Top Law Schools

This may be really dumb, but what is family law considered? more of just a bar course? would it be looked down upon by judges as a soft course? i'm just concerned for clerkship sake how taking that class would be viewed, because I know they like seeing core doctrinal courses.

Also, in general, how can you fully determine if something is a doctrinal course? i know the term is self-explanatory but does that automatically make courses (even those with tough curves) that fuse two different fields together automatically less impressive?

thanks a lot!

Family Law is a bar course. I know in Texas, there are several family law essays on the bar. I can't imagine any judge would look down on that.

Doctrinal classes are generally the 1L classes (Civ Pro, Contracts, Crim Law, Con Law, Torts and Property) along with Evidence, Con Law II (individual rights), Crim Pro, PR, and Admin.

"Doctrinal" classes are viewed as being more important/impressive because you will be expected to learn actual black letter law on a subject, as opposed to discussing theories or opinons or feelings about topics.

Generally, if the course title is one or two words, you can be pretty sure it's doctrinal. Examples would include Contracts, Employment Law, Remedies, Antitrust Law. In contrast, if the title is several long, or contains the word "and," as in "Law and _____", you can be dead sure it's not doctrinal.

Renzo wrote:"Doctrinal" classes are viewed as being more important/impressive because you will be expected to learn actual black letter law on a subject, as opposed to discussing theories or opinons or feelings about topics.

Generally, if the course title is one or two words, you can be pretty sure it's doctrinal. Examples would include Contracts, Employment Law, Remedies, Antitrust Law. In contrast, if the title is several long, or contains the word "and," as in "Law and _____", you can be dead sure it's not doctrinal.

So I agree w/ the latter part of this, but not the first paragraph. You'll definitely learn black letter law in doctrinal courses, but at most schools, the emphasis is on the underlying theory as well. First Amendment, Fed Courts, etc., focus on black letter law but emphasize con law theories/modes of interpretation, etc.

vyelps wrote:
So I agree w/ the latter part of this, but not the first paragraph. You'll definitely learn black letter law in doctrinal courses, but at most schools, the emphasis is on the underlying theory as well. First Amendment, Fed Courts, etc., focus on black letter law but emphasize con law theories/modes of interpretation, etc.

I don't mean to imply that there won't be theory or policy in doctrinal classes, but that in addition to policy/theory, a doctrinal course will expect you to actually learn the law. Many non-doctrinal courses don't actually teach any law--it's all theory. For obvious reasons, some people think that taking classes that teach you the law as it exists and is practiced has value.

Renzo wrote:

vyelps wrote:
So I agree w/ the latter part of this, but not the first paragraph. You'll definitely learn black letter law in doctrinal courses, but at most schools, the emphasis is on the underlying theory as well. First Amendment, Fed Courts, etc., focus on black letter law but emphasize con law theories/modes of interpretation, etc.

I don't mean to imply that there won't be theory or policy in doctrinal classes, but that in addition to policy/theory, a doctrinal course will expect you to actually learn the law. Many non-doctrinal courses don't actually teach any law--it's all theory. For obvious reasons, some people think that taking classes that teach you the law as it exists and is practiced has value.

Ah ok, I'd agree with that.