COLLOQUIUM

... as featured in

Justice Ginsburg on Internet Law Schools
[discussion began September 15, 1999]

Speaking at the recent dedication of the new Rutgers University Center for Law and Justice, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she was troubled by the emergence of Internet-based law schools, like the new Concord University School of Law in Los Angeles, where students can get law degrees "without ever laying eyes on a fellow student or professor". Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg? Send your comments using the form below or e-mail JURIST@law.pitt.edu.

—————————————————————————————

• [Grace Lecara, North Carolina] Concord's pioneering efforts to bring legal education into the 21st century are truly a profile in courage. They may be looked at with skepticism by legal learning institutions now, but it is more likely a skepticism veiled with fear of their own institutional lag, and a "wait-and-see-how-they-do" attitude before they too jump on the bandwagon. You'll see the big names offering it sooner than you think. Remember, it was Concord who blazed the trail.

• [Aletia Ryan, New York] I disagree with Judge Ginsberg, I completed my BA degree with SUNY Empire State College which is home study and I recieved a quality education. I live very far from the nearest law school, to work full time, drive 120 miles round trip to college at night or on my day off, and keep house is near impossible. Why should I have to shelve my dreams when a quality education is possible online?

• [Alan Gokey, Ontario, CANADA; paralegal] As for Concord, we won't know the impact it will have on the legal world for several years. That is, when the current and first crop of graduates arrives at the doors of state and provincial law societies. But the University of London law degree from Semple Piggot Rochez, has been available for some time. Just how acceptable in Common Law jurisdictions such as Canada and the States is it? I know that in the UK this is not a problem, but here in the Colonies, the powers that be(Law Society of Upper Canada), will only give two years at most, credit towards a Canadian LL.B., the minimum requirement for challenging the bar-ads. The universities will allow a graduate of the U. of London LL.B. degree into post graduate school (LL.M.), but even with a master's in law, the Law Society will not recognize the LL.B., and will still require two years of further study.

  So, I guess my question is this: has anyone made any challenges to the various provincial or state law societies and has anyone been accepted with this LL.B. (U. of London), and challenged the bar-ads and thus been able practice? I realize in the States, the Concord degree will permit the holder to write the bar-ads in California, but no where else. So, I repeat, has anyone managed to do this anywhere else? It seems to me that a clearinghouse of successful applicants might make a useful statistic when and if I decide to take the degree from the U. of L. and thus go that route.

  Ultiimately, the pursuit of knowledge is a noble endeavour. However, the expense ot that quest is not one that I take lightly (nor does my bank). And if at the end of the day I can quote citations and case law ad nauseum, but still only practice as a Paralegal, then the end will only justify the means if that is all we want if the first place. But if it is the goal to practice law, then the end better justify the means and instead of internet law degree providers sending reader comments to the likes of JURIST, they should be lobbying on behalf of their product and the consumers of that product.

• [R. Cantu, Texas; Engineering Manager in Austin and distance law student] Is there something about the fear of technology? Perhaps we're on to something here. As an engineering graduate from the University of Texas, please spare me the romantic experience of a traditional law student and the first year of law school. I've been there and done that. Let's get on with life and give those of us the choice of education, please. Talk about learning about quantum physics by yourself online, now that's tough. And yet many reputable universities are offering [online] masters and doctorates in engineering. What makes the ABA such a prima donna organization? Technology is here to stay. It's not going away.

• [Jason Mann, Esq., Pennsylvania] I've done the distance education thing on a graduate level at the University of Maryland's University College, a leader in distance education. A motivated "A" student will always learn more in a traditional classroom with lots of teacher student interaction than he or she will in a distance format. In that sense the formats are not equal in quality. However, many traditional students do not take full advantage of the benefits of the classroom. A motivated distance learner can learn as much as the"B" student in a traditional format who sometimes skips on the assignments and cuts class. Additionally, internet classes that regularly use the "chat room" format with faculty holding chat sessions often allow a degree of student faculty interaction which is sometimes better than the interaction in a large lecture class. With coming broadband, the ability of faculty to interact over the intenet will be vastly improved.

  I was initially skeptical about distance education. However, I had to submit written assignments every week could log onto a discussion session with faculty every week. Not as good as attending class in person. But is was not a shabby experience either and would recommend it to those who do not have the time to attend class.

  You can now do an MBA online, and even Duke has gotten into that. I see no reason why not a law degree.

• [John Summers, USAF, Oklahoma] ...I obtained my BA fifteen years ago at a state university. I attended on a full-time basis and also worked a 40 hour a week blue collar job --I was single. I have wondered ever since if it was worth the time and trouble.

  Since leaving university, I have worked 18 years with the federal government and have had daily interface with industry. In my work I have encountered many graduates from well known universities like Notre Dame, MIT, Georgetown, University of Glasgow, Erasmus University, and the like. Some graduates were very intelligent, but had no practical skills. Others were competent, but not what I expected for such an extensive education. Still, other were complete idiots. It was at that point I vowed never to attend an institution of higher education again -- a waste of time and money.

  However, I have always had a desire to study law. I have been a union official who represent employees before arbitrators, ALJs, and hearing examiners; and I am presently a contracts officer.

  The study of law would improve my understanding and performance on the job. However, I can only attend night school, as my job is very demanding and full-time and I am the sole income earner of a family of 7.

  While searching for an MBA program, which all required my physical (not necessarily mental) presence in the classroom, I stumbled on the possibilities of studying law via distance learning on the Internet. These institutions are, however, in the UK. While this is not exactly what I want (I prefer to study US Law), it might be a blessing in disguise -- my wife is British and I have been entertaining the thought of returning to settle in the UK.

  It would be easier for me to stay in this country, in this state, at my job, and study law; but I am blocked from this dream by reality of my personal, occupational, and financial commitments. It does not have to be this way, if only people like Justice Ginsberg, and her ilk, would step out of my way.

  When the enlightened fathers of this country won our independence from Great Britain at Yorktown, Gen. Cornwallis had the band play "The World Turned Upside Down." Thanks to British, Ginsberg will soon be stiking up the band with a similar song --"Our World Turned Upside Down."

  It is about time. We are founded on egalitarian roots, not elitism. However, the revolution has come full circle. It is the Brits who are the egalitarians, and we Americans (with the backing of the ABA) who are the elitists.

  The Brits have the right priorities: Access, Access, Access! Access to the legal academics, access to the Legal Pratical/Vocational Courses, and OJT training, then Admission to the Rolls/Call to the Bar.

  The emphasis should not be on who you studied with, how you studied, where you studied, nor why you studied. The emphasis should be that you have learned the curriculum, and that you develop the skill to deploy the theory!

  The ABA and the State Bar Associations need to get the cobwebs out! Focus on access to education, not on the sacred cashcow "the institution."

  I am ashamed to say that US Higher Education, as an institution, is a scam. Hurray for the English system. Egalite, fraternite, liberte!

