Random Quote

“We may often fulfil all the rules of justice by sitting still and doing nothing.”

-- Adam Smith

Pre-Law Track

What's a good major for a person who wants to go to law school?

Part of the answer is: any subject you really enjoy. Law school is unlike medical school in that there is no body of knowledge that you must master in order to prepare for the courses you will take when you get there. What's more, the two most important factors in admission to law school are your grade point average and your score on the LSAT. Majoring in something you enjoy will help with your grade point average, since you are likely to do well in it. So, the thing to do is to start with classes in several different areas and see what turns you on.

Suppose I take a philosophy course and I like it. Would majoring in philosophy help me in law school and as an attorney?

Here are some answers from our former students:

Parker Sweet (Alabama 2004) wrote this after completing his first year of law school at Alabama:

"I spent the first two weeks of law school thanking myself for having majored in Philosophy. Not only had my philosophy background helped me tremendously in preparing for the LSAT, but also the reading and analysis skills I developed put me way ahead of the game when it came to reading cases. The greatest benefit my Philosophy training has given me in law school, however, has been the ability to quickly analyze arguments and respond to them on my feet in an openly confrontational environment. Many first-years are intimidated by the dreaded Socratic Method, but after four years of philosophy classes I was perfectly comfortable making and defending arguments to my professors in class and so far that ability has greatly enhanced the quality and enjoyment of my legal education. [and of course, lucky me was the first person in my class to get called on last August]"

Robin Preussel (Alabama 2003), after her second year of law school at Yale:

"During my time at law school, I have found my philosophy major to be invaluable. Law school is designed to teach the student how to think in a legal context. Taking philosophy had already taught me "how to think", so the transition to law school was far less intimidating. Additionally, the Philosophy Department at UA became my own personal cheering section during the law school application process. I am proud to call these professors both my mentors and my friends."

Craig Alexander (Alabama 1977) has his JD from George Washington University, and is a partner in the Birmingham office of Adams and Reese:

"There is no doubt in my mind, and never has been as long as I've been in a position to contemplate the subject, that studying philosophy was the best decision I ever made as a student and that it has had a profound impact on who I am today. I push myself to think clearly and logically (and have actually gotten pretty good at it), I assume almost nothing, and I keep things - good and bad - in philosophical perspective. I still think about what it means to be ethical and I believe that as I travel through I become more and more principled in how I conduct myself."

Carl Burkhalter (Alabama 1987) has his JD from the University of Chicago, and is a litigation shareholder in the Birmingham office of Maynard, Cooper and Gale:

"When I was a pre-law undergrad at Alabama, I took classes that I thought would give me an edge in law school or on the LSAT. Looking back on it, I can say without question that my philosophy classes prepared me better for a legal career than any other classes. It's not even a close call, really. So much of law is learning to look at issues critically and from all angles; a philosophy curriculum develops those skills like nothing else.

The bottom line is this: If you want to study law, you should study philosophy."

Shane Weldon (Alabama 2001) finished at Cumberland School of Law in Spring of 2004 and is now an Associate with Galese and Ingram in Birmingham:

"As I found out... the Philosophy of Law classes, the amount of reading in the other classes, and the logical thinking helped acclimate me to the law school environment more quickly than most of my peers. I would not trade my degree for any other at Bama nor anywhere else."

Will philosophy courses help me to score well on the LSAT?

They certainly can. Philosophy courses sharpen the skills that are central to success as a lawyer. They teach you to see the arguments in what someone is saying, to evaluate those arguments, and to develop counterarguments of your own. That is what a trial attorney does, and it is also what an attorney must do in order to advise a client about what the law requires, when (as so often) that is not crystal-clear. Training in philosophy teaches you to think in the ways an attorney must. If you turn out to be good at it, that should translate to a good score on the LSAT.

What law schools have recent Alabama majors in philosophy attended?

Our recent majors are currently enrolled in the following schools, sometimes with handsome financial aid: Alabama, Harvard, Kentucky, LSU, NYU, UC Berkeley, Virginia and Yale. Here are the most recent rankings given those schools by U.S. News and World Report:

Rankings
Yale 1
Harvard 2
NYU 5
Virginia 8
UC Berkeley 11
Alabama 41
Kentucky 56
LSU 90

In addition, two recent philosophy majors chose to attend Regent University School of Law, which describes itself as "distinctive among law schools approved by the American Bar Association because of the integration of Christian Principles into our curriculum." One of those students finished his first year at Regent ranked first in his law school class.

Several departments have undergraduate courses about the law. Does philosophy?

We call this set of courses the Pre-Law Package. It is designed to sharpen the abilities to reason, to respond capably to opposing arguments, and to put one's point clearly and precisely. It also provides the opportunity to explore some of the deepest questions about the law, in discussion-classes conducted by the Socratic Method.

The Courses in the Package:

PHL 101 or 103 Deductive Logic or Honors Logic
PHL 220 Introduction to Political Philosophy
PHL 225 Philosophical Issues in Criminal Law
PHL 226 Philosophical Issues in Civil Law
PHL 227 Philosophical Issues in Constitutional Law
PHL 410 Special Studies in Philosophy of Law
PHL 412 Philosophy of Law

Students may take all courses in the package, or any portion of it. Taking the complete package completes a minor in Philosophy. It can be made in to a major or a second major by adding only the department's two-course sequence in the history of philosophy and any two classes at the 300 or 400 level.

Brief Course Descriptions:

PHL 101: Deductive Logic or Phl 103 Honors Logic (3)
Logic is the study of reasoning, focusing on what distinguishes good arguments from bad ones, regardless what they happen to be arguments about. These two courses are an introduction to that study, with the Honors version moving at a faster pace and going a bit deeper. Both are excellent preparation for the LSAT, which has two sections devoted to testing reasoning, as well as for life as a litigator. The instruction in both is computer-assisted, allowing those enrolled to complete the work at their own pace, with the professor and the undergraduate teaching assistants available as needed.
PHL 220: Introduction to Political Philosophy (3)
Prerequisite: One course in philosophy
What are the proper aims of government, and the proper scope of its power? The views of Aristotle, Locke, Mill, and Marx will be explored, as well as the implications for current issues such as civil rights, income redistribution and welfare programs, and the protection of the environment.
PHL 225: Philosophical Issues in Criminal Law (3)
What people do can be objectionable in a variety of ways. When should it be criminal? We begin with John Stuart Mill's position on this, then turn to some specific issues. For example, should it be criminal to help someone end his life? To fail to help someone you could save from great physical harm? To panhandle? To stalk someone? What should we take to make one crime more serious than another, and how should the punishment for a particular criminal be determined?
PHL 226: Philosophical Issues in Civil Law (3)
Issues include the following: what should the legal rights of ownership be? Is the answer different if what is owned is intellectual property? What should the state have by way of a power of eminent domain? When should one party be liable for a harm that befalls another and what limits, if any, should there be to what that liability costs this party? When should a contract be void? What should it cost someone who defaults on a contract? How should bankruptcy work?
PHL 227: Philosophical Issues in Constitutional Law (3)
The current version of this course focuses on limits the Constitution places on the state's pursuit of criminals. One question is what those limits ought to be. When should the police be able to search a person's home for evidence of criminal activity? What should count as a search? What should the rules be for police work done "on the streets"? What should count as entrapment? As compelling a person to confess? Another question is how Justices of the Supreme Court should determine the answers to these questions, when they are called upon to apply the Constitution. We explore the answers given by Robert Bork, Richard Posner and Ronald Dworkin.
PHL 410: Special Topics in Philosophy of Law
Prerequisite: PHL 225 or 226 or 227 or (in special cases) permission of instructor.
This is a new course, with content varying from offering to offering. The first version will concern eliciting confessions. The Constitution restricts what the state may do along these lines by guaranteeing that "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to the assistance of Counsel for his defence." The large question for the course is what these restrictions ought to come to. We will pursue it with the help of readings including philosophical essays, law review articles, and leading cases. These will focus on more specific questions including:
  • What is it to compel someone to confess, as opposed to getting him to do so in some way that our legal system should allow?
  • What is torture? When does it differ from "extreme methods of interrogation," and when is that just a euphemism?
  • Can threats compel someone to confess?
  • Can trickery and deception do so, or should the police be free to employ those?
  • How do Miranda warnings and the right to counsel figure in to all of this?
PHL 412: Philosophy of Law (3)
Prerequisites: PHL 225 or 226 or 227 or (in special cases) permission of instructor.
An exploration of the nature of law and legal systems and of the proper role in such systems of judges, jurors, and attorneys. Readings include a few cases but mostly classic and contemporary theorists, together with articles focused on such more particular topics as:
  • the place in legal systems for judicial discretion, and for the exercise of mercy
  • the ethics of jury-selection, and the further proposition that jurors have the right to find differently than the law indicates they should (and sometimes the duty to do so)
  • questions concerning some alternatives to litigation, including plea-bargaining and negotiation

For further information contact:

Prof. Norvin Richards
Dept.of Philosophy
University of Alabama
Box 870218
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
(205) 348-1906
nrichard@tenhoor.as.ua.edu