scholarly journals A New Zealander's Comments on American Legal Education

1999 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 389
Author(s):  
R O McGechan

The author compares the teaching methods in law schools in the United States and New Zealand. The author first notes a comparison between direct lecturing and case method, finding merit in both. The author then points out that students' interest and enthusiasm often wane by second and third year, whether in New Zealand or America. The prestige of the American institutions' law reviews is also discussed, as well as some features of educational institutions (including classroom sizes and the curriculum). The author also discusses the New Zealand law school approach of getting part-time work experience while studying law. The author concludes that legal education needs a balance between the practical and the theoretical. 

1999 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 419
Author(s):  
Allison Dunham

This article undertakes an informal comparison between legal education in the United States and in New Zealand. Dunham compares the admission process, the content taught at law school, the methods of instruction, law office practice for students, and the student makeup. The author concludes that no system of legal education is best, and that it is important to continue to ask how legal education can be improved. 


2006 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce A. Kimball

Case method teaching was first introduced into American higher education in 1870 by Christopher C. Langdell (1826-1906) of Harvard Law School (HLS), where it became closely associated with—and emblematic of—a set of academic meritocratic reforms. Though regnant today, “the ultimate triumph of [Langdell's] system was not apparent” for many years. The vast majority of students, alumni, and law professors initially derided it as an “abomination,” and for two decades case method and the associated reforms were largely confined to Harvard. During the subsequent twenty-five years between 1890 and 1915, a national controversy ensued as to whether case method teaching—and the concomitant meritocratic reforms—would predominate in legal education and, ultimately, professional education in the United States.


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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Tymoteusz Zych

More Theory, more Practice? Interdisciplinary and NonDogmatic Education in American Law School CurriculaSummaryWhile American legal education is very often invoked as a modelfor Polish law faculties, the actual role of interdisciplinary and non--dogmatic courses in the curricula of American law schools has not beencoherently analysed yet. The American example shows that the conceptof legal education has a significant impact on the development of thelegal system. Interdisciplinary courses have been present in the curricula of university law schools since the beginning of American history.Currently the American Bar Association requires law schools to includenon-dogmatic contents in their curricula to obtain accreditation. Thewidest range of non-dogmatic courses is offered by the most prestigiouslaw schools. Leading American legal thinkers of all currents emphasisethe importance of interdisciplinary and non-dogmatic subjects in theeducational process. The paper concludes with a comparative analysisof the role of interdisciplinary subjects in law school curricula in Polandand in the United States.


2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce A. Kimball

Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826–1906) is arguably the most influential figure in the history of legal education in the United States, having shaped the modern law school by introducing a number of significant reforms during his tenure as dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) from 1870 to 1895. Langdell's innovations—including the admission requirement of a bachelor's degree, the graded and sequential curriculum, the hurdle of annual examinations for continuation and graduation, the independent career track for professional faculty, the transformation of the professional library from a textbook repository into a scholarly resource, and the inductive pedagogy of teaching from cases—became the characteristics gradually adopted by university law schools after 1890 and, eventually, schools of other professions. Langdell thus transformed legal education from an undemanding, gentlemanly acculturation into an academic meritocracy.


2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-334
Author(s):  
Jennifer D'arcy Maher

My colleagues on this panel address the need for more internationalization in U.S. law schools and describe some of the difficulties in internationalizing instruction at a law school in a new European Union member state. As they acknowledge, internationalizing legal education can be expensive, competing with other budgetary demands on U.S. law schools. My remarks today will suggest methods to maximize internationalization less expensively, by using existing programs or by setting up new ones more effectively. Although composed for an audience of U.S. law school faculty members and administrators, these remarks, with some adaptation, may be useful for law faculty outside the United States.


2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Bakken

During the past decade many American law schools have identified and responded to the opportunity and necessity of training law students and lawyers for the challenges created by globalization. Opportunities are certainly available to schools with strong business, international trade and human rights programs. Opportunities are, however, also available to schools with interests and strengths in the newer disciplines such as conflict resolution, intellectual property and environment protection. Law schools which have ventured into global oriented training have recognized that the market is not simply a one-way-street for domestic students but also includes training of foreign law students and lawyers. Private foundations in the United States and abroad, foreign governments and our national government have helped finance foreign lawyer visits and training events throughout America. When international lawyers visit the United States, domestic law schools are involved as hosts, training sites, and sources of professional expertise. There has also been a simultaneous movement of domestic lawyers and law students through foreign law school programs and other study abroad opportunities. When all these international experiences are taken together one realizes the need for law schools to become more involved in the development and implementation of training and development of globally oriented legal education.


Author(s):  
Volodymyr Kakhnych

In the article the formation of legal education at the University of Melbourne, its short and successful path to worldwide recognitionis examined. The importance of researching such a successful example for national legal education is shown. Important researchby well-known professors who have worked at the University of Lviv and the University of Melbourne is depicted, and their contributionto the study of legal education in Melbourne is revealed.The author of the article shows that the experience of legal education in one of the oldest law schools in Australia – the Universityof Melbourne, which is now one of the world’s leading universities, as well as 50 best educational institutions in the world, is importantas an example of legal education for Ukrainian universities, in particular Lviv University. Legal education at Lviv University occupiesa significant place in the education of young professionals for crucial government positions.Founded in 1853, the University of Melbourne is the second oldest university in Australia. This is a state research university. Itconsists of 10 colleges located on the main campus and in the surrounding suburbs, which offer academic, cultural and sports programs.The University of Melbourne often ranks first among Australian universities in the world rankings. More than 46 % of his students areforeigners. This school is officially accredited by the Australian Department of Education and Training.The teaching of law, until 1873 at the University of Melbourne, was governed directly by the board and faculty; there was nocouncil or committee in charge of the faculty, and no head or administrator to lead the law course other than faculty and university officials.It was the council that decided on the details of the curriculum and considered students’ complaints about things like absenteeismand lecture venues. Other disciplines were in the same position. Not only in the field of law, but in general, the university did not havefaculties that would be responsible for certain areas of study.The university was so small that in 1872 it had only 134 students, 53 of whom studied law. In the early 1870s, the situation wasfavorable for change. The council committee explored the possibility of expanding the teaching of law by creating more subjects andlecture courses, and at the same time, by creating a new body, a faculty to oversee them.The council committee called this change the creation of a law school, and since then the terms “law school” (“law schools”) and“law faculty” have sometimes been interchangeable. Law classes were called a “school of law” for several months after their foundingin 1872. This term was sometimes used in another sense (as a discipline with honors). Despite the ambiguous terminology, the councilmeant the creation of the faculty and the accompanying reorganization of teaching in 1872–1873.The author of the article argues that building a legal education in Ukraine is impossible without a proper study of the experience,knowledge and practical skills that existed at the University of Melbourne. The opinion is based on the fact that the organization ofwork, cooperation with students and involvement of a large number of foreigners remains a model to follow. This approach to coope -ration and establishing contacts with their structure has made them famous and universally recognized worldwide. We can see thisbecause the University of Melbourne is now one of the world’s leading universities, as well as one of 50 best educational institutionsin the world.


Author(s):  
Willem Hendrik Gravett

It is a sad fact that at most university law schools in South Africa, a student can graduate without ever having set foot in a courtroom, and without ever having spoken to, or on behalf of, a person in need of advice or counsel. The past several years have witnessed a swelling chorus of complaints that the current LLB curriculum produces law graduates who were "out of their depth" in practice. My purpose is to make a case for the inclusion in the LLB curriculum of a course in trial advocacy. This endeavour of necessity invokes the broader debate over the educational objectives of a university law school – a debate memorably framed by William Twining as the two polar images of "Pericles and the plumber". My thesis is that the education of practising lawyers should be the primary mission of the university law school. The first part of this contribution is a response to those legal academics who hold that the role of the law school is to educate law students in the theories and substance of the law; that it is not to function as a trade school or a nursery school for legal practice. With reference to the development of legal education in the United States, I argue that the "education/training" dichotomy has been exposed as a red herring. This so-called antithesis is false, because it assumes that a vocational approach is necessarily incompatible with such values as free inquiry, intellectual rigour, independence of thought, and breadth of perspective. The modern American law school has shown that such so-called incompatibility is the product of intellectual snobbery and devoid of any substance. It is also often said that the raison d'être of a university legal education is to develop in the law student the ability "to think like a lawyer". However, what legal academics usually mean by "thinking like a lawyer" is the development of a limited subset of the skills that are of crucial importance in practising law: one fundamental cognitive skill – analysis – and one fundamental applied skill – legal research. We are not preparing our students for other, equally crucial lawyering tasks – negotiating, client counselling, witness interviewing and trial advocacy. Thinking like a lawyer is a much richer and more intricate process than merely collecting and manipulating doctrine. We cannot say that we are fulfilling our goal to teach students to "think like lawyers", because the complete lawyer "thinks" about doctrine and about trial strategy and about negotiation and about counselling. We cannot teach students to "think like lawyers" without simultaneously teaching them what lawyers do. An LLB curriculum that only produces graduates who can "think like lawyers" in the narrow sense ill-serves them, the profession and the public. If the profession is to improve the quality of the services it provides to the public, it is necessary for the law schools to recognise that their students must receive the skills needed to put into practice the knowledge and analytical abilities they learn in the substantive courses. We have an obligation to balance the LLB curriculum with courses in professional competence, including trial advocacy – courses that expose our students to what actually occurs in lawyer-client relationships and in courtrooms. The skills our law students would acquire in these courses are essential to graduating minimally-competent lawyers whom we can hand over to practice to complete their training. The university law school must help students form the habits and skills that will carry over to a lifetime of practice. Nothing could be more absurd than to neglect in education those practical matters that are necessary for a person's future calling.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yung-Yi Diana Pan

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%; -ms-text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> </p><p>Most socio-legal scholarship does not examine pre-law school preparation, more specifically, work experience. The recent American economic recession brought many working adults back into the fold of school. With regard to legal education in particular, how might work experience before law school affect students’ perceptions of the profession, themselves, and their career trajectories? And, how do these experiences vary between law schools, and among law students? Drawing on an ethnographic study at two divergently-ranked American law schools between 2009-2011 (the beginnings of the economic crisis), I argue that student work experiences (or lack thereof) before law school matter for their own perceptions of their school and overall career outlook. I typologize those students who transitioned immediately from undergraduate to law school as "conventionals," and those with work experience prior to commencing legal education as "returnees." I find that overall, returnees are more confident about completing law school, yet cynical about legal education, while their conventional counterparts respect the pedagogy but remain apprehensive regarding their career outlook. In this respect, work experience provides a form of "capital." Notably, most immigrant students in this study are conventionals, and I provide some suggestions to better incorporate these students who already feel as if they are posturing in an unfamiliar cultural and professional environment.</p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%; -ms-text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> </p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document