Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

C

(4) The highest attainments fall almost entirely within the group; i. e., 2 per cent of the H group and 10 per cent of the C group come above the 90 per cent grade.

What inferences may here be drawn? Looking at the youths at their point of entrance to the school, this table would seem to justify prophesying to them:

(a) "If you are of extraordinary capacity for legal science, i. e., belong to 6 persons in 100, there is only one chance in six

TABLE Q 3.-Median value, plotted.

30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69%

[graphic]

that you will develop that capacity to its best unless you first
go to college; and two years of college will be only one-quarter
as good for you as four years."

(b) "If you are of little or no capacity for legal science, i. e.,
belong to 4 persons in 100, there is every chance that you will
at least develop some modicum of capacity if you go to college."

(c) "But if you belong to the vast majority, i. e., to 90 persons in 100, there is no certainty that going to college will develop materially your capacity for legal science; there are merely 76

[ocr errors]

against 56 chances that you will develop high average powers if you have them, instead of fair average powers."

CONCLUSION.

Looking over these four tables, we return to consider the original argument which was set for empiric investigation, viz.: That a college education is essential to that scholarship which is needed for the scientific study and mastery of the law, and, therefore, should be required for entrance. The inferences which seem to be justified may be thus stated:

1. For developing the very highest powers, a college education is essential. Whether two years of it is as efficient, relatively or absolutely, as four years of it, does not fully appear.

2. For developing the very lowest powers, a college education is essential.

3. For developing ordinary and high powers, a college education has, in some aspects, the chances in its favor; but, on the whole, and for the vast majority of men, it appears not to be essentially different in its results in legal scholarship.

But,

4. These inferences are based on the observation of a single school and a limited number of students, hence are provisional only, in any aspect; and,

5. In view of their significance if found to be universally true, they should be tested on as large a scale as possible before any policy is adopted for which their correctness or incorrectness has any important bearing.

EDUCATION PREPARATORY TO A UNIVERSITY LAW

SCHOOL COURSE.

BY

HARRY PRATT JUDSON,

PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.

The state has seen fit to prescribe certain conditions precedent to the practice of some professions, especially the professions of medicine and law. In each case it may be supposed that these requirements are laid down primarily for the protection of society, as the individual otherwise would find it difficult to ensure in a practitioner the knowledge and skill requisite for the proper care of person or of property. It hardly need be said that the legal conditions in question are a minimum. The ablest physicians and attorneys far transcend these, not a few who can fulfill them are really ignorant and incompetent. The most that can be said perhaps is that on the whole many who would be glaringly unfit are prevented from practice, to the material benefit of society. In other words, the benefit is primarily negative, and only to a moderate extent positive. By virtue of possessing a state certificate of qualification to practise one may be presumed to be to a certain extent likely to know his profession. But the more important consideration is that one who has no such certificate may practically invariably be presumed to be unqualified.

With such state standard necessary to attain in order to secure the privilege of legal practice, it is obvious that in many ways provision will be made for providing young men with the requisite knowledge. Private enterprise, wholly or largely commercial in character, has established many schools of this kind. Clearly, such schools will aim at the largest practicable attendance, and hence will demand from their students a minimum of preliminary education. The main object is to fit the largest

possible number of candidates to pass the state examination, and accordingly any amount of intelligence, no matter how small, compatible with that end in view, will suffice. Moreover, such schools need not look beyond the examination alone. Their success will on the whole be determined by the considerable number of successful candidates whom they prepare. The later record of these candidates, and especially the relation of their professional worth to the welfare of the community, beyond the narrow limits of their practice, may well be negligible quantities. But when established and reputable universities, whether on private or public foundation, set before themselves the task of training students for the legal profession, quite different and much broader considerations should be taken into account. There is here not only the question of providing a legal education adequate to meet the state test of fitness to enter on the profession, but two further considerations of moment are also to be considered: What is the likelihood that the candidate may look forward to an honorable career in the higher walks of his learned and worthy profession? What is the likelihood that he will be of value to society as a man and as a citizen, beyond mere success as a legal practitioner?

To meet these ends the whole education of the student must be taken into account. Mere technical legal instruction is not enough. That may suffice for the school which fits for the bar examination only. It should not suffice for the university. The question then is merely what sort of schooling and how much are to be expected as a condition precedent to specific legal study.

Thus far there are on the whole two views usually held by university law teachers. One is that a high school course will answer. The other is that a college course, either as a whole or in the main, should also be required.

Evidently the first of these alternatives makes it possible for a much greater number of students to take a university law course. The second limits the candidates to those who have the time and the means for at least a considerable college training. Are the results of the second plan so much better as to warrant the limitation?

It is held by some that the sole test lies in the manner in which the different classes of students handle the legal courses, and that if on the whole the high school graduates show equal, or substantially equal ability with the college trained men, the matter is settled. By the courtesy of Dean Wigmore I have been shown in advance the very interesting study of this subject in the law classes of the Northwestern University. It would seem to me that the induction is hardly sufficient for a safe conclusion. If a similar study could be made throughout a considerable number of law schools, more might be learned. Even then there would remain the question how the same high school students would have done had they had the benefit of a college course. Further, it would seem that there would be safer results if the comparison should be made between equal numbers of students of the two groups in question previously selected because ascertained to be, man for man, of practically equal natural ability. This it is at once admitted would not be an easy process. Perhaps it is not impossible.

I should be better satisfied, however, if the study should go still further, and should follow the students from the school into their profession. Which group affords the greater number of really good lawyers? Which group supplies the greater number of sound jurists? Which group provides the greater number of men largely useful to society? It seems to me that all these questions are within the scope of university consideration, and that by their answers the university should be guided.

In the absence of so wide and thorough an investigation, we may perhaps have to be influenced by our usual experience. On the whole we are inclined to think, I suppose, that, other things being equal, the young man who is older and riper and better trained, and who knows more about many things, will on the whole assimilate more of value from his law study, and will be likely to fill a larger place in social usefulness. For this reason the university would do well to look rather to quality than to quantity, to do as it does in medicine and chemistry and economics, making specialists of the small number highly trained rather than of the large number with less training.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »