ON A PRACTICAL LEGAL EDUCATION

Maybe. But scholarship has existed for that purpose for a very long time, while what Hayek is talking about is the difficulty of substituting for the market a system of plans that would be based on a similar information volume presented densely to planners, rather than piecemeal, in a volatile way, which is how the market produces and distributes information. Those are related but very different concerns.

This great technological change will surely bring with it great shifts in power. It will be our jobs as the lawyers of our generation to assist others in adapting to this change and adapting to these shifts in power. However, law schools around the country are not yet taking advantage of technological possibilities and not sufficiently dealing with the effects of technological change. Our whole education system is stuck in the past and I propose that together, we should build a better legal education. As the brightest law students in the country, we have the power to succeed with this objective, fixing past mistakes and building on both old and new ideas. It takes only a single glance at our current legal regime to see the disastrous effects caused by our being stuck in the past. When a disaster strikes, one needs to start from scratch while fixing past mistakes. This wiki is convenient for such a collaborative endeavor.

Why does one have to be so grandiose about the purpose? Claiming so much makes failure more likely, for little benefit. Would it not be sufficient to say that we can help one another to learn better and produce examples others may choose to refine?

We should transform the law school experience because we do not need to learn the law as we learn it today. The laws of today do not pertain to my life or my future. They are the laws of yesterday, stuck in the past and not forward-looking in any way. Instead, we should learn the law so that we can create appropriate laws to govern the present and adapt to the incredibly different future that is coming our way.

Again, why is it necessary to be so sweeping? The wholesale replacement of a legal order implies a political revolution that does not appear to be imminent. Why is it not sufficient to say that history teaches that legal institutions will almost certainly evolve more slowly than the general pace of social change, but that they will evolve, and we want to make ourselves self-conscious and energetic components of the change?

For the most part, law school courses do not ask us to think. Professors instruct us to read and ask us to spit back the information we read rather than guide our thinking as to how such information shapes and affects law.

Is that really how it is "for the most part"? I've been teaching for twenty-five years, in this and other law schools, and I would say it is, for the most part, true that law school courses either require or reward independent thinking.

We hope the professor will give us a good grade, but those grades are quite limiting because they force us to compete. Even when we get past our grades, we are graded by a paycheck.

I do not have a problem with competition, but I have a problem with competition that does not generate progress, and this is precisely the type of competition that is the basis of our current legal education. Progress comes from building on each other's thoughts, not from getting a check+ on a paper or a hefty check from a law firm. Those things are restraints on our collaborative abilities. At the level of intelligence we have all shown by now, competing for a grade is worthless to ourselves and to society.

Furthermore, I do not think that I deserve eighty-three credits for my law school experience. I took some courses and passed some exams. I do not see why that deserves credit.

Even if that were all you had done, "credit" seems to me precisely what it does deserve. Some knowledge was presented, on your account, and you demonstrated to the instructor's satisfaction that you had mastered some or all of what was presented. "Credit" sounds like the appropriate response to payment plus learning, does it not?

Our education system fails to realize that in life, there are no due dates or ends of classes. We should match reality with the legal education so we are not stuck taking exams on ExamSoft but testing our minds in the real world. In Professor Moglen's course I was asked to think and express my thoughts in a coherent manner. My thoughts were challenged but for once, my thoughts on, and education in, a topic were not going to end with the receipt of a grade. This truly educational course could be used as the basis for our future legal education.

Not the basis, in my opinion, but another experiment in improvement. You don't need to enlist me in the scheme of over-estimating the significance of the near.

A course similar to the one proposed below, could have a positive impact on the world. The Internet has given our minds longevity and has allowed everybody access to our thoughts and ideas. It gives us a collaborative tool that can help solve Mr. Hayek's problem. We can let our thoughts and ideas build upon each other and come closer to efficiency.

Let's combine all of our bits of knowledge and experiment with a single credit online course. At the beginning of the semester, each student will be asked to devote one hour per week to solving a serious problem in our country (a problem chosen by a professor in collaboration with students). By the end of the 13 weeks, the class would have almost 500 hours of collaboration.

Assuming, for a moment, that it takes nothing more than an occasional hour each week to be an efficient collaborator in "solving" social problems. It puts me in mind of Thoreau's enquiring whether one can mind a steam-boiler betimes. Perhaps we should have a little more respect for the complexities of the policy process, and a little less certainty that changes in modes of communication are all it take to improve our ability to plan for and execute improvements in social outcomes. Many aspects of social process are difficult to abstract away in order to put everything inside a browser frame and an hour a week.

Even a single moment of collaboration would be better than Congress.

This is a conventional claim, but it isn't right. Congress is more than the politicians on television.

