Women and the Law School, 1970s–1980s

我國大學聯招第一類組近年來的熱門科系均為法律系包辦，但早期文法商科系的錄取分數多以法律系墊底。本文檢視民國69至85學年度第一類組中主要科系的排名變化，發現法律系的竄起並非逐年來平緩的調整，而是由民國73學年度聯招改制開始，及至74學年度連續的排名大幅向上跳躍所帶起，再接以歷年波動平緩的調整所達成，而文組科系以對應的反向方式調整，排名大幅下跌，這種排名的跳躍以私立大學最為劇烈。女性考生傳統上較易被區隔成讀文（乙)）組的最佳人選，舊制的乙丁分組聯招將性別「職業隔離」時間提前。數據顯示，新制聯招實施後，許多女性考生有捨文從法商的傾向，這也是法科志願前移及文科志願㆘降的主要動力，同時打破以往乙丁分組的「職業隔離」提前效果。

Over the course of an academic career spanning about 27 years, I have seen inside many different law schools. I undertook my initial legal training at the University of Canterbury Law School in Christchurch, New Zealand, between 1959 and 1962. I entered law school out of a country high school. In my first year, there was only one full-time academic member of staff, the balance of the instruction being undertaken mostly by young or struggling practitioners who required extra income. By the end of my degree, the school had inched up to three full-time academic staff. Moreover, many of the students were part-time, with students after their first or second year simultaneously clerking with local law firms. On moving to the University of Adelaide Law School in 1963, as a tutor while simultaneously undertaking an LL M by thesis, I encountered a law school which initially had six or seven full-time members of staff, with a great deal of practitioner instruction and much part-time study by students. By the end of my time at Adelaide in 1969, the Faculty had increased to perhaps 12 or 14 full-time staff members. On moving to the McGill Law School in Montreal in 1969, I encountered my first full-blown law school, with perhaps 25 full-time members of faculty and a full-time student body and national programmes offering degrees in both common and civil law, as well as a significant full-time graduate programme. On moving to the University of Toronto Law School in 1972, I joined what was perhaps regarded as the pre-eminent academic law school in Canada, with strong and proud traditions of innovation in legal education, although at that time afflicted with a degree of parochialism and complacency that was at variance with these traditions. During the ensuing 18 years at the University of Toronto, I took a leave at the University of Chicago law school in 1976 and was exposed for the first time to a law school with a strong commitment to interdisciplinary studies, especially, in my case, law and economics. A further leave at the Yale Law School in 1985 exposed me to an even broader range of theoretical and interdisciplinary perspectives on law. Both Chicago and Yale also have strong traditions of organised collegial forums for review of research work in progress. In the course of the last year, I have been associated with two law school reviews on a pending change of command: first, our own Law School and secondly the University of British Columbia Law School. And most recently, I have spent four weeks at the University of Melbourne Law School, revisited my first academic home, the University of Adelaide Law School and made brief visits to Monash and the University of Sydney law schools.

This article describes a student-led interprofessional mock trial designed to explore the legal and regulatory dimensions of pharmacy practice through collaboration between law students and pharmacy students at the University of Mississippi. Developed by the Interprofessional Education (IPE) Board, the mock trial provides an immersive learning experience that simulates real-world legal proceedings involving pharmacists. Students work in interdisciplinary teams to create original case files including fact patterns, deposition transcripts, and trial evidence - based on scenarios involving professional misconduct, medication errors, or regulatory violations. Faculty advisors from both the law and pharmacy school provide guidance to ensure accuracy and educational value. The mock trial involves multiple rounds judged by legal and healthcare professionals, offering students a dynamic platform to develop professional communication, critical thinking, and collaborative skills. Law students gain practical insight into healthcare law while pharmacy students deepen their understanding of legal accountability, compliance, and the stages of a professional liability lawsuit. This interdisciplinary mock trial approach can especially be beneficial to law schools and law students desiring practical skills in healthcare and malpractice litigation, given that - unlike medical schools' and pharmacy schools' clinical programs - law schools' courses involving medical liability issues frequently do not have a clinical component offering practical experience in malpractice litigation. In sum, this article offers a descriptive account of the mock trial, highlighting its structure, implementation, and replicability.

