Harvard Law's Curricular Reform: 3 Years In

Several years ago, under the stewardship of then-dean Kagan and then-professor-now-dean Minow, Harvard Law School made a significant change to its first year curriculum. Different portions were phased in at different times, but this will be the third full year of it all being in place, so I thought it would be a good opportunity to discuss the reforms. Unlike the Langdellian Socratic method that was also started at Harvard, I have seen less copying of our reforms. That may be that others do not think it a good idea, but I suspect it is more to do with the fact that this was a resource intensive change (adding an additional 21 professors needed to teach 1Ls) that was implemented at a moment where most schools are facing economic woes.

Here is the reform in a nutshell:

The typical Harvard 1^st year courses (Civ Pro, Contracts, Torts, Property, Criminal Law) were all dropped from 5 credit hours a week to 4 credit hours.  An additional 4-credit class entitled “Legislation and Regulation,” which largely combines a course in legislation/statutory interpretation with parts of administrative law was added.  In addition, a 4-credit international/comparative law elective was required and added to the first year curriculum. Students choose from a menu of seven classes for 1Ls with foci such as private international, public international law, international humanitarian law, an comparative law (China, for example).  Last, and most recently, we moved our finals into the fall and now give the 1Ls a winter (or J-) term class called “Problem Solving Workshop,” which is taught intensively over 13 week days. Each day the students are given a problem, and in small groups have a day or two to solve it and submit work product as a group. While some of the problems are focused on litigation, others are things like dealing with public relations and media, negotiating, and other skills. The next day the students re-assemble, debrief and consider how different groups dealt with the problem, and start a new problem. The course is pass/fail. Once in the middle of the class and once at the end the students meet with practicing lawyers to test their proposed solutions against the practical realities as the lawyers see it.

Students also take a regular elective in the spring.

Here is my internal sense of how these have been received, but one reason why I want to post about it is to get feedback from those of you in the world out there who have seen our students under the new curriculum and their performance.

The "leg-reg" class (as it is nicknamed) has been an unabashed success. The students like it a lot, it has generated a new textbook geared to it, and it remedies an embarrassing intellectual lacuna in the first year where we asked students to imagine the administrative state did notexist. I have also seen it pay dividends in Civ Pro, where the students are much more sophisticated about statutory interpretation. I think this reform would make sense for any law school.

The international law classes have caused many more of our students to consider ways in which their career might relate to the global legal order, in jobs both inside and outside the U.S. The split between international and comparative law has meant that the students get very different experiences depending what they opt for, but it has also had the positive impact of introducing our students to other students outside of their section. I think the reform made a lot of sense for Harvard because many of our students will need to know something about international law in the jobs they go into, but perhaps not as much sense for schools whose graduates will face different career interests and opportunities.

Problem solving workshop is the newest to be implemented and I am not sure I have sufficient data yet to comment. The class is nicely responsive to concerns raised by the Carnegie report, and the view that our students were excellent on their own but could use more opportunities to hone their teamwork skills since that is much more the reality of legal practice today. Some of the problems also get our students out there into the real world. The nature of the course means its success will turn a lot on who teaches it. Joe Singer and Todd Rakoff designed the course and are deeply invested in it, as are the other teachers who basically give up their lives for the winter term and meet themselves as a team to debrief each day. In less skilled or invested hands, though, I could see this being much less successful.

Well that is all good news. What is the downside?

First, the reform has been very resource intensive. We now need 42 (7 classes of 7 sections) faculty members just to teach the first years, which is almost half of our faculty. At a period in time where we have reduced the number of visitors, this has also created logistical difficulties in making sure the right people can teach at the right times. It also requires a lot more space to teach in, which will hopefully be remedied when our new building opens soon.

Losing a credit in each of the original classes has been a drag, in that most folks have really dropped only half a credit worth of coverage and thus are cramming in more to a shorter time frame.  Add an additional exam each semester, and it means our students are working harder than ever. Now some of that tension has been relieved by pairing this reform with our grade reform, but I have to say I see more and more of our students looking tired than I did before. Still, while I am not sure the students view it this way, given that the price of matriculating a 1L has not dramatically increased and we have added substantially to what the students learn, we seem to be offering much more bang for the buck than we did just a few years back.

So that is the insider’s perspective. But I am curious what the outside world thinks….