Talk:Legal education

I have two complaints with this article:

First: Your section “Top Tier Law Schools” is patently biased. Ignoring the arbitrariness of what constitutes a top tier law school, the traditional (albeit highly subjective itself) classification has always been (once again, embracing the subjectivity of this classification) the T-14; the 14 law schools on your list, exclusive of Texas. Quite simply, Texas sharing the company of institutions such as Harvard, Georgetown and Berkeley is not “well agreed-upon”. I’d suggest you remove all references to the “top tier” as it is ill-defined and subject to large regional biases.

Second: There are 28 occupational categories listed under the BLS’s Occupational Outlook Handbook’s (where the salary statistics you’ve cited are located) "Management and business and financial operations occupations” category. 17 of these fall under the “management” heading. Out of those 17, only 2 had a median salary greater than $90,000. I don’t believe that properly establishes pay equity between attorneys and “managerial positions”

I have tried to address the complaints regarding neutrality in the following ways:

First, with regard to the section on "tiers," I replaced "Top 14" with "Top 15," and included U Texas on the list (this was simply an oversight, not a biased snub).

Second, again with regard to the "tiers" section, I added the following parenthetical phrase: (The U.S. News Rankings have been critiqued by some -- notably Texas law Prof. Brian Lieter -- as being easily manipulated, and as having questionable methodologies.)

Third, with regard to the salaries section, I have deleted the sentence "This is comparable with many other professional and managerial positions."

As a comment, re-reading the entry, I do not agree that the entry is "patently biased." The entry acknowledges that the division of tiers and rankings is "informal," and that it has been highly influenced by U.S. News rankings. (The flaw, perhaps, is not bias, but rather the mere repetition of conventional wisdom.) As well, I don't think many would quibble with the idea of the "top 15," so long as it is acknowledged (as the entry acknowledges) that other good schools round out the list. Finally, there is a good deal of information in the entry that backs up the informal observation: Supreme Court clerkships, government positions, teaching jobs, and jobs at prestigious firms mostly go to graduates of these schools.

Even acknowledging ranking subjectivity does not and would not radically alter the ranking contours. Subjectivity might present an argument for not drawing an arbitrary line between, say, UCLA and U Texas. But it is does present a enough strong argument to telescope the differences between UCLA and Catholic U.

The discussion of regional tiers is also meant to address some of the subjectivity concerns raised in the comments.

Should there be further disagreement with this text, I suggest the following:

1. If there is a strong argument to be made that other schools should be on the list of "top tier" schools, it should be explicitly made and added to the text. Such an argument would have to either minimize the differences between the schools listed and those in the informal "lower tiers" (e.g., is there really no difference between Northeastern and UVA?), or explain how the usual measures of rank (faculty quality, student quality, and job placement) overlook other factors that ought to matter in ranking schools.

2. The subjectivity argument should be explicitly drawn out and explained. It would be beneficial to note how it matters and how it would matter in distinguishing (or not distinguising) between those schools in the top 15/25 and those considered at the "bottom" tier.

Should any further changes be made, they should be made directly to the text with an explanation. If they are not, I will consider the subject closed and will remove the neutrality warning.

I've made a modification to the article which both addresses my concerns regarding neutrality and objectiveness and the desire to inform the public about the very real "ranking" that goes on in legal education in the US. I hope this appeases both parties...

