The Future of Legal Education
Much of our discussion so far has been focused on transforming the current business structure of our profession, and rightfully so. It appears that the traditional business model that governs the way the majority of the legal industry operates is losing its appeal to both clients and prospective lawyers. Although that discussion is important, there are other aspects about the future of our profession that require our attention. What has eluded us so far has been a thorough discussion about the future of legal education, especially with respect to the admission requirements for attending law school in Canada. Don’t worry, I’m not talking about the L word.
Instead, I wanted to focus on the admission requirement of having at least 2 years (with most schools requiring more) of undergraduate studies under your belt before being able to apply to law school in Canada. In fact, “[w]ith the exception of students in Québec, the majority of successful applicants will have completed an undergraduate degree” before attending law school (CBA Report p. 54). I never really gave this much thought until I attended a panel discussion on the CBA Futures Report at the TRU Law Conference last year. Having now had the opportunity to reflect on what I have learned, I can say that there are compelling reasons for getting rid of this “undergraduate studies” requirement.
Getting Rid of the Undergraduate Studies Requirement
Pros:
(1) Removing Financial Barrier to Joining the Profession
The undergraduate studies requirement inarguably acts as a gatekeeper to the profession. The reality is that requiring candidates to have completed at least some (if not all) undergraduate studies creates a financial barrier to acquiring an already expensive degree. This added expense can greatly “affect diversity in the profession, discouraging people with limited means from applying.” (CBA Futures Report p.54) Not to mention that this added cost increases student debt, which can consequently affect the price of legal services in the future. Removing the undergraduate requirement will eliminate a financial cost that acts as a barrier to the entry of the profession.
(2) Time
This requirement also “means that prospective lawyers must invest their time in both an undergraduate degree and a law degree before entering the workforce.” This often means that students will be in their mid to late 20s upon graduation. The time that is required to have a family will be at odds with the time young lawyers must invest in the early, and most important, stage of their career. The CBA report stated that “[t]hose who do take leave from work for parenting reasons find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with their non-parenting colleagues.” This particularly affects women since they have to go through pregnancy and are often the primary care takers of their children. They are then put in the unenviable position of choosing between having a family or an uninterrupted career so to not negatively affect their odds of advancement.
Cons:
(1) Maturity, Preparedness and Competence
The most common reason as to why people advocate for keeping this requirement is simply the argument that completing some undergraduate studies will mature you and prepare you for law school, which in turn makes you a more competent lawyer. This conclusion is somewhat misguided. While they often correlate, prior education, in and of itself, is not a proxy for maturity, success in law school or a good indicator to predict competency as a lawyer. Although I can’t deny that I’ve mentally matured (hopefully my friends and family would agree) in the years I spent doing my undergrad, I don’t necessarily think education was the only factor. Indeed, I think that maturity is derived, not just from education, but also various life and employment experiences that occur outside of a classroom. While I will also admit that being in a research and writing heavy undergraduate program has assisted me in law school, I don’t necessarily think that is what is going to determine whether I will become a competent lawyer. There are many students who did not complete a research and writing heavy undergrad who have excelled not only in law school, but also in the legal profession. Indeed, so much of being a good lawyer depends on skills that you simply cannot learn or develop in a classroom setting. In fact, the CBA Futures report identified “creativity, empathy, adaptability, resilience, and breadth of perspective” as useful criterion for predicting future competency as a lawyer (CBA Report P.54). This is precisely why more schools are implementing a more “holistic” approach to admission. So, in short, it would be imprudent to equate education prior to law school with maturity, performance in law school or competency as a lawyer. As a last point, I would simply point to our “commonwealth colleagues” where students can attend law school straight out of high school. The legal profession in countries such as England and Australia do not seem to be suffering as a result.
(2) Over-saturation of the Market
Finally, some would argue that removing the undergraduate requirement would result in an increase number of law students, which in turn would over-saturate the market. This is a false conclusion. Removing the undergraduate requirement does not increase the number of law students, though it may increase the number of applicants. The effect of having more applicants would simply be increasingly higher standards for entry as a result of increased competition.
We are constantly looking for ways to remove barriers to justice and legal services, yet we have overlooked the barriers that prevent entry into our own profession. A good place to start would be re-evaluating the admission criteria currently being used by Law Schools across Canada.
Niki, you make some valid points (Also great use of headings). I think this would especially help those ambitious people who know right out of high school that they want to be lawyers.
I do, however, think that the 4 years of my undergraduate degree helped with my maturity and understanding of work ethic. However, I think your points are valid and that an in-depth interview process for admission would help weed out those who are not as serious about law school. I also think a holistic approach, similar to TRU, would help to find balanced individuals with drive. But this may also require at least one year in university so that an academic evaluation can be made, and so that those who did not do as well in high school can redeem themselves.
Thanks for the comment Harman! I think your point about work ethic is a valid one. I think (as most would probably agree) there is a huge discrepancy between the amount of work in high school vs university, and even between undergrad and law school. It’s nice to be transitioned into it as opposed to being thrown into the deep end. That being said, I still think that the reasons for getting rid of the undergrad requirement outweigh the reasons for keeping it. Indeed, having to adjust to the work load seems like an insignificant cost in comparison to the financial + opportunity costs associated with needing to complete an undergraduate degree.
I believe that having some undergraduate experience should remain necessary for those who wish to attend law school. I do understand that law school is not like medical school or other post-graduate programs where a student obtains the introductory and background information through their undergraduate studies, making undergrad necessary. However, the time a student spends in their undergraduate degree does in fact help shape their future career path. I believe that a lot of law students did not know that they wanted to attend law school when they were applying for universities in high school (I know I didn’t). Undergrad introduces students to a wide variety of faculties thus allowing them to experience various programs and take courses in areas that might interest them. This could potentially lead to students choosing career paths that they would have never thought of in high school (which might be law school for some people).
Also, having an undergrad degree can act as fall back for those who attend law school but decide to drop out after a year or two. A counter-argument to your time argument could be that having an undergraduate degree can help save time for those who decide, for any reason, not to complete law school. I would not be surprised if the number of students who drop out of law school (in the UK and Australia) is greater in those who have come straight from high school than those who entered with an undergraduate degree. This means that they are essentially starting over and have just wasted a couple years. If they had an undergrad degree, they might have been more confident and in a better situation to make the decision to go to law school.