Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Yesterday, I presented some comments by Robert Kuehn, which argued that clinical courses do not significantly add to the cost of legal education. Today, I am posting a similar comment by James Moliterno, which was originally a comment on this blog.
"As we ramped up our full-credit-load experiential third year at Washington & Lee, we studied the cost implications. Our third year blends live client clinics, externships and courses that simulate a practice setting (e.g., Corporate Counsel, The Poverty Law Litigator, The Lawyer for Failing Businesses, The M&A Lawyer, etc.). We blend the three course types because each has a pedagogical advantage over the other two. We believe that the best education is provided by a blend of the three types of experiential courses, following a first year focused on the traditional critical thinking skills and a second year mainly focused on the core post-1L courses and seminars. (Our first year, while taught in traditional modes, adds courses in transnational law, administrative law and professional responsibility to the usual 1L fare.) While believing that this blend of experiential courses creates educational advantage, the blend also means that the cost of our reformed curriculum is lower than both our former third year and our current first and second year curricula."