In the book Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell (I know he is a jackass and has weird hair) says that it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field. Imagine if this was not just 38 students but 100 students. Imagine if it was not just 1 credit but 4 credits. Could you imagine what we could accomplish as energetic and eager law students, especially if other schools joined in on our course?

How are you measuring the value? As learning, to the students, or as solutions for society? If the latter, see above. If the former, hadn't we better ask a little more closely what will be learned and how?

Forget mastery in a field, we could breed progress. We could fix the education system and fix the country, credit by credit. And maybe, one day, we will truly know what a credit is, appreciate its value, and give and get credit only when it is deserved.

A little more modesty, a little less heat in the advocacy, some more tempered assessment of what you're asking for and can expect, including perhaps the recognition that these are experiments rather than conclusions, and you'd have a fine essay.

FIRST STEP IS COMPLETE

Put this inside the limits of the assignment and then we can both go to work on it.

ON A PRACTICAL LEGAL EDUCATION

First step, Alan, is that this has to stop being 1,691 words long, and become less than

ON A PRACTICAL LEGAL EDUCATION

This Wiki entry is an essay with a cause. It was inspired by my experiences and a recent passage I read from the economist Friedrich Hayek. Although I do not wholeheartedly agree with his economic theory, I respect his clarity in thinking and writing. In an essay entitled The Use of Knowledge in Society, Hayek thinks and states "The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess...to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality." I believe this statement is true but with the exponential evolution of technology and the bringing together of minds on the Internet, human beings finally have the ability to fix Mr. Hayek's problem of determining a rational economic order. For example, this wiki brings together some of these dispersed bits.

Law schools around the country are not taking advantage of this partial solution. Instead, our law school educations are stuck in the past (Just think about using ExamSoft for our final exams). As it stands, the law school education is inefficient. I recognize that it is not just the law school education but the country's entire public education system that is inefficient but we must start somewhere.

AN AMBITIOUS ENDEAVOR

We live in a period of great technological change that is sure to bring with it, great shifts in power. It will be our jobs as the greatest minds of our generation to assist others in adapting to this change and adapting to these shifts in power. Let us start by building a better legal education.

I do not know if we have enough power to turn my idea into something that works but I would like to brainstorm a new system on this wiki. This somewhat uncomfortable open space that allows us to actually share our thoughts and gives us the possibility of creating something of substance, is bigger than my grade or your grade, it is and should be the future of our country's education system. It is convenient for the collaboration of great, thought-filled minds. It is efficient in allocating our resources by maximizing our time and space. We should use this technology to better the law school education, to better our learning experiences, to expand our thoughts into ideas, and our ideas into tangible creations.

I started this essay as a rant about how crappy of an experience law school has been. At some point in ranting, I caught a glimpse of my angry self in the reflection of my laptop and realized I can take that anger and transform it into useful energy. We do not need to learn the law as we learn it today. We need to learn the law so that we can create laws for the vastly different present and the incredibly different future that is coming our way.

Our intellectual property laws are stuck in the past. Our corporate laws have allowed our corporations to run rampant (see Essay #2). Our constitutional law has allowed our government and our politics to remain, for the most part, stagnant without maximizing our potential to progress, as government officials and politicians battle back and forth just to win and wave their shiny golden ticket in the air, from Justice to Justice, from court to court, from election to election, from sea to shining sea. This is not only a problem, it is a disaster. When there is a problem, you usually know where to start. For example, if your house has a leak, you determine where it is, and go from there but if your house was destroyed by a hurricane (a real one, not that little lady Irene that New York complained about for weeks), your only option is to collect your insurance and start over. We need to start over and we are the brightest law students in the country. We have the power to rebuild the legal education.

For the most part, the problem in the majority of law school courses is that they don't ask us to think. They instruct us to read and then they test us on our reading comprehension skills. Rather than allowing us to think about what we learned and develop skills necessary for contributing to the legal field, we are asked to spit back information, hoping that the professor gives us a good grade. Those grades are quite limiting too. They force our great minds to compete. And when we finally get passed our grades, it will be a paycheck, or a car, or a house, or a personal space shuttle. I have no problems with competition per se. I have problems with competition without progress which happens to be the basis of our legal education.

True progress comes from building on thoughts, not from getting a check+ on a paper nor a check signed by a law firm. Those things are restraints on our intellectual capabilities. At the level of intelligence we have all shown by now, competing for a grade is worthless.

By taking this course, I realized that I am interested in the law, just not the laws of today. They do not pertain to my life or my future. They are the laws of yesterday, stuck in the past and not forward-looking in any way. We need laws for today and we need laws for tomorrow. This course was not a typical course and I know that because I actually received an education by taking it. I was asked to think and express my thoughts. Those thoughts were challenged, and I was not told I was wrong but asked to build upon them until they were right, for my own benefit and in turn, for society's benefit too. For once, my thoughts on, and education in, a topic were not going to end with the receipt of a grade. I appreciate this so much that I want to take this course and use it as a basis for our future legal education.

