Pub Date : 2007-09-26DOI: 10.1080/16841360801984227
Audrey Guinchard
Double degrees provide students with a complete bijural education, rather than simply giving a taste of another legal system. In a world marked by legal pluralism and globalization, they promote a comparative approach to law, a European ‘regard’ on two different legal systems. In turn, they offer a unique perspective on what could be an integrated European legal education, in terms of identification of the curriculum and means to deliver the related outcomes.
{"title":"The Double Degree Experience between England and France: A Contribution to an Integrated European Legal Education","authors":"Audrey Guinchard","doi":"10.1080/16841360801984227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16841360801984227","url":null,"abstract":"Double degrees provide students with a complete bijural education, rather than simply giving a taste of another legal system. In a world marked by legal pluralism and globalization, they promote a comparative approach to law, a European ‘regard’ on two different legal systems. In turn, they offer a unique perspective on what could be an integrated European legal education, in terms of identification of the curriculum and means to deliver the related outcomes.","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129063676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-07-20DOI: 10.5040/9781472560247.ch-010
Karen E. Bravo
U.S. law schools share with each other and with legal educational institutions worldwide the challenge of preparing students for the increasingly globalized practice of law. International economic law (IEL) encompasses a wide spectrum of subjects including trade in goods and services, financial law, economic integration, development law, business regulation and intellectual property. The expansive scope of the fields of practice and study within the discipline presents challenges for identifying the key issues with which scholars should try to stay current and the relevant material that should be imparted to students. Because of the breadth and depth of developments in the various fields of international economic law, it is imperative that professionals who are engaged in teaching, practicing and writing about international economic law in U.S. law schools, and elsewhere, collaborate on a uniform understanding of essential components that constitute effective teaching of this evolving subject area. In preparation for a seminal conference of the American Society of International Law's Interest Group on International Economic Law held November 9 - 11, 2006 at the historic Mount Washington Resort in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the conference chairs appointed Stephen T. Zamora (Houston Law Center), Craig L. Jackson (Thurgood Marshall School of Law) and Karen E. Bravo (Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis) Co-Rapporteurs for the Workshop on the Future of Teaching International Economic Law. Charged with fleshing out some of the critical issues or ideas relevant to teaching international economic law that would provide catalysts for future action for developing the discipline of teaching IEL, the Co-Rapporteurs administered surveys to teachers of IEL in U.S. law schools as well as administrators who oversee curricular matters. The results of the survey are presented and discussed here, including the status of the discipline, the trends identified and some challenges and recommendations for the future.
美国法学院彼此之间以及与世界各地的法律教育机构共同面临着让学生为日益全球化的法律实践做好准备的挑战。国际经济法(IEL)涵盖广泛的主题，包括货物和服务贸易、金融法、经济一体化、发展法、商业监管和知识产权。该学科实践和研究领域的广泛范围为确定学者应该努力保持最新的关键问题和应该传授给学生的相关材料提出了挑战。由于国际经济法各个领域发展的广度和深度，在美国法学院和其他地方从事国际经济法教学、实践和写作的专业人士必须合作，对构成这一不断发展的学科领域有效教学的基本组成部分有统一的理解。2006年11月9日至11日，美国国际法学会国际经济法利益小组在新罕布什尔州布雷顿森林历史悠久的华盛顿山度假胜地召开了一次影响深远的会议，会议主席任命斯蒂芬·t·萨莫拉(休斯敦法律中心)为会议主席。Craig L. Jackson(瑟古德·马歇尔法学院)和Karen E. Bravo(印第安纳大学法学院-印第安纳波利斯分校)国际经济法教学的未来研讨会联合报告员。共同报告员负责充实与国际经济法教学有关的一些关键问题或想法，这些问题或想法将为未来发展国际经济法教学学科的行动提供催化剂，他们对美国法学院的国际经济法教师以及监督课程事务的管理人员进行了调查。调查的结果在这里进行了介绍和讨论，包括该学科的现状，确定的趋势以及未来的一些挑战和建议。
{"title":"International Economic Law in U.S. Law Schools: Evaluating its Pedagogy and Identifying Future Challenges","authors":"Karen E. Bravo","doi":"10.5040/9781472560247.ch-010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472560247.ch-010","url":null,"abstract":"U.S. law schools share with each other and with legal educational institutions worldwide the challenge of preparing students for the increasingly globalized practice of law. International economic law (IEL) encompasses a wide spectrum of subjects including trade in goods and services, financial law, economic integration, development law, business regulation and intellectual property. The expansive scope of the fields of practice and study within the discipline presents challenges for identifying the key issues with which scholars should try to stay current and the relevant material that should be imparted to students. Because of the breadth and depth of developments in the various fields of international economic law, it is imperative that professionals who are engaged in teaching, practicing and writing about international economic law in U.S. law schools, and elsewhere, collaborate on a uniform understanding of essential components that constitute effective teaching of this evolving subject area. In preparation for a seminal conference of the American Society of International Law's Interest Group on International Economic Law held November 9 - 11, 2006 at the historic Mount Washington Resort in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the conference chairs appointed Stephen T. Zamora (Houston Law Center), Craig L. Jackson (Thurgood Marshall School of