Law Schools don’t like learning outcomes, either

I earlier had marked an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education for comment, and then put it aside under the pressure of other events.  However, it goes so well with yesterday’s post that I thought I should comment briefly on it now. The headline of the article of interest reads

Law Schools Resist Proposal to Assess Them Based on What Students Learn

It seems that the American Bar Association (ABA) is proposing to change some of its accreditation criteria:

Instead of judging law schools primarily on "input" measures, such as faculty size and library holdings, the proposed revisions would look more at "outcome" measures, such as what students are actually learning.

Horror! What follows in the article are a number of quite suspect arguments from deans regarding why the ABA should not make such a radical change, e.g.

“Given the fragility of the legal profession and the fragility of law-school finances, it's a tough time to think about taking on a major process of assessment," Lauren K. Robel, dean of Indiana University's Maurer School of Law, said during an interview here.

Another argued it would be a mistake to make changes at a time when the legal landscape is in such flux.

And of course, the usual favorite:

"It is worth pausing to ask how the proponents of outcome measures can be so very confident that the actual performance of tasks deemed essential for the practice of law can be identified, measured, and evaluated," said Robert C. Post, dean of Yale Law School.

I would suggest that in times of “fragility of legal profession”, and “legal landscape is in such flux”, it is critical to begin to understand what students are actually learning.  Otherwise, there is no hope of making changes in curriculum that will reflect the evolution of the field. Now, when changes in the profession are occurring, is the time to start. There is little pressure for educational change when everything is going well. 

Obviously, Dean Post is right at one level. There is no off-the-shelf listing of learning outcomes needed to practice law, nor are there likely to be obvious ways of measuring those outcomes when they are identified.  Isn’t it fascinating that we know so little about the utility of what we charge so much to teach, and we use that very ignorance as an excuse not to learn about the utility of what we do?  Nope, now is the time to start learning about the various outcomes needed to successfully practice the law, and developing the means to measure those outcomes – and who better to do that than the law schools themselves?  Would they prefer that some outside agency do it instead??

Having fought the ABA for years on their use of input criteria, I find it amazing to find myself on the same side as the organization at last. Wonders will never cease!  However, the origin of these fights may also say why many of the deans are so opposed. The old ABA accreditation, based on such inputs as faculty size and library holdings, has been one of the major levers used by law school deans against their administrations in their efforts to inflate their budgets. 

Comments

[Marla]

I find myself on the same side of the ABA. I agree, too. Law school is far too expensive to ONLY teach "thinking skills". Lawyers should get practical education, that will allow them to hit the ground running after law school.