| | |
|
LawSchoolasTrainingforHierarchy 24 - 11 Jun 2012 - Main.AlexKonik
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="Main.RohanGrey" |
|---|
I found this account of the law school experience by Professor Duncan Kennedy of Harvard Law to be relevant to our discussions in class, thought I’d share. | | | The shame of this is that the status quo is far worse than it appears. Yes, we will all be employed after graduation, but because Columbia doesn't care about leaving after three years with real legal skills, it is very difficult to find employment in jobs in which the employer doesn't have the resources to train you (i.e. non-big firm jobs). Eben constantly tells us to start our own practice after we graduate, and people think it's a ridiculous suggestion, in part because it is. At the moment, Columbia isn't training us to be lawyers but instead merely kicking us down the line to employers who have accepted the responsibility of training us instead. But we're the ones who suffer under that status quo - yes, we get jobs, but we often have to sell our license in those jobs in order to get the training that we should be receiving in exchange for the $150K that we've already paid.
-- JaredMiller - 09 Jun 2012
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | I went to lunch with a professor in the spring who is happy that law school had transitioned from a trade school to a graduate school over the past few generations. As someone who is not interesting in practicing, he thinks an academic environment is more dignified and interesting than a trade school. I think this view is completely legitimate, and that type of education is needed for those interested in academia. Yale obviously fills this function; it may be the case that you are better off going elsewhere to learn how to be a practicing lawyer (though I don't know). It is tricky because no one tells you that being a good practicing lawyer may not mean going to a top-ranked school. With other graduate programs, people know that entering academia is the goal upon completion of their program. Contrariwise, it is a small minority of law school students (nation wide, not at Yale) whose goal is an academic career. Rankings, it seems, reward treating your program as an academic rather than apprenticeship focused education.
I think there is a question: why do firms hire out of the "top" schools that may not train the best practitioners? My assumption is that law schools, like undergraduate universities, have more value to employers as signaling devices than as educational institutions. No one is taking the lead on any case out of school, so forget about training someone to be ready Day 1, but those kids at Columbia will pick up a little faster than others, on average.
In any case, I think there was a conscious effort in moving away from training practitioners. Columbia probably chased Yale (and rankings), trying to become an institution that trained academics. Firms didn't care because there is plenty of low-level work that provides on the job training, and the schools' selection criteria still offered a useful first filter.
I don't know when clinics became such a selling point, but now as the market is contracting you see schools trying to sell their clinical programs. With a combination of clinics, externships, focused course selection, and maybe some DIY advice from Eben, you can probably walk away from Columbia a decently well-trained practitioner. Just skip "Intro To Spanish" and take it through Rosetta Stone instead of CLS.
-- AlexKonik - 10 Jun 2012 | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |