Advice for Erwin Chemerinsky

This was a good week for me because Erwin Chemerinsky accepted the deanship at UC Irvine.  I have never met Erwin and, beyond his excellent reputation as a scholar, have no special knowledge of his skills and abilities.   But UC Irvine had (and once again has) it all: brand, in-state tuition, location, resources, and a whistle clean slate.  When the UC system hired and fired him all in the course of week, I was convinced that the last, best chance to do something truly unique in legal education--with a reasonable shot a success and wider influence--had been destroyed. 

Amidst the enormous national attention generated by the Chemerinsky episode (see roundup of coverage, see here.), Paul Caron and I want to use this moment to generate and publicize the best ideas about reforming legal education from some of the leading thinkers in the law school world. Next week, TaxProf Blog will begin posting the answers of university presidents and provosts, and law school deans, faculty, students, and career planning professionals, to this question:

What is the single best idea for reforming legal education you would offer to Erwin Chemerinsky as he builds the law school at UC-Irvine?

Each contribution will be limited to no more than 250 words (no exceptions).  Although we are soliciting contributions, I would be happy to consider unsolicited postings, particularly from students and practicing lawyers.  You can email me here (no guarantees, however, that Paul and I will use it).

Comments

[generic viagra]

What a great advice...Erwin knows exactly what to do

[lkhjkjhhsfd]

Cut the cost of legal education by either: (1) getting rid of the third year or (2) turning the third year into some sort of supervised internship, with tuition reduced or eliminated.

Everyone wants to aid public sector and government lawyers. Well one great way to do that would be to cut the cost of legal education so that law school students don't graduate with three figures of debt. Let's be honest; the third year of law school is pedagogically worthless. There are three reasons that we haven't eliminated it yet---doing so would threaten the jobs of professors, would diminish the prestige of the JD relative to the MBA, and would lower barriers to entry to the legal profession---and if we are honest with ourselves, we'll realize that none of these arguments are motivated by the desire to serve the public good.