« Fogg: In Whom We Trust | Main | The Homebuyer Tax Credit -- What Was It Good For? »
August 31, 2010
WSJ: Are Law School Faculties Part of the Problem With Legal Education?
Following up on my prior posts:- Newton: How Law Profs' Preoccupation with 'Impractical Scholarship' Obstructs Legal Education Reform (Aug. 23, 2010)
- Garnett: 'Preaching What They Don't Practice' (Aug. 27, 2010)
Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Are Law School Faculties Part of the Problem With Legal Education?:
It’s often struck us as an obvious question: how can law schools provide better real-world training to students when their faculties are made up of article-writing academics?
- Jonathan Adler (Case Western), Do Law Schools Seek the 'Wrong Stuff' (Volokh Conspiracy)
- Stephen Bainbridge (UCLA), The Wrong Stuff: What Law Schools Value in Law Prof Candidates (ProfessorBainbridge.com)
- Bruce Carton, Should Law School Be More Than Just a 'Sorting Mechanism' for Potential Employers? (Legal Blog Watch)
- Scott Greenfield, A Skunk in the Ivory Tower (Simple Justice)
- Kristen Holmquist (UC-Berkeley), Law School and Lawyering (PrawfsBlawg)
- Paul Horwitz (Alabama), Form and Substance in the Reform of American Legal Education (PrawfsBlawg)
- Eric Lipman, Two-Track Legal Education Coming to a Law School Near You? (Legal Blog Watch)
- Jason Mazzone (Brooklyn), Thoughts on Legal Education (Balkinization)
- Karen Sloan, Professor: Ivory Tower Faculty Undermines Practical Legal Education (National Law Journal)
August 31, 2010 in Legal Education | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef0134869642a7970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WSJ: Are Law School Faculties Part of the Problem With Legal Education?:
Comments
"Case in point — I just read an abstract on TaxProfBlog by a tax professor on distributive justice and the problems with excessive materialism in American society. This is what qualifies as tax scholarship? Really?"
You're quoted in link 3 (Volokh Conspiracy)!
And I have to admit I agree with this criticism. I used to think tax law was a huge complex mystery. And indeed, some of the papers are about important concepts and well thought out.
Others, though, make you wonder a)how the author manages to get their pants on every single morning without even 1 fatality and b)why law schools appear to have so much money that they can pay people to turn out poorly researched op-eds.
Posted by: Amy | Aug 31, 2010 6:37:52 PM
I am not sure that professors are the problem. The problem is, in practice, encoutering in many cases judicial decisions based upon who is a friend of the judge ( not facts or law), hidden conflicts with AAA arbitrators-there is a whole flurry of AAA arbitrators who really are DDD arbitrators in disguise.(I would never use an AAA arbitrator as they do not follow conflict checks, law, or facts-you may as well take your case to a high school graduate). There are attorney's who pay litigants, West Va. Supreme Court judges who do not recuse themselves etc. In fact, this practical aspect is missing from law school-perhaps better to be learned later. Law school teaches you they way it should be, law practice teaches you the way it is.
Posted by: Nick Paleveda MBA J.D. LL.M | Sep 1, 2010 11:06:47 AM
