Note: This is the second entry in a continuing series about interesting developments in legal education. Each article will present a brief overview of a controversy or recent trend in the theory or practice of legal education. If you have ideas for future columns, or if you are interested in writing about a legal education development yourself, please contact Sara Kelley at sek28@law.georgetown.edu.
We often hear that depression and substance abuse are high among lawyers, while job satisfaction is low.1 Usually, this gloomy state of affairs is attributed to work-related stress, or to the pre-existing characteristics of persons typically attracted to the practice of law. But some legal academics and even psychologists have hypothesized that the process of legal education transforms the healthy college graduates who start law school into emotionally distressed lawyers.2 One study found that psychological distress symptoms such as depression, anxiety, hostility, and obsessive-compulsion increase dramatically during the first year of law school and do not decrease significantly during the second or third years, or in the two years following law school.3 A more recent study found that law students’ intrinsic values decreased and extrinsic values increased over the first year of law school, with no rebound in the second and third years.4 The second study also showed increases in depression and negative affect and a decrease in positive affect over the first year of law school, with no rebound in the second or third years.5
The first of these studies (the “Benjamin” study) examined the responses of 320 University of Arizona Law School students and alumni to a battery of “self-report” instruments that measure different aspects of psychological distress.6 These instruments included the Brief Symptom Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist.7 The symptoms measured included depression, anxiety, hostility, and obsessive-compulsion.8 The sample of 320 students and alumni was divided into seven cohorts, which included one cohort of students who were evaluated in their first, third, and sixth semesters of law school and another cohort who were evaluated before and at several points during law school.9
Benjamin and his team found that first-year students’ average scores on all symptom indices changed from beginning values in the normal range to values two standard deviations above the norm.10 They also found that entering law students developed most of their symptoms within a few months of beginning law school, and that the incidence of symptoms continued to increase as students progressed through the three-year degree program.11 According to the authors, “[S]ymptom elevations do not significantly decrease between the spring of the third year and the next two years of law practice as alumni.”12
A much more recent study was conducted by Kennon M. Sheldon, a psychologist from the University of Missouri, Columbia and Lawrence Krieger, a clinical law professor at Florida State University College of Law.13 One way that the Sheldon and Krieger study varied from the Benjamin study is that it measured indications of student values and motivation as well as symptoms of psychological distress.14
Students from Florida State University College of Law were evaluated four times over the course of the study: first during a group orientation meeting on the first day of law school (“Time 1”), again in late March of their first year (“Time 2”), then again in November of both their second (“Time 3”) and third years (“Time 4”).15 The study questionnaires measured mood (using the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule), life satisfaction (using the Satisfaction with Life Scale), physical health (by asking participants to rate 18 symptoms, Times 1, 2, and 3 only), and depression (using the Beck Depression Inventory, Times 1 and 2 only). The Time 1 and 2 questionnaires asked participants to “write down five law school goals, i.e., ‘things that you will be trying to accomplish in the coming year.’”16 These questionnaires also asked students “to rate why they were pursuing each goal, in terms of each of four different reasons.” Sheldon and Krieger classified these reasons as autonomous-intrinsic (“because of the enjoyment and stimulation that this activity provides you”), autonomous-identified (“because you really believe it is an important goal to have”), non-autonomous-external (“because others want you to or think you should”) or non-autonomous-introjected (“because you would feel ashamed, guilty, or anxious if you didn’t”).17 Students rated these goals using a 1 (“not at all for this reason”) to 5 (“very much for this reason”) scale. In addition, the questionnaires given at all four Times included the Aspirations Index, which asks participants “how important it is that various future states come to pass (e.g. ‘I will have many expensive possessions’ . . . and ‘I will help others improve their lives” . . .) using a 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important) scale.” Finally, participants at Times 1 and 2 were asked to indicate their first, second, and third choice preferences from a list of 15 possible careers.18 For comparison purposes, 236 members of an upper division psychology class at the University of Missouri also completed the Time 1 questionnaires.19
