What about law school is much harder than liberal arts?

I always hear from people that law school is much more difficult than a liberal arts undergraduate degree. In what ways?

At my undergraduate program, we read, write, and compose several analyses of books of many different authors, poets, historians, professors, politicians, and many other scholars frequently. How much more comprehensive is law school than an undergraduate liberal arts program?

Here are the differences that I have noticed since enrolling in law school.

1. Amount of work: As the other poster notes, the volume of work in law school is like nothing you have ever seen in undergrad. Law school requires reading about 450 pages a week. The reading is not scholarly works (for the most part). They are cases. Opinions written by judges. Cases are very difficult to understand and many times many cases deal with one principle of law and it can be very difficult to reconcile the court coming out in a different way.

Regardless, the reading is greater in volume and substance. For example, in undergrad (I was also a liberal arts major at a fairly difficult school) I could read 20-30 pages an hour. In law school, especially at first, it is like reading a different language. You have to look up terms constantly and understand many legal concepts before you can understand another more complex one. Reading in law school takes on average (at least your first year) 1 hour per 10 pages of reading.

Furthermore you must be prepared to be called on in class. You may not gloss over the reading and expect to sit through a lecture and pick up the information there. In law school you will be called on and if you are unprepared you will be ridiculed by the professor. Furthermore some profs will asses an absence for being underprepared which is saying a lot as the ABA will only allow you to have 4 the entire semester to sit for the exam.

2. Comprehensiveness: It is much more comprehensive. In undergrad you may take a class that will state some simple legal rules. I once had a friend who told me that he knew everything about negligence in tort law because he had learned the elements in 2 classes of undergrad work. In law school you must take torts and we spent 11 weeks on the elements of negligence alone. In your constitutional law class you will spend 5 or 6 weeks discussing one sentence of the constitution such as free speech. To say it is comprehensive is an understatement. You are learning the law, and will someday advise clients on the law, scholarly reading is just simply not the same as reading opinions.

Furthermore, the analysis that you conducted in undergrad is not nearly as complex as law school will demand. Analyzing a book is a lot different from analyzing legal issues.

The only thing I can tell you is that you would have to experience it to know what I am talking about.

The difference with law school is in the intensity of the experience and the sheer volume of material that you cover. Good skills in reading comprehension, writing and time management are essential. The other difference is that you actually have to learn the material that you're studying because you will need that information in the future. It's not like college where you can cram for an exam, knowing that once you finish the course, you may not need that info in the future. Nevertheless, a good liberal arts program will prepare you well for law school.