Ten years after graduating from Harvard University in 2000, my sister has just started law school in New York City. With a decade of work experience already behind her, this decision to return to the classroom was a difficult one. She enrolled in an evening-only JD program, and plans to continue working full-time while attending classes. At the age of 31, she is considerably older than the typical law school student.

Do you notice a difference in the students' use of electronics in the classroom between graduation from college in 2000 and law school in 2010?

Absolutely. In 2000, everyone took notes with pen and paper. Everyone. That was really the only thing available, and it was what we had been trained to do. In 2010, the default is to have a laptop available in the classroom. There are some professors who specifically prohibit the use of laptops, and today's students are completely frustrated by that. Without their laptops, they're at a loss.

For the professors who do allow laptops, I wonder if I am the one who is at a disadvantage. They are able to take notes faster, and notes on a laptop are more flexible. If they need to re-arrange something, it's a simple matter of cut and paste. With a pen and paper, I wind up jamming something into a space where it doesn't really fit, and it's not always very legible.

So you still choose to take notes on paper?

So far, yes. That's what I feel comfortable with, in a classroom setting. That's what I've always done. I wonder if I'll wind up changing my mind on that score, and if so, how long it will take.

I like to sit at the back of the classroom, and from that position I can actually see everybody's laptop screen. I've noticed that while everybody has some kind of word processor open to take notes, but they've also got other things on the screen: email, chat programs, google, Facebook, newspapers and blogs. The temptation with a laptop to do other things must be very strong. And I think that probably wouldn't be good for me.

It's probably not great for them, either.

Right. Exactly

The internet is now also an integral part of the pedagogy, the actual teaching methods. Every course has a web presence on an existing law school internet research platform, like LexisNexis. And there's a place where you've got to register. The professors have established course pages for documents to be shared, assignments to be submitted, supplemental reading materials to be posted. And this means that anything can be changed at any moment. The professor can change his mind about next week's assignment, as long as it's posted on the course site. And a student can submit a question at any moment, as long as it's posted. That has increased the flexibility, but at the cost of predictability. So it's just a different balance.

When I was in college, the semester's syllabus was set. It could change, but not much. Now, the syllabus feels like a starting point for the semester, and you see the evolution play out on the course's web page.

It has already proven extremely useful in one way: there was a course whose textbook didn't arrive in time. The professor scanned the pages we were supposed to read, and posted them on the web site. We were able to download them, print them out and do our reading in time.

They could photocopy the assignment.

Having the professor Xerox those pages, as he would have done ten years ago, means we would have had to go there and pick up the copies before we could read them. Also, not knowing exactly how many students would show up, could mean lots of wasted time & paper. This distribution is really much easier and quicker.

On the other hand, it has also already happened that a professor has changed an assignment online at the last minute. Several students didn't check the web site frequently enough, and missed the updated assignment. The professor was flexible about it, but the updated assignment was clearly more relevant to the day's class material. And the students who weren't prepared definitely missed out.

The classic TV lawyer's office is filled with books that all look the same: red and black books that fill up shelf after shelf. All of legal history is recorded in these volumes. Every time the supreme court, for example, decides a case, it's recorded and compiled in these red and black books.

At some point, you used to need a set of your own. While in law school, you'd build up your set of these books for your research. If you needed a reference, you'd have to go to the books to find it.

But now, it's all on the internet. Legal research is completely different. If you want to find all the court cases related to one type of crime, you can just type it in, and search for all the cases in New York State dealing with a certain type of nun chucks, for example. It levels the playing field for people with less experience.

I'd like to think that being a good lawyer is about analyzing the facts, not just possessing the facts.They could photocopy the assignment.

Yes, I'd like to think it is. But there's a question of how long it takes you to get the facts, and the chances that you will get all of the facts that are available. I think it was easier back in the day, pre-internet, to miss major opinions. You're familiar with a certain set of cases, and somebody could pull a research rabbit out of a hat with, at some point. Those days are gone. I think your past experience has a now different value.

Do you think that you're visibly different from the other students?

I know that I am.

Really? You're only a few years past your 20s.

I don't look like I'm 21, and most of the other students do.

My school has a full time program, and a part time program. The incoming class has about 500 people. About 430 of them are full time and about 70 are part time. The part time program is in the evenings so you can also have a full time job. I'd figure that most of the non-traditional students would be in the part time program. (Non-traditional is a euphemism for "old.")

My first class was at 6pm one evening, and it was a class for all the part-time students. All of the 70 students were there. I walked into that room, and I looked around, and I could immediately tell you who was right from college, and who was a few years out. Immediately.

It's not just a matter of whether you've got a few gray hairs. There are perceptible differences in hairstyle, clothing choices, and in school accessories. It's different! People with loose-leaf notebooks, pens and papers, we're not 21. And I know that it's obvious to everybody, not just me, because the students had already segregated themselves into bunches of 22-year-old, and bunches of 30-year-olds. There was no conscious thought process, but I made a beeline for the grown up section. Everybody sorted themselves appropriately. It seemed like the most natural thing in the world. Other 30-somethings have already approached me and said, "Ugh, kids today!" We already know. We can sniff each other out.

