Comments on: Be Careful What You Wish For http://bestpracticeslegaled.albanylawblogs.org/2008/12/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/ A Vision and a Road Map Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:24:42 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: ABA: Treat Students Like Human Beings « The Legal Satyricon http://bestpracticeslegaled.albanylawblogs.org/2008/12/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/#comment-641 ABA: Treat Students Like Human Beings « The Legal Satyricon Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:15:10 +0000 http://bestpracticeslegaled.wordpress.com/?p=615#comment-641 [...] Like Human Beings Vanessa Merton at the “Best Practices for Legal Education” blog gives us a view at the ABA’s “Best Practices” standards for legal education: Learn students’ [...] [...] Like Human Beings Vanessa Merton at the “Best Practices for Legal Education” blog gives us a view at the ABA’s “Best Practices” standards for legal education: Learn students’ [...]

]]> By: Mary Lynch http://bestpracticeslegaled.albanylawblogs.org/2008/12/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/#comment-616 Mary Lynch Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:38:44 +0000 http://bestpracticeslegaled.wordpress.com/?p=615#comment-616 I have two reactions to Professor Merton's provocative and comprehensive post. The first is - I think the spirit and call of Best Practices would suggest that we should oppose this change. There is no suggestion in Carnegie or BP that focusing on lower faculty-student ratio inhibits the preparation for the profession and practice. As Professor Merton explains BP applauds the kind of interasction with students that require a lower facutly student ratio. My second reaction will be the topic of my next post. Should we have ongoing "supplements" to BP which respond to the ongoing moves in legal education especially in difficult budget times. I have two reactions to Professor Merton’s provocative and comprehensive post. The first is – I think the spirit and call of Best Practices would suggest that we should oppose this change. There is no suggestion in Carnegie or BP that focusing on lower faculty-student ratio inhibits the preparation for the profession and practice. As Professor Merton explains BP applauds the kind of interasction with students that require a lower facutly student ratio. My second reaction will be the topic of my next post. Should we have ongoing “supplements” to BP which respond to the ongoing moves in legal education especially in difficult budget times.

]]> By: Roy Stuckey http://bestpracticeslegaled.albanylawblogs.org/2008/12/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/#comment-598 Roy Stuckey Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:22:57 +0000 http://bestpracticeslegaled.wordpress.com/?p=615#comment-598 Thanks, Vanessa, for bringing this to our attention. For all the reasons you suggest, I think we should oppose this change. In one sense, a mandatory student-faculty ratio is meaningless for accomplishing positive outcomes. A school could have a 5 to 1 ratio, but it would not guarantee a good educational experience if the faculty did not keep office hours, seek opportunities to spend time with students outside of class, or otherwise participate in law school community activities. Without some controls over student:faculty ratios, however, some schools will be tempted to become law degree factories with little regard to quality education. I remember when the interpretations were adopted that the people who accomplished that feat believed these were among the most important changes ever made to the standards. And they still allow law schools to operate with much bigger student:faculty ratios than other graduate education programs. I do not know where the impetus to delete the interpretations came from, but in the absence of alternative proposals that would better accomplish the objectives that mandatory student:faculty ratios are intended to support, I think the interpretations should stay put. Roy Thanks, Vanessa, for bringing this to our attention. For all the reasons you suggest, I think we should oppose this change.

In one sense, a mandatory student-faculty ratio is meaningless for accomplishing positive outcomes. A school could have a 5 to 1 ratio, but it would not guarantee a good educational experience if the faculty did not keep office hours, seek opportunities to spend time with students outside of class, or otherwise participate in law school community activities. Without some controls over student:faculty ratios, however, some schools will be tempted to become law degree factories with little regard to quality education.

I remember when the interpretations were adopted that the people who accomplished that feat believed these were among the most important changes ever made to the standards. And they still allow law schools to operate with much bigger student:faculty ratios than other graduate education programs.

I do not know where the impetus to delete the interpretations came from, but in the absence of alternative proposals that would better accomplish the objectives that mandatory student:faculty ratios are intended to support, I think the interpretations should stay put.

Roy

]]>