The past week’s reading has focused on the ‘what are law schools for?’ question. One of the main answers to this question- one that has featured heavily this week- is ‘to provide a liberal legal education.’
Now, this is something that in many ways I should be on board with. Independent inquiry, self-betterment, what’s not to like?
Well… sometimes I just find the whole approach a touch aristocratic. And when it’s not aristocratic it’s monastic. There’s a nod to issues of power and hierarchy, but all too often little follow up as to how this might affect the liberal enterprise itself. My inchoate opposition to the position comes from a feeling that it is too individualistic whilst at the same time trying to understand social issues.
Still, it’s challenging and interesting and I will no doubt get on to other approaches to teaching and studying law that will annoy me just as much…
I’ve also been working on the RDF planner, where the ‘love’ element of the relationship is…smaller. I fully appreciate the value of self-reflection, and know there are several areas where I need to develop, but… the RDF planner itself is so over-engineered it acts as a disincentive to the process. See also CILIP’s PKSB.
This week’s reading moves on to public legal education itself, starting with the PLEAS taskforce material, working towards a definition of PLE. More love in that I think!