Legal education has been much in the news recently. From the issues of high tuition and post-graduate debt [NLJ, April 14] to a deluge of new law schools [NLJ, June 2], the NLJ has reported on several of the challenges facing schools, students and the profession. On this opinion page, the deans of two leading law schools discuss curriculum changes that their schools have initiated in order to make legal education more relevant to how law is practiced today. Both offer thoughtful and convincing arguments for their schools’ choices, which include focusing on core competencies, specializations and clinical work.
But what works for top law schools may not be ideal in the so-called lower tiers. In discussions about teaching more practical skills, it sometimes seems as if it’s a one-size-fits-all situation. The skills a new lawyer needs to practice in a megafirm are significantly different from those needed by new associates in a small firm, as they are for graduates going into solo work, public interest or the public sector. Similarly, while it’s commendable that elite schools are now providing more scholarships and loan forgiveness, their graduates — because they can work at large firms after graduation — are already better positioned to pay off loans than are other students. It’s the graduates from lower-ranked schools who most need tuition assistance and debt relief. Moreover, universities contemplating starting up law schools might consider looking more closely into whether their communities can support their future graduates with full-time work that enables these new lawyers to make a living and pay back their loans.
