Law schools really shouldn't be "liberal" or "conservative" except maybe in their interpretation of the constitution. How do you teach a "liberal" perspective on say Contracts or Tax Law? How do you teach a "conservative" perspective on Civil Procedure? Any professor who actually does teach from a "liberal" or "conservative" perspective, is nothing but an ideologist and not a law professor. I took some classes at Cornell Law during my time as an undergrad and Cornell and felt that the BEST profs that I had were those whose ideologies were not evident because their teaching was so great.
This isn't true - there are a lot of law subjects that can be taught in a liberal or conservative way. Yes, civ pro may be tough, but property can be taught in a liberal or conservative way, as can torts (ex. plaintiff friendly in product cases), and even contracts (I had a very liberal contracts prof and lessons on unconscionability and parol evidence were certainly from a more liberal slant). And once you get into upper level subjects, it can go in a number of directions. Con Law is the most obvious example, but conservative and liberal teaching permeates a wide array of legal subjects, and can completely alter how a teacher approaches a topic.
Any professor who actually does teach from a "liberal" or "conservative" perspective, is nothing but an ideologist and not a law professor.
Probably one of the dumber things I have ever read. Why don't you actually graduate from law school before you make such a bold and uninformed claim?