While interviewing Dylan McKinnon, a second year law student at the University of Iowa, I gained knowledge about the subject field and domain of law school and how it prepares students to emerge into the law field after graduation. I found Dylan during his office hours in the Pappajohn Business Building on the third floor on Friday afternoon. His office was poorly decorated with the only item on his desk being a laptop. The room seemed much too big for the minimal space that he was using but the artlessness mimicked his simple, but insightful answers to the interview questions. The room was grey and most likely could not be changed, a rule of the business college. To start the interview, Dylan spoke on what most law schools focus on to provide students with a broad knowledge of how the legal system work. This aspect of law school is completed by a lot of reading, taking notes, and listening to professors’ lectures. After taking multiple classes on the legal system, students then go on to take many more classes about how to be a contributing member of society within the area of law. Teaching students how to be effective in the legal system is done by reading past and present cases, having large in class discussions, and completing practice activities. A law school tests students on their knowledge and understanding of the subjects, however this is not their main focus because the majority of students take the Bar Exam upon graduation to become a certified practicing lawyer. After hearing Dylan talk about law school and what students are expected to get out of it, I was very intrigued by it. Dylan seemed as though he was getting all the training he needed and he would be prepared for his career of practicing law after he graduated. I then asked Dylan what the single most controversial issue was in the discipline. He responded with a vague answer because everything in law is a controversial issue. After thinking about it, however, the biggest and most recent issue was legalizing gay marriage. As he described his side on this topic, he did not go into personal details as though this were something that he should deem right or wrong. Instead, he spoke about how this was not something that the Supreme Court should have been voting on because it was outside the scope of the constitution. The power to decide if civil unions should be seen as marriages should have been given to each individual state.
…show more content…
The interview did not take a long time as Dylan answered most questions in a few words or short sentences and moved along very quickly. After most of the interview questions were answered, we discussed what kind of area I was interested in going into in the future after completing my undergraduate degree. He said he was unsure of what his major was going to be when he first started college and then decided he would go to law school after his third year of undergraduate work. This eased my mind as it reassured me that I still have time to decide what career path I want to take. To end the interview, Dylan then recommended that the Iowa Law Review was one of the most influential peer-reviewed academic journal as this journal had the most contact with law students at the University and it was cited often.
Reading the Iowa Law Review article Rediscovering the Classical Liberal Constitution: A Reply to Professor Hovenkamp by Richard Epstein allowed for a better understanding of what is controversial and how the legal system handles disagreements. The main purpose of the article was a rebuttal from Richard Epstein to Professor Hovenkamp. Epstein had originally written a book called The Classical Liberal Constitution; The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government, and Professor Hovenkamp had responded to this book by writing a journal entry titled Inventing the Classical Constitution. Richard Epstein was very upset that Hovenkamp had responded +negatively towards his book and put his own ideas and used this article to tell Hovenkamp that he was incorrect on numerous accounts and that he had not focused on the main points of the book. Epstein starts out with stating what he will discuss about Hovenkamp’s main points. The first two
The interview did not take a long time as Dylan answered most questions in a few words or short sentences and moved along very quickly. After most of the interview questions were answered, we discussed what kind of area I was interested in going into in the future after completing my undergraduate degree. He said he was unsure of what his major was going to be when he first started college and then decided he would go to law school after his third year of undergraduate work. This eased my mind as it reassured me that I still have time to decide what career path I want to take. To end the interview, Dylan then recommended that the Iowa Law Review was one of the most influential peer-reviewed academic journal as this journal had the most contact with law students at the University and it was cited often.
Reading the Iowa Law Review article Rediscovering the Classical Liberal Constitution: A Reply to Professor Hovenkamp by Richard Epstein allowed for a better understanding of what is controversial and how the legal system handles disagreements. The main purpose of the article was a rebuttal from Richard Epstein to Professor Hovenkamp. Epstein had originally written a book called The Classical Liberal Constitution; The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government, and Professor Hovenkamp had responded to this book by writing a journal entry titled Inventing the Classical Constitution. Richard Epstein was very upset that Hovenkamp had responded +negatively towards his book and put his own ideas and used this article to tell Hovenkamp that he was incorrect on numerous accounts and that he had not focused on the main points of the book. Epstein starts out with stating what he will discuss about Hovenkamp’s main points. The first two