Law) and Karen E. Bravo (Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis) Co-Rapporteurs for the Workshop on the Future of Teaching International Economic Law. Charged with fleshing out some of the critical issues or ideas relevant to teaching international economic law that would provide catalysts for future action for developing the discipline of teaching IEL, the Co-Rapporteurs administered surveys to teachers of IEL in U.S. law schools as well as administrators who oversee curricular matters. The results of the survey are presented and discussed here, including the status of the discipline, the trends identified and some challenges and recommendations for the future.","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131469082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The nature of law and legal practice is changing with the addition of interdisciplinary scholars to law-school faculties and interdisciplinary studies to the law curriculum. However, the accessibility of non-law disciplinarians in the rest of the university raises the question of the cost-effectiveness and opportunity costs of importing them directly into the law school. This Article criticizes the interdisciplinary turn on three grounds. First is the unlikelihood that the joint-degreed persons who join the law faculty will happen to be the ones that their colleagues will end up collaborating with. Second is the even greater unlikelihood that any given discipline can communicate usefully with another discipline. Third is the opportunity-cost factor: that the new interdisciplinary courses will crowd out an essential part of the legal discipline, namely, an understanding of the foundations and dialectical evolution of its forms of language.
{"title":"The Interdisciplinary Turn in Legal Education","authors":"A. D'Amato","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.952483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.952483","url":null,"abstract":"The nature of law and legal practice is changing with the addition of interdisciplinary scholars to law-school faculties and interdisciplinary studies to the law curriculum. However, the accessibility of non-law disciplinarians in the rest of the university raises the question of the cost-effectiveness and opportunity costs of importing them directly into the law school. This Article criticizes the interdisciplinary turn on three grounds. First is the unlikelihood that the joint-degreed persons who join the law faculty will happen to be the ones that their colleagues will end up collaborating with. Second is the even greater unlikelihood that any given discipline can communicate usefully with another discipline. Third is the opportunity-cost factor: that the new interdisciplinary courses will crowd out an essential part of the legal discipline, namely, an understanding of the foundations and dialectical evolution of its forms of language.","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114898932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper is the introductory chapter of an edited volume of chapters by the same name, which will be published in 2007. Rights and regulation each provide a way of framing core preoccupations of sociolegal scholarship. The two are yoked more often in opposition than in concert; indeed, regulation has often been framed as a social practice that restricts rights. This resonates with a tendency to conjure up stereotypically different images of research questions and topics that typify each of these areas. Rights scholarship is concerned with mobilization, social change, questions of identity and culture, frequently taking the position of those who are disadvantaged or oppressed through judicial avenues, using claims of individualized entitlement as a point of departure. Regulation scholars are more typically concerned with questions of economic efficiency, the evaluation of results, rational design of institutions and bureaucratic or discretionary modes of pursuing generalized public interests. But if rights and regulation tend to be associated with contrasting forms, logics, ideals and values, there are ambiguities in this opposition. It may reflect parallel scholarly dialogues, or it may be rooted in inherent formal or normative properties of rights and regulation, or it may be a consequence of particular substantive political contexts that encourage groups to frame their own practices in particular ways - whether as rights-based or regulatory. This paper challenges stable oppositions between rights and regulation on all these fronts. Its main argument is that rights and regulation form overlapping and complementary aspects of processes of disputing and rule-elaboration that can be captured by two well-known triads - naming, blaming and claiming and rule-making, monitoring and enforcement. This approach both challenges the notion of contrasting logics of rights and regulation but also opens up interesting empirically-inspired questions at their intersection. It suggests that there is a powerful, albeit varying, interdependency between rights and regulation: one that can be clarified by encouraging more work in regulatory scholarship on naming, claiming and blaming, and more work in rights scholarship on rule-making, monitoring and implementation. The paper has four parts. First, it sketches a brief intellectual history of the strands of scholarship that frame this introduction, presenting rights and regulation initially as parallel scholarly dialogues, and then viewing them through a broad lens of disputing as complementary and interdependent. Secondly, it poses a wide range of questions that focus on different aspects of the rights/regulation interface. Third is an overview of the individual chapters in the rest of the volume, which come from a variety of disciplinary approaches within law and society (law, geography, sociology, political science, history and anthropology). Finally the paper proposes three key themes that emerge cumulatively fr
