On the assumption that a cross-post is better than no post at all, I offer this short contribution from Mirror of Justice regarding Rick’s concern about the move toward more practical/technical legal education. (Note to self: November is a bad month for hiring chairs to volunteer for Prawfs duty.)
I agree with Rick that the legal profession’s academic woes should not nececessarily reduce our commitment to the law as a humane discipline. However, I do believe that all law schools — Catholic law schools in particular, I would hope — should use this time as an impetus to think carefully about the concept of stewardship as it applies to legal education. It seems that Catholic law schools have largely been indistinguishable on this front, simply following the crowd in asking how much the market can bear in terms of tuition hikes, reduced teaching loads, swanky new centers, and the chase for LSAT/GPA profile rather than asking whether they are being wise stewards of their students’ (not-yet-existent) financial resources. So I applaud a school like Washington & Lee for making an effort to connect their students more directly with the work they will do as lawyers. I am concerned about the pressure that places on other important aspects of the curriculum, especially the interdisciplinary aspects of the curriculum, but I applaud them for thinking seriously about whether the current model of legal education is in keeping with students’ long-term interests.
To be clear, I am among those chasing the crowd — I love reduced teaching loads, swanky new centers, and a class with an impressive LSAT/GPA profile. So I’m not exactly sure if and how law schools should look different — after all, a higher US News ranking allows me to bask in some reflected glory is in our students’ long-term employment interest — but when we think about new expensive initiatives, we should ask whether the initiative justifies increasing our students’ debt load. One of the unfortunate results of the great rankings chase is that the students with the less rosy job prospects are subsidizing the education of the students with the rosier job prospects. Those same students are also paying my salary. So is it important that law students have the opportunity to learn and reflect on the insights that Rawls or Maritain have for law, politics, and citizenship? Absolutely. Should a Catholic law school be making “splashy” hires by letting a big name carry a three-credit-per-decade teaching load consisting only of their seminar, “Things Rawls and Maritain Might Say to Each Other if They Were in My Kitchen?” Probably not. Further, I’m not sure if Catholic law schools can justify relying on the market as an indicator that their tuition rates are in keeping with their students’ long-term interests. There appears to be a bottomless reservoir of young people willing to incur huge debts for a degree that does not always make economic sense. Leading figures within the Catholic intellectual tradition have generally been unafraid to tell people when they’re making decisions that are detrimental to their long-term flourishing. Catholic law schools, it seems to me, should pay attention to our students’ long-term flourishing even when — especially when — they’re willing to pay any price for a law degree.
Posted by Rob Vischer on November 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Comments
The kitchen line is hilarious. May I steal it, at least when talking in my kitchen?
If Catholic schools, or any schools, were serious about a sense of stewardship and student debt, they’d revamp admissions as well as curricula. I know that’s not the focus of this post, but how could any steward admit students that they know will get deep in debt and be unlikely to pass the bar or ever recoup the “investment”? But that’s forbidden territory to talk about.
Posted by: cynical observer | Nov 19, 2009 4:06:44 PM