Becoming Gentlemen CL

Guinier argues here against what she calls ""one-size-fits-all"" legal education, which, given the lead author (Guinier is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and Clinton's one-time nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights) and the subject, should be interesting. Unfortunately, this is a lightly padded study conducted by the authors along with law students Ann Bartow and Deborah Lee Stachel. By analyzing the responses of 366 first-, second- and third-year U. of Pennsylvania law students (fairly evenly divided between genders), the authors argue that standardized tests may not identify who will become a good lawyer; that treating all students the same is not necessarily treating them all fairly; and that the present program of standardized tests and Socratic classroom instruction may not be what is best suited to the future needs of the legal profession, which may benefit more from teamwork and cooperation. This last point warranted a stronger argument to bolster the authors' call for less aggressive instruction. The survey results, too, would have been more persuasive had objective observation been added to the students' self-reporting and if the questionnaire had been applied to other law schools--particularly since the authors note that the relatively gender-neutral findings of a Stanford survey may be attributable to the ""distinctive environment of Stanford."" The converted may overlook some of these weaknesses, while the skeptical will be made more so by remarks from both students (""I really resent feeling like after I am laying out all of this money... I should be forced to participate"") and authors (""law schools fail to equalize the experience and outcomes for all law students across gender""). (Apr.)