Friday, May 11, 2012
Joe Hodnicki has some nice commentary on a recent article by Nancy Rapoport on the Law Librarian Blog. His final paragraph is worth repeating:
"Frankly, one has to wonder when rethinking will be replaced with reforming "(most)" of the legal academy. If professorial "talk therapy" doesn't lead to institutional corrective behavior, what's the point? There are plenty of good ideas "out there" that don't require all law schools to accept. Experimenting in baby step fashion, perhaps by some law school requiring additonal courses at the 2L and 3L level, just might be a good laboratory for testing some curricular reform proposals incrementally. I'm thinking well-meaning reform-minded law profs just might to touch base with their College of Education profs for some expert help."
This reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon. The boss goes to Dilbert and says we need to set up a committee to fix the problem in our new software. Dilbert makes two key strokes and says, "done." The boss says, "good, now all we have to do is to set up the committee."
Is this how legal education is going to get reformed, by those who do it on their own without waiting for the committee meeting? Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad thing. There are many professors out there you are doing new things without waiting for their curriculum committees to decide on a meeting date when everyone can attend. Someday in the not to distant future someone will say to the ABA, let's set up a committee to study legal reform. A person in the back will stand up and say, "done."