Friday, September 13, 2013
Responses to Bruce Ackerman's WaPo Op-Ed: Law School Should Last for Three Years
Following up on last week's post on the Washington Post op-ed by Bruce Ackerman (Yale), Why Legal Education Should Last for Three Years:
- ABA Journal, Yale Law Prof Falls Short in Challenging Obama’s 2-Year JD Idea, by Paul Lippe
- Above the Law, A Yale Professor Offers A Most Yale-Like Response To The ‘Length of Law School’ Debate, by Elie Mystal
- Balkinization, Three Years in Law School are Barely Enough!, by Bruce Ackerman
- National Review, Why Not Two or Three Years of Law School?, by Ed Whelen
- Necessary and Proper, Bruce Ackerman's Incredibly Arrogant Arguments To Maintain the Status Quo in Legal Education
- Simple Justice, Why Can't Yale Law Students Count?, by Scott H. Greenfield
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/09/responses-to-.html
I keep trying to post a lengthier response to these stories, but the page refreshes and I lose everything.
In short, the third-year option seems like the way to go. For the marginal law student that is destined for soft-tissue injury plaintiffs work, why even have a third year? How much is actually gained through advanced topics discussions? For the lawyer that wishes to specialize in a complex field, the third year is absolutely essential for that specialization. And if a student can't get the classes she needs in her current JD program, why not let her transfer to another school with a specialized LLM for the third year? Let law schools compete for the third year.
Posted by: HTA | Sep 13, 2013 7:25:25 AM