Amu

[Schmedlap]

JMM,

I would offer a slightly different angle. I've taken courses that dealt with legal topics in graduate school (contracts, torts, property, