We are deep in the thicket of fall semester, and the changing leaves and cooler temperatures have made me reflect on my 1L fall experience a year ago. I enjoyed my classes. I found some cases and subjects more engaging than others, but when it came to distilling the rules and concepts, there was little excitement. 

When the time came to pick my 2L fall classes, I knew I wanted to pivot away from common law and go down the statutory path. I signed up for both Secured Transactions and Tax I. I am happy to report two major findings: first, you can take both classes in the same semester and not pull out your hair; and second, legal codes are exciting.

In Secured Transactions, Professor Hillinger focuses on reading and applying Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. We have fewer cases to read compared to last year’s Contracts class. Our assignments are problems where we apply Article 9 to various facts and navigate all the terms of art the code uses. For some, this process is daunting and confusing. For me, I love navigating the code and hunting down its rules and definitions. Article 9 is largely self-contained. Learning how to classify collateral was fun. The same goes for learning how to perfect a security interest depending on what the collateral is. Each concept builds on each other beautifully. The logic of the code becomes second nature. For example, it makes sense that you can’t take possession of fixtures, since they are defined by their physical attachment to real estate. I asked Professor Hillinger about this difference since she taught me both Contracts and now Secured. She remarked on how during 1L, you learn to read a case and think critically. Your focus is distilling a single rule from multiple cases. These 2L classes are inverted. They have a methodology. You start with the rules and focus on application.

Tax I mirrors Secured in a few ways but differs in others. The tax code has its own quirks, such as how section 125 is titled “Cafeteria Menus,” but has nothing to do with any kind of food but rather menus of fringe benefits employees may have with their employers. We read cases here and there, but they often show how the code was shaped or rewritten in reaction to them. Unlike Article 9, Congress writes the tax code and is a much larger entity compared to states adopting a model Article 9 code. Our code book includes selected tax regulations on top of the bear that is Title 26 of the USC. Lots of class focuses on hypotheticals. Professor Ring does emphasize it is not a math class, but I find problem solving in class helpful in applying the materials. We work through things like what if the code was worded differently, or if we tried to adopt rules taxpayers argued for in court. I discussed this with Professor Ring and she and I agreed there is no better way to learn the code than through these hypotheticals. 

Ultimately that is the piece we miss out on in 1L classes. You don’t really apply the law until you’re doing practice problems and prepping for exams. Maybe this was unique to my professors, but we rarely had hypotheticals in class. In Tax and Secured, you are constantly applying the law in class, not just when you are called on. As you listen to the lecture, you are applying rules.

If you are a 1L right now who does not feel at home in the common law, tough it out a little longer and take a code class your 2L year. To my fellow 2Ls, if you were intimidated by all the rumors about Tax and Secured, try it for yourself before you abandon it entirely.

---

Catherine Beveridge is a second-year student at BC Law. Contact her at beverid@bc.edu.