With a series of articles on the law school, David Segal of The New York Times, has left a deep impression. Since the beginning of the calendar year 2011 Segal has repeatedly criticized some aspects of contemporary legal education. At
a time when few lawyers' salaries are not kept pace with the
skyrocketing cost of law school and student debt, he asked about the
economic rationality of the law school. He
accused some law schools offer financial assistance program as part of
the maintenance of a grade point to be achieved, which is then facing
the harsh grading curve evaporated and expose the receiver to the
tuition account complete the second and third years, it seems. He challenged colleges to prove they are not a law, that schools operate as a cash cow to subsidize low-income units on campus.
But
no one else in the portfolio of David Segal, the attention of the
Academy as legal attracted 20 November 2011 article entitled "After law
school, learning to be associated with legal experts." This excerpt
gives a sense section as a whole:
[T] he three people taking notes are not students. They are partners in a law firm called Biddle & Reath drinkers, the company proceed with the transaction was completed. And they each had three years and as much as $ 150,000 for the rights.
What they do not get all the time and money, a lot of practical training. Law
schools have long emphasized the theoretical utility, with classes,
with differences of old, as many are crowded with post-feudal property
of England. Teacher
exchanges hugs chin, as Law Review article "The future is predictable.
Neo-Aristotelian Praise postmodern theory of law" with titles such as
rewards
In other words: "All I need to know about the law, I have not learned in law school."
For
publishers have published the complete article if Segal on the contrast
between the expectations of law firms and law schools a priority. "The
reform of legal education," said the U.S. law schools to make
significant reforms, including a major retrospective of the emphasis on
legal considerations, most importantly, take action as in the case.
Law
professors across the country are a fairly strong reaction to the new
York Times series, in particular in the chapter Segal legal recruitment
calls writing faculty and staff of the school reform law. These reactions have come in three broad categories. Elisabeth
Kubler-Ross would be proud: Given the challenge of dignity and right to
exist, a law professor together cover almost the entire range of
emotions in the grieving process. Some respond with denial and anger. Others are actively trying to negotiate with other branches of the legal profession. The
other, albeit with some degree of depression, did his best to simply
accept criticism and begin to address some form of meaning, to
constructively.
Let me start with the money are angry. For
me, I do not think that law professors and law schools do not favor
themselves at the age of students in debt, unemployed law school
graduate and lawyer, said that in the garbage critics
"spicy" or (better yet) a ". biliary pole" It takes a measure of the
depth of cynicism - a bit selfish, really - at the time, as a failure of
authors and publishers motivated "to enter law
school or a relative of the last checks to be characterized. One group,
two law professors less angry really think the hard times of the legal
profession a single cycle. Wait a year or two or five, it's like to walk, and everything is on the way they always come back.
Count me in the third camp. The criticism is true. They bite. We all, law schools and law students to lawyers and law firms must do something. Things that should things could be better.
There are of course many people to criticize the work of Segal and colleagues. "After law school, lawyers learn Associates" has a serious factual error. Segal distorts the content of the curriculum on criminal law and criminal law. He is represented as a legal research article published in the Journal of Philosophy. The
Times in its entirety seems to be the value of analytical legal
reasoning may be underestimated, and thus to a certain formalism of
legal practice (as the certificate of amalgamation under) to increase. But
to get away with small things, much less to tee off in anger or hatred,
do not pay attention to the realities of modern legal practice. Things that traditional legal services has much of its value. Together with the classical model of the lawyers, the general legal training also decreased. Immediately
opportunistic and enterprising, many of our competitors - foreign
lawyers, a professional not a corporation, the lawyer to understand the
real urgency of age, robust mobile technology - a disappointing
expectations about starting salaries and along line-up of partnerships or leave. For hours, distrust conscious customers billable. They
were not hostile to the idea of subsidizing the training of young
lawyers that they need 90 credits of formal law school to learn.