{"title":"Intersection of Rights and Regulation: New Directions in Sociolegal Scholarship","authors":"B. Morgan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.962260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.962260","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is the introductory chapter of an edited volume of chapters by the same name, which will be published in 2007. Rights and regulation each provide a way of framing core preoccupations of sociolegal scholarship. The two are yoked more often in opposition than in concert; indeed, regulation has often been framed as a social practice that restricts rights. This resonates with a tendency to conjure up stereotypically different images of research questions and topics that typify each of these areas. Rights scholarship is concerned with mobilization, social change, questions of identity and culture, frequently taking the position of those who are disadvantaged or oppressed through judicial avenues, using claims of individualized entitlement as a point of departure. Regulation scholars are more typically concerned with questions of economic efficiency, the evaluation of results, rational design of institutions and bureaucratic or discretionary modes of pursuing generalized public interests. But if rights and regulation tend to be associated with contrasting forms, logics, ideals and values, there are ambiguities in this opposition. It may reflect parallel scholarly dialogues, or it may be rooted in inherent formal or normative properties of rights and regulation, or it may be a consequence of particular substantive political contexts that encourage groups to frame their own practices in particular ways - whether as rights-based or regulatory. This paper challenges stable oppositions between rights and regulation on all these fronts. Its main argument is that rights and regulation form overlapping and complementary aspects of processes of disputing and rule-elaboration that can be captured by two well-known triads - naming, blaming and claiming and rule-making, monitoring and enforcement. This approach both challenges the notion of contrasting logics of rights and regulation but also opens up interesting empirically-inspired questions at their intersection. It suggests that there is a powerful, albeit varying, interdependency between rights and regulation: one that can be clarified by encouraging more work in regulatory scholarship on naming, claiming and blaming, and more work in rights scholarship on rule-making, monitoring and implementation. The paper has four parts. First, it sketches a brief intellectual history of the strands of scholarship that frame this introduction, presenting rights and regulation initially as parallel scholarly dialogues, and then viewing them through a broad lens of disputing as complementary and interdependent. Secondly, it poses a wide range of questions that focus on different aspects of the rights/regulation interface. Third is an overview of the individual chapters in the rest of the volume, which come from a variety of disciplinary approaches within law and society (law, geography, sociology, political science, history and anthropology). Finally the paper proposes three key themes that emerge cumulatively fr","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"105 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122260805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This term, the Supreme Court will decide two cases that will reshape the Equal Protection landscape. In 2003, the Court decided Grutter v. Bollinger, 530 U.S. 306 (2003), holding that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling state interest in a diverse student body that justified its race-based admissions policy. With near-unanimous support of the academic literature, lower courts seized on Grutter's diversity rationale to uphold race-based assignment plans in K-12 public education. In June, 2006, the Court accepted certiorari in two of these cases - Meredith v. Jefferson County Public Schools, 126 S.Ct. 2351 (2006), and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, No. 1 (PICS), 126 S.Ct. 2351 (2006) - to decide whether Grutter's diversity rationale could be extended outside the context of public higher education. This Article argues that the Meredith and PICS courts wrongly extended Grutter's rationale to K-12 public education. First, Grutter's diversity rationale is based on shaky social science and should for that reason be contained. Second, Grutter by its own terms limits the Court's holding to the context of public higher education and leaves undisturbed earlier precedent that governs race-based policies in K-12 public education. Third, the Grutter rationale, which the Court based on deference to the university's First Amendment right to decide that diverse viewpoints are necessary to its educational mission, has no application to school districts. Fourth, Grutter's diversity rationale opens a Pandora's Box when extended beyond public higher education. Fifth, even under Grutter, narrow tailoring demands that race-neutral alternatives be explored, but the Meredith and PICS courts failed to hold school districts to this requirement. As this Article explains, race-neutral alternatives are available to school districts - and such alternatives have worked - both to diversify classrooms and to enhance the academic achievement of all children.
