If Harvard managed to cut tuition in half next year but fell to rank 100, would everyone conclude that it had suddenly become an awful school? Couldn’t that very change highlight the inadequacy of the rankings and cause a change?

The question isn’t whether being high in the rankings adds value to the degree. The question is whether the value added comes at too high a cost to the students.

Legal Drafting — We offer a total of 13 sections of this course annually. The course involves numerous writing exercises on topics such as drafting a contract, planning and structuring documents, and legal research strategies. Sections are either focused on transactional drafting; civil litigation drafting; criminal litigation drafting; or Intellectual Property drafting.

Pre-Trial Advocacy Skills — This course uses simulations and includes pre-trial & trial techniques of civil discovery, motion practice, and preparation and service of interrogatories — culminating in a 5 hour mock trial.

Remedies – covers damages.

Government Contracts – The basic course covers contract formation with problem assignments; a second course covers Formation of Government Contracts; and a third focuses on Government Contracts Advocacy.

International Business Transactions – covers nuts-and-bolts issues of business

Law of Real Estate Financing – includes drafting of letters related to financial vehicles

Civil Procedure – In the second semester,most students spend a substantial amount of time on discovery (including the treatment of interrogatories) and e- discovery. A separate course in e-discovery is being planned.

Complex Litigation – This course addresses a number of these topics.

And, of course, our clinics cover many of these topics as well in a hands-on way with actual clients. Currently, we have 10 different clinical programs (Gina check this), and certainly our Small Business Clinic involves drafting letter agreements, and other clinics involve demand letters.

Of course we can always do more, and our new Strategic Planning Committee on Curricular and Pedagogic Innovation is working on such questions. On the other hand, it does no good to teach students how to file a particular document in a particular jurisdiction without teaching students how to think broadly and strategically about why to pursue one line of argument over another or how to apply law to facts to make arguments, which is the core of a classic legal education. This is particularly true given that many nuts-and-bolts matters, such as filing requirements, will change over time and from place to place.

In any event, I encourage those interested in getting a sense of the breadth of our curriculum to browse our Law School Bulletin.

Good luck!