Comments

7 responses to “Legal Education System”

1. international

   June 11, 2018

   But would our law-school colleagues grossly overpaid for what they are doing — teaching how to read appellate court cases via a minimal-effort Socratic method — the skill rather useless for everyone outside the legal profession (and even questioned by lawyers themselves) — be even able/willing to develop classes that succinctly teach useful practical knowledge of law? Do not forget that few of the law schools professoriate have any meaningful practical experience.

   Just last year when I asked to be allowed to take a regular 1L course at my U’s law school I was invited to audit it for just $2k (down 50% from what they would charge a non-faculty auditor). So I do not find it hard to believe that “these ventures” are “a joy”… for my “law-school colleagues”.

   Reply
2. international

   June 11, 2018

   I’m one of those “grossly overpaid” “law-school colleagues,” and yes, I’m happy to do that. I already give a number of guest lectures in my area of law before classes in other departments–guest lectures that I do on top of my teaching load. And no, I don’t use the Socratic method; I develop a number of practice-based exercises for students to apply the readings. (I also did have meaningful practice experience as well.) I don’t think I’m alone; a lot of more junior folks (pre-tenure and recently tenured) in legal academia have moved away from the assumptions you describe.

   Thanks for asking! I’d guess that little less snark would open more doors for actual future partnerships, though. The folks in the other departments I work with are fairly collegial and collaborative, and it makes these ventures a joy.

   Not sure it’s fair or even accurate to generalize the cost of auditing a course towards as demonstrating some universal attitude held by the law school faculty. At my university, these prices are set by the university administrators (and are present in the reverse: law faculty have to pay the same costs to audit non-law school courses, which a number of my colleagues have paid for, btw). To my knowledge, none of us law school (or non law school, for that matter) faculty members have been asked about our opinion on this at all (or if we had, it occurred well before I got here, and I’ve been around for over seven years.)

   Again, I’m not sure snark is the way to go. What might be more effective is to find those of us in legal academia who are supportive of more cross-disciplinary enterprises, and to work together to reach the changes we both seem to desire.

   Edited: Upon rereading your comment, it appears that you might be suggesting that somehow law school faculty members are actually receiving the tuition money, and that is why we find it a “joy.” I know I don’t; I do this entirely because I believe in cross-disciplinary education (and because I like hanging out with folks from my own “other” discipline). I’m also pretty sure that tuition-wise, my law school doesn’t either, because at my university, we have fiscal policies in place that prohibit too much tuition funding from staying in the same department–basically to minimize the competition issues you raise.

   Reply
3. international

   June 11, 2018

   As a current graduate student in a Student Affairs in Higher Education program, I completely agree with an interdisciplinary approach to graduate education, especially in any program related to student personnel administration. I have been told time and time again that upper-level administrators spend more time “putting out fires” and dealing with legal issues than actual planning, assessment, and student development. Administrators are forced to deal with Title IX compliance, Clery Act reporting, and a slew of potential suits over “unfair” student judicial processes. Our curriculum provides for ONE legal class. One semester only offers a brief overview of legal concepts that one might encounter, as well as a few landmark cases effecting policy in higher ed…and I certainly don’t have the time or resources to pursue a JD and a doctorate, unless they plan on paying entry level student affairs practioners more than 30K…

   Reply
4. international

   June 11, 2018

   One impediment to this idea is the large salary gap between undergrad professors and law professors, hinted at below by rogue_academic. It may not make much sense but it’s been explained in market terms: J.D.s can (still) earn more money outside the academy than their Ph.D. peers.

   Separation between the two schools, along with the professional focus of legal education, has helped keep the divide out of arts-and-sciences people’s faces. An end to that separation as described in this essay might cause (a) law professors to insist they’re doing something more important than true peer collaboration, to protect their income and (b) resentment among Ph.D. faculty working closely with what they will consider overpaid colleagues.

   There is a market component to this. In addition to the large salary gap between legal academia versus private legal practice that you describe, there’s also the loan component, which tends to be higher for legal education. (I am, I admit, generalizing from personal comparisons between graduate school–which I did attend and for which I barely had to take any loans–and law school–for which I had to take out pretty immense loans.)

   And yes, the separation *might* lead to the unfortunate outcomes you describe. On the other hand, I think there are university policies that *can* increase collaboration and at least minimize such outcomes: things like university-wide policies to increase interdisciplinary collaboration with actual teeth to them, like tying in intra-university grant funding to demonstration of collaborative efforts, as well as actual funding for cross-disciplinary hiring (with those hiring committees composed of members from several overlapping departments).

   Reply
5. international

   June 11, 2018

   Let me repeat what others have eloquently stated before (see Tamanaha’s “Failing law schools” book): the myth of underpaid legal academia (versus private practice) is bogus, perpetuated mostly by law professors. The hours a private practice lawyer has to work to match a typical law professor’s salary is not even in the same universe, not mentioning much more stressful environment, leading to depression and substance abuse, etc.

   Reply
6. international

   June 11, 2018

   This views the issue from the perspective of what would be good for law professors and law schools, but I wonder whether it’s the best approach for everybody else. Should we assume that all career education is acquired by getting a degree? The consultants I work with attend continuing ed classes that are timely and directly related to their fields. Certificate programs are proliferating because professionals want information that is – -yes — directly related to their fields. Professionals, rather than law professors, tend to teach these courses, and many law professors are not in the best position to provide this sort of education because they’re used to dealing with students (not other professionals) and are not at the cutting edge of practice. .

   Reply
7. international

   June 11, 2018

   There’s no reason people need to throw away tens of thousands of dollars or go deeply into debt just to obtain “a working understanding of our laws and regulations.” Such knowledge can be obtained through self study in a manner similar to how many tech folks are self taught (for example, Edward Snowden has a couple of community college courses under his belt, but basically he is self taught).

   Law schools may be more suited for teaching students how to think like a lawyer, whatever that means, but law schools by no means hold a monopoly on knowledge of how the system works. Let’s hope “workers in the knowledge economy” are not as easily duped as law students have been into handing over exorbitant amounts of money to law schools.

   Reply