Managing Elites: Professional Socialization in Law and Business Schools. By Debra Schleef. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006. Pp. vii+243. $75.00 cloth; $26.95 paper. Reviewed by Robert Granfield, State of New York, Buffalo Much of the scholarship on legal education has sought to articulate how professional training in law school reproduces dominant ideas about existing social relations. Several researchers have been occupied with the power of the capitalist marketplace and the expansion of large law firms in relation to the idealism of law students. Not surprisingly, much of this research tends to focus on the fate of public interest idealism in law school. Missing from much of this work is a systematic analysis of how social class privilege, not just professional dominance, is reproduced within professional socialization. While the reproduction of social class privilege is implicit in much of the work on professional socialization, including my own, the bulk of this work has not been as attentive to the subject of social class reproduction as it perhaps could have. Herein lie the contributions of Debra Schleef's new book on professional socialization in law school and business school. In this book, Schleef presents an analysis of the formation of elites in which she investigates how these elites-in-training contest, rationalize, and ultimately enthusiastically embrace their dominant positions in society (p. 4). Data for Schleef's study are drawn from randomly selected law and business students entering University (a large elite and highly selective private university) in 1992. Interviews were conducted with 37 law students and 42 business students during their first year. Eighty-five percent of these respondents were reinterviewed in their second year of training. She also interviewed each of the deans and engaged in participant-observation of the formal and informal educational processes over the course of four years. In addition, Schleef distributed a survey to her sample in 2000, receiving completed questionnaires from 82 percent of her total sample. This follow-up survey collected data on job history, current employment, occupational goals, and marital status. Using these data, Schleef seeks to illuminate how the habitus of elite professional education contributes to the reproduction of social class privilege. As Schleef illustrates, student motivations for entering Graham reflect their elite social class background. A significant number of the students in Schleef's study indicate being from the uppermiddle or upper classes. She finds that students came to Graham primarily by default, not because they had a commitment to law or business but because of the cultural and social capital available through their entering an elite profession. As she notes, what appeared to students as a defaulted decision actually translates into class continuity. This social class privilege is also articulated in the expression of collective eminence among students that they are able to surmount the challenges and rigors associated with this elite academic environment (Granfield & Koenig 1992a). While most of these law and business students experienced some degree of anticipatory socialization related to the horrors of attending the school, Schleef suggests that such experiences actually serve to solidify elite social class status by reinforcing an ideology of meritocracy. By constructing a worst-case scenario about the challenges of professional education at Graham and then overcoming them, students come to accept the legitimacy of their own elite status without necessarily seeing their educational and future occupational achievements as being largely a function of their class privilege. However, part of elite training is to develop a consciousness that students have not really bought into the goals and values communicated through their elite educational experience. …

Over the past 50 years, law schools have seen an amazing increase in the diversity of its students. Minorities, women, and the foreign born now make up a significant percentage of those attending law school. However, law school education has changed little in reaction to the new kind of students it must educate. Law schools continue to use the casebook/Socratic method with some modifications at the edges for legal writing and clinics. While law schools have added minority offices, remedial classes, bar review courses, and academic support personnel, these efforts have not helped to the extent hoped.Many in legal education view the failure of a significant number of students as inevitable. However, this author believes that students from disadvantaged backgrounds can succeed in law school and become successful lawyers if law schools adopt new methods of instructing such students. In other words, the problem lies not in the lack of innate ability of our students, but how law schools deliver instruction to their students.First, law schools must change the mindsets of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many students at all levels believe that intelligence is fixed. Such a mindset prevents learning because it creates a defeatist attitude. Law schools need to instill a growth mindset in their students – that with effort and the proper approach any student that is qualified to enter law school can succeed in law school.Second, law schools should help motivate their students. Many students come to law school lacking the motivation to learn. Third, law schools must teach their students how to be metacognitive thinkers. Metacognition concerns thinking about thinking – controlling one’s cognitive processes. Fourth, law schools must help students from disadvantaged groups become self-regulated learners. Self-regulated learners are engaged learners, and they are fascinated by learning new things. Finally, law schools need to help students develop better study habits.

