“Preparing for Law School T the practice of law part 1?” In response to my last article, Denis Campbell, the argument advanced anti-pedagogical practice:
“This is an important debate opened on the purpose of training. An MBA is not leading to preparation for a business. An MS in accounting is not qualified to do chartered accountant or tax adviser. A MA prepares not win a writer a Pulitzer Prize. Whether higher education will only learn to think and rationalize the way through the problems. “
However, another contributor spokesman, Matthew Homann:
“I think the only people who do not recognize that law schools are schools of commerce, the professors and deans. Law schools do not teach students 1:10 the nature of things that people expect to be a lawyer in a position .. .. I think that law schools can do a decent job of preparing students for litigation -. That would be great if got to try cases, ”
I personally would not mind at Pointe Denis Campbell on when the students the opportunity to the educational model they were given preference. Unfortunately, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) accredited law schools only after the model of teaching to “think like a lawyer” while rejecting all other schools, such as online education, offers a different approach.
In the U.S., if the ABA and state bar associations have not even created a market artificially in favor of an educational model for all others to send that “thinking like a lawyer” Law Schools biased and Denis Campbell Law School could be open for example with School of Law Matthew Homann compete, then it would be the advocate of “thinking like a lawyer” to prove that the students want the method of teaching … or they would drive less. At the moment the students are from the ABA accreditation and state bar associations do not attend law schools forced to teach mostly just “thinking like a lawyer” instead, to actually perform as such. If accreditation is not so difficult (for example, require millions of library-based paper will be issued when most lawyers do 99% of their research on electronic one), you would see a large number of law schools arise, and out of the competition, I think you are the most prestigious schools and popular with those who are married to the theoretical arena of practice.
Furthermore, to argue that, because an MBA will prepare you for immediate Chief Executive Officer of a large company, law schools should not teach practical skills, is not an effective defense of the current state of legal education. Instead, it might be better to ask: Have an MBA now, you can perform a ministerial team in a company? And after studying finance and accounting, marketing, sales, human resources and in detail, I think the answer is “yes.” An accounting degree can be a qualified accountant, but it allows you to effectively assess tax returns, full tax returns and to understand and maintain the finances of a company to work effectively in a junior position immediately. In addition, master’s degree programs taught by writing about it, but writing the students. Many talented students have completed the prestigious University of Iowa writing program with a completed novel and a publishing contract.
Law students do not require law schools to prepare them to sit in a chair the first antitrust case after graduation, or are willing to design, negotiate and be a transaction worth 100 million outsourcing. However, you would be able to write a simple confidentiality agreement to ease of handling sales transactions, and understand the basic negotiating techniques. Better yet, all these skills just taught with cutting edge science with an emphasis on legal theory. As stated in the previous post here:
“What I find most interesting about this yawning gap between theory and practice, is that for the life of me, I do not understand why this should be the case. If you are a teacher about the movements of the empirical focus of studies in law, why not teach the real skills in context of your research? If you write on the analysis of speech, why not negotiate a contract? If you have an economic and legal theorists, why not teach students about the economic management of the firms and the type of perverse incentives to explore? “
I’m surprised that the issue discussed as controversial. Perhaps it is to change a lot, especially for law professors, with little or no practical experience of fear. I remember my class offenses, the first class I had a law degree. Our teacher had a law degree and a doctorate in philosophy and was quite fascinating to talk about postmodernism and moral philosophy. I felt very rich in this kind of injection, a teacher of theories in tort law have, and in no way would excise theoretical approach. At the same time my friends were always frustrated that he can not explain how a case can be initiated and should play. Hearing these concerns answered, the teacher with the same frustration and said that such issues are not particularly important, in his mind.
There must be a better approach, a third way, and the marriage of theory and practice will offer this course. Finally, it should not be a zero sum game: We can have both.
