Readers' Comments
FDR did fine without a 3L year
The National Law Journal
January 14, 2013
6. January 15, 2013 01:57 PM
Many of those who assert that the third year of law school is unnecessary or a waste of time have not experienced the benefits of clinical courses, externships, and simulation-based skills courses, which offer challenging learning experiences to law students who might be a little bored with doctrinal courses. Query whether the advocates of a two-year JD program have thought carefully about the knowledge and skills needed to pursue a career in any of the complex and specialized fields of law that proliferate in the twenty-first century. Could anyone launch a career in--say--environmental law, communications law, or in intellectual property law--with just a couple of basic courses in one of those fields under his or her belt? I don't think so; especially if the new lawyer in question did not attend an elite school and actually has to demonstrate proficiency in the intended field to get a job. Cutting off the last year of law school would be a disservice to our profession. To be anywhere near "practice-ready", our students need a full three years of well-thought-out legal education. Law schools do need to cut costs. The salary scales at some schools (not mine) may be inflated, but there are lots of other silly expenses that could be reduced. We should go back to need-based financial aid instead of falling over each other to offer free rides to the (usually economically privileged) students with the highest LSATs. We should stop squandering resources on publicity brochures and lecture series whose purpose is primarily US-news-related publicity. We should seek to trim expenses without sacrificing the generally high quality of education that US law schools offer. And we should be careful not to trample on our collective research capability, because it fuels good teaching and contributes much to the development on law and public policy. Lisa G. Lerman, Professor of Law, Catholic University Law School, J.D., NYU, 79
— Lisa Lerman
7. January 15, 2013 10:38 AM
There's no good reason not to do away with 3L. There is so little curricular planning in law school anyway that a student can take literally anything he wants in the third year. What's the point? More tuition dollars, more subsidies to faculty. That's all.
— Ben
8. January 14, 2013 09:26 PM
Jenn's suggestion to incorporate supervised pro bono is a good one.
— Dina Staple
9. January 14, 2013 09:20 PM
I think a better approach is to revise the curriculum - - infuse more practical components and keep pace with changing times - - and make legal education much more affordable as well as accessible.
— Dina Staple
10. January 14, 2013 10:15 AM
Perhaps the third year curriculum could be altered to provide some options other than the traditional attorney route. A law school education provides a sound basis for work in many fields. Flexibility and more partnerships with companies outside the traditional legal fields could yield higher placement results and fewer impoverished law school grads. http://www.valhallapress.com.
— Albert Davenport
Comments are not moderated.
For more information, please see our Terms and Conditions >>
To report offensive comments, click here.
All Comments
Thank you for commenting.
Please note that on articles older than one month, your comment as displayed below may take up to an hour before appearing on the main article.
Most Recent First | Oldest First