I have the sense that law schools (at least in the top tier) have pretty much abandoned the traditional metrics of merit--grades, class rank, law review, clerkships, practice experience--in favor of PhD credentials, visiting assistant professorships, and scholarship in rookie hiring. A few of my colleagues and I have been debating this trend, which (you will probably have guessed) I deplore.
The Trend
I am not sure why it happened, but top tier law schools have significantly expanded their course offerings and faculty dedicated to interdisciplinary theory, often to the detriment of those with practical relevance. Maybe it was the interdisciplinary inroads by the law & economics and the critical legal theorists. Maybe it was seen as a way to climb the US News rankings. Maybe it was a desire to avoid being treated as second tier citizens by university colleagues in other disciplines where PhDs and peer reviewed scholarship are the coin of the realm. But whatever the reason we now live in a world in which many (most?) law professors concentrate on areas that appear to have minimal direct relevance to the practical responsibilities students will face after graduation.
This is bad for both law schools and graduate schools. Like Judge Harry Edwards, "I see no reason why law professors should write mediocre economics, or philosophy, or literary criticism, when arts and sciences professors could be doing a better job," while getting paid a lot less than law professors.
Alignment with Legal Education Objectives
In contrast, I contend that the traditional metrics directly relate to the practice of law. Academic credentials like grades and class rank reflect a candidate’s ability to excel in the rigorous and analytical environment of law school—a precursor to the professional challenges students will face.
Clerkships and practice experience provide firsthand insight into the legal profession, making candidates better equipped to prepare students for careers in law. This aligns with the primary purpose of law schools: training practitioners who can succeed in courts, law firms, and public service. Remember, law school is a professional school. It is not a graduate school.
Practical Expertise Over Academic Theory
While Ph.D. credentials and academic scholarship demonstrate a deep engagement with theoretical aspects of law, they do not always translate into the practical knowledge that students require. Legal education benefits from professors who can teach through their lived experiences in practice, such as case strategy, courtroom demeanor, and real-world problem-solving. These skills are honed through practice, not necessarily through theoretical research.
Credibility and Authority in Legal Education
Faculty who have excelled in traditional legal metrics are often more relatable and credible to students. For instance, professors who have clerked for prestigious judges or succeeded in high-pressure legal roles can inspire students by exemplifying attainable goals within the profession. Law schools enhance their reputation by showcasing faculty who have demonstrated mastery in traditional benchmarks recognized by the broader legal community.
Risk of Disconnect from Practical Realities
Overemphasis on Ph.D. credentials and academic publication risks fostering a faculty less engaged with the day-to-day realities of legal practice. This could widen the gap between academia and the profession, resulting in graduates who are less prepared for the actual demands of legal work.
I am reminded here of Judge Edward's lament over “the growing disconnect between legal education and the legal profession,” arguing that “many law schools . . . have strayed from their proper role by prioritizing abstract theory over practical scholarship and teaching.” I stand with Judge Edwards in believing that law "schools should be training ethical practitioners and producing scholarship that judges, legislators, and practitioners can use," not junior graduate students.
The point is not that we should return to some pre-Realist focus on doctrine. Again, I refer to Judge Edwards, who wrote that "a good 'practical' scholar gives due weight to cases, statutes and other authoritative texts, but also employs theory to criticize doctrine, to resolve problems that doctrine leaves open, and to propose changes in the law or in systems of justice. Ideally, the 'practical' scholar always integrates theory with doctrine." Hence, as I have written before:
Judge Harry Edwards remarked: “Theory wholly divorced from cases has been of no use to me in practice.” My practice experience confirmed that criticism, at least as long as we put strong emphasis on the phrase “wholly divorced.” Theory brought to bear on specific legal issues often can be quite illuminating, as I hope to have illustrated at least from time to time.
Traditional Metrics Reflect Core Competencies
Metrics like class rank and clerkships capture competencies critical to legal success: analytical rigor, legal writing skills, and the ability to synthesize complex information. These competencies are also the foundation of effective teaching and mentorship in legal education.
Conclusion
By focusing on traditional metrics, law schools maintain their commitment to fostering a practice-ready generation of lawyers while ensuring a close connection between legal education and the profession’s practical realities.
