« on: April 08, 2008, 02:46:59 PM »
W&L > W&M
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Donwario,You're a fool.
Where did you get the idea that the 3L year will simply be playing gofer for a law firm? The 3L year will still be mostly in a classroom setting, just as it currently is. Although W&L is trying to brand this is some dramatic change, I really do not think it will be.
I think that some of the answers given by the W&L posters have been very misleading. When I asked whether the program allows for 3L's to opt out, Avicenna posted that it did. As it turns out, only the current students can opt-out, but ALL future students must submit to the new program as a 3L.
Now, this recent post by Lenny makes it seem as if the new curriculum is no big change and that 3L will still be mostly traditional classroom work. From all of the available articles, it seems that nothing could be further from the truth. Every article about the program identifies it as a radical change.
To get the truth, I went to W&L's own webpage:
-"The Washington and Lee University School of Law is embarking on a dramatic revision of its law school curriculum, entirely reinventing the third year"
-"Students will not study law from books or sit in classrooms engaging in dialogue with a professor at a podium. The demanding intellectual content of the third year will instead be presented in realistic settings."
When it comes to your school, it is fine to be an advocate. But I don't think it is right to sell prospective students a false bill of goods.
Does this plan allow 3L's to opt-out if they wish and take regular electives as a 3L?
Upset that you were Rejected Mr. Bruinbro?So, getting back to some of the original points, the school will be hiring the same kinds of professors who will be able to engage in the traditional scholarship on their area of expertise, as well as maybe some new stuff.
I doubt it. Unless they leave the third year teaching in the hands of adjuncts, the new focus on professionalism and practice will require that they hire a whole new set of "practice-oriented" professors. Either way, this will turn off elite faculty. It will also turn off elite faculty that they can only teach law electives to 2L's. As odd as it sounds, the most influential law professors are generally not interested in or familiar with "practice". They care about scholarship and academia.
This is very true. If anything, this move by W&L goes away from what top law schools are doing. Interdisciplinary studies, economics and the law, and PhD/JD programs are what top schools have been focusing on and also what attracts the best faculty. While the top 6 schools rule the roost in these areas, you can see efforts by the top 25 schools (especially at Vanderbilt, WUSTL, UCLA, and Illinois) to compete.
What W&L is doing parallels more with the kind of practical legal instruction being offered at schools like Northeastern and Drexel. Lesser schools have used legal practice to distinguish themselves in competitive markets, but W&L sould not need to do this. I find it very odd and perilous that a school of W&Lís stature is doing this.
Whoa, you patently did not read what I said from the way you describe what I said. I NEVER said liberal art colleges were not as "prestigious" (which if you go back to my comments was a word I thought had no meaning in the first place) as research universities. I responded to an argument that liberal arts research universities were somehow more prestigious than research universities by saying I didn't think they were. Of course a lot of state school are research universities, I went to the University of Maryland, just such a state school. In general what I meant by research universities was what USNEWS calls "National Universities."
As to you second point, I absolutely never said they were not, I merely said I didn't think they were more "prestigious" because they were liberal arts schools. They may be just as prestigious because they have top students, top faculty, and are wealthier, I merely said there is no a causal connection with being more prestigious and being a liberal arts school.
Seriously as I get to your point, I am really starting to get annoyed. Where did I say quality of education is only relevant to undergrad. I merely said that if you assume liberal art schools educate better and respect their graduates more because you think they are better educated you would probably be sophisticated to know that doesn't necessarily extend to the law school associated with the school.
As for your fourth post, you act like when you responded me to my post, I was the one who brought up the liberal arts thing. I wasn't I was responding to a post two posts ahead of mine. I was responding to their argument. Plus as a third year law student I truly find it odd that you talk about quality of education in law school and some people receiving a better education. Almost all law school use the same teaching methods to teach the same material. Almost all law schools have comparably sized classes and almost all law schools of similar rank have about the same quality faculty. There are slight variations and W&L has an especially good reputation for their student faculty, but be honest, law school is law school and the education is pretty similar no matter where you go to school. The same is not at all true for undergrads.
I disagree...I was thinking I'd go to W&M but then I got accepted to W&L. W&L is ranked better at 25th compared to W&M at 31, but I'm having trouble figuring out why!? The salaries listed on US News are a lot lower than W&M, and the acceptance numbers are about the same. W&L doesn't seem like it belongs with Fordham and Illinois, maybe not even with W&M. Is there something I'm missing?
Yes, you're missing something. Over the last 13 years, W&L's average rank is 20.6 and W&M's is 30.4.
That doesn't really matter. These are peer schools that feed into similar markets. W&M actually sends a slightly higher percentage of the class to biglaw, and there is really no significant prestige gap here.
I think Lenny's contention is that top 10% at W&L is not at a disadvantage when compared to a UVA median graduate. The raw numbers don't do anything to help the argument in favor of UVA median > top 10% at W&L, because we have no idea where those grads placed in their class. Due to the sheer size of the UVA class (375!), there are 95 top 25% graduates per year. That could easily account for all those listed by BruinBro for the DC firms, especially since UVA is known for sending a lot of their (best) grads to DC.TITCR.
It's entirely a negative argument at this point, but that's only because the initial posit hasn't been defended in a while.