• [ Thomas K.Mirabile, J.D., LL.M Cand., Adjunct Professor University of St.Francis; Joliet, Illinois ] I am a conservative lawyer by nature.I have taught for over twenty-four years in a variety of contexts and venues from traditional Law School programs to Degree completion programs for Adult Students. Primarily, I teach on the graduate level in MBA programs. When the concept of teaching on-line was first advanced to me a few years ago must admit I was not very enthusiastic as to the idea. Forces prevailed and this year I found myself developing an on-line graduate level course for MBA students in Social and Legal Issues in Management. I am currently teaching the course on-line and would like to make a few observations. I found that the development phase of the course offering required me to focus on new and creative methods of delivery. The process also made me re-think the approach I had been taking for on-site classes. The result I believe, is improved content for on-site classes that now integrate many of the on-line technologies such as using web -based resources on an extensive basis and a more participatory approach to Law as a subject by the students. The on-line students have exceeded expectations on assignments I am pleased as to the effort expended by the on -line group as a whole.I have been converted. I now believe that web based education is only at the beginning point of its potential. I am glad to be a part of the adventure. I believe that the use of web-based learning in conjunction with traditional legal education and as a free standing method of delivery will be he norm in the near future. It will be imperative for the legal education community to join the revolution.

• [Jude Bolas, Semple Piggot Rochez, UNITED KINGDOM] Having studied Law both on campus in New Zealand (attending lectures, tutorials and begging face to face for that precious week extension to a paper deadline) and now studying via the internet in England, I have the ability to comment from both sides.

  My response is regardless of the manner in which you gain the required information - be it from face to face tutorials or via a virtual tutorial - you make of it what you will. No one can make you complete the work. Certainly some will find the constant fellowship of others motivates them and encourages them to complete the work. This is individual - some will find the challenge of being organised and responsible enough to complete work on their own enough of a challenge.

  The school I belong to has an internationally recognised degree - where distance learning students are examined no differently from those who attend campus (or not) regularly. The system of tutorials is run via a private chat room, where a small group meet and discuss set questions with an experienced tutor. Just because I sit in my study to do this rather than attend a room in an educational institution, does not make it any less valid.

  Law is a living subject - I can access up-to-the-minute issues and changes, law reports, case notes etc. via the internet - certainly more than I can do via my local library. I can access information on legal systems around the world for use in comparison for papers, just as many first years will be doing across the globe. Difference is, I am not just researching via the net. I type and submit my papers via e-mail.

  I have never had such ease of contact with my tutors as I have now. Reading the notes of a first year American law student, Alice, on this site, she has resigned herself to an existence without mentor/advisor or 'big brother/sister'. I do not have to do that, each tutor is available by e-mail or by phone well into the evening and on weekends (how many of those on campus can talk to their tutors/lecturers at the weekend?) There is a defined method for submitting work and receiving comments/ grades.

  Whether you do the work on line or in the class room, YOU are ultimately responsible for actually doing the required work. Only YOU can decide how much you are prepared to do to gain that LLB. If you are prepared to do the work, to do the readings, research the cases you will learn - and eventually sit exams. It matters little whether you completed the ground work on-line or face to face.

• [Patricia Gallagher] It is a little troubling, however, for persons who cannot get to and from particular schools to learn law and its fundamentals--I believe [the Internet] is a wonderful way to access information and an education. Being as I am at home on disability, it can be extremely difficult to get around at times. It is good to be able to experience schooling at home and be valued as a person!

• [Frances Burton, London Guildhall University, UNITED KINGDOM] I too teach for the on line London University LLB programme provided by Michael Semple Piggot's on line Law School, but my home University Law School is London Guildhall University in the City of London, an institution which has been providing part time study for 150 years for those who cannot afford full time attendance. The culture of bringing education and the opportunities it provides to those who would otherwise not have that is deeply embedded in our Law Department. Many of my colleagues would actually LIKE to provide an Internet based course but resources are such that we have not been able so far to do so, alongside delivering our packed programme of full time and part time courses. Our collective "twilight hours" of teaching have to go on while people rely on them (and should not be under rated in the contemporary apperciation of the opportunities offered by Online Law Schools to those who cannot come to London, nor by those who perpetuate the myth that the Open University was the first to bring part time study to the masses, as all those University lecturers who have devoted years of evenings to part time undergraduates will testify!) Nevertheless we would be very glad to have the resources to extend our activity onto the Internet and no doubt this will come in due course, resources permitting. In the meantime, the initiative of online Law Schools such as Semple Piggot Rochez should be saluted - just as the Bishop of London's vision was 150 years ago when he set up his Metropolitan Evening Classes for Young Working Men (the origin of London Guildhall University). One hopes it will not take 150 years for this contemporary educational tool to be accepted for the great opportunity it is!

• [Cody Spendlove] I am a bit concerned with the assumption that the practive of law is "speech-based" and that to be successful one must have "dialectic competence" as expressed by Oscar Sarlo.

  While this may be true for trial lawyers, law itself has many other avenues in which one may practice a lifetime and see very little of a jury. The vast majority of knowledge a lawyer obtains is from reading... which seems to integrate fairly well into a distance education setting.

• [Sheldon L. Stick, Ph.D; Department of Educational Administration, University of Nebraska-Lincoln] The notion of isolation is incorrect. There is less isolation with interactive asynchronous learning experiences than when attending a regularly scheduled law class. Anytime an instructor stands, or sits, before a class and lectures or seeks to engage the students it is a form of 'distance education'. The real question should be dealing with how much learning occurs and whether the experience fosters learning. Asynchronous learning affords participants opportunities for reflection and careful composition of responses unmatched in a conventional face-to-face class. Furthermore, the time restraints imposed by conventional classes (i.e., meeting according to a schedule) are negated when working online asynchronously. The process is not for all learners, but those mature enough to take control over their lives and who are committed to other responsibilities, the presentation of asynchronous learning opportunities provides a forum for personal development unmatched by other approaches. The benefits of face-to-face interactons are not disputed, but their apparent value as the most favored approach to learning is questioned. As with all issues, many factors need consideration and the type of instructor involved with the learning experiences might be the critical variable.

• [Oscar Sarlo, Faculty of Law, Universidad de la República, URUGUAY] I agree with Justice Ginsburg, because I think that law experience is a speech-based one, a communicative one, and so it demands students to get dialectic competence, that only can be reached in an personal inter-action.

• [Richard Ramsey, Senior Lecturer in Law, Oxford Brookes University, UNITED KINGDOM] I wish to add a few points to the distance learning debate initiated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I am a senior lecturer in law at Oxford Brookes University, just classified as the sixth law department in the country by The Guardian newspaper. We use primarily traditional lectures, seminars and tutorials as well as some on-line instruction. My colleagues at Brookes and I are proud of our high rating, although we retain healthy scepticism about the inherent validity of such league tables. But why bite the hand that pats us on the head?

  I should first declare an interest: I tutor part-time for Semple Piggot Rochez, the UK Internet-delivered law degree, but what follows is a purely personal opinion.

  I have degrees from the universities of Birmingham and Cambridge in English literature and history respectively. My law degree was obtained by external study from London University so I have direct experience of distance learning. In an ideal world, we might all like to have 'live teaching'. We should, however, concentrate on the learning process. That is why students go to universities and why they choose to go to places where the teaching is seen as good. This equates good teaching with good learning, which seems fair enough. Oxford Brookes is one of only two law departments from 'new' universities in the UK to have been granted an 'excellent' rating for teaching. The criteria for teaching are often judged quantitatively, on the number of books in the library, on staff-student ratios, etc., although our assessors visited seminars and lectures and scrutinised written work. A university with a reputation for good teaching, before the introduction of these ratings, would often be one in which there was the greatest number of famous scholars. Great scholars may be great teachers but this is not necessarily the case.

