Law School Education and Liberal CLE

In the fall of 2002, several organizations in the fields of law and legal education jointly sponsored the Second Indiana Conclave on Legal Education.1 The purpose of the meeting was to assess the status of legal education in the State of Indiana, both in law school and beyond; identify goals that could guide the improvement of legal education; and map out means to achieve those goals. Within this general framework, the Conclave emphasized issues relating to core values of the profession; more particularly, instilling and supporting them in the face of great changes in the profession and society. The Conclave sought to promote not just discussion but action, and it was organized to generate concrete proposals. One set of priority recommendations, of course, focused on ways to instill professional values in law students and new lawyers. Several other recommendations—not priorities, but important nonetheless—dealt with education after law school, including programs of continuing legal education. One of these recommendations urged a broadening of “what qualifies for continuing legal education credit to include enrichment activities, personal development courses, and public interest topics.

Success, Status, and the Goals of a Law School

We all want to be successful, even if we can’t quite articulate what “success” means. Some of us measure success by wealth—a bumper sticker reads, “Whoever dies with the most toys, wins.” Some measure success by power. Others measure it by positive influence on the lives of others—hence, the many who choose public service, or teaching, or a career in one of the helping professions. Still others—the Aristotelians among us—measure success synoptically, by the ability to look back on a fulfilled and moral life

The Architecture of Accreditation

Accreditation systems can be analyzed in terms of the designer’s choices in three dimensions. One dimension is purpose of accreditation, where purpose may relate to program quality or quality of outcomes. The second dimension consists of types of accreditation norms used to achieve these purposes. There are five principal types of norms available in this dimension: process-quality norms, output norms, power allocation norms, self-determination norms, and consumer-protection norms. The third dimension consists of degree of regulation, which includes prescriptiveness or extensiveness of regulation. A sound accreditation system will make choices along each of these three dimensions. Understanding the range of possible structures helps one design, revise, and effectively analyze accreditation systems

The Architecture of Accreditation

Accreditation systems can be analyzed in terms of the designer’s choices in three dimensions. One dimension is purpose of accreditation, where purpose may relate to program quality or quality of outcomes. The second dimension consists of types of accreditation norms used to achieve these purposes. There are five principal types of norms available in this dimension: process-quality norms, output norms, power allocation norms, self-determination norms, and consumer-protection norms. The third dimension consists of degree of regulation, which includes prescriptiveness or extensiveness of regulation. A sound accreditation system will make choices along each of these three dimensions. Understanding the range of possible structures helps one design, revise, and effectively analyze accreditation systems