Top Law Schools

I find it amusing how some universities with incredible histories are not necessarily well ranked, in the realm of law schools one example that shoots out is New York Law School (not NYU). Its ranked as a TTT yet if one reads the wiki article its history is well established and esteemed (woodrow wilson taught there!) Thoughts? Again, this more of a historical tangent... I get that NYLS is ranked where it is because of various employment stats... yet how did it not stay competitive through the years, when 100 years ago, it may have well been ranked top 10 (had rankings existed).... furthermore, to take this a step further, do you guys think the T-14 will be the same 50 years from now, or may some new school emerge and another go extinct?

From wiki: At the onset of the Great Depression, the Law School began seeing a serious decline in enrollment, which forced the Law School to accept a much lower quality of students...

It’s easy to look at a prestigious school and assume that it was destined for “greatness” but as with evolution, extinction is the norm. Most businesses fail, and contrary to common opinion none of these schools can coast on their prestige for very long. Without question, in 50 years the T14 will be different.

In 1973, the New York State Department of Education issued a report that criticized the Law School as the worst school in the state

I don't know why you think it was ever destined for greatness.
It got started by people who refused to accept that the case method was the better way to teach law, meaning that right from the very beginning it was doomed to mediocrity

As for Woodrow Wilson, he taught there early in his career, long before he went into politics. Hell, on that basis, New England School of Law is very promising, because they got chief justice roberts to lecture.

dingbat wrote: I don't know why you think it was ever destined for greatness.

I said prestigious school so clearly I'm not talking about NYLS.

Ling520 wrote:

dingbat wrote: I don't know why you think it was ever destined for greatness.

I said prestigious school so clearly I'm not talking about NYLS.

I was referring to OP

Anthony Kennedy taught at University of the Pacific from the mid-60s to the 80s.

Michigan

gaucholaw wrote:I find it amusing how some universities with incredible histories are not necessarily well ranked, in the realm of law schools one example that shoots out is New York Law School (not NYU). Its ranked as a TTT yet if one reads the wiki article its history is well established and esteemed (woodrow wilson taught there!) Thoughts? Again, this more of a historical tangent... I get that NYLS is ranked where it is because of various employment stats... yet how did it not stay competitive through the years, when 100 years ago, it may have well been ranked top 10 (had rankings existed).... furthermore, to take this a step further, do you guys think the T-14 will be the same 50 years from now, or may some new school emerge and another go extinct?

Dude who cares how the schools are ranked by USNWR? It doesn't matter. Also NYLS is not ranked that way dude to employment stats, it's ranked that way mainly bc of entering class LSAT and GPA (shitty) and peer assessment scores (shitty).

rad lulz wrote:

gaucholaw wrote:I find it amusing how some universities with incredible histories are not necessarily well ranked, in the realm of law schools one example that shoots out is New York Law School (not NYU). Its ranked as a TTT yet if one reads the wiki article its history is well established and esteemed (woodrow wilson taught there!) Thoughts? Again, this more of a historical tangent... I get that NYLS is ranked where it is because of various employment stats... yet how did it not stay competitive through the years, when 100 years ago, it may have well been ranked top 10 (had rankings existed).... furthermore, to take this a step further, do you guys think the T-14 will be the same 50 years from now, or may some new school emerge and another go extinct?

Dude who cares how the schools are ranked by USNWR? It doesn't matter. Also NYLS is not ranked that way dude to employment stats, it's ranked that way mainly bc of entering class LSAT and GPA (shitty) and peer assessment scores (shitty).

not to mention that employment stats are shitty

dingbat wrote: It got started by people who refused to accept that the case method was the better way to teach law, meaning that right from the very beginning it was doomed to mediocrity

But the case method is the worst way of teaching law. It's counter-intuitive to think that avoiding the worst of all possible pedagogies would hurt your students.

Ling520 wrote:Without question, in 50 years the T14 will be different.

Hasn't changed much in the last 25.

cinephile wrote:

dingbat wrote: It got started by people who refused to accept that the case method was the better way to teach law, meaning that right from the very beginning it was doomed to mediocrity

But the case method is the worst way of teaching law. It's counter-intuitive to think that avoiding the worst of all possible pedagogies would hurt your students.

Explain yourself

dingbat wrote:

cinephile wrote:

dingbat wrote: It got started by people who refused to accept that the case method was the better way to teach law, meaning that right from the very beginning it was doomed to mediocrity

But the case method is the worst way of teaching law. It's counter-intuitive to think that avoiding the worst of all possible pedagogies would hurt your students.

Explain yourself

It's incredibly inefficient to play hide the ball and make students read through 20 pages of tripe when the doctrine can be summed up in a sentence or two. Just give the students those couple of sentences and let them apply it in various situations. Don't make them read nonsense to figure it out.

cinephile wrote:

dingbat wrote:

cinephile wrote:

dingbat wrote: It got started by people who refused to accept that the case method was the better way to teach law, meaning that right from the very beginning it was doomed to mediocrity

But the case method is the worst way of teaching law. It's counter-intuitive to think that avoiding the worst of all possible pedagogies would hurt your students.

Explain yourself

It's incredibly inefficient to play hide the ball and make students read through 20 pages of tripe when the doctrine can be summed up in a sentence or two. Just give the students those couple of sentences and let them apply it in various situations. Don't make them read nonsense to figure it out.

Isn't the reason supplements such as Examples & Explanations are used simply because it can be very difficult to find the legal doctrine hidden in court opinions?

eric922 wrote: Isn't the reason supplements such as Examples & Explanations are used simply because it can be very difficult to find the legal doctrine hidden in court opinions?

