MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF LAW AT ANDOVER
PROMINENT LEGAL AUTHORITY CALLS ON NATION'S LAW SCHOOLS
TO EMULATE THE MODEL OF MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF LAW
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A prominent legal authority has called publicly upon the nation's law schools to shift their teaching approach from the
'academic' or research model most now use to one designed to train "good lawyers," citing the example of the
Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
"Most law schools now follow the elite model, striving to hire faculty and produce scholarship like research
universities, when it might better serve the interests of many non-elite law schools and their students to concentrate
on training good lawyers," wrote Brian Tamanaha, the Chief Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo Professor of Law at St. John's
University and a member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton for academic year 2007-8.
"Money now allocated to scholarship and research leaves would instead go to clinics and other practice training;
professors would teach 15 hours or more a week; faculty would be hired for the desire and ability to train lawyers, not
for scholarship; more law schools would look like Massachusetts School of Law (which the ABA has mightily resisted).
Schools built around this alternative model would produce capable lawyers at a much lower tuition, which would be good
for the students and good for society," wrote Tamanaha, a columnist for the popular legal blog "Balkinization" on Jan.
22nd, 2008.
Tamanaha pointed out since the mid-1990s, the American Bar Assn.(ABA) has
sponsored two initiatives "seemingly at odds: the accreditation process was being used to free up professors for more
writing, while law schools were being criticized for spending too much time on academic work and not enough time
teaching law students to become skilled lawyers."
Indeed, he continued, "it is an insult within legal academia to be branded as a school that 'teaches for the
bar'---notwithstanding that the daunting threshold hurdle every law student faces coming out of law school is to pass
the damn bar exam."
Tamanaha explained, "Law schools were inhibited from developing an alternative model, one which emphasizes producing
well trained lawyers. Rather than taking pride in and building an identity around that --- 'We teach students to pass
the bar and to be capable lawyers on the very First day out the door'---law schools had to claim to be something more
than(or other than) a place dedicated to educating lawyers for practice."
The legal authority pointed out in his column in "Balkinization" that the ABA had used the accreditation process "to
promote and force a single ‘academic' or research model on all law schools. All law schools were told to reduce teaching
loads (from the earlier highs of 15 to 18 hours a week) in order to free up writing, and schools were evaluated for
their academic output. This sent a strong message to law schools about what matters (not teaching!),which was
exacerbated by the 'academic reputation rating'category utilized by US News."
Tamanaha noted that the ABA entered into a consent decree with the Justice Department which brought suit in 1995
"promising to cease such practices" as utilizing the accreditation process (of law schools) to engage in
anti-competitive practices aimed at boosting their (professors') pay and reducing their teaching loads (among other
things)." Tamanaha's column is titled, "What's Wrong With This Picture of Legal Academia?"
Tamanaha called for a new direction in legal education at a time when some prominent law schools charging in excess of
$40,000 a year for tuition, are spending more time on teaching theory rather than preparing students for everyday legal
practice.
The Justice Department suit against ABA over fixing law professors' salaries to which he referred was inspired by a law
suit brought against ABA by the Massachusetts School of Law.
Founded in 1988, MSL, whose tuition of $13,300 a year is less than half that of other New England law schools, is
purposefully dedicated to educating minorities, immigrants, and students from low- and middle-income backgrounds that
could not otherwise afford to attend law school. The school does not require applicants to take the Law School
Admissions Test (LSAT) required at ABA-accredited schools but bases admission on students' academic records, work
records, and determination to succeed.
Lawrence Velvel, cofounder and dean of MSL has been honored by the National Law Journal for his efforts and the National
Jurist magazine has described him as one of the leaders in legal education reform today. And The Wall Street Journal has
dubbed MSL "The Little Law School That Could."
MSL has an enrollment of more than 600 students. In an endeavor unique
among the nation's law schools, it produces a weekly, one-hour television
broadcast. Alternately focusing on important issues and on books, its programs have won nearly 300 awards. It also
produces an hour long radio program called "What The Media Doesn't Tell You," distributed globally via the World Radio
Network.
Asked for comment about the Tamanaha column, Dean Velvel said: "I frankly was surprised. I guess our school's reputation
has spread far more than I knew and that what the school is seeking to accomplish has likewise become more widely known
than I realized."
*********
The full text of the Tamanaha article from "Balkinization" follows:
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
What's Wrong With This Picture of Legal Academia?
