Two-Year Law School? Northwestern says “Yes”
June 26th, 2008 by Jason MarksIn a monumental development in the world of legal education, Northwestern University Law School will offer, starting in 2009, an accelerated two-year JD program. The press release states that graduates of this program would have to take the same credit hours as the three year JD program, but would spend one summer taking courses and also mini-courses that shorten holiday breaks. Notably, the accelerated students would still have the same internship opportunities (not sure how this actually works yet).
Not surprisingly, initial reaction from legal academia has been negative. Law schools take three years for a reason — students need three years to adequately develop the skills necessary to be an able lawyer upon graduation. Recently, law schools have been criticized for a third-year that seems pointless to some students given the cost of tuition and the inability to go immediately into the job market. But the third year finds students studying serious core courses found on the bar exam, and allows for concentration in specialty areas that would be difficult to learn once in practice.
If a law degree takes as long as an MBA, how will the profession compare to other professions? Can a two-year terminal degree really carry the name “doctorate”? Interestingly, in medicine the trend to a shortened degree program never found a lot of steam. Six year programs are few, and they do not skimp on any of the medical requirements, just eliminate the liberal art component of the four-year undergraduate education. And of course once one passes the boards and graduates, the same rules apply for residencies. But a shortened law program does not seem to have the same built-in protections. Also, if law school takes only two years and costs less than it does currently, more people will want to become lawyers at a time when the profession regularly hears that it has too many lawyers (even though the needs of underserved populations continue to be unmet).
Will this be a good or bad development for the legal profession? Only time will tell. As a law school graduate, I think the three years has intrinsic value. I would like to see changes to the curriculum that benefit the industry in terms of training skills, but that to me seems like another reason for keeping the third year rather than eliminating it. It takes time to absorb the methodology and substantive components of law; shortening the time to complete that absorption must result in a loss somewhere comparatively, whether in knowledge, depth or opportunities. But perhaps Northwestern has found a way to meet all these current needs in a shorter but more intense two-year period. I certainly will withold judgment until I see the full details of the proposed plan (not to be released until Friday).
What do you think — is six-year law a good idea, given that we already have six-year med? Or is a two-year law degree insufficient for a variety of reasons? Share your thoughts!
July 25th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
As a graduate of a two year law school program, (perhaps the first in the nation), I think people should investigate before speaking. The SCALE program at Southwestern University School of Law is over 30 years old. There are many graduates of the program now at every level of the legal profession. The program emphasizes the connectivity of different aspects of the law that are usually separated in 3 year programs. It encourages students to think creatively. The program also offered more practical, hands-on training than is usually available in 3 year programs. The small class size (approximately 25 students who spend two years together) encourages interaction with professors (no place to hide as in a large lecture hall). The result, among other things, is that you hit the ground running when you graduate. You have already done many things that 3 year students do not experience until after law school. For instance, we attended oral argument on 3 cases that were before the California Supreme Court. The assignment: write an opinion as if you were a justice of the Court. The payoff: reading the Court’s published opinion and seeing how their thinking on the issues presented by the cases mirrored or differed from your own. Over the course of a class on property (possession and ownership), we were split into teams; the assignment: to negotiate the sale of a family owned property to a development company and get the best possible deal for your client. As the semester went on, each side was given additional information about what the purchaser and the seller wanted and what additional constraints had to be taken into account: environmental reports; the sale of mineral rights (which the family wanted to keep); restrictions on what the developer could build (the family wanted whatever was built to reflect on the family’s long term concern for the larger community), etc. And all with a drop-dead deadline. If the deal wasn’t completed (for whatever reason) both sides would receive failing grades. Great experience in negotiating; structuring a deal, etc. As part of the program I also spent 8 weeks, 40 hours or better a week, working with a federal judge’s clerks writing bench briefs. Passed the California bar on my first attempt and have never looked back. For someone like myself (beginning at new career at age 53), the two year as opposed to 3 year program just made good sense. A well run, well funded 2 year program with small classes and lots of hard work is just what the doctor ordered. 30 years as a clinical psychologist working in prisons and maximum security mental hospital made law school seem like a piece of cake. I think a two year program, especially for people with some real world experience avoids many of the problems that people foresee.