
Two people have emailed me now asking if this was my blog. Sadly the answer is no, this is not my blog although part of me wishes it was mine. Those that know me well are aware I can be very critical of law school myself. The blog is bringing up some real problems with law schools. This type of honest critic is what is needed, if we are going to improve law school for future students. My only major critic of the blog is that I wish the author would provide more solutions. It is easy to tear the system apart real reform needs solutions.
Let’s look at a few of the topics:
Would you pay $100,000 for a law review article?
Law review articles are mostly useless and read by no one:
Specifically (Chief Justice) Roberts claimed that legal scholarship is not relevant to the work of lawyers and judges, saying he is on the same page with Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who believes there is a great “disconnect between the academy and the profession.”
Roberts continued, “Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.”
Roberts added that he doesn’t necessarily think anything is wrong with such an approach, albeit a relatively irrelevant one. “If the academy wants to deal with the legal issues at a particularly abstract, philosophical level,” Roberts continued, “that’s great and that’s their business, but they shouldn’t expect that it would be of any particular help or even interest to the members of the practice of the bar or judges.”
I completely agree, and would even go further to state that most review articles are rubbish that no one reads, nor should they. Law review articles are reviewed by students that often know nothing about the substantive area of law they are reviewing. They are also written in nearly unreadable jargon that makes the law appear much more archaic then it need be.
We need to update legal scholarship to include open access legal blogs that are reviewed in real time by peers in the profession posner and becker have the begins of this. If you add a good comment / credit system you could have some every educated and useful legal scholarship done that is read by people and accessible.
The practice of hiding the law in closed access locked journals and writing in intentionally obfuscating ways must stop. For the law to apply to everyone we need to start translating more of it back into plain language and make legal debates publicly accessible.
Now, how much work does teaching a long-term average of less than three classes per year actually represent? Compared to other forms of teaching, law school teaching is not exactly time-intensive. For one thing, the traditional law school class features very little in the way of evaluative responsibilities for the professor. Students are given one test at the end of the semester, and the professor need not bother with any other formal evaluation of their performance. For another, with the exception of grading (and law school is structured to produce the minimum amount of grading possible), large classes are much easier to teach than small ones.
Teaching a 12-person seminar in which all the students are expected to participate with the professor in a genuine dialogue about the material is difficult.
Teaching a 100-person class, in which the professor can either drone on while students check their email and Facebook accounts, or can harass individual students while everyone else checks out even more completely, is relatively easy.
The system of one grade and no feedback is simply ridiculous. We learn through iteration, trial and error, gaining feedback, dialog. The one grade system sets people up to fail and punishes people who try new things.
Professors are not taught to teach – I see lots of new professors, from schools all over, struggling with how to give students feedback because they are not taught how. 20 years of contracts litigation does not = a good contracts teacher. I am more optimistic then the writer as many new professor I work with actually want students to learn they are just missing the tools they need.
Socratic scare tactics are antiquated and anti learning – I love a good heated conversation with a class, but some professors take this to the extreme of badgering and berating students. If we want students to learn we have to give them useful feedback in the class not scare them to death.
I am recommending the blog to get a glimpse into some of the issues with law school, but it should be taken with a grain of salt. The blog gets a 3.5 for frank honesty but no more as it is lacking in real solutions.
Finlay as a student interested in law school take the issues mentioned seriously and go visit schools and talk to students and faculty, ask hard questions. Find a school with a professor that gives feedback and cares about the area of law you want to go into. One of the only things that kept me sane in law school was having Margaret Chon as a mentor someone who cared about teaching IP law and social justice and being able to audit IP classes from ElizabethTownsend-Gard my 1L year. Finding great mentors will help you deal with the ordeal ahead.