本学期，最高法院将裁决两起将重塑平等保护格局的案件。2003年，最高法院在Grutter v. Bollinger案(530 U.S. 306(2003))中作出裁决，认为密歇根大学法学院在多元化的学生群体中具有令人信服的州利益，证明其基于种族的录取政策是合理的。在学术文献几乎一致的支持下，下级法院根据格鲁特的多样性理论，在K-12公共教育中支持基于种族的分配计划。2006年6月，法院接受了其中两起案件的调卷令——梅雷迪思诉杰斐逊县公立学校案，126 s.c.。2351(2006)，以及参与社区学校的家长诉西雅图学区案，第1号(PICS)， 126 s.c.。2351(2006) -决定Grutter的多样性理论是否可以扩展到公立高等教育的背景之外。本文认为Meredith和PICS法院错误地将Grutter的理论扩展到K-12公共教育。首先，格鲁特的多样性理论是建立在不可靠的社会科学基础上的，因此应该加以遏制。其次，Grutter以其自己的条款将最高法院的裁决限制在公立高等教育的背景下，而不受早期管理K-12公立教育中基于种族的政策的先例的干扰。第三，格鲁特案的基本原理不适用于学区。最高法院基于尊重大学根据《第一修正案》(First Amendment)有权决定，不同的观点对学校的教育使命是必要的。第四，在公立高等教育之外，格鲁特的多样性理论打开了潘多拉的盒子。第五，即使在Grutter案中，狭隘的剪裁要求探索种族中立的替代方案，但Meredith和PICS法院未能让学区遵守这一要求。正如这篇文章所解释的那样，学区可以采用种族中立的替代方案——这种替代方案已经奏效——既使教室多样化，又提高了所有孩子的学习成绩。
{"title":"The Legacy of Grutter: How the Meredith and Pics Courts Wrongly Extended the 'Educational Benefits' Exception to the Equal Protection Clause in Public Higher Education","authors":"Paula Beard","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.924436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.924436","url":null,"abstract":"This term, the Supreme Court will decide two cases that will reshape the Equal Protection landscape. In 2003, the Court decided Grutter v. Bollinger, 530 U.S. 306 (2003), holding that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling state interest in a diverse student body that justified its race-based admissions policy. With near-unanimous support of the academic literature, lower courts seized on Grutter's diversity rationale to uphold race-based assignment plans in K-12 public education. In June, 2006, the Court accepted certiorari in two of these cases - Meredith v. Jefferson County Public Schools, 126 S.Ct. 2351 (2006), and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, No. 1 (PICS), 126 S.Ct. 2351 (2006) - to decide whether Grutter's diversity rationale could be extended outside the context of public higher education. This Article argues that the Meredith and PICS courts wrongly extended Grutter's rationale to K-12 public education. First, Grutter's diversity rationale is based on shaky social science and should for that reason be contained. Second, Grutter by its own terms limits the Court's holding to the context of public higher education and leaves undisturbed earlier precedent that governs race-based policies in K-12 public education. Third, the Grutter rationale, which the Court based on deference to the university's First Amendment right to decide that diverse viewpoints are necessary to its educational mission, has no application to school districts. Fourth, Grutter's diversity rationale opens a Pandora's Box when extended beyond public higher education. Fifth, even under Grutter, narrow tailoring demands that race-neutral alternatives be explored, but the Meredith and PICS courts failed to hold school districts to this requirement. As this Article explains, race-neutral alternatives are available to school districts - and such alternatives have worked - both to diversify classrooms and to enhance the academic achievement of all children.","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"170 1-2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116636781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Can a law school substantially affect the ethical, moral and professional identity of the lawyers that it graduates? How can the effect of law school training and experience on graduates be defined and measured? Should this kind of professional and moral shaping be the responsibility of law schools generally? How can law schools determine what kind of lawyers they want to produce? This article uses the recent creation of the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) School of Law as a case study of the "mission-driven" law school. When the University of St. Thomas considered opening a new law school, it answered the many critics who saw no need for another school turning out more lawyers by declaring its intent to create a different kind of lawyer. This article attempts to define what kind of lawyer the University of St. Thomas intends to create, to identify means of detecting and measuring the characteristics that would distinguish such a lawyer, and to lay out a research process for determining if the "St. Thomas effect" indeed exists. The article argues that law schools can have a tremendous effect on the moral and professional identity of their graduates, and that it is essential for law schools to become more thoughtful and intentional about the kind of lawyers that they graduate.