Practicing Medicine and Studying Law”: How Medical Schools Used to Have the Same Problems We Do and What We Can Learn from Their Efforts to Solve Them

This article addresses a growing imbalance in law school curricula and will be the first to document, through the author’s independent research, the degree to which schools are ignoring a call to cultivate students' professional formation and ethical decision-making. Two influential studies, one by the Carnegie Institute for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning in Educating Lawyers (Carnegie Report), and the other by the Clinical Legal Education Association in Best Practices for Legal Education (Best Practices Report), agreed on two deficiencies in legal education. One was the lack of lawyering skills course through which students could develop skills be the ready to practice once they leave school. The other, more pervasive critique, was that law schools were failing completely to cultivate students' professional formation and judgment. A recent ABA Survey of Law School Curricula showed a significant increase in skills and experiential courses. The survey was unclear on curricular efforts in law schools to address professional formation and sound judgment. By independently reviewing the published course offerings of every U.S. law school and tabulating data, the author demonstrates through that his findings show that most law schools are ignoring the recommendation to focus on students' professional formation and judgment. Since originally posting this article on SSRN, the author is in the process of gathering data through a survey of law schools to determine the extent to which law schools are employing educational methods designed to cultivate professional identity formation -- or what the Carnegie Report calls the Third Apprenticeship. The other development is that the original author's colleague and Co-Director of Regent University School of Law's Center for Ethical Formation and Legal Education Reform is assisting with the development of a survey instrument to determine data on teaching professional identity and will revised the article to reflect the findings of that empirical data. The results of the survey and the ultimate findings of this article will be presented at Regent Law Review's Symposium on Cultivating Professional Identity schedule for October 4, 2014. The Symposium's papers and proceedings will be included in the Regent Law Review's Symposium Issue (Spring 2015).Comparing law schools' response to the recommendation on skills with their lack of response to the recommendations on professional formation shows a clear lack of commitment in most law schools to addressing a deficiency that has significant implications. Both 2007 reports, through empirical studies and investigation, that the degree to which students learn what it means for them to be profession (and not some abstract concept of professionalism in general) has a direct link to the likelihood of effectiveness and satisfaction in practice. The article addresses the reasons that may be causing law schools' inertia, particularly the perception that teaching in this area is too difficult. The last third of the article provides concrete curricular efforts and teaching methods already employed in some law schools. In addition, the article examines methods from other professional schools and suggests specific methods to adapt these to law schools -- teaching methods that have not yet been used, but which should work as well in law school as they do, say, in medical school. Therefore, this article not only provides original data showing that a significant inadequacy in legal education is going unaddressed in most schools, along with clear recommendations for those schools that decide to implement professional formation on how to do so.

<table width="575" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="365"><p>The relationship between law and morals has become an academic and philosophical debate throughout the ages, especially in the schools of natural law and legal positivism. The school of natural law always relates law and morals in a close, inseparable relationship, like a coin. The law must contain moral values. Meanwhile, legal positivism clearly separates the relationship between law and morals. Thus the law is not at all related to morality, the problem of law contains moral values or not, not the substance and legal issues, the most important thing is that the law is made by a sovereign ruler. Law is separated from non-juridical elements, such as ethics, morals, politics, economics, sociology, and so on. In other words, the law is purified from something that is not law. With the very sharp differences between the two schools of law, the schools of natural law and legal positivism for hundreds of years have never agreed on the relationship between law and morals. Each has a paradigm, method, theory, and a strong philosophical basis in seeing the relationship between law and morals.</p><p><strong><em>Keywords: Natural Law, Legal Positivism, Law and Morals</em></strong></p><p> </p></td></tr></tbody></table>

