Top Five Objections To The New HLS 1L Curriculum

For those of you who haven't heard, the faculty of Harvard Law School unanimously passed (an incredible feat in and of itself for which Dean Elena Kagan deserves great praise) an overhaul of the 1L curriculum. It is the first major change to the curriculum in over a century. The changes are as follows:
- A new course in statutory and regulatory law and policy
- A new course in legal problem solving, to be conducted during a month-long winter term
- A choice among three new courses in various topics pertaining to international law
- Shortening (but not eliminating) the five traditional doctrinal courses: civil procedure, contracts, torts, property, and criminal law

I applaud the ambition of the faculty and a willingness to break the mold. I also applaud the addition of a statutory law class, seeing as how it reflects the realities of the modern legal state, where judicially-created common law has been in many places supplanted by statutory law. It will be a tremendous foundation for students wishing to take specialized regulatory law classes. It will also teach 1L's the canons of statutory interpretation -- an important topic conspicuously absent from the current curriculum.

However, I would like to raise five objections, some of which are admittedly more valid than others, and some of which are based merely on my skepticism.

1. Too much to handle
As the plans currently stand, these three new courses will be added to the existing curriculum of five doctrinal courses, two semesters of Legal Research and Writing, and a second-semester upper-class elective. Eleven classes over the school year is a lot. Don't tell me that the doctrinal classes will be less intense, since they'll only be three credit hours instead of five. There's really not that much difference in the amount of work an a weekly basis. (The doctrinal classes now are five credit hours, but only meet for four hours a week, making up the extra time by running two or three weeks longer than the rest of the courses. While the total class hours won't rise, I believe that mastering a lot of material on three subjects is easier than mastering slightly less material on five subjects.

2. Why include international law?
I really don't believe international law is such an important part to being a well-rounded lawyer. It is true that the economy is becoming increasingly globalized. However, only a small fraction of America's law school grads will go on to pursue jobs where they are working with companies that transcend international frontiers. Granted, this percentage is much higher at a place like Harvard, where most of the graduates go on to work in large, corporate firms, but still, not everyone should go that route. Instead of making it a requirement, it should be a strongly recommended but still optional upperclass elective.

3. What to drop?
Frankly put, I don't trust the professors who teach doctrinal subjects to effectively parse their course in order to fit in into a shorter timeframe. The tendency is always to teach the same amount of material, just more quickly. I would nominate all the extra-judicial policy analysis and the lessons on antiquated and obsolete precedent (Pennoyer v. Neff, anyone?) as candidates for ejection. Teach me what the law is, but don't waste my time teaching me why the law is the way it is. The problem is that most professors enjoy the policy analysis much more than the actual doctrine, so I suspect it will be hard for them to let go.

4. Tradi-tion!
At the conclusion of my first year, I read One-L by Scott Turow, which detailed his exploits as a student at HLS back in the 1970's. Aside from the fact that civil procedure and contracts were cut from a full year to a semester, his curriculum was exactly the same as mine: five doctrinal classes, Legal Writing, First-Year Ames Moot Court, second semester elective, and exams in January. As best I understand, it's been largely the same thing since the 19th century. I honestly believe that the common ordeal through which all HLS grads navigate binds us together across generations. With the revised curriculum, that unity is threatened.

5. No post-Christmas finals
Most students would not list this item as a complaint, but I do. When my first semester concluded, I had three full weeks to review my materials, make my outlines, do practice exams, and get ready for my first go at exams. Law school exams are a scary thing, and while I believe I overprepared in many instances, I'd rather have had too much time than not enough. There was no need for me to start my exam prep while classes were still in session. I could wait for the instruction phase to end before the review phase began. Next year's 1L's will not have that luxury. Some would claim that having exams on your mind when you're at home during the Christmas holidays is a drag. I didn't care because I'm Jewish and I'm already at home, so I had nothing to be spoiled. I need to hear more about this January Legal Problem Solving course before I pass judgment on it, but I have a sneaky suspicion it would fit in much better if it were integrated with Legal Research and Writing (call the combined course Legal Methods) than if it were to stand on its own.