I've been meaning to post on this thread for a while, and now I'm hesitant to jump in here because you all have been going at this for a while, but I figure a somewhat different perspective may be helpful as you guys move forward with reform (radical or otherwise).

First, I'll just note that I didn't find Dean Schizer's email all that insulting. Timely submission of grades, like it or not, is a pretty common student concern. Whether or not we place importance on grades in this class, it doesn't take more than 30 seconds sitting in Lenfest to hear complaints about how long some professor took to get grades out. The near-instantaneous posting of when grades are released on a class-by-class basis on Facebook seems like a pretty clear indicator that students care when grades come out. Now, obviously I don't think DS should be focusing a large portion of his time on this, but I imagine he can walk and chew gum at the same time, so it doesn't bother me all that much. I also think there's some psychological benefit to getting first semester 1L grades when you're at home with family as opposed to in the bubble of law school, but that's hard to quantify and probably not all that relevant.

Second, while I think we all agree that the 1L year needs more "evaluative feedback", it just isn't a feasible goal at this scale. This class was unintentionally instructive on that point. Eben tried to build a course designed around the kind of individual evaluation we want, but it's clearly not possible for professors (given their other obligations) to give feedback in a timely fashion to 100+ students. Could it work if class sizes were capped at a much smaller number? Sure. But, judging by comments here and in course evaluations, "good" law professors are in short supply. If the trade-off is between individual attention and professor quality, I'm not sure what the best solution is. I'd also note that I don't think it's a viable solution to cut CLS's overall class size (at least not without raising tuition to even more astronomical prices).

Third, in terms of the unpreparedness of law students to practice law upon graduation, I don't think that's a real concern coming from students at elite law schools. It's true that law school doesn't provide much in the way of practical legal experience, but I don't think it's clear that that is what great law schools should be providing. After 1L year, I think everyone here is better able to understand case law, read a contract, and "speak the language of law." After two years of medical school, med students haven't had a whole lot of practical medical experience, but anatomy and biochemistry create a foundation for good doctoring. That's all that we need law school to do. So long as employers are willing to pay graduates of top law schools to work (and train), I'd venture that CLS students do well with the current structure. (Although, to be fair, I think a strong case can be made that schools where students face lesser employment prospects would benefit from a more practical curriculum.)

I realize the counter to my preceding paragraph is that students should be able to practice law upon passing the bar and that the concept of employer-training leads to the license-pawning that we all fear. Personally, I haven't been able to find a meaningful distinction between pre-bar training and post-bar pawning. If I'm willing to pay for three years of legal education, why should I be unwilling to accept payment for additional education? To jump back to the med school analogy, how would this be any different than residency?

-- SanjayMurti - 09 Jul 2012

As Rohan alluded to, making things better for others that come behind us may mean working within the system first for incremental change. However, those initiatives could later lead to systemic change. Also, presenting the gamut of initiatives/ideas to the administration may make some of the less extreme ones appear insignficant, when those reforms would really amount to substantial reform. The Civil Rights Movement would not have been as effective without Martin and Malcolm. Dr. King appeared much more safe as compared to Malcolm X, which allowed many of Dr. King's reforms to take place. However, Dr. King started to become more radical later in his life, leading to more initiatives such as the Poor People's Campaign. After his prior reforms, his more radical moves were accepted and even some of Malcolm X's ideas were better understood.

-- WilliamDavidWilliams - 09 Jul 2012