Legal education as corporate ideology: Student adjustment to the law school experience

1986 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 514-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Granfield
2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Cecilia Blengino

<p>This article discusses the resistance experienced by the clinical legal education movement in Italy due to a widespread legal positivist approach which views law as a self-contained technical subject, and excludes interdisciplinarity from the law school curriculum.</p><p>The choice that the newly-born Italian CLE movement now faces is the option to either become a new socio-legal epistemology of law in action and a social change-maker, or to ascribe to a simple restyling of legal education to include certain practical activities aimed at introducing students to the profession. The future of the movement will depend on whether the rapid increase in the number of clinics will be matched by appropriate reflection on "how clinics might be consciously designed around exposing students to gaps between the law in books and the law in action".</p>


1935 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-386
Author(s):  
W. J. Whittaker

[William Joseph Whittaker, after graduating as ‘Senior’ in the Law Tripos and Chancellor's Medallist, in 1888, and winning a Whewell Scholarship in 1890, was a very successful teacher in the Cambridge Law School till 1900, when he went into practice. In 1901 he was appointed Professor of English Law at University College, London, and, in 1905, to a post on the staff of the Council of Legal Education. In that year he married Hildegarde, daughter of Walter Wren, who survives him. He died in 1931.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-245
Author(s):  
Jay Sterling Silver

At the end of Brian Tamanaha’s instant classic, Failing Law Schools, tracing the economic forces behind exorbitant law school tuition and graduate debt and unemployment, he lays out his plan to help resolve the crisis. He would eliminate tenure, dispense with the final year of law school, rely heavily on adjuncts and apprenticeships, and loosen the ABA accreditation standards mandating “one-size-fitsall” law schools to allow the marketplace to fashion more affordable models of legal education. Some schools would remain in the traditional, three-year mode, with faculty conducting research. Others would morph into, or spring up spontaneously as, the “law school parallel . . . of vocational colleges.” Very candidly, Tamanaha explained that the “two-year law schools . . . would be dumping grounds for the middle class and the poor . . . . Few children of the rich will end up in these law schools.” He calls the plan “‘differentiated’ legal education.” Others, including Paul Campos, founder of the Inside the Law School Scam web blog and author of Don’t Go To Law School (Unless), and the ABA Task Force (“Task Force”) on the Future of Legal Education, have endorsed Tamanaha’s prescription.


Author(s):  
R. St. J. MacDonald

From 1872 until 1913 legal education in Manitoba was dependent almost entirely on apprenticeship, supplemented by private study. In 1913 the Law Society of Manitoba organized an improved programme of lectures for intending members of the bar and in 1914 the society entered into an agreement with the University of Manitoba to create and operate jointly the Manitoba Law School. The school's expenses were to be shared equally by the two parent bodies and its operations were to be supervised by a board of trustees consisting of two appointees chosen by each body and a chairman elected by the appointees. The school was modelled on the Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto and offered a three-year lecture course leading to both the LL.B. degree and admission to practice. As at Osgoode Hall, enrolment at the law school was not regarded as a substitute for service under articles. Classes were held in the morning and late afternoon and students were expected to carry out office duties during the remainder of the day.


2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-578
Author(s):  
Bruce A. Kimball

Between 1915 and 1925, Harvard University conducted the first national public fund-raising campaign in higher education in the United States. At the same time, Harvard Law School attempted the first such effort in legal education. The law school organized its effort independently, in conjunction with its centennial in 1917. The university campaign succeeded magnificently by all accounts; the law school failed miserably. Though perfectly positioned for this new venture, Harvard Law School raised scarcely a quarter of its goal from merely 2 percent of its alumni. This essay presents the first account of this campaign and argues that its failure was rooted in longstanding cultural and professional objections that many of the school's alumni shared: law students and law schools neither need nor deserve benefactions, and such gifts worsen the overcrowding of the bar. Due to these objections, lethargy, apathy, and pessimism suffused the campaign. These factors weakened the leadership of the alumni association, the dean, and the president, leading to inept management, wasted time, and an unlikely strategy that was pursued ineffectively. All this doomed the campaign, particularly given the tragic interruptions of the dean's suicide and World War I, along with competition from the well-run campaigns for the University and for disaster relief due to the war.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document