The article states: "Although many have criticized the heavy emphasis of the LSAT in law school admissions, scores on the test have been shown to be highly correlated to success in law school." This isn't true. Or rather, the exact opposite has been shown by LSAT correlation studies done by LSAC. Scores on the test are weakly, not strongly, correlated with 1L grades only. This correlation is, however, higher than any other known measure, including UGPA. I'd like to amend the article to reflect this unless somebody has a source for this claim. Bjsiders 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a second call for discussion of this change. I've been through extensive and exhaustive debate on this in the LSAT article and I'd rather not repeat it. One last call for any discussions, objections, or other questions about changing the description in the article of the relationship between LSAT scores and law school performance. Again, I propose that that current phrasing is grossly inaccurate and represents exactly the opposite of what correlation studies on the matter have found, including those carried out by LSAC itself. Cites are available in the LSAT article. Bjsiders 15:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the changes proposed, given the citations alluded to. Chart123 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there's been no further commentary, the cited change has been made. Please offer up any complaints, problems, or other concerns anybody may have about the new verbiage. Bjsiders 13:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed a reference to NYU in the "most pretigious opportunities" section. An editor thought it should reflect the U.S. News rankings. I disagree. Although there is a high correlation between so-called prestigious opportunities and the U.S. News rankings, in fact NYU has fewer Supreme Court clerks and professors than does U. Chicago and UVA. As written, the text in this section is careful not to equate the availability of opportunities directly to the exact placement in U.S. News rankings, in part because the rankings are controversial, and in part because the methodology used to calculate rankings does not actually weight jobs graduates obtain. So, for example, NYU's post-graduation job-attainment rate might be equal to or greater than that of its peer schools. But U.S. News does not weight those jobs -- s Supreme Court clerkship, a professorial placement in a top 10 school, a law firm job at a top NY firm, and all other legal jobs are all weighted equally.

However this information ought to best be presented, simply equating jobs with the U.S. News rankings on a 1:1 basis is not the way to go. I would be happy to see nuanced text added, but for now I think it easier to delete the NYU reference.

Chart123 12:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we need an article about the US News law school rankings, and to then allow pages like this to link to it. This same type of discussion takes place in multiple pages, such as the LSAT page, with people who love/hate various programs zealously editing to pump up/tear down various programs. I think we should move all such discussion into one article and link to it from pages like this to isolate the discussion in one place. Bjsiders 13:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a short discussion on the U.S. News wiki entry. I've added a link to it in the article. The discussion there might benefit from expansion. Chart123 14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who edited the "Tiers" section and initiated the neutrality dispute involved with using the US News to relay ranking information. The list of the six schools (where NYU was included) was just carried over from a previous iteration of the section. I would agree that NYU may or may not belong on that list of "top SCOTUS clerk feeders". I don't think more nuanced text can be added in this section without making it longwinded. Thus, I'd support removal of NYU, or even removal of the remaining schools completely. Ocap8

As I added a footnote to the undisputable fact of how many Supreme Court clerks have come from what school (just count'em, right?), and I noticed the original footnote from the WSJ used a different format. I've updated it to fit with the easier <ref></ref> style. --Bobak 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the US section is almost the same as what is found in Law school in the United States. Since this is about legal education generally the US section shouldn't be as long as it is. I'm trying to remove the duplicated text and migrate as much of it to the "law school in US" article.--PullUpYourSocks 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok...Um I have a problem because all I really want to know how long a lawyer goes to school for and the average salary a household obtains.

This section of the "Juris Doctor" article does not really reference the degree, it instead talks about the educational process. I figured Legal Education would be a better place than the Law School article. That said, the section is poorly written (seems to be from experience, not from verifiable sources), and it may be better off being marked for deletion altogether. Thoughts? Dextrosity 03:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment 1: Perhaps the merger would be called for, but deletion isn't necessary. While citations are lacking, the section is on the certainly on mark (this is as good of a synopsis of the first year experience as you are going to get). A little research would solve the problem.

Comment 2: I agree that the section appears to be written from personal experience, but seems to be generally accurate. My opinion is that the first paragraph should be moved over to the legal education section. The second and third paragraphs should be deleted as those are merely conjecture by the author. (If someone believes those paragraphs are relevant, that information could always be added later by someone willing to properly research the issue.) 3 July 2007

7 July 2007. I think the section should stay, although it does not in truth concern the degree itself. It does, however, serve to explain the degree, which promotes understanding.--Lawman15 11:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. "The First Year Experience" section no longer exists in the article Juris Doctor. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor keep trying to insert a statement about the best law schools in the Philippines. It does not meet the wikipedia standards of verifiability, and is subjective. Therefore, it should be excluded. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted another major deficiency in the legal education articles; apart from the UK and the U.S., nearly all of the information on other countries merely describes the general requirements for a degree but does not describe the specific curriculum requirements. As can be seen from comparing Bar Vocational Course, Legal Practice Course, and Law school in the United States, it's fairly obvious that there are clear structural differences between UK and U.S. curricula (and not just in terms of the substantive law). For example, client interviewing and advising receive only a little coverage in first-year Lawyering Skills in the U.S., and most schools have a divide in the clinical courses between trial advocacy versus appellate advocacy (both of which are optional, because so many attorneys go on to become transactional or in-house lawyers who have no need of either skill) versus the UK difference between criminal and civil litigation. The criminal litigation requirement also looks funny to Americans, since the vast majority of law school graduates specialize in civil litigation and thus have no need for training in how to actually litigate in the criminal justice system; the first-year course in substantive criminal law is considered adequate to teach lawyers how to spot criminal law issues so they can refer them to a criminal law specialist if necessary.

