Yet another article summarizing the discussion about change in legal education, this time by Karen Sloan in the National Law Journal.
This one at least emphasizes the role that employers play in all of this. If they continue to just hire the "top" students from the "top" schools, they will hinder the reform they say is needed. Not addressed is how we need to finish our own curricular reform, and certify competency in certain areas before the employers are likely to change. That's something that isn't discussed much, but is needed.
What are the learning outcomes of your law school? Has your faculty articulated those? Most have not, but if yours has, what are you doing to measure achievment of those outcomes? Once we can say what it is that we are teaching our students, and have some measurement of how we are doing (other than the bar exam, which has its own issues), then we can demand that employers pay attention to our students, and allege with some authority that they are better prepared than the "top" students at the "top" law schools.