Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Horwitz makes the following important points:
1. "First, I continue to agree with the broad point made in Brian Tamanaha's forthcoming book (see yesterday's post) that there is room for a plurality of approaches among law schools."
2. "Second, and I think relatedly, some of these reforms, if done right, ought to lead us to rethink the law school calendar altogether. Why must it follow the customary path of one or two weak weaks of introduction for first-year students and then six large block semesters?"
3. "We have a duty as educators to make legal education sound and responsive, regardless of the current state of the economy. We shouldn't be misled into thinking that reforming our practices would help our jobless students; but neither, if the economy improves and some of the loudest voices for reform are softened, should we forget that this continuing duty still exists, in good times and bad."
4. "I am increasingly struck by how rarely the word 'client' comes up in some of even the best recent discussions of law school reform. Clients are a constituency too."
5. He "suggest[s] that we ought to be gathering that information in a more concerted fashion, and that it should be a faculty matter, not just one for the deans."
Horwitz also discusses a post by Frank Bowman: "He recommends, among other things, that we rethink the kinds of qualifications we look for in entry-level professors, and that we also rethink the role of scholarship in American legal education. . ."