Kerr exposes the absurdity of Chemerinsky and Menkel-Meadow's NY Times op-ed on law school "reform." I understand that Chemerinsky needs to justify the utterly unnecessary law school he started, but as Kerr argues, their proposed reforms make no sense:
Chemerinsky and Menkel-Meadow offer these suggestions in part to make the case for a third year of law school. But a lot of students are looking to practice in areas that don’t deal with the crucial issues of our time and don’t aim to solve global social problems. If those students would prefer not to pay another $50k in tuition to take those classes, why should the law schools mandate a third year of school just to give students an opportunity they don’t want?
If business schools can turn out qualified executives in two years, why can't law schools turn out qualified lawyers in 2 years? For that matter, why is law taught in a graduate school instead of as an undergraduate major?