There's Madness in the Method: a Commentary on Law, Statistics, and the Nature of Legal Education
THERE’S MADNESS IN THE METHOD: A COMMENTARY ON LAW, STATISTICS, AND THE NATURE OF LEGAL EDUCATION STEVEN B. DOW* Judges commonly are elderly men, and are more likely to hate at sight any analysis to which they are not accustomed, and which disturbs repose of mind . — Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.1 Introduction Professional legal education is unique among all of the university graduate- level programs in the natural and social sciences in not requiring at least a basic level of competency in statistics and quantitative methods. As these other disciplines are becoming more quantitative, the dominant paradigm in legal education remains largely unchanged. To understand the reason for this puzzling situation and see its implications for law, we must start by looking at the history of legal education. A little over a century ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., then a justice on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, opined that the lawyer of the future would be skilled in “statistics and the master of economics.”2 Holmes was commenting on the state of legal education, dominated at that time by Harvard Law School. Holmes’s remark was a not-so-thinly-veiled attack on the leading figure in legal education, Christopher Columbus Langdell, and the educational system he had established at Harvard. Langdell, dean of the law school from 1870 to 1895,3 was responsible for shaping legal education at Harvard. Not only was Harvard the first university- © 2004 Steven B. Dow * School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University; J.D., Ohio State University, 1978; Ph.D., The University of Michigan, 1999.
[Show full text]