法学院能否实质性地影响其毕业律师的伦理、道德和职业认同?如何定义和衡量法学院培训和经验对毕业生的影响?这种职业和道德的塑造应该是法学院的责任吗?法学院如何决定他们想培养什么样的律师?本文以圣托马斯大学(明尼苏达)法学院的新成立为例，研究“使命驱动型”法学院。当圣托马斯大学(University of St. Thomas)考虑开设一所新的法学院时，它宣布要培养一种不同类型的律师，以此回应了许多认为没有必要再建一所学校培养更多律师的批评者。本文试图定义圣托马斯大学打算创造什么样的律师，确定检测和衡量区分这种律师的特征的方法，并制定一个确定“圣托马斯效应”是否确实存在的研究过程。这篇文章认为，法学院可以对毕业生的道德和职业认同产生巨大的影响，法学院对他们毕业的律师类型变得更加深思熟虑和有意识是至关重要的。
{"title":"The St. Thomas Effect","authors":"Jennifer L. Wright","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.920521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.920521","url":null,"abstract":"Can a law school substantially affect the ethical, moral and professional identity of the lawyers that it graduates? How can the effect of law school training and experience on graduates be defined and measured? Should this kind of professional and moral shaping be the responsibility of law schools generally? How can law schools determine what kind of lawyers they want to produce? This article uses the recent creation of the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) School of Law as a case study of the \"mission-driven\" law school. When the University of St. Thomas considered opening a new law school, it answered the many critics who saw no need for another school turning out more lawyers by declaring its intent to create a different kind of lawyer. This article attempts to define what kind of lawyer the University of St. Thomas intends to create, to identify means of detecting and measuring the characteristics that would distinguish such a lawyer, and to lay out a research process for determining if the \"St. Thomas effect\" indeed exists. The article argues that law schools can have a tremendous effect on the moral and professional identity of their graduates, and that it is essential for law schools to become more thoughtful and intentional about the kind of lawyers that they graduate.","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122401959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. Dau-Schmidt, J. Stake, K. Mukhopadhaya, T. Haley
This article is the first report on the results of the Indiana Law Alumni Survey, conducted on Indiana University Law School - Bloomington alumni over the last six years. The survey asks for responses from law alumni five and fifteen years out of law school to examine their reflections on their experiences with law school and their experiences in their careers. Extensive data are collected on alumni careers, type of practice, hours of work, income and job satisfaction, as well as personal and family characteristics.The results show that Indiana alumni were active students, and are generally very satisfied when they think back to their law school experiences. Indiana alumni found law school particularly satisfying intellectually. Women were particularly satisfied with their law school experience. Students' participation in extra-curricular activities and employment may be indicative of their future career plans, as it seems that students chose to participate in activities they believed would help for the particular career they wanted to pursue.We also find that, after graduation, Indiana alumni use their talents and skills to undertake successful careers in a variety of professional settings while attempting to balance work with family life. Traditional gender roles affect family life and career as male alumni are more focused on earning income and are more likely to be the primary breadwinner in any marital relationship, while our female alums report significantly greater childcare responsibilities. Women, Blacks, and Hispanics tend to be found in greater proportions as government attorneys, public interest attorneys or acting as corporate counsel, and the women who go into private practice tend to be found disproportionately in the larger law firms. Women and Blacks report lower incomes than men who are predominately found in private practice, while they report similar job satisfaction. Women tend to report higher levels of satisfaction with their families. The personal traits of the examined lawyers and the family choices they make can have profound effects on their careers.
