Law School 4.0: Are Law Schools Relevant to the Future of Law?
[posted by Bill Henderson, crossposted to ELS Blog]
.......
Recently, the editors of Above-the Law surveyed the changes within the legal job market and asked two good questions: (1) if the Howrey/Drinker Biddle/Frost Brown Todd
apprenticeship model gains traction, is it appropriate to shorten law
school to two years? And (2) if law school salaries are going down,
should law schools be expected to "share in the pain" by figuring out
ways to reduce tuition? Unless the job market significantly improves
during the next 12 months, it is going to get much more difficult for
us to ignore these issues. For a realistic cost analysis of the current
system, see Edward Rubin, Should Law Schools Support Faculty Research, 17 J. Comtemp. Leg. Issues 139 (2008).
I
don't
want this post to be a screed. I am looking for next steps that will
produce concrete and sustainable forward progress. But I have read
enough history on the growth and evolution of U.S. legal education to
have a realistic view on institutional change. Here are my two primary
rules:
Rule #1:
Great ideas are not enough. As a result, bold initiatives by
professional organizations like the AALS or the ABA rarely have staying
power. Law professors are intellectuals; hence, we fall in love with
our own ideas. But all-to0-often, we fail to do a coherent
institutional analysis that explains why others will adopt our ideas.
Skipping this step is one of the privileges (and hazards) of the ivory
tower. For a more elaborate discussion of this point, see Why I Worry About the Carnegie Report: Four Data Points (Dec. 7, 2007).
Rule #2:
Sustainable ideas within any industry are always accompanied by
institutional self-interest--legal education is no exception. In other
words, the people who execute on the idea have to be made better off,
e.g., through financial gains, professional reputation, leisure,
economic security, or (at the individual level) self-actualization.
This was secret sauce behind the Langdell case model: It was more
effective than self-study yet it facilitated large enough class sizes
to generate a perennial economic surplus. In turn,
lawyers-turned-law-professors were freed from the commercial pressures
of practice and could advance their careers as experts. The
university, professors, and students were all made better off. As a
second order effect, so was the legal profession. Of course, this
revolution occurred 100 years ago. It is time for a new legal
education formula that fits the 21st century.
Comments