Pedagogical prejudice

Colorado Supreme Court Justice Nancy Rice recently shared with a class that her colleagues from around the state were complaining of the all-time low quality of litigators appearing before them. Despite this reality, Colorado Law has taken yet another step backward in teaching litigation and practice skills with the recent leadership change in our externship program.

As under the prior regime, four externship credits are available with minimal justification to all students. However, where three additional credits were easily secured in years past if an externship was served with a judge or professor, new procedural hurdles have eliminated that option for many current students. Under the new regime, it appears that if a student secures four externship credits at a law firm or DA/PD office, then applies for an additional three with a professor or judge, there is a strong presumption that “…the rigor of the externship experience, the writing, research and analytical opportunities it will provide, and the pedagogical oversight and training available to students, will be comparable to an academic course at the Law School.” However, if the work for a judge or professor is done first, and a student later requests externship credit for DA/PD or law firm work, then approval of the additional three credits is highly unlikely. The arbitrariness of such a policy, which favors procedural compliance over substantive education, is both absurd and highly biased in favor of classrooms over courtrooms as crucibles of critical thinking. It does, however, help explain Justice Rice’s complaint about the quality of Colorado lawyers – such a policy can only contribute to the population of unpracticed, unskilled lawyers filling Colorado’s courts.

This harsh new policy extends CU Law’s pedagogical prejudice against practical learning, as already manifested in our low practice credit cap. Why CU settles for being the second-best litigation program in Colorado remains a mystery.