<div><p>Most of the texts of <em>Shari'ah</em> came in the form of fundamental principles and general provisions. The texts are often general and flexible at a large extent, so that it would not be narrowed for the people. In addition, the texts, which encompass the partial and detailed provisions of <em>Shari'ah</em>, are drafted in such a way that can accommodate more than single understanding and particular interpretation. Consequently, this leads to the presence of multiple Schools and standpoints in the Islamic law. Nevertheless, all these Schools of law are right, based on the standard fundamentals, and derived from single source. Yes, these Schools may lead the nation to separation and dispersion if the followers were unaware of the issue of pluralism and ignorant about the reasons of disagreement among the scholars. This study discusses the essence of the Schools of Islamic law (<em>madhahib</em>) elucidating the fundamental nature thereof, and provides mechanisms and methodology to deal with these Schools, ensuring the peaceful coexistence among their followers. It might be understood that the intention here is to try to change the Schools and their stands to make them closer to each other. This is not intended and in fact this is not required. There should be respect for the autonomy of the Schools and their natures and standpoints. However, it is required to ensure that following these Schools is not based on the intolerance towards other Schools, or ignoring them, or attacking them. Rather, it remains within the framework of plurality of views and opinions without abusing the relationship of brotherhood and unity among Muslims. Thus, the aim must be here to work on the approximation among the followers of the Schools. This is because in principle these Schools are close to each other since they should be in accordance with the same fundamentals, while the dispute is limited to the corollaries and particulars. Nevertheless, it is not the aim here to abolish the Schools, or to remove the scholarly disputes, or to merge the Schools with each other, or to find a new School. Last but not least, the study aims to highlight the common features, and to respect the differences within the framework of emphasis on unity of the nation. This is further confirmed in sharing one view by multiple Schools regarding many particulars and subsequent issues. Hence, it is quite common to find single and same opinion that is adopted and advocated by more than one School of Islamic law.</p></div>

A Realistic Theory of Law (Book Review)

FOR more than a century, the dominant mode of pedagogy in American law schools has been the Socratic method, first introduced by Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell of Harvard Law School in the late 1800's. As long as the primary goal of law schools was to train students to like a lawyer, the dialogue-based Socratic method has served law schools fairly well.In recent years, however, law schools have faced increasing pressure to train students not only to think like lawyers but to behave and perform like lawyers. Particularly since the recession, clients have become increasingly unwilling to pay the hourly rates of recent law school graduates who often knew little about and were effectively being trained on the job. Legal employers, in turn, have become more reluctant to hire associates without experience. This has left new lawyers in classic Catch-22, and has put pressure on law schools to make students more practice-ready upon graduation, as well as offer post-graduate programs such as incubators, residencies, and fellowships to ease graduates' transition into the employment market.But the calls for reform in legal education long pre-date the recession. In 1992, the ABA's MacCrate Report1 made a variety of recommendations for narrowing the gap between law schools and the profession. And in 2007, two influential reports-commonly referred to as the Report2 and Best Practices3-exhorted law professors to infuse their teaching with practical skills and professionalism.In order to serve the needs of the next generation of law students as well as the changing needs of the legal profession, law schools must strengthen their ties to the practicing bar. And law school faculties, in turn, must strengthen their ties to practice. My own foray back into proved to be extremely beneficial; but it remains, unfortunately, an anomaly.I. The Limited Practice-Oriented Focus Among Law ProfessorsAlthough some institutions have embraced reform, law schools as a whole have been slow to change. This is due in part to the ostensible tension between a focus on practice and research:Like all professional schools, law schools are hybrid institutions. One parent is the historic community of practitioners, deeply immersed in the common law and carrying on traditional of craft, judgment, and public responsibility. The other heritage is that of the modern research university... [A]s American law schools have developed, their academic genes have become dominant.4Numerous lawyers and judges have criticized legal scholarship for becoming increasingly abstract and irrelevant to the modern practitioner.5 And survey evidence shows that law students want professors' teaching geared toward the realities of practice, and that practicing attorneys regret that they did not get better training in these areas while in law school.6To some extent, law schools can rely on part-time adjuncts or visitors to provide practical training and assign their full-time tenure-track faculty to traditional doctrinal courses. But the Carnegie Report rejects this division and urges schools to adopt an approach that integrates each aspect of the legal apprenticeship-the cognitive, the practical and the ethical-social.7The notion of an apprenticeship implies the presence of a master or expert to which one can be an apprentice. Not surprisingly, the reform literature has widely acknowledged that law professors can and should serve as models of competent and ethical lawyering.8The problem is, not only do most law professors not law, but many have not done so in a long time, if ever;9 they did so under fairly homogenous condi- tions-no more than several years doing mostly research and writing at a large firm;10 and they often did not particularly enjoy the experience (or else they would not have left to teach).11 Indeed, the current trend is to hire law professors with less practical experience than ever before. …