I want to take advantage of the bits of knowledge each of us have and combine them to form a real idea for what our legal education needs. We could start small. A single course. It doesn't need a grade because our grade will be shown by our progress.

Imagine a law school course that used this wiki. Each of us was asked at the beginning of the semester to devote one hour a week to solving a serious problem in our country (a problem chosen by a professor in collaboration with students). By the end of the 13 weeks, we would have almost 500 hours of collaboration. That is a lot of hours for great minds to think about a real problem. In the book Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell (I know he is a jackass and has weird hair) says that it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field. Imagine if this was not just 38 students but 100 students. Imagine if it was not just 1 credit but 4 credits. Could you imagine what our minds could accomplish as young law students if other schools joined in on this practice. Forget mastery, we would have progress.

The best part about this idea is that this course would be fun, educational, and would have impact in the real world. It would be all of these things because we would finally be asking students to think by using their minds instead of their memory-recall. It is not fun to memorize, it is fun to learn.

As you should all have realized by now, this course has not been a typical law school course. It was actually quite enjoyable. You probably checked your gmail chats and Facebook page less in this class than in most of your others. Sticking with the atypical theme, I present you with an atypical law school essay. I hope reading this is also truly enjoyable. This wiki, this somewhat uncomfortable open space that allows us to actually share our thoughts and gives us the possibility of creating something of substance, is bigger than my grade or your grade. This space, or freedom, to think gives us an opportunity to fix problems. I want to fix a problem that we all see and many of us speak about but none of us have ever done anything to solve it. This Wiki has brought at least the thirty-eight of us together in a creative, rather than competitive, atmosphere. I want law school to have the same atmosphere.

For the most part, the majority of law school courses don't ask us to think. They instruct us to read and then they test us on our reading comprehension skills. Rather than allowing us to think about what we learned and develop skills necessary for contributing to the legal field, we are asked to spit back information in hopes of the professor giving us a good grade. Those grades are quite limiting too and when we get passed grades, it will be a paycheck, or a car, or a house, or a personal space shuttle. I have no problems with competition per se. I have problems with competition without progress. That happens to be the basis of our legal education. But this course was different. It asked me to think. It created this wiki for me to express my thoughts. Somehow, with all that freedom to think, I was able to learn the law.

This course has made me realize that true progress does not come from getting a check+ on a paper nor does it come from a check signed by a law firm. Those checks bring you little freedom and a lot of restraints. Both grades and paychecks are limitations on our intellectual capabilities. At the level of intelligence we have all shown, competing for a grade is worthless. I do not want a grade to gain a competitive advantage over you in the job market. Why limit ourselves to a grade and a paycheck when we have capable enough minds to use our thoughts to create a more useful legal education.

I understand that our law school is caught in a larger education system in which they are forced to compete. In that system, they have to get us high paying jobs in order to keep up with meaningless statistics and rankings. We are not caught in that system. We could create our own legal education system by taking this system's mistakes, learning from them, thinking about them, and creating something better. We can knock this system down and start anew or we can build on this system and show progress. We have an opportunity to think and create for the benefit of others.

In this course, I am not worried about my words being right or wrong. I just want them to be true. At this point, you may be able to tell that I am not concerned about my grade in this course (we will get to my thoughts on grades later). This essay is just an idea, or maybe it is just a bunch of thoughts that I needed to express. Either way, I hope it is something we can build upon together in the future. This wiki, this somewhat uncomfortable open space that allows us to actually share our thoughts and gives us the possibility of creating something of substance, is bigger than my grade or your grade. This space, or freedom, to think gives us an opportunity to fix a problem that we all see and speak about but never do anything to solve by bringing together thirty-eight great minds in a creative, rather than competitive, atmosphere.

Law school is supposed to be a tool used to better American society by allowing the interested student to build on laws of the past and apply concepts to the future. At one point in time, law school's purpose was to educate interested students in a way that achieved this purpose, teaching students the relevant skills needed to improve upon the world around them. But at some point law schools forgot about this purpose.

Instead of receiving an education, I was forcefully shoved into a nice little mold that law school created for me without even knowing my dimensions. Well, I could not fit into that mold no matter how hard I tried and I did try. At the end of the day, I want a big paycheck more than anyone but that paycheck waved in front of my face after my 1L summer was not big enough to squeeze me into the mold. It is important to realize that molds are not necessarily bad things but the molds we are talking about are only good if you are the "molder" and you want to maintain control over the "moldee" or if you are the "moldee" and you are willing to give up your own purpose for a comfortable ride in the passenger seat.