  If one concentrates on the brightest students, the tutorial system at Oxford and Cambridge has many advantages. It provides excellent supervision and pressure. The tutee has nowhere to hide when the only other person in the room is the tutor. Dean Langdell refined this technique when he employed the Socratic method at Harvard (my only knowledge comes from Scott Turow's hostile account in One L and conversation with an Alaskan Appeals Court Justice who confirmed the terrifying nature of that system — survivors do not fear being in court before a ferocious bench). But this kind of education fits only the brightest and most confident. What is meant to be an exchange of ideas, a witty duel of intelligent minds (albeit one more mature and better informed than the other) or of intellectual refinement, can easily degenerate into mental bullying or educational mugging.

  When my wife went to the dinner welcoming new postgraduates at her Oxford college the bursar said, 'You will meet many clever people here but you will be lucky to meet nice ones.' Of course, 'niceness' may not be the main virtue of an academic. More important might be a good command of one's subject, with personal organisation skills and self-knowledge which enable one to incorporate that information into a firm moral framework. Law professors who do not consider the wider ethical dimensions of what they teach should contemplate a change of career. Sir Walter Scott wrote of the mere mechanics of the law. That is not what law should be, just tinkering with rules. Students may learn something from teachers who are clever, but they can only learn something worthwhile from those who are wise. Knowledge and learning are different as Alexander Pope recognised when he wrote about a 'little learning', not a little knowledge, being a dangerous thing. It would be a sad day for the common law if its judiciary were selected from the ranks of the clever rather than from the wise: wisdom surely combines knowledge, intelligence and a sense of proportion or, more appropriately, good judgment.

  Students should try to acquire wisdom but I am not sure that it can be taught. At Oxford University there are tutors who claim, 'I like to break down my students before building them up.' Whereas it may be right to challenge the ideas and attack the prejudices of students, even to prick youthful pride providing one recognises one's own arrogance, I cannot see why teaching should involve a form of ritual humiliation, rather like the fagging once found in English schools. (For the benefit of younger American readers, by 'fagging' I mean the initiatory bullying and servitude imposed by older boys upon their juniors).

  Some academics still regard teaching as an intrusion upon valuable research and they treat students as if they were stupid irritations. University teachers must recognise that many of their pupils will not come from that élite (intellectual, social or otherwise) which was the province of superior educational institutions in the past. Many law students, whether graduates in the United States or undergraduates in the United Kingdom, do not emerge from confident, privileged backgrounds where intelligent minds have been honed into sharpness by their early educational institutions. I observe, for example, a marked, perhaps regrettable, distinction between some of our 'home-grown' undergraduates and those with degrees, often from the older Oxford University, who come to us to undertake a one-year intensive conversion course. A variety of learning methods is needed to provide for the gamut of new students, not all of whom are affluent.

  This adds up to a simple statement which, as a non-practising barrister with a literary and historical education, I have wrapped up in obiter dicta because it is, in Shakespeare's term, 'the breath of an unfee'd lawyer' or, in this case more specifically, electronic communication by a law teacher idling away an hour or so one Saturday afternoon. The simple point is that not all face-to-face teaching is as beneficial as it is cracked up to be. While Oxford is now abandoning the one-to-one tutorial, that system has influenced, in an attenuated form, many other English universities.

  The legal profession accepts many electronic forms and information sources. In courts, barristers can see a witness's words appear on a computer screen before them. Legal education must recognise these changes. Distance learning and the Internet provide support for those who would otherwise face the intellectual loneliness of books without any personal recourse to fellow students. This is not the age of Samuel Smiles' Self-Help, of self-improvers labouring into the solitary night after returning from paid work.

  During my external London LLB I travelled many miles to attend lectures at different universities and, as they then were, polytechnics. Sometimes the teaching was uninspiring and downright tedious. Lecturers dictated notes which we were supposed to copy: not much interchange of ideas there. Lecturing is a difficult art and it is hard to determine its purposes. It may not be the best medium for learning. Generally unconcerned with the learning process itself, London University's external degrees provide an examination system for objectively assessing all its students. It may be criticised for being exceptionally 'black letter' when many universities are moving towards 'softer' subjects and its mode of assessment is perhaps the most cruel, if fairest, of all: the three hour written examination. All who pass have demonstrated a certain level of knowledge of aspects of English law. It offers an external validation when many English employers are concerned lest the applicants for jobs have been through a more generous, less rigorous, system. Other distance learning providers may proffer spurious education and award worthless qualifications; London does not. The anonymity of the candidates guarantees that neither fear nor favour can operate.

  In the university where I teach, we are greatly concerned to maintain standards and, in common with all other UK universities, we have external examiners who can swiftly put us right if we deviate from the proper assessment. We can, however, try to consider the hard cases of individual students. We also have assessed coursework, dissertations, even oral presentations by students; all these give a greater variety of testing and help those, increasingly large, numbers of candidates who are unduly pressurised by a three-hour written examination.

  No doubt the London LLB is marked with a severity which would satisfy the harshest inquisitor. I would hope that other institutions who offer distance learning programmes are equally strenuous in applying objective criteria. The reputations of different institutions vary. A degree from University A may not be equated in the popular imagination with that from University Z. There are advantages in being able to wander around Oxford's groves of academe: it is certainly a beautiful place. It may be more civilising to be in such surroundings but I am nor sure that it is necessarily more educational. It is as if to say, when I sit in my study, piled and lined with books, I acquire through an unseen osmotic process, the wealth of knowledge they contain. Would it were so.

  Ultimately, whether university students learn largely depends upon their personal inquisitiveness, openness of mind, intellectual industry and honesty. Teachers will not be made redundant by new technology, nor will standards decline if correctly monitored. The plethora of material on the Internet and its communicative potential are no more dangerous to legal education and practice than the replacement of hand-written case reports in the middle ages by the advent of printed books.

  I have said much about maintaining standards and validating them. Examinations are not the only measure of a successfully completed degree course. What makes a rounded, individuated human being is far more complex. Scholars, as W. B. Yeats' eponymous poem indicates, are not the always the best people to tell us about life in general. Not that academics live a less 'real' life than anyone else; the rest of the world should sympathise with us underpaid 'harmless drudges' (Dr Johnson's phrase) indulging in the 'exquisite tedium' of the editor (Fredson Bowers, if I recall rightly) to reach perilous pinnacles of learning in the 'ancient cultures of conceit' (Ian Archer in the book of that name, quoting W.H. Auden). Rather than the effortless superiority which is said to typify Balliol men, scholars too easily eschew the art that conceals art and if, with Polonius, the reader says, 'This is too long' or, with Queen Gertrude, 'More matter with less art', I can only respond that my over-fondness for quotation and linguistic elaboration derives from too much competitive inter-personal education.

• [Richard Edward, entrepreneur, Ohio] Re: Mr. Lichtman's comments - as a fellow businessperson and former law student, I am in agreement with Mr. Lichtman's 3 archetypes of lawyers. However, the type 1, "Researcher/Drafter", if he/she does the job well, will not need to call upon type 2 or 3. Furthermore, oral advocacy is being questioned for relevancy in more and more quarters - and as any appellate advocate will confirm, the best oral advocacy cannot overcome a deficient brief, nor sound precedent.

