Hi All:
One of the exciting things about teaching law to people who don't want
to be lawyers is teaching law as a planning tool.  Although I still
require students to do briefs - not because of the law school aspects -
but because it is one of the ways to learn to read document carefully,
do careful analysis, and to summarize what one has read, I have added
two elements to the traditional brief format to emphasis the planning
aspects.  One is a paragraph on the ethical issues raised by any case
that they have to brief and in particular as part of that discussion
they have to cite one of the Caux Round Table Principles - see my web
page for a link to these. It is a sneaky way of getting them to look
over these principles on a regular basis and to reflect on their
application to specific business activities.  The second added paragraph
is a business reflection which means what does this case tell you about
how to conduct your business in the further.  Any student that says in
effect, "Well, the business won so they can keep on doing it" hasn't
learned anything about planning.  After some comments back from me over
these type of answers, I begin to get more careful reflections about the
management process.
Just another cent and a half - I'm in the writing mode today and writing
you all is as good an excuse as any to take a break from the real task
at hand.
Mary Ann

Ross Petty wrote:
>
> I have seen a lot of discussion recently of relatively petty reasons for our
> perceptions of second class status.  To some degree, I agree with those
> reasons, but I also think we need to accept some responsibility ourselves.
> Many of us still teach the way we and every possible adjunct was taught in
> law school.  We teach in a negative mode by looking predominantly at cases
> where a business was sued, instead of a positive mode where legal factors
> were use to gain competitive advantage (e.g., General Motors-Toyota joint
> venture).  And we focus our teaching predominantly on legal analysis, which
> while important, is lost on our students and colleagues, if not related to
> better management.  I think our texts have made significant improvement in
> recent years, but we still have a long way to go.
> If we want to earn the respect of our colleaques, why don't we publish more
> in their journals where their editors and reviewers will force us to be
> relevant.  Few business faculty read law reviews.
> At Babson, people get very nervous if we have more than a few law adjuncts
> teaching fundamental courses because it is believed they don't teach the way
> the full time law faculty teach.
> If we don't want to be replaced by adjuncts, we need to show how the way we
> teach is better for business students than the teaching of most adjuncts!
> Practicing attorneys who are adjuncts likely offer a wealth of informantion
> about case law, litigation tactics and costs, and compliance advice.  We
> should have the advantage in relating say antitrust law to competitive
> strategy such as Porter's five forces, or securities law to a firm's
> financing strategy.
> Ross Petty
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fran Zollers <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thursday, October 28, 1999 5:26 PM
> Subject: Summary
>
> >A few other arguments come to mind as I read the contributions to the
> >discussion so far.  I summarize the previous messages and their
> >arguments against having law as a fundamental part of the business
> >curriculum as follows:
> >
> >1.  Adjuncts are cheaper and you can get them by the dozen to teach
> >law.  (I add that, unlike other fields, our adjuncts are terminally
> >qualified, which makes deans smile.  I suspect our colleagues think that
> >
> >anyone can teach law and that we find these folks at the bus station,
> >but no one has ever said that to my face).
> >
> >2.  There is no obvious career path for someone coming out of business
> >school with a law major.
> >
> >3.  PhDs look down their noses at "mere" JDs.
> >
> >I hope I haven't left anyone out.  To the above I would add the thought
> >that law, as seen by our colleagues, is actually antithetical to
> >business.  It is, after all, the law that imposes restrictions on
> >business and how it operates.  We are seen as the folks who say no all
> >the time.  We mess up our finance colleagues' notion of perfect markets;
> >
> >we throw roadblocks in front of our manufacturing and marketing
> >colleagues. And we can make grown accounting professors cry.  I suspect
> >they think that if we really believed in business, we would have chosen
> >a different discipline.  Last, we are, afterall, lawyers.  Most of us
> >don't call ourselves that, but our colleagues sure do.  Quite apart from
> >
> >the bad feelings our colleagues have for the profession in general, they
> >
> >sure as heck don't want us out there producing baby lawyers through our
> >classes.
> >
> >There's my two cents.  It's quitting time.  Time to go home, everyone.
> >

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
"One can never consent to creep when one feels an impulse to soar."
Helen Keller