At convocation, all 500 of us were in the same room. The dean spoke to us about the class as a whole, breaking down the various demographics. "You come from 6 countries and all 50 states of the union," she said. She also happened to mention that the average age of the incoming class is 24. A bunch of 30-somethings got together afterwards, and did some math: "If the average age is 24, and I am 34 years old, that means that there are FIVE 22-year-olds to balance me out." We are far, far outnumbered.

There are a few people whom you can't identify on sight. "Oh, you might be 25. Where does that place you? You're not 30, but you're not 22 either." But the minute they open their mouths, you know. You can just tell based on what they say and how they say it. It's immediately obvious which side of the room they'd feel more comfortable on: the kids' or the grown ups'.

The professors that have you introduce yourselves to your peers usually ask three things: your name, where you grew up, and where you went to college. For me, that's barely relevant. College ended ten years ago! It's is not a big part of my identity anymore. It made me realize how much I have been shaped by what I've done since college. And it also highlighted how much the younger students are still completely unshaped. They haven't had a chance to make any choices yet.

There are a few grownups who take the same subway I do. We tend to look for each other on the way out of class. We've only got three blocks' worth of conversation to get the subway stop, so it's nothing deep, but we have trade a few witty remarks. One evening we were discussing a particularly painful exchange between one of the younger students and a professor. My reaction was: "Today's class made me really glad I'm not 21 anymore." The other people had a good laugh. It's not just a difference in what you say, or how prepared you are for class. We've mostly all done the reading, that part isn't age-dependent. It's a matter of how you conduct yourself when you don't really know the answer. Have you been in a meeting where your boss starts asking you direct questions, and you're not really prepared? All the grownups have. We don't panic. Maybe the younger kids haven't had those experiences yet, but they are just not that good at hiding the fact that they're unprepared. People who have been in the world a little while know that if you've read one assigned article and not the other, you volunteer your information about what you've read. That way you've already spoken and won't get called on later, when the unknown material is discussed. There are ways to manage the professor's perception of your preparedness; you've got just to know how.

Is this a good age for you to have gone back? Do you wish you'd gone back earlier?

I wish I'd known earlier that this is what I want to do, because it would have been much easier. But I wasn't ready, before now. I wasn't directed enough to believe this commitment would be worthwhile. So I think I needed the time, but I wish I hadn't needed it. It's definitely harder now than it would have been, even at, say, 25. At that point I had far fewer professional responsibilities. I was still working full time, but I wasn't supervising other people. There were other people reviewing my work instead of me having to review the work of others. In the past, my supervisors were able to cover for me when I was out. But now, there are things at work that only I can do. So if I'm not there, or I can't get them done, it holds everything up. That's a lot more responsibility: managing staff, managing money, setting priorities and schedules for other people.

It's also important for me to lead by example. I want to set an example by being committed to my job. But I can't show that commitment in the same obvious ways that I could before I went back to school: by being in the office at all hours. When I used to send emails at 8pm, people noticed. And now I'm in class at 8pm, with no laptop.

What is one piece of advice would you give the 22-year-olds in your incoming class... if they asked?

Go to a speech therapist. No, just kidding.

Really? Their speech patterns are that identifiable?

Completely. It's just painful.

The things I'd really want to say are: think before you speak, or speak in a way that you'd like to hear other people speak. But it occurs to me that all of their peers are also halting and inarticulate when they try to express themselves. So I'm not sure if that's useful.

I imagine it must be a matter of confidence. And I'm not sure there's any shortcut for that.

Maybe my advice would then be: practice public speaking at every opportunity. I suspect that many of these kids aren't used to having 70 other people listening to what they're saying, without reading from a pre-written speech. Engaging in public debate and extemporaneous discourse in front of a group would give them a chance to practice expressing themselves clearly and quickly without feeling as self-conscious as they do now. They also need practice thinking quickly: forming the idea they want to express in a timely manner, to avoid stammering their way through 45 or 60 seconds of everybody else's time, before they're ready to convey a complete thought.

Any final thoughts about going to back to school ten years later?

One up side? It's a lot easier to get scholarships now! It's easier to set yourself apart from other people when you've got some interesting work experience. When you graduate from college, all you've got is your college transcript and everybody has one of those. The only differences are tenths of a point in grade average. But after you've had a few jobs, you can make a much better pitch. You've got something unique to talk about in your application, something unusual to bring to the table. And I think the same goes for law school — I'm bringing something to the table that kids right out of college just don't have. It remains to be seen exactly what that will do for me, but my fingers are crossed.

interview with: lara glass
interviewer & photographer: jessie glass