  Internet legal education cannot be any worse than our present system. Ginsberg's assement is the same old song and dance from the bench and bar regarding legal education, i.e., bring them all in as assimilated as possible so to keep the "boat rocking" to a minimum.

  The critics of on-line legal education might also consider that the best and brightest stars in American legal history were "home" schooled by merely reading law. The present legal education system has produced nothing close to our late 18th and early 19th century legal minds. The common thread of them all was reading political and legal philosophy all by themselves. Our present ABA "approved" method of legal education has produced mediocrity on a grand scale.

  Anyone wishing to brow beat on-line legal education on the merits of the ABA "approved" system is on very thin ice.

• [Dr. Edward Lilly, City College of New York] Yes, I am somewhat concerned. However, when the traditional ABA approved law schools begin to accept this approach to legal education, then and only then will such programs become acceptable. For the older student this may be a very viable option to obtaining a law degree. Rigorous evaluation of the curriculum should be mandatory.

• [Pat Dawson, Montana] Internet law school? Could be the answer for those of us oldies who were diverted from out pursuit of the LL.B. in our youth by little distractions such as the DRAFT, Attention Deficit Disorder, and the need to go to work to make a living. Having covered legal issues for years, and having observed up close high-profile trials as a journalist, I feel little need to immerse myself in the social atmosphere of a law school class filled with backstabbing overachievers. I can now study THE LAW from my own home without moving family hundreds of miles. If I passed the Calif. Bar after finishing a course such as Concord, then I would be free to make it on my merit. At my age, I would not be gunning for some prestigous firm by using my ABA law school credentials. Put me in a courtroom against an Ivy Leaguer and I'll show him or her street fighting and life's wisdom that cannot be learned in any law school. Internet law schools appear to be a great, democratic option for people too up against it to hang out in the Halls of Ivy. The best that can happen is to raise the ethics and lower the arrogance in the U.S. legal culture.

• [Stuart Lichtman, Partners in Excellence, California] Having owned many companies and having run over 100 of them, I have extensive "user" experience with attorneys. From my perspective, attorneys fall into three functional groups: 1) researchers and drafters, 2) negotiators, and 3) presenters/actors. It seems clear to me that net learning works well for the first group.

  It also seems clear that net learning misses a large part of what is required for the second and third categories. Perhaps there lies the conflict in the opinions expressed in this matter.

  Having lived in many countries, I'd also like to suggest that the practice of law differs greatly in its emphasis on the three categories. For example, arguments in Sweden - even in civil disputes - are written; thus, they are in the province of category one.

  Perhaps one result of this approach is to allow the on-site universities the opportunity to focus on categories two and three.

• [Scot Stirling, lawyer, Steptoe & Johnson, Arizona] I am attorney in Phoenix, and graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1978.

  On balance, I think I would much prefer the traditional law school, because of the easier access to research materials (including what is available on the internet) and to other students. I think the traditional law school should have an advantage, because it can do what Concord does *in addition to* the traditional program, while a school like Concord could not offer the personal interaction that the traditional law school can provide.

  However, the much bigger and more important issue for me is the quality of the faculty and student body. If the school can attract good faculty, and if there are a substantial number of very intelligent students who would choose Concord for whatever reason, I don't see any reason to think that a person could not obtain an excellent legal education this way. In the long run, the quality of the education the students are receiving should determine whether Concord is accredited, and that will also determine (or at least influence) the rate at which they pass the bar and are admitted to practice.

  Most traditional law schools aren't teaching people how to practice law, anyway. They are teaching them how to read cases and statutes, and how to think about legal issues. From the little that I already know about the Concord program, I would bet that it can produce students who are least as well qualified as those who are graduating from a lot of other already-accredited schools. Concord may not be in a position to compete with the very best law schools in the country, because it won't attract the best faculty or the students (at least until this kind of learning has been proved to succeed and is generally accepted), but in the long run I expect this experiment will be successful.

• [Christine Wilson, law student, Alberta, CANADA] For students like myself...highly intelligent and capable but with restricted access to physical universities due to my rural location, distance education programs are crucial. The onus is on the student, or perhaps the curriculum, to incorporate interpersonal relations into the program. I will be no less a lawyer for having taken distance education...I might be somewhat ahead of those who did not have need to draw on the unique fortitude, self-direction, and motivation necessary to persevere in an isolated educational environment.

• [William Boletta, JAPAN; law student, Concord University Law School] While Justice Ginsburg has my utmost sympathies for being "troubled" at the emergence of online legal study, I suggest that she might want to take a Tylenol or two and get ready for the 21st century. As a student at Concord University School of Law myself, I feel confident in predicting that online law study will very likely grow and flourish as the new century progresses. I have four earned degrees in other fields obtained over years in the traditional process at conventional universities in the U. S., and I am here to testify—hallelujah!!--that online learning is here to stay, and not just in law study. I am also a professional academic, and it very amusing to me to listen to the howls of the established professoriate in a variety of fields as online learning moves to center stage. Even more howls will certainly not be surprising in legal education, perhaps the most hidebound and conservative of all academic disciplines.

  Yet even the traditional bricks and mortar law schools are offering student-professor colloquia and are making all manner of materials available online. Some are even billing the online forum as a way to get to know your professor BETTER. As law students everywhere know, about all you get a chance to do at most law schools anyway is (in Justice Ginzburg's phrase) "lay eyes" on the professor (that is, if you are able to see her at all from the back of a classroom filled with hundreds of students). It is not as if traditional law schools offer some sort of cozy intimacy between students and professors. Law schools (as well as many other professional schools) are famously cold, distant, and impersonal, and overpopulated. My experience is that online learning over the Internet at the New School, where I have also taken courses, and at Concord University School of Law, is in some ways more intimate than my experience in the physical halls of academe. I might as well also give a plug to ZDU, one of the most supportive online learning environments there is.

  My experience over the past eight months is that I get a tremendous amount of personal attention from professors and administration at Concord that might be harder to come by in a face to face situation. While I do miss going to the coffee shop and chatting with my fellow students, we do communicate electronically, e-mail each other, set up online study groups, and share our experience.

  Also, the courses are well-planned, with carefully drawn up schedules of readings and assignments. We also read the same heavy, badly designed, slovenly edited casebooks (shudder) that all U. S. students read and we are subjected to the same "inductive" method of learning that law professors still think teaches you to think like a lawyer. I'm not very impressed with legal study anywhere since it is mimics directly the teaching methods of medieval universities. I hope someday that law study everywhere grows up, but for the moment Concord is, in many respects, doing much of what everybody else does, for better or worse. And all of the faculty at Concord are also professors at conventional law schools. They have been extremely well-chosen for their communicative styles and charisma. Even some great luminaries such as Prof. Arthur Miller of Harvard have joined the Concord faculty. So we are not exactly dealing with a lunatic fringe here.

  We also have access to the online legal research services and use the same online techniques for finding cases and opinions as Justice Ginsburg's clerks do.

