About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

60 Vand. L. Rev. 597 (2007)
A Case for Another Case Method

handle is hein.journals/vanlr60 and id is 609 raw text is: A Case for Another Case Method Todd D. Rakoff and Martha Minow* American legal education is pretty good. Generally speaking, it is rigorous, and generally speaking, students learn a lot. After three years in law school, students usually leave not only with knowledge of specific legal materials, but also with the sharp analytic skills and ability to work in existing legal institutions that people expect from lawyers. But our society is full of new problems demanding new solutions. Less so than in the past-less than in the 1930s and less than in the 1960s-are lawyers inventing those solutions. Much of the action is moving to graduates trained in other disciplines and professions, such as economics, political science, and business. In our view, the stodginess of American legal education is partly to blame. The plain fact is that American legal education, and especially its formative first year, remains remarkably similar to the curriculum invented at the Harvard Law School by Christopher Columbus Langdell over a century and a quarter ago.1 Invented, that is, not just before the Internet, but before the telephone; not just before man reached the moon, but before he reached the North Pole; not just before Foucault, but before Freud; not just before Brown v. Board of Education, but before Plessy v. Ferguson. There have been modifications, of course; but American legal education has been an astonishingly stable cultural practice. We leave to others in this Symposium the task of giving an adequate historical and sociological account of the persistence of the Landellian case method. As professors interested in how curriculum is shaped, and how it could potentially be reshaped, we instead ask a structural question: What is it in the design of Langdell's case method * Respectively Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. We appreciate, and have profited from, the comments of our colleague Scott Brewer. 1. That method itself echoed medieval casuistry. See generally ALBERT R. JONSEN & STEPHEN TOULMIN, THE ABUSE OF CASUISTRY: A HISTORY OF MORAL REASONING 8-11, 16-332 (1988). 597

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most