{"title":"'The Pride of Indiana': An Empirical Study of the Law School Experience and Careers of Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington Alumni","authors":"K. Dau-Schmidt, J. Stake, K. Mukhopadhaya, T. Haley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.875908","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.875908","url":null,"abstract":"This article is the first report on the results of the Indiana Law Alumni Survey, conducted on Indiana University Law School - Bloomington alumni over the last six years. The survey asks for responses from law alumni five and fifteen years out of law school to examine their reflections on their experiences with law school and their experiences in their careers. Extensive data are collected on alumni careers, type of practice, hours of work, income and job satisfaction, as well as personal and family characteristics.The results show that Indiana alumni were active students, and are generally very satisfied when they think back to their law school experiences. Indiana alumni found law school particularly satisfying intellectually. Women were particularly satisfied with their law school experience. Students' participation in extra-curricular activities and employment may be indicative of their future career plans, as it seems that students chose to participate in activities they believed would help for the particular career they wanted to pursue.We also find that, after graduation, Indiana alumni use their talents and skills to undertake successful careers in a variety of professional settings while attempting to balance work with family life. Traditional gender roles affect family life and career as male alumni are more focused on earning income and are more likely to be the primary breadwinner in any marital relationship, while our female alums report significantly greater childcare responsibilities. Women, Blacks, and Hispanics tend to be found in greater proportions as government attorneys, public interest attorneys or acting as corporate counsel, and the women who go into private practice tend to be found disproportionately in the larger law firms. Women and Blacks report lower incomes than men who are predominately found in private practice, while they report similar job satisfaction. Women tend to report higher levels of satisfaction with their families. The personal traits of the examined lawyers and the family choices they make can have profound effects on their careers.","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124459273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, I take mediation as an example of multidisciplinary legal research. My starting point is that legal research, whether classical-doctrinal or multidisciplinary, is not an exception to the generally accepted view that all research in all sciences somehow suffers from tunnel vision. However, in promoting mediation as an alternative to adjudication in private law, this generally accepted view is often forgotten. In this article, I will identify six constraints and preconceptions of mediation. Insight into these limitations are of crucial importance to determine the contribution mediation can make, not only to the improvement of resolving legal conflicts/disputes, but also, and even more importantly, to the dispute on changing the current interpretative framework (paradigm) of legal research.