  But there definitely are differences between Concord and conventional law schools. I'm not sure how much Justice Ginsburg knows about Concord, but there are several features that are usually unavailable at conventional law schools. Online lectures are a part of every course. The only difference is that we view them via Real Audio. This means that I can sit in my home (outside the U.S. in my case, since I live abroad) at my computer and take notes in Microsoft Word as I listen. If I miss something, I just backtrack Real Player and listen again as many times as I want to. I can also hear the lecture again later as often as I wish. What I might miss in spontaneity, I recoup hundredfold through a process that allows me to study and learn at my speed at the times I have available.

  Also, it is not as if Concord students don't have any contact with the faculty. We have online chats every week on specific cases and topics in Contracts, Torts, and Criminal Law (the three core courses we take the first year in addition to Legal Writing). These chats are extremely helpful and very popular with the students. I have never attended a bricks and mortar law school, but I have heard from friends who are attorneys about them. The chat sessions at Concord definitely do not mimic the confrontational and rather self-serving "teaching" techniques of many practitioners of the so-called "Socratic method" that still seems to be the longest running act in law schools and has been parodied and pilloried by Scott Turow's One L and The Paper Chase. Rather, the chats are very supportive.

  I would say that the online, real-time chats are perhaps the most innovative feature. "Chat" is an unfortunate term, because the level of challenge and difficulty is much higher than a simple conversation. The professor does much more than "chat" with us. We are challenged, asked questions, provoked to think about jurisprudential issues, occasionally asked to work in groups on a specific problem involving a hypothetical, and allowed as well to make our own comments and ask our own questions. Right now the chats are audio and text, but in the future, with the rapid progress of technology, I expect us to be doing the chats as online video conferencing.

  We take many tests online, which are graded online with comments and explanations. We also submit essays in each course we take. These essays are graded by a professor with extensive comments and then returned to us with the commentary appended to the file we submitted.

  Also, since Concord was set up by Kaplan, the approach to preparing for bar exams is realistic and practical. Since Kaplan has helped tens of thousands to pass the LSAT, I feel that they know as much about how to take tests as any law school around and I am glad to have the benefit of their expertise.

  Both in terms of academic rigor and practical preparation for the future, I am completely satisfied with the legal education I am getting at Concord. I might add also, the tuition is a rather small percentage of what one pays at other law schools.

• [George Pappas, New Jersey; graduate of the University of London External LL.B. program] The unfounded concerns of Justice Ginsburg regarding Internet-based or distance learning programs fail to recognize the great void in legal education. That void is created by the profession's own fetish with "classroom" attendance...

  Although I agree that by attending law school one can (not always) acquire the "experience," or "culture," of the legal community, what must be stressed is that classroom attendance has not been proven to be the only method that can train students to become outstanding attorneys. The University of London, for example, has been offering law degrees since 1858 under its external system, and its graduates are second to none in the common law world. If anyone needs empirical evidence, London offers it. Justice Ginsburg does not totally condemn Internet-based legal education, she only condemns legal instruction that is only Internet-based. This cause for concern is not based on any empirical study, but merely her honor's own perception of what works. Quite frankly, she is entitled to her views - even if she is wrong.

  Internet-based legal education is a great leap forward for the legal establishment. Internet based instruction can equal or in some circumstances, exceed the traditional classroom experience. How? What is the traditional classroom experience? Students sit in room with 30 or more fellow students. They prepare cases for each class and the professor either employs the Socratic method or just lectures. Yes, the "threat" of being called upon in class forces students to read the cases, but the experience from the class is not so unique that a good student cannot exceed its value under either an Internet or distance learning format. Students who cross-reference, read cases and write essays, actually learn more than traditional law school students in some cases. Note that introductory courses like Contract, Torts, and others force brick and mortar students to read a narrow range of cases - perspective is something they may find in class if they're not too busy taking notes. Taking notes interrupts the learning process - so in this regard, classroom formats hurt students. If professors want to maximize a student's experience in class, print out essential notes, and let the students "think" in class.

  The ABA's obsession with not missing more than 20% of classes is a great burden to evening students. Some classes are offered early in the afternoon, and if you can't leave work soon enough, you are barred from taking that course. The cost of a legal education in the USA is so absurd when compared to the rest of the common law community. Why should a law student borrow $50,000.00 or more to earn a law degree? Because they are told that only via ABA law schools can they take the bar. Not true. Many states will allow you to take their bar examinations [with degrees from] from a foreign law school (LLM) or a non-ABA approved law school - these rarely discussed options will save students at least $30,000.00. So cost is a barrier to entry, and the ABA is directly responsible for restricting access to the profession via only ABA-approved law schools. The ABA will surely argue that this is done to protect the public from incompetent and unethical lawyers. But the latter is also -in part - an argument to restrict access to the profession.

  Justice Ginsburg has unfortunately [confused] learning law with the experience of law. You can learn law in class, on the internet or via quality distance learning programs, like the University of London. All formats can be supported by clerkships, by clinics or through apprenticeships with attorney's - the academic element of the legal education is without a doubt not restricted only to classroom attendance.

  I am very confident that as time moves along, Internet-based law degree programs will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you can give people an opportunity to learn and practice the law without attending class. I should know, I earned my law degree the old fashioned way - outside of the classroom.

• [William Slomanson, Thomas Jefferson School of Law] A brief comment about my background, so that you can determine whether you should read further: Although I was the initial "Lessons From the Web" contributor, that only means that I had an interest in e-education and was experimenting. I taught for 17 years, before discovering its value. See "Electronic Lawyering and the Academy," 48 Journal of Legal Education 216 (1998).

  B/c I have been in education for some time, and schooled in the old ways, I may have a natural inclination for replicating my own experience. OTOH, having dabbled in Net Teaching, I believe that I can at least share one person's perspective on the "Ginsburg" matter. I find it fascinating that a Harvard prof (Arthur Miller) is supporting this concept, while a SCt justice is expressing grave concern.

  My bottom line, however, is that what I have been doing for the last few years--including an experimental paperless law class, dictates that until I can "beam all of my students up," per the virtual reality which may be a prominent part of our future, that we can only make the best of both worlds. For now, one can readily merge both the print world and the e-world by classroom devices which utilize the best of both media. I have trouble with the portion of the Distance Learning concept which suggests that we should all one day have a prof lecturing at multiple--or cyber-- locations, where there is no physical interaction. But I have used both my web page and my e-mail discussion groups to augment my classroom experience in a way which requires me to go the extra mile, so that my grads are much better prepared for the practice world which awaits them. But I do not advocate my e-devices as substitutions for the rich classroom experience which I believe is at the heart of the traditional classroom dynamic. I believe that I can be objective about this, b/c virtual reality (remember the movie "The Fly") is very unlikely to occur in my teaching lifetime.

• [A. Brooks, law student, NEW ZEALAND] Certainly Justice Ginsburg has a noble point which should not taken lightly. Certainly there is something to be gained from interacting with others IN ANY LEARNING ENDEAVOR. However, a key thing to consider is that many people, like myself, will of their own accord seek out contacts and interaction with others in the profession in their living area. Plainly, the coursework would involve spending time at law libraries nearby; spending time talking with people in the surrounding area that one have would to go up and meet AND without the convenience huddling (perhaps to one's chagrin) of a the traditional academic setting. In comparison, I imagine that undertaking this LLB program will actually require more effort, greater interpersonal skills. Challenges are a given.