Brian Tamanaha
Posted 12:29 PM by Brian Tamanaha
In 1995, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit against the American Bar Association alleging that law
professors had been utilizing the accreditation process to engage in anti-competitive practices aimed at boosting their
pay and reducing their teaching loads (among other things). Without admitting guilt, the ABA entered into a consent
decree with the Department of Justice promising to cease such practices.
The accreditation process is justified as the means to insure a quality legal education so that the public will be
served by competent lawyers. Oddly, in the very period in which law schools were being instructed to boost their
professors' pay (to attract highly qualified professors)and to cut their teaching hours (so they could do more academic
research, which would presumably enhance their knowledge and teaching), the American Bar Association also produced the
MacCrate Report, arguing that law schools were doing a poor job of training lawyers. The reason for this failure: law
professors were occupied with academic matters while neglecting practical legal training for their students.
So in the mid-1990s the American Bar Association was simultaneously sponsoring two initiatives seemingly at odds: the
accreditation process was being used to free up professors for more writing, while law schools were being criticized for
spending too much time on academic work and not enough time teaching law students to become skilled lawyers.
When you think about it, the situation we have created is bizarre: law students attend law school to become lawyers
(paying tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege); however, as the Report indicates, many law professors do not
see it as their job to train lawyers-they are, rather, legal scholars; meanwhile, many judges dismiss the vast bulk of
legal scholarship as useless for their purposes; and tons of articles are being published every year, 43% of which are
not cited at all and almost eighty percent of which are cited fewer than 10 times. One final tidbit: it is an insult
within legal academia to be branded as a school that "teaches for the bar"-notwithstanding that the daunting threshold
hurdle every law student faces coming out of law school is to pass the damn bar exam.
It is with this background in mind that I raised skepticism last week about the apparent popularity of interdisciplinary
studies within law schools. We can come up with explanations why this initiative in law schools promises to make our
students better lawyers, and maybe it will. [Critics who remarked that my objections exaggerated the costs associated
with "interdisciplinary studies" may be right, although I had in mind all associated expenses.] But in light of the
above recent history (Larry Solum gives an excellent historical account of contemporary legal academia from a more
theoretical perspective; Leiter has an informative take here) it sounds like more of the same old story-law professors
pursuing what they find interesting and beneficial.
Would legal academia look any different if we had not collectively engaged in actions designed to boost our pay and
decrease our teaching loads [lest I appear like an ingrate, let me pause for a moment to thank my predecessors for
making this the best job in the world!]?
In several important respects things would probably be about the same. Tuition at the elite law schools would likely be
just as high as it is now, as would high pay and light teaching loads. These aspects, which took off after the consent
decree and also happened at the undergraduate level, are more related to market factors and ranking competition than to
anti-competitive conduct.
But I think there would be one crucial difference. The accreditation process was utilized to promote and force a single
"academic" or research model on all law schools. All law schools were told to reduce teaching loads (from earlier highs
of 15 to 18 hours a week) in order to free up writing, and schools were evaluated for their academic output. This sent a
strong message to law schools about what matters (not teaching!), which was exacerbated by the "academic reputation
rating" category utilized by US News. Now the conventional hiring wisdom is that the most important credential for a
teaching position (in addition to having a degree from a top 5 school) is to have published a couple of articles after
graduation (with having a PhD now surging in importance).
Law schools were inhibited from developing an alternative model, one which emphasizes producing well trained lawyers.
Rather than taking pride in and building an identity around that-"We teach students to pass the bar and to be capable
lawyers on the very first day out the door."-law schools had to claim to be something more than (or other than) a place
dedicated to educating lawyers for practice.
Most law schools now follow the elite model, striving to hire faculty and produce scholarship like research
universities, when it might better serve the interests of many non-elite law schools and their students to concentrate
on training good lawyers. Money now allocated to scholarship and research leaves would instead go to clinics and other
practice training; professors would teach 15 hours or more a week; faculty would be hired for the desire and ability to
train lawyers, not for scholarship; more law schools would look like Massachusetts School of Law http://www.mslaw.edu/ (which the ABA has mightily resisted). Schools built around this alternative model would produce capable lawyers at a
much lower tuition, which would be good for the students and good for society.
This vision of legal academia allows for a range of law schools, serving different needs and circumstances, rather than
one academic model for all. It makes sense, but to succeed it must have the support of law professors.
Posted 12:29 PM by Brian Tamanaha
***
ENDS