{"title":"Six Constraints and Preconceptions of Mediation - Does Mediation Change the Common Interpretative Framework (Paradigm) in Private Law?","authors":"J. Vranken","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.905528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.905528","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I take mediation as an example of multidisciplinary legal research. My starting point is that legal research, whether classical-doctrinal or multidisciplinary, is not an exception to the generally accepted view that all research in all sciences somehow suffers from tunnel vision. However, in promoting mediation as an alternative to adjudication in private law, this generally accepted view is often forgotten. In this article, I will identify six constraints and preconceptions of mediation. Insight into these limitations are of crucial importance to determine the contribution mediation can make, not only to the improvement of resolving legal conflicts/disputes, but also, and even more importantly, to the dispute on changing the current interpretative framework (paradigm) of legal research.","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124211637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay focuses on goals, strategies and techniques for the facilitation of student learning. It reflects a bias toward what can be called active learning in which students move beyond being passive listeners (and too often even less than that) and instead are prompted to travel along a continuum of becoming fully responsible and active participants in their own learning processes. The underlying assumption is that this increasingly participatory engagement with the learning environment - one constructed and facilitated by the teacher - offers great potential for increasing the quality and depth of students' learning. Ironically, it does the same for the teacher because it places a far heavier responsibility on the teacher to listen, interpret, guide and interact rather than merely "profess". The analysis also begins from the belief that there is a convenient assumption among law teachers that the existing model of the American law school works effectively. This includes the conclusion that its methods and goals are not only appropriate and comprehensive but are being achieved. The reality is quite different. While law teachers have many positive attributes we tend to be amateurs from the perspective of the quality of teaching and awareness of the most effective ways to structure a curriculum, integrate course offerings and design and execute individual courses. Because most law professors have been extremely successful in their undergraduate and law school careers they may feel as if they are endowed by that experience with the knowledge and ability required to teach well, or they may understand their lack of knowledge and seek to compensate for that deficiency through denial and rationalization. In any event there is no guarantee that earlier academic success bears any direct relationship to excellence in teaching. With that criticism in mind this essay examines strategies for facilitating learning. Preliminary to that analysis, however, I thought it useful to discuss briefly the history of the Langdellian Hypothesis about the scientific nature of university legal education and academic legal research and scholarship. It is this flawed hypothesis that shaped the American law school.
{"title":"An Essay on Strategies for Facilitating Learning","authors":"David R. Barnhizer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.906638","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.906638","url":null,"abstract":"This essay focuses on goals, strategies and techniques for the facilitation of student learning. It reflects a bias toward what can be called active learning in which students move beyond being passive listeners (and too often even less than that) and instead are prompted to travel along a continuum of becoming fully responsible and active participants in their own learning processes. The underlying assumption is that this increasingly participatory engagement with the learning environment - one constructed and facilitated by the teacher - offers great potential for increasing the quality and depth of students' learning. Ironically, it does the same for the teacher because it places a far heavier responsibility on the teacher to listen, interpret, guide and interact rather than merely \"profess\". The analysis also begins from the belief that there is a convenient assumption among law teachers that the existing model of the American law school works effectively. This includes the conclusion that its methods and goals are not only appropriate and comprehensive but are being achieved. The reality is quite different. While law teachers have many positive attributes we tend to be amateurs from the perspective of the quality of teaching and awareness of the most effective ways to structure a curriculum, integrate course offerings and design and execute individual courses. Because most law professors have been extremely successful in their undergraduate and law school careers they may feel as if they are endowed by that experience with the knowledge and ability required to teach well, or they may understand their lack of knowledge and seek to compensate for that deficiency through denial and rationalization. In any event there is no guarantee that earlier academic success bears any direct relationship to excellence in teaching. With that criticism in mind this essay examines strategies for facilitating learning. Preliminary to that analysis, however, I thought it useful to discuss briefly the history of the Langdellian Hypothesis about the scientific nature of university legal education and academic legal research and scholarship. It is this flawed hypothesis that shaped the American law school.","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115207728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study began as an effort to identify the determinants of post-tenure scholarship produced by law professors. The impact of a number of variables was assessed. The only independent variable that was satistically significant was pages of pre-tenure scholarship. The analysis also revealed a significant decrease in scholarship by law professors once they had been granted tenure. This decrease held true for all levels of law schools.
{"title":"Post Tenure Scholarship and its Implications","authors":"J. Harrison","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.931185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.931185","url":null,"abstract":"This study began as an effort to identify the determinants of post-tenure scholarship produced by law professors. The impact of a number of variables was assessed. The only independent variable that was satistically significant was pages of pre-tenure scholarship. The analysis also revealed a significant decrease in scholarship by law professors once they had been granted tenure. This decrease held true for all levels of law schools.","PeriodicalId":337841,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education eJournal","volume":"30 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125700684","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：