I suspect that there are a lot more substantive differences if one could compare the U.S. or UK to other countries, but the problem is that editors from countries outside the U.S. and UK haven't added any information about the curricula in their countries to Wikipedia! --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful to have more information on legal education in various countries. However, based on my own research, it would be difficult to produce such articles without original research.

It appears that you are saying that in the UK client advising and interviewing is included in standard legal training. If that is the case, I believe the articles on US and UK legal education are also lacking, because I haven't seen such mentioned in any of the articles, and I've never seen any source which mentions this.

Nonetheless, in the US, intensive courses (plural) in client advising and interviewing offered after the first year are standard for legal programs. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Clinical courses are commonly offered in the U.S., but are not required in most states to graduate. For example, my law school has the best clinical program in Southern California (and one of the best on the West Coast), but I did not have to take the year-long clinical course in Trial Advocacy in order to graduate (and in fact was unable to take it due to scheduling conflicts with other important courses in both my second and third years). If the ABA ever made upper-level clinical experience mandatory, then law school administrations would have to double their size just to support the proper training and management of the enormous number of volunteers that would be needed to give all students a proper clinical experience (in the form of simulated client interviews and trials). Usually only retired lawyers or paralegals have the time or interest to volunteer regularly for such programs. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot; of course, there's the possibility of simply expanding real legal clinics and forcing all legal students to get some clinical experience on pro bono cases. But again that entails a large expansion of administration so that an experienced attorney can catch all the inevitable beginner's errors. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Even more odd is the fact that the UK solicitors' course apparently teaches about "solicitor's accounts." In the U.S. accounting is an optional course at all law schools and the issue of client trust accounts gets about three or four class days in the Professional Responsibility course. That's enough time to learn that mishandling client money will lead to the rapid end of one's career but not enough time to learn the details of actually keeping trust accounts. The reason is that nearly all U.S. attorneys hire a professional accountant to keep track of client trust accounts for them! --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting additions. To my knowledge, there aren't any ABA approved US law schools that don't offer clinics. Most have a number of clinics. Some of the clinics do not offer client contact, or limit the client contact to a minimum. It could be that trust accounts is a small part of some courses at some institutions, but it is always a section or chapter in professional responsibility texts used in the U.S., and it is an important element of bar exams, so one has to learn the material one way or the other. Many accountants don't understand the special bar rules for trust accounts, and some attorneys have been disciplined for the mistakes of their accountants or bookkeepers in that regard. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article and Law school two separate articles? It would appear with some work they could be merged into one article as they address the same topic. What do you think? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to do so? I think it's appropriate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would be willing to assist in copyediting, etc in order to merge. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it will be quite a task, because the articles as they are individually are not well developed. I wish I had more time to offer reliable help. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I belive Legal education article is supposed to have wider scope than just Law school. Law school article name needs to be changed to plural Law schools so that article may have more detailed and specialised focus.Law schools article supposed to cover just law schools across the globe And brief part of Law schools can be encorporated in to this Legal education article.

As far as Country wise sections need to be redrafted in to broader tentatively thinking of categories some thing like Legal education in North Amrerica; South America; rest of African continet; Arab and Islamic countries; Common wealth countries; Rest of Asia countris ( non-commonwealth) ; Rdonair kit walmartest of West Europe ; East Europe.

But certainly I am for separate articles for Law schools and Legal Education since for both of them scope focus is not exactly the same.

Mahitgar (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Legal Education (General) → Legal EducationLegal Education – I'm very sorry I have made an error when editing the notes on the legal education in Malaysia. I hope anyone who better access to revert the page back to Legal Education. Shahrulazwad (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Ckatz^chat_spy 08:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)