Friday, July 04, 2008
My sense is that on most campuses, law schools are not regarded a quite up to par as far as other graduate programs. I was discussing this with a close faculty friend (really) who said part of the reason is that legal scholarship only seems to rise to graduate school level when it is combined with another discipline and involves empirical work. I do not totally agree but I think there is a great deal of truth to the observation. On the first point, so many articles are already interdisciplinary that is hard to believe this makes a difference. I doubt there are many articles in law reviews that limit their sources and influences to cases and treatises. On the empirical end, I agree more with the statement. I cannot put my finger on it but I am not sure law can be regarded as an equal to others at the graduate level unless ideas are tested in one way or another and a body of “findings” developed that only law professors have the expertise to develop. At this time, law seems to have only a derivative claim to graduate level status.
3 Comments:
I think if there was more writing and far smaller class size, law school would look more like a normal graduate school.
All it takes is a maximum class size of twenty and no class without writing assignments.
There are lots of ways that law school isn't like grad school in an academic program, (as someone who has done both I think I know fairly well) but what I'd like to mention is the bit on tenure. Maybe I'm mis-reading you but it seems you're saying that law professors are _more_ worried about tenure review than non-law professors. I don't know about people's subjective mental states but since it seems that it's much easier to get tenure in a law school, even an excellent one, than in most academic departments this would be a weird worry if so. (See Brian Leiter's various discussions of the matter for more detail.) Contrast, just as an example, the pretty high tenure rate at Harvard Law in the period between 1975 and 2002 (I'm not sure what it was but it's well, well above 50%, I'm sure) with the fact that the philosophy department at Harvard tenured _no one_ in that same time period. It's an extreme example but not an unrepresentative one, I think.
Matt: You may be right about which ones are more and less likely to get tenure and, therefore, who should be worried more. What I see is all kinds of concern about who the reviewers will be because the scholarship they will examine is largely subjective and often politically oriented.
Post a Comment
<< Home