Yeah, but why teach it this way in the first place? Why not just assign the E&E and call it a day? It's just a huge waste of time and it's probably taught this way, in part, so they can stretch a 2 week lesson into 15 weeks.

cinephile wrote:

eric922 wrote: Isn't the reason supplements such as Examples & Explanations are used simply because it can be very difficult to find the legal doctrine hidden in court opinions?

Yeah, but why teach it this way in the first place? Why not just assign the E&E and call it a day? It's just a huge waste of time and it's probably taught this way, in part, so they can stretch a 2 week lesson into 15 weeks.

I agree with you. I'm still an OL, but from everything I've read law school education seems to be a very inefficient system especially with that extra 3rd year tacked on.

cinephile wrote:Yeah, but why teach it this way in the first place? Why not just assign the E&E and call it a day? It's just a huge waste of time and it's probably taught this way, in part, so they can stretch a 2 week lesson into 15 weeks.

Because when you're actually practicing you won't always have the law synthesized for you and practicing synthesizing the law yourself will help you in the future?

bk187 wrote:

cinephile wrote:Yeah, but why teach it this way in the first place? Why not just assign the E&E and call it a day? It's just a huge waste of time and it's probably taught this way, in part, so they can stretch a 2 week lesson into 15 weeks.

Because when you're actually practicing you won't always have the law synthesized for you and practicing synthesizing the law yourself will help you in the future?

I still think it's nonsense. I have friends studying law in Ireland and the UK and despite having a similar common law system, case reading is just a small part of how they study the law.

But how else would we learn to think like lawyers?

cinephile wrote:

bk187 wrote:

cinephile wrote:Yeah, but why teach it this way in the first place? Why not just assign the E&E and call it a day? It's just a huge waste of time and it's probably taught this way, in part, so they can stretch a 2 week lesson into 15 weeks.

Because when you're actually practicing you won't always have the law synthesized for you and practicing synthesizing the law yourself will help you in the future?

I still think it's nonsense. I have friends studying law in Ireland and the UK and despite having a similar common law system, case reading is just a small part of how they study the law.

You do realize that in Ireland and the UK 1) a law degree is an undergraduate degree and 2) a law degree alone does not permit one to practice law?

It it was al about clear rules that are easy to understand, there would be very little need for lawyers. There are some areas that are clear cut, but those are usually the domain of shitlaw, because no one is gonna pay top dollar for filling out a few forms. In a lot of countries there is a separate field for notarial law (real estate, wills, etc), because those are simpler fields that don't require the kind of understanding that, say, due process requires. (as an aside, it's why better law schools teach theory, while many TTTs focus on bar passage)

I actually think tools like E&Es hurt students, because you are given the rules without learning how to figure them out.

dingbat wrote:

cinephile wrote:

bk187 wrote:

cinephile wrote:Yeah, but why teach it this way in the first place? Why not just assign the E&E and call it a day? It's just a huge waste of time and it's probably taught this way, in part, so they can stretch a 2 week lesson into 15 weeks.

Because when you're actually practicing you won't always have the law synthesized for you and practicing synthesizing the law yourself will help you in the future?

I still think it's nonsense. I have friends studying law in Ireland and the UK and despite having a similar common law system, case reading is just a small part of how they study the law.

You do realize that in Ireland and the UK 1) a law degree is an undergraduate degree and 2) a law degree alone does not permit one to practice law?

1) The law degree being an undergraduate degree has nothing to do with the rigor of the course. It's a more efficient system.
2) Would you really feel comfortable having a US law student, recently licensed, as your only lawyer? Probably not. US grads need training before they can actually practice competently, as well. A training contract system here would probably improve things (not to mention converting back to the UK system saving people a lot of time, money, and heartache when they still can't find a legal job after doing a JD)... [/rant]

piccolittle wrote: You do realize that in Ireland and the UK 1) a law degree is an undergraduate degree and 2) a law degree alone does not permit one to practice law?

1) The law degree being an undergraduate degree has nothing to do with the rigor of the course. It's a more efficient system.
2) Would you really feel comfortable having a US law student, recently licensed, as your only lawyer? Probably not. US grads need training before they can actually practice competently, as well. A training contract system here would probably improve things (not to mention converting back to the UK system saving people a lot of time, money, and heartache when they still can't find a legal job after doing a JD)... [/rant][/quote]
I'm willing to bet that I'm more familiar with it than you are.
Yes, the US system of not requiring some sort of apprenticeship is problematic, and it probably would be better to have a two-tiered system, but at the graduate level it makes sense to use the case law system. A large chunk of the law is not clear cut and learning the nuances is very important.

There's value to the case method but it can and often is overused. Just like there's value in the Socratic method, but "Mr. Smith, please tell us the facts in Pennoyer" is not really taking advantage of it.

North wrote:

Ling520 wrote:Without question, in 50 years the T14 will be different.

Hasn't changed much in the last 25.

That link shows a lot of change--Michigan is T3 and some schools move as much as 8 rankings--and that's just in 25 years.

Ling520 wrote:

North wrote:

Ling520 wrote:Without question, in 50 years the T14 will be different.

Hasn't changed much in the last 25.

That link shows a lot of change--Michigan is T3 and some schools move as much as 8 rankings--and that's just in 25 years.

'87 is an anomaly, being the first year the ratings were released and before methodology was well established. From 1990 to present day the T-14 have remained the same, and even within it the sub-tiers have remained fairly steady. Nobody cares about yearly fluctuations except ASU trolls.