  As one who must be outgoing in my profession, I have no problems (and I am enthused) with the prospect of forming relationships with nearby students and professionals (legal professor's, judges, counsel, practioners and others) as part of my "independent" study. And consider what a wonderful thing that I can offer the unexperienced student: practical experience! And such in exchange for their introspectiveness where my ability to comprehend may fall short.

  Certainly, distance learning may not provide the same physical contact with my instructors. But, I do perceive that my communication skills will be placed under greater scrutiny than any other setting. They will either have to be up to par or improve along the way, if I undertake such a program.

  While I understand Ginsburg's statement to an extent. I do believe that its important to consider that what is required of those involved in distance learning is potentially much more substantial and more demanding than the classroom environment (not to speak less the traditional environment).

  I perceive great blessings. Not only would one have access to electronic formums, the telephone, e-mail, etc. (i.e. people remotely)--one would also have the traditional professionals, traditional students and traditional resources (i.e. locally) of his or her own community to call on and seek out.

  Nothing keeps the traditional student from studying in isolation. Nothing keeps the External student from studying in isolation either. Its a matter of choice. Free will is why there is laws and grace anyway.

  I am certainly attracted by the opportunity to interact with people near and far. I am overwhelmingly pleased at the prospect of being able to do it at my convenience.

• [Karen Alvarez, attorney, Washington D.C.] I've found the comments most interesting. It seems to me that there is a significant difference between (i) the culture of legal studies, and lawyering,on the one hand, and , on the other (ii) the law. Ginsburg confuses the two. The study of law is,essentially, a task in textual analysis. I see no reason why it could not be done excellently through the internet. Immersion in the culture of legal studies/lawyering would seem to require some personal contact, many would prefer not to have undergone that, and why, in any event should we be concerned with that? What benefit accrues to society or the consumer from a lawyer's immersion in legal culture? If there is any such benefit, doesn't the social justice benefit far outweigh it?

• [Sheldon Bardach, attorney, Los Angeles, California] I most certainly do agree with Justice Ginsburg that it is no law school when you cannot listen to others and test your own concepts in the most conceptual of educational experiences. If not in law school, where? Definitely not an exciting development.

• [Jim Maule, Villanova University School of Law] The so-called "internet only" law school, like the internet course, is only a transitional phase. When technology brings the "beamed hologram" no one will know whether the professor or student is truly or virtually present. (Is it live or is it memorex?) Change always brings resistance, usually masking unease and apprehension. I can sympathize in part with a Supreme Court Justice who sees the world changing and who has a special role in that world. It may be more difficult than it is for the typical citizen. It is challenging to accept that there is part of one's world that one cannot understand and, worse yet, control. But another part of me says, "Get with the program." I'm sure our great great grandparents felt that way about getting off the horse and into the auto.

  I don't expect internet only law schools to proliferate with current technology, but in another five or ten years, 19th century law schools and 20th century law schools will be rapidly fading away. Keep in mind that those now in elementary school will have expectations far different from what most legal educators can even begin to anticipate.

  Incidentally, in many other disciplines, renowned universities are presenting internet-only degrees. Why does law consider itself so special or so different?

  Granted, I'm prejudiced. I've immersed my courses into the latest technology as much as my school's budget will allow. It works. It's far more efficient. The students appreciate it and their learning has improved.

  One last point. I think most law professors feel the same way that Justice Ginsburg does. Most law professors do not really understand the technology. Too many of them run from it. Too many look for ways to criticize those of us who are stepping into the 21st century, perhaps because that is the typical human response when challenged by that which one does not understand.

  To those who are experimenting with distance learning, I say, "carry on." I may be picking your brains one-on-one if that's ok.

• [Peter Tillers, Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University] I am deeply disturbed by Justice Ginsburg's adverse comments about 'net-based education. I am less disturbed by her bottom line than I am at the facile character of her analysis of the issue. I suppose we should view *any* major technological, social, or educational change with caution. But I don't think the good Justice put her finger on the possible reasons for being concerned about net-based legal education.

  I would like to share a few of my thoughts about net-based education. I do not pretend that any of my thoughts are original (but that hardly matters, I think). Furthermore, my comments are not directed specifically at the Concord experiment. (But Justice Ginsburg's comments also did not seem to be based on any of the particular features of the Concord program.) In any case, here are my thoughts:

  1. Law teachers and conventional law schools have reason to be biased against net-based education. Some financial and other advantages that established law teachers and law schools have rest on matters such as superior expertise and knowledge. But some of the advantages that established law teachers at established law schools enjoy rest on "collateral" factors. I think the net reduces the power of such "accidental" factors. (The net itself seems to expand the amount of information and makes it more readily and widely available.)

  2. Some of the antipathy or aversion of the legal academy to the internet may be due to the "two cultures" phenomenon. Many law teachers have an aversion to science and technology. Many of them are deeply ignorant about science and technology.

  3. The arguments from fairness, equality of opportunity, and the like, for net-based education are familiar. That being said, these arguments are very substantial. There are unquestionably enormous numbers of people who because of various "accidents" (financial circumstances, disabilities, family responsibilities, geographical ties) can attend a conventional ("fixed-site") law schools only with great difficulty, if at all.

  4. There may be *something* to the idea that face-to-face contact promotes some sort of desired "intimacy" in matters intellectual, but it is not altogether easy to pin down what this sort of "essential intimacy" is. Anyone who has paricipated in internet list discussions knows that intellectual exchanges on the 'net can be very lively, spontaneous, stimulating, and enlightening. "Body language" can impede as well as facilitate thought, intimacy, and spontaneity.

  5. Whether fixed-site education is important may depend on what one wants education to do. (This point is obvious but important.)

  5A. It may be the case that face-to-face education is important if one wants to inculcate the art of oral advocacy or other oral (vs. just "verbal") skills (but, given technologies such as videoconferencing, even this claim is not beyond question). This claim is at least worth discussing. It is far less clear that face-to-face contact is important or essential in the teaching of matters such as legal writing or legal research.

  5B. Is fixed-site education is important or essential if one values the "life of the mind" in legal education? I wonder.

  6. Law teachers and university professors are traditionally good at the "spoken word." Sometimes they are *too* good at this sort of thing: bluster and manner etc. often really do displace good thinking. I enjoy faculty seminar banter from time to time. But I am not altogether sure how important such chatter or "oral exchanges" are. Still, I will readily admit that face-to-face conversations are just more efficient ways of discussing some matters or dealing with some problems. But to what extent do mere considerations of efficiency in the exchange of information etc. support the thesis that fixed-site education is much preferable to any other form of education?

  7. The internet does make possible the "globalization" of education and exchanges on a scale not possible before. I believe this is an enormous benefit.

  8. I think it really is true that the 'net facilitates the formation of world-wide, interdisciplinary, and markedly less hiearchical "intellectual commnities." These communities can be valuable even if circumstances conspire to prevent the members of such communities from gathering in one physical location for face-to-face encounters. I am tentatively prepared to believe that such virtual and vibrant communities are possible in the domain of legal education as well as elsewhere. In thinking about this question, it helps to keep in mind that the true question is not whether virtual intellectual communities are better or whether "real" ones are better. An old refrain: you can't always have everything you want. [Besides, it is possible, I think, that "real" contact is sometimes intellectually destructive rather than helpful. [Please forgive me if you find this heretical(?) thought obnoxious.])