Perhaps surprisingly, at Time 1 (the beginning of their first semester of law school) the law students in the study showed higher positive affect and life satisfaction than the undergraduate students, with no significant difference in negative affect. Furthermore, law students showed more “intrinsic” motivations (i.e., they were more likely to engage in activities because they found it interesting and enjoyable20) overall than the undergraduates.21 (This difference was largely due to the fact that the law students “gave less endorsement to appealing appearance and social popularity values” than the undergraduates.22) Between Time 1 and Time 2 (August and March of their first year in law school), the law students showed a “significant increase in valuing of ‘appealing appearance’ . . . (an extrinsic value) . . . [and] a significant decrease in the valuing of ‘community contribution.’”23 They also showed “large reductions in positive affect, life satisfaction, and overall [subjective well-being], and large increases in negative affect, depression, and physical symptoms.”24 The later data showed that the previous declines in subjective well-being and intrinsic valuing remained unchanged at Times 3 and 4.25
One unexpected finding of the Sheldon and Krieger study was that from Time 1 to Time 2 the “students as a whole moved away from the careers [the investigators] felt most clearly reflected a ‘money’ orientation.”26 However, students with high GPAs at Time 2 did seem to value money-oriented careers more than they had at Time 1.27 The authors speculate that the overall shift away from “money” careers may be due to the fact that the mean student GPA was a C+: “Perhaps in the face of this perceived failure, the majority of students below the top of the grade curve became discouraged about their chances of obtaining lucrative positions . . . .”28
Interestingly, a second, shorter study conducted by Sheldon and Krieger at a very different law school (referred to in the paper only as “Law School 2” or “LS2”) also showed declines in positive affect, life satisfaction, and “aggregate subjective well-being” over the course of the first year of law school.29 Differences between Florida State and LS2 included the following: LS2 requires first year students to attend a “perspectives” course on topics like depression, substance abuse, and professional values, while Florida State does not; LS2 has no mandatory grade curve, while Florida State does; and LS2 allowed part-time study, while Florida State does not.30
1 See, e.g., Patrick J. Schiltz, On Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession, 52 Vand. L. Rev. 871 (1999); Connie J.A. Beck et al., Lawyer Distress: Alcohol-Related Problems and Other Psychological Concerns among a Sample of Practicing Lawyers, 10 J.L. & Health 1 (1995).
2 Kennon M. Sheldon and Lawrence S. Krieger, Does Legal Education Have Undermining Effects on Law Students? Evaluating Changes in Motivation, Values, and Well-Being, 22 Behav. Sci. & L. 261 (2004) (longitudinal study of entering law students at two law schools conducted by a psychologist and a clinical law professor); Note, Making Docile Lawyers: An Essay on the Pacification of Law Students, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 2027 (1998) (personal observations of a Harvard Law student); G. Andrew H. Benjamin et al., The Role of Legal Education in Producing Psychological Distress among Law Students and Lawyers, 1986 Am. B. Found. Res. J. 225 (longitudinal study of students entering the University of Arizona School of Law by a group including two law professors, one psychologist, and one psychiatrist).
3 Benjamin, 1986 Am. B. Found. Res. J. at 240-41.
4 Sheldon & Krieger, 22 Behav. Sci. & L. at 273-74.
5 Id. at 272, 274.
6 Benjamin, 1986 Am. B. Found. Res. J. at 228.
7 Id. at 229-30.
8 Id. at 229.
9 Id. at 231-32.
10 Id. at 240.
11 Id. at 240-41.
12 Id. at 246.
13 Sheldon & Krieger, 22 Behav. Sci. & L. at 261.
14 Id. at 269.
15 Id. at 267.
16 Id. at 268-69.
17 Id. at 268.
18 Id. at 269.
19 Id. at 267.
20 Id. at 263.
21 Id. at 270.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 273
24 Id. at 272.
25 Id. at 274.
26 Id. at 275.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 281.
29 Id. at 278.
30 Id. at 276-77.