Like anyone else, I can easily come up with arguments for and against everyone's proposals. As has been mentioned elsewhere, more tests/feedback is only helpful if you care about doing well on your next test, so probably not that useful in the long run. Pulling out of the rankings is more complicated than just saying no thanks; I'm not sure CLS is prepared to take on the politics of NALP, at least by itself. Meeting practitioners during legal methods might not be the most useful time, given we have no idea what's going on yet; seeing the budget sheet seems highly unlikely, and also presumes we know how to run a law school, etc etc.

My ideas? 1) temporary tuition freeze, 2) changing the third year curriculum a la Washington & Lee (http://law.wlu.edu/thirdyear), although I would propose pushing NALP to move back recruiting and shift the paradigm from summer associate to fall externship, and 3) pass/fail for first semester.

But my real question: why are we bickering about what the 'three points' would be (and why are we blindly assuming that's the only way to do anything)? If people want to do this, shouldn't they focus on organizing people? I mean I understand you need a message and a goal, but this back and forth is getting you nowhere. My guess: people want to talk about it, but not really do it. Frankly I don't blame them- some people aren't even paying to go here, so why would they care (there are plenty of reasons but I'm not sure they would care about them), and most of these changes would not be put in place until after we're gone. I'm not trying to be a buzz-kill, just saying if it's going to happen someone or someones need to make it happen. But this is just a discussion page, so maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.

-- RorySkaggs - 17 Mar 2010