The frustration people feel is the inadequacy of “learning to think like a lawyer,” which is just a silly way of saying “engaging with the Socratic method/uncertainty” and memorizing rules. Law school is not fully intellectual in that we don’t question the rules, we only learn /1 https://twitter.com/brian_sajdak/status/1302965811468959745">https://twitter.com/brian_saj...

to apply them in a way that is acceptable to the court. We are discouraged from questioning the law itself, especially in first year classes. That lack of questioning is antithetical to most other parts of the American academy, and is seen as anti-intellectual. At the same /2

time, applying facts to the law is only part of what is necessary to be a good lawyer. You also need business acumen, writing skills, emotional intelligence to communicate with clients and negotiate, managerial skills, and perfunctory knowledge of how to move a case through /3

court or how to execute an important agreement. These extremely important aspects of lawyering are only tangentially taught or discussed in law school if they are covered at all.