• [Pat Barnes, Indiana] When I went to law school, there was a lottery to participate in the clinic program and I wasn't lucky enough to be selected... It occurs to me that some (if not many) law schools are the equivalent of Internet education, only you have to show up.

• [Teresa Tyson, Illinois] While I don't think that you necessarily have to attend every class in person, an individual misses out on the best part of law school when there is no opportunity to exchange ideas with classmates in a Socratic type setting. It may be the wave of the future, but something will be lost in the trade-off between in person and on-line attendance for law school students. The law isn't concrete like some of the other technological courses that lend themselves well to be taught online. The law needs discourse to be fleshed out and understood. I personally don't think that sitting in front of a computer terminal and reading caselaw is enough.

• [John Hodgson, Nottingham Law School, UNITED KINGDOM] There seems to be a consensus that diversity of approach is beneficial. Clearly there are valuable aspects of the (legal) educational experience which are difficult to replicate successfully over the net. Moot court and Socratic dialogue spring to mind. Also it is less easy for the instructor to recognise issues that a class or individual is having difficulty with. Both in the UK and in the USA there are a number of intermediate options between the straight full-time law degree and the pure net based distance learning programme. At Nottingham we have for many years offered distance learning programmes for both the LLB and the CPE (a conversion course for non-law graduates). These are still largely paper based, although this is changing fast. We do however provide a series of weekends where students attend, and during which they have face-to-face tuition, moot courts and similar exercises and the chance to meet their fellow students. We also strongly encourage them to develop close co-operative links with their study group members, and this usually occurs. Between times they work on a programme of work, and submit assignments.

  We have also offered traditional part time routes, and the performance of distance learning students has compared favourably in terms of completion rates and grades achieved. While there are clearly some potential students whose geographical and personal circumstances dictate a !00% home based 'pure' distance learning approach (although we have had students from continental Europe, North America and the Far East travelling to Nottingham four times a year), we consider we have a valuable and relatively flexible study option which also captures much of the essence of traditional tuition methods.

• [Twinkle Egan, barrister, IRELAND] I think that an accredited Internet Law School is a great idea. We now live and trade in a Global world - thanks to the Internet. Thus as lawyers we must be able to adapt and meet those challenges. Simple basic contracts are not now limited to one State law and Lawyers and Students alike need to be able to co-ordinate the different applicable laws that will be facing them. See eg www.cyberia.ie/~twinkle where lawyers have been discussing the need to converge and co-ordinate the E.U. Legal Systems for the Single Judicial State that now exists within the E.U. itself.

• [Megan in de Braekt, law student, AUSTRALIA] I am a graduate law student in Perth, Western Australia, studying the external law degree through the University of London. I hold a Bachelors Degree in Political Science from Murdoch University, Post Graduate Diploma in Political Science from the University of Western Australia [UWA] and a Masters degree in Industrial Relations from UWA. I work and study full time.

  I support the comments of Mr Semple Piggott in relation to the concept of an "Internet based Law School" and distance or external learning in general, and wish to make some additional points.

  The important issue is not how a person learns or gains knowledge, but rather that she/he possesses a working knowledge of the subject matter. This may be achieved through countless methods. Provided that the assessment instruments are rigorous and effective, the method of learning is nether here nor there. The notion that all persons must attend formal classes and lectures to gain the required knowledge and understanding is offensive to students like myself, who may learn through other means in addition to, or instead of traditional forms of tuition. I have an enquiring mind which is not satisfied by traditional methods of teaching. I do not want to be spoon fed. I am able to independently acquire knowledge. Additionally as I have come to the law "late", I am unable to attend classes from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday, due to work committments. In this sense traditional law courses are indirectly discriminatory against mature age students.

  I work in a legal environment and have therefore gained a significant amount of knowledge about the law in the course of my work. I have valuable discourse about the law with my colleagues in the workplace. Traditional law courses often don't allow for, or make use of this, whereas there is considerable scope for such integration in the University of London external course.

  I am very proud to be studying through the University of London. Had it not been for the University of London external law course I would not have been able to study law, and that would have been a tragedy. The law desperately needs greater diversity and more people who are willing and able to critically evaluate the system and institutions, with a view to achieving urgently needed reform. The perhaps "unorthodox" route I have followed to the law, will I hope, facilitate a less biased and institutionalised approach in the law.

  Any profession which significantly narrows the pool of candidates from which practitioners may be drawn as a result of unnecessarily limited tuition, assessment or entry methods is a profession which is not serving the public interest. I do not agree with Justice Bader Ginsburg's comments (as presented above). The traditional method of learning the law is not fool proof, as it has produced some incompetent practitioners. Lastly, whilst interacting with fellow students and lecturers can be highly valuable, it is not the only source of beneficial discourse, and useful interaction is certainly not limited to face to face contact with people.

• [Jack Berdeaux, Twilight Technologies, Michigan] I have to disagree with the Judge. Concord is just a new presentation of an educational delivery method.

  California, by far the most aggressive in alternative legal education for example, has provided prospective law students with so many different and accredited [in one form or another] means of obtaining legal training. Just a short tour of the Internet will demonstrate the variety of legal education available over the Internet.

  Concord is aimed at a market not traditionally served by day/night school. In a techno society such as ours, this is just a part of education evolution. Real legal education does not begin until after law school anyhow.

  Law, like any other vocational education, is a hands-on skill development.

• [Donald Bollman, law student, Samuel P. Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University] I agree with Justice Ginsburg. I am a 1st year nontraditional law student (night student). Yes, making it to all of the classes is a burden on individuals like myself (full time job, wife and 3 kids) but I think places like Concord prey on individuals in my position. I am wondering, are they even accredited by any credit granting institution such as the American Bar Association? I feel very lucky to have a program like the one I am attending in my region (Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University). A couple of my classmates are driving 3 hours (round trip) from rural areas of Kentucky to attend an accredited school. I would be very interested also to see the bar exam pass/fail ratio for Concord.

• [Bob Oliphant, William Mitchell College of Law] While traditional legal education is not dead, Concord certainly should be considered a wake up call to those who believe the present approach can go on forever without serious challenge.

• [Laura Gasaway, University of North Carolina School of Law] I agree with Justice Ginsburg in the main. I am not worried about students taking some courses over the Internet, and certainly I am a big advocate of enhancing courses with out-of-class discussions on the Internet, using the web in class, etc.

  Whether an Internet-based only law school can replicate the experience of oral class discussions, moot court arguments, etc., seems doubtful to me. I suppose that I favor a redrafting of the ABA Temporary Guidelines on Distance Learning which permit students to take only 6 hours of their law school courses via distance education, but how much should this be relaxed? Is there something about the first year experience that cannot be duplicated electronically?

  On the other hand, some courses lend themselves to this approach, and some law teachers should have the opportunity to explore teaching in this format.

• [Kenneth Salzburg, Hamline University School of Law] As usual, we law profs, etc., are opining without data. I have read, on this topic, little but ipse dixit - my opinion, my experience, my school. There must be some data out there: studies of what, if anything, is added or subtracted from the education of students by learning on one's own.