The Double Life of Law Schools

The lack of diversity in legal education and the profession is a well-established fact. Data and rich commentary from law school scholars clearly illustrate barriers to entry for historically underrepresented groups. Yet, we continue to see persistent gaps in law school and bar admission among ethnic minorities—particularly, Black and Latinx students. And although information on first-generation and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups is harder to obtain, we also find inequitable access for these students where data are available. Although discussions of law school diversity necessitate examination of students’ racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, they also require an analysis of the pathways students must navigate to obtain law school admission. Conceptually, the law school admission process is depicted as a single, linear and uniform path for all students; in reality, it is a series of paths that can lead to disparate outcomes depending on the student and the route taken. Observing these pathways and where they lead can help us better understand how students of all backgrounds come to access legal education, and how we might improve these paths to advance diversity and equity in law school admission and enrollment. At a time when our nation is embroiled in social unrest, racial injustice, and political discord, ensuring that law school graduating classes reflect the diversity of society is even more paramount. Utilizing data from the National Student Clearinghouse (“Clearinghouse”) and the American Bar Association (ABA), this paper describes undergraduate pathways to the J.D. and how those pathways lead to different law school destinations. We use Clearinghouse data to conduct a retrospective analysis of the 2017-2018 cohort of law students and graduates to examine their demographics, undergraduate majors, undergraduate institution types, and educational experiences before and during law school. To examine law school destinations, we utilize ABA data to categorize law schools based on first-time bar passage rates, scholarship generosity, law job placement, and student retention. Each school is scored based on its combined performance on these metrics, then grouped according to its relationship to the mean score. Hereafter, these law school groupings are described as follows: Above Average, Just Above Average, Just Below Average, and Below Average. Law schools that have since closed are grouped separately. Part I of the report disaggregates and summarizes the cohort by student demographics, pathways to law school, and law school destination. Part II examines law school destinations by student demographics and pathways. Finally, Part III discusses the results and their implications, offering suggestions for broadening pathways to law school and improving outcomes for underserved groups who successfully enroll.

Affirmative action is one of the central issues of American politics today, and admission to colleges and universities has been at the center of the debate. While this issue has been discussed for years, there is very little real data on the impact of affirmative action programs on admissions to institutions of higher learning. Susan Welch and John Gruhl in this groundbreaking study look at the impact on admissions of policies developed in the wake of the United States Supreme Court's landmark 1978 Bakke decision. In Bakke, the Court legitimized the use of race as one of several factors that could be considered in admissions decisions, while forbidding the use of quotas. Opponents of affirmative action claim that because of the Bakke decision thousands of less-qualified minorities have been granted admission in preference to more qualified white students; proponents claim that without the affirmative action policies articulated in Bakke, minorities would not have made the gains they have made in higher education. Based on a survey of admissions officers for law and medical schools and national enrollment data, the authors give us the first analysis of the real impact of the Bakke decision and affirmative action programs on enrollments in medical and law schools. Admission to medical schools and law schools is much sought after and is highly competitive. In examining admissions patterns to these schools the authors are able to identify the effects of affirmative action programs and the Bakke decision in what may be the most challenging case. This book will appeal to scholars of race and gender in political science, sociology and education as well as those interested in the study of affirmative action policies. Susan Welch is Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Professor of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University. John Gruhl is Professor of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Will the Income-Based Repayment Program Enable Law Schools to Continue to Provide 'Harvard-Style' Legal Education?