but wasn't quite suicidal. I switched from Prozac to Zoloft, and started taking Ambien.

Summer 2010 part B: Summer vacation at home. Got a nice email from Dh1 which helped me out of my hole. When home for the first time in 6 months. Decided that it was necessary to home at least once a semester to maintain sanity. Best summer I've had in years. It was a blur of fun and rebirth. First went and rode bicycles around NYC with my dad for a few days. Stopped being depressed. Then, I chilled with Richmond hommies. Then, one of my best friend's bachelor party in the mountains of West Virginia. Then, then I met Dh2 (different name same first two letters). Then, that particular best friend's wedding.

Fall 2010: Dated Dh2 for most of it. Tested my "how to keep long-distance relationships together" hypothesis (basically: a) must see each other at least once every 6 weeks, b) must communicate every day, but it shouldn't be too in-depth and shouldn't always be "phone calls", c) at most, but necessarily, once or twice a week in-depth conversation, d) use all communication tools available - phone, facebook, skype, texting, etc to keep things going, and e) a commitment to the plan and compromise when necessary). I think the relationship failed not because my plan wasn't solid, but because their wasn't quite enough "feeling" for each other. That's OK. If you're going to break up with someone that's about the best way to do it. School was a lot less meh, but also a lot less satisfying. What I mean is that the subjects were a lot more interesting, classes more mature, but the "flaws" of law school became more apparent. Stopped taking Zoloft. Live in a great apartment. Sadly, my oldest plant died. My grandfather died. Became genuinely good friends with another law student, but I strongly streamlined my superficial friends.

Winter 2010: Fell back into depression for idiopathic reasons, but probably because of a combination of school stress catching up with me, continued "un-satisfaction" with school, and overwhelming family dynamic. I feel confident that the depression will subside once the "break" is over. Caught up with J after a couple of years of silence. That was the nicest thing all break. Hit a huge music skill bock so I'm going to bite the bullet and learn theory. Grew a really nice beard.

Happy New Year e'er body!