Resisting the Theory/Practice Divide: Why the

Abstract

Debates about how to educate law students have long rotated around a familiar axis - the theory/practice divide.1 Commentators and bar associations routinely rebuke legal education for being too theoretically oriented. A recent iteration of that debate has centered on the credit hours that must be devoted to experiential learning. That disagreement was a stand-in for a long-standing debate about the role of clinical education in law schools.

The problem with framing these debates around the theory/practice divide is that we reinforce the very categories we ought to resist. This frame rests on too narrow-gauged an understanding of lawyering. It excuses us from being sufficiently ambitious about practice and theory, and it prevents us from seeing the connections between the two. There are deep continuities between what is taught in the classroom and the finest values of the profession.

The case for clinical work can and should rest on the same broad-gauged aspirations. Both classroom and clinical teaching should be oriented around a broad vision of what a law school can be. At its best, a J.D. should be a thinking degree. Law school should prepare students not just to practice, but to problem-solve; not just to litigate, but to lead. A legal education should supply graduates with sharp analytics, institutional judgment, and a wide range of literacies. Law school should be a time to luxuriate in ideas, learn for learning's own sake, and experiment with professional paths. And any argument for experiential or theoretical work ought to resist the theory/practice divide rather than leverage it.