This is true in Canada as well. I would add to this that once you lock in your summer position (in Canada, it's at the beginning of 2nd year for most), for those who aspire to go to a corporate law firm the rest of law school feels a bit redundant.
I've always been a proponent of leaving the first year curriculum as it is (the standard set of subjects/teaching methods) and then turning the second and third years (or perhaps just the third year) into a streamed system, where those who want to pursue academia/don't know what they want to pursue can continue with the standard formulation, whereas those who are focused on pursuing a career at a large corporate law firm can pursue a more practical, corporate focused education.
Agree with you, though, that the law schools/bar associations aren't likely to take this project (or any reform) on willingly or quickly.
Thanks Trevor. I also assume the market in Canada is much smaller and less corporate-oriented, just given the size of the economy. Academically-oriented law students benefit enormously in ways that practically-oriented students do not. And academia is indeed a path for a minority of students.
My sense is that at Canada's version of the T14 law schools, it's probably fairly similar to the T14 law schools in the US in terms of corporate orientation (most of my friends and many of my classmates began their careers at large (by Canadian standards) corporate law firms.
Totally agree with your second point. The historic rooting of law schools as institutions of academia (as opposed to a "trade school") is archaic and serving the few at the expense of the many (and arguably society at large).
For better or worse, this is most educational areas. Highly technical fields are better—they have to be—but even with computer science, say, graduates can often barely code. Mechanical engineers, newly minted, should not be making anything of practical import.
I’m not fully sure what would be the solution, since teach practical stuff is easy to say, but obviously not happening.
Thanks James. Agreed. Though what makes things worse is the fact that even if we get theoretical/non-practical with law school curriculums, the subject matter is a far cry from what corporate lawyers actually work on. The hefty price doesn't help.
Just read this essay which seems topical. The claim is that the Professional Managerial Class cannot easily pass on their positions to their children but instead their children must pass through intermediaries which are systematically increasing the amount they extract from the current PMC class to allow their children access to the same class.
Thanks James - I do think the managerial class angle is vital to the analysis, but the scope might have been too broad for me. Perhaps in a future article. I also want to discuss this in the context of "optionality" - not going to a fancy school to get a particular job, but to make oneself as marketable as possible with less downside.
Could you send the link again? The article may have been deleted!
Thanks Stephanie - I agree. And it's surprising that the law school administrations in the country haven't been more nimble about addressing the problem.
This is true in Canada as well. I would add to this that once you lock in your summer position (in Canada, it's at the beginning of 2nd year for most), for those who aspire to go to a corporate law firm the rest of law school feels a bit redundant.
I've always been a proponent of leaving the first year curriculum as it is (the standard set of subjects/teaching methods) and then turning the second and third years (or perhaps just the third year) into a streamed system, where those who want to pursue academia/don't know what they want to pursue can continue with the standard formulation, whereas those who are focused on pursuing a career at a large corporate law firm can pursue a more practical, corporate focused education.
Agree with you, though, that the law schools/bar associations aren't likely to take this project (or any reform) on willingly or quickly.
Thanks Trevor. I also assume the market in Canada is much smaller and less corporate-oriented, just given the size of the economy. Academically-oriented law students benefit enormously in ways that practically-oriented students do not. And academia is indeed a path for a minority of students.
My sense is that at Canada's version of the T14 law schools, it's probably fairly similar to the T14 law schools in the US in terms of corporate orientation (most of my friends and many of my classmates began their careers at large (by Canadian standards) corporate law firms.
Totally agree with your second point. The historic rooting of law schools as institutions of academia (as opposed to a "trade school") is archaic and serving the few at the expense of the many (and arguably society at large).
Yup I've seen the overwhelmingly number of Canadian lawyers in the US come from U of T, Osgoode, UBC, etc.
For better or worse, this is most educational areas. Highly technical fields are better—they have to be—but even with computer science, say, graduates can often barely code. Mechanical engineers, newly minted, should not be making anything of practical import.
I’m not fully sure what would be the solution, since teach practical stuff is easy to say, but obviously not happening.
Thanks James. Agreed. Though what makes things worse is the fact that even if we get theoretical/non-practical with law school curriculums, the subject matter is a far cry from what corporate lawyers actually work on. The hefty price doesn't help.
Just read this essay which seems topical. The claim is that the Professional Managerial Class cannot easily pass on their positions to their children but instead their children must pass through intermediaries which are systematically increasing the amount they extract from the current PMC class to allow their children access to the same class.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ecumene/p/the-professional-managerial-class?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thanks James - I do think the managerial class angle is vital to the analysis, but the scope might have been too broad for me. Perhaps in a future article. I also want to discuss this in the context of "optionality" - not going to a fancy school to get a particular job, but to make oneself as marketable as possible with less downside.
Could you send the link again? The article may have been deleted!
Does this link work? https://ecumene.substack.com/p/c6731778-0641-43d4-8a97-3655eb97c616?ref=thebrowser.com
Yup perfect - thanks!
Thanks Stephanie - I agree. And it's surprising that the law school administrations in the country haven't been more nimble about addressing the problem.