Response to Prof. Crump

Anyone who has taken a marketing course (or sold drugs in Baltimore) would realize the importance of rebranding. Merely restating the curriculum as Torts, Contracts, etc. would not be innovative.

 Many of us teach those tools of the trade in a single course, but suffer from a branding problem. “The actual real day how you would do it in real life practice of antitrust law course” would have too long a name.

I’m not sure I agree that the “what-do-you-think-method” is bad. It can be a good tool if used properly. I use it to make students craft remedies for antitrust violations so that they can see the consequences of knee jerk reactions in terms of regulation or free market philosophy.

 

'Innovation' redux

Here is the “innovative curriculum” at the new UC Irvine Law School. It’s not really very innovative, even though it has different names for the courses, but it does scrap the traditional curriculum and try something different. One thing that looks interesting about this curriculum is that it seems to repeat the what-do-you-think-and-how-do-you-feel-about-this-court-opinion method a little less.

 

Continue Reading...