  Modern education has found benefits in some newer types of student interaction (group work, focused feedback, peer editing, etc.). Some of this may be easier over the net - some not. Can any of us say with assurance that there is no difference between (or, more to the point), an advantage to one form of instruction over the other?

• [Walter Edwards] My opinion involving courses and/ or degrees being taught over the net is that it is a refreshing step toward improving and inspiring better education. There will always be opportunity in one's life to cheat. Also isn't life learning how to retrieve information? In my experience of 10 years in college, instructors have a tendency to be hurried in their instructing; always expressing time is short and they must move on. I do think it is rather interesting that Justice Ginsburg is rather closed minded in different approaches to education because when she was nominated to serve a clerkship under Justice Frankfurter, he was closed minded about having a woman associate with him.

• [Patrick Wiseman, Georgia State University College of Law] Justice Ginsburg suggests that an online education is an isolated one. Were this so, I would certainly share her concerns, because law is a collaborative enterprise. But it need not be so. When we create online, interactive opportunities for learning, we are actually as likely to enhance student-student and student-faculty interaction as we are to diminish it.

  In my experience, teaching a course on Law and the Internet principally on the Internet, since the summer of 1995, my daily interaction with students is more frequent, if not face-to-face, than in conventional courses

  I think some caution is in order, and that accrediting bodies should ensure that the quality of education available online is the equivalent of that available in the bricks-and-mortar law school; but there is no reason in principle why it cannot be.

• [Jack Goetz, Dean, Concord University School of Law] We certainly respect Justice Ginsburg's opinion, but believe that if she were to experience Concord's curriculum, she would change her mind. Now marking its first anniversary, Concord is making a high quality legal education available to 150 professionals, family caretakers and others whose circumstances prevent them from pursuing a legal education at a fixed facility law school. Concord won't replace fixed facility schools and doesn't seek to do so, but we can make quality legal education accessible to those who otherwise wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. We encourage Justice Ginsburg to take a look at Concord. We're confident that we can change her mind about online learning.

• [Mike Semple Piggott, CEO of Semple Piggot Rochez, (London, UK) http://www.spn-law.com] Clearly - as a provider of the world's first Internet based law programme (tuition for the University of London LLB Degree) I will take a contrary view to that advanced by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

  One could write a very detailed response - but let it suffice, for the present, to make a number of points which are relevant to the English situation.

  1. No internet based law programme can replicate the university experience. I believe it important that all those going into higher education experience the life of a student at a University if this is possible for them.

  2. Some students, however, are not in the privileged position of being able to afford to attend university

  3. In the main, our students, many of whom come from the US, Australia, The Caribbean, Hong Kong, Singapore, Europe and England - are postgraduates. Many of these mature, experienced, students have demanding jobs and families. They cannot afford to return to a traditional university environment to pursue further education - nor do they choose to.

  4. The quality of tuition we provide - the teachers and materials are the same on our net based course as for full-time face to face courses - is of a very high standard. In fact, it has been our experience over the last three years that the quality of teaching is perhaps higher as we have had to learn to be very precise and mindful of the specific needs of students doing a course by remote learning. We have all commented on the fact that our contact with net based students through email, telephone calls and even over lunch when students visit London, is rather higher than with our face to face students. Net based students seem to want more contact.

  5. The 'proof is in the pudding'. The University of London degree, easily rated within the top three law degrees in the UK is one of the oldest law degrees in the UK. The degree, whether taken full-time or part-time, internally or externally or by private study - or over the internet - is a University of London degree. No distinction is made between degrees taken internally or externally.

  The London degree is also one of the most demanding; demanding in terms of content and intellectual rigour. A student who studies a London degree by private study, or over the net, and who obtains a lower second class degree or above is entitled to be treated with respect. He or she has earned that respect and I am not alone in finding the ignorant snobbery of those who look down on students who study a difficult subject privately or by distance learning as rather offensive.

  The net based course (or traditional distance learning course), provided it is properly taught and provided the standard of the degree awarded is recognised as being of a high standard , provides a very viable alternative to undergraduates who cannot afford to pay high law school fees and is equally viable for postgraduates who wish to develop their intellectual interests, or advance their careers.

  Please also remember that the legal profession benefits from diversity. When I read law, and that is only twenty five years ago, it was still very much the bastion of the middle classes.

  Today, because of the efforts of the new universities in Britain and the broadening of access provided by the more interesting old universities (Cambridge, Oxford and London have been in the forefront of this trend) - students from a range of backgrounds, social, racial and economic, have the chance to enter a noble profession.

  We do not want to return to the days when Mr. Justice Darling could comment "The Law is open to all......just like the doors of The Ritz Hotel' (Forgive me, it is early in the morning in London as I write, if I have attributed the aphorism incorrectly.)

  For my part, I have been teaching law for 23 years. I have taught a broad range of courses from undergraduate to the Bar and I have been privileged to have taught students from all over the world. I am proud to provide tuition over the net to those students tough enough and inspired enough, to take on a demanding programme and I am particularly proud of the fact that we have in Britain, a great University, far sighted enough to provide students from all over the world with the opportunity to study law. The London University law degree is open to all who satisfy fairly modest entry requirements. The degree is awarded only to those who meet their very exacting standards - and that, in my opinion, is exactly as it should be.

  London University may not have provided a net based course - but they were in the very forefront of providing the vehicle for distance learning over one hundred years ago. Net based learning is but a modern means of delivering high quality (legal) education. There are many thousands of experienced lawyers, throughout the World, who read law under the auspices of The University of London (External Programme). Many of those studied privately or by distance learning. I am told that Nelson Mandela read law by distance learning with The University of London.

  The net is a tool. Like all tools it can be used badly. We are able to hold tutorials in real time over the net, to talk to our students over the net and provide real support over the telephone and by email. In a very short time we will be able to stream video recordings over the net and allow online video conferencing. Students can access law reports and a wealth of other legal reources over the net. Students can hold private discussion groups with each other, at fairly low cost, over the net.

  It seems to me that we can do everything, in teaching terms, that a traditional law school can do. We accept that we cannot provide the same level of social interaction in terms of physical presence. There is very little difference, therefore, in terms of teaching and support, between the level of service my colleagues and I provide to our net based students from the service we provide to our full-time students. Indeed, my net based students have said to me on more than one occasion that they get more contact from us over the net than they ever did when they were at university for their first degree.

  It will be interesting to see how the legal establishment responds to the challenge of the net. I suspect that more than a few Universities will start to embrace the net in the very near future. It is already happening in other disciplines.

• [Susan Altus, law student, Solingen, GERMANY] Being a student of Mike Semple Piggott I felt I wished to comment on this subject. I am a mature student with an HND in Business Studies and a BA from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. After having gone through a divorce I wished to pursue a new line in my career. With two small children at home it would have been impossible for me to go back to University. Mike Semple Piggott's course was absolutely the correct choice for me. I have regular contact to fellow students here in Germany, in Beijing and in the Dutch Antilles and many other countries. It is a fantastic chance for me, demanding, interesting and very worthwhile. We have continuous contact to the teachers and if we have any problems they are always at hand to help.Of course it would be nice to go to the cafeteria and chat things through sometimes but I am able and willing to meet up on the chat line. I enjoy every moment of the course and can quite happily say that the first year was in every point a sucess.