Harvard Law School Revamps its 1L Curriculum
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Harvard Law School faculty have unanimously approved a new 1L curriculum that will "focus more heavily on international law, problem-solving skills, and modern law-making by governmental bodies."
In my experience, "international law" is a fuzzy concept -- not unlike "problem solving" -- both as an academic discipline and as an area of legal practice. (Most applicants, for example, have no concept of the difference between public and private international law -- two entirely different areas of study and real-world application.) As a recent law school graduate reminded me, for many lawyers "international law just means sitting in a windowless conference room in Dubai rather than St. Louis, and those conference rooms all look the same." According to the Chronicle, the beefed up international component will involve "one of three courses that introduce global legal systems and concerns." I will be curious to hear about its implementation. Incidentally, to make room for those changes, students will spend fewer credit hours on traditional 1L courses like contracts, torts, criminal law, civ pro, and property.
As usual, this is also a genius move by Harvard on the marketing front. If I had a dollar for every applicant who told me he wanted to study "international law," whatever that is understood to mean...
We Want to Hear From You!
We love hearing from our blog readers. Please share your feedback in the comments section for individual posts, or, if you have a new question for us to tackle, send us an email.
Anna;
I too found Harvard's revamp an interesting move. I tend to be most interested in how the program changes the product (attorneys) HLS has been manufacturing for so many years. In theory, the move to improve international law education is a good. Globalization has changed the landscape of the world's workforce. This expansion has created a need for expanded legal services in countries experiencing economic expansion; Harvard's move to encompass the growing global legal needs shows innovation and awareness to the needs of the grwoing legal market. The point raised by anonymous (Oct. 10, 2006 @ 2:59pm)above is well raised, it also crossed my mind as I read the originating post, and most likely has been carefully considered by HLS before they made the change.
As a prospective student entering law school in fall 2007, I would prefer the institution I attend to provide me no less than what they have provided past graduate; especially if the education cost is that of HLS. I wouldn't be concerned, if I were attending HLS, that this change would negatively affect my education or marketability; it may even improve it.
The most important concern is whether this changes the quality of a law degree earned at HLS. The real challenge is for the HLS faculty to ensure the implementation of international studies does not diminish the quality of the education at Harvard in spite of the class time decreases in traditional courses. Of course, law students will have to overcome the challenge of a broader course load, which shouldn't be any problem for those accepted to HLS.
For the students expecting to attend Harvard Law School, I don’t believe the changes will damage the reputation, quality, or job opportunities for the graduates. HLS will always be looked upon with admiration, or jealousy by most. I also suspect this isn’t the first time the curriculum has changed at HLS, nor shall it be the last.
Here are my two cents for what it is worth:
I am sure the feedback HLS (Harvard Law School) received from other professional schools and perhaps also from practicing lawyers centered about the need for law school graduates to have more multinational business and so-called "real world" experience. My initial thought when confronted with the mention of "case studies" and "leadership" in the article is how HLS could simply pull law-related business case studies from HBS (Harvard Business School). Many of the cases I discussed when I visited HBS, particularly those with an international or multinational focus, had a major legal component.
Would one miss out on experiences gained through a traditional legal education if one were to attend Harvard Law post curriculum change? People, namely students and employers, often condemn the JD/MBA option as a watered down version of each discipline. Is this "watering down" in a sense what the new 1L HLS curriculum is doing? Also, will this change mean that a JD/MBA option will become less intriguing to future HLS students? It's certainly worth thinking about. Finally, it is hard to believe that students who are intelligent enough to get into HLS can not select courses that will improve their problem-solving skills and improve their lawyering. It is graduate school after all. I am not sure why the curriculum change needs to be mandatory at the 1L level. Why not add these courses as electives during the later years? Why force everyone to take a course called "Problems and Theories"? Are students at this much of a deficit in analytical skills? (Frankly, the course title reminds me of some third level MIT mathematics course designed to separate those who like math from those with genius enough to take the theories presented in class, however abstract, and put them to some sort of practical use.)
On a more personal note, I am always skeptical of learning under a brand new curriculum structure. I like the "tried and true" when it comes to my own education particularly when I know that I will spend 40-50K per year to acquire it. When I think of Harvard (or any Ivy for that matter), I think of a long standing reputation for excellence. I would be more comfortable with waiting a few years to ensure that some of the "kinks" are worked out before I dive head first in to someone's idea of improvement no matter how innovative the notion. Perhaps it is my conservative nature dominating here, but I find the first change "in more than 100 years" a little scary, especially since I did not know the old method was broken.
In sum, the article introduced an interesting development, but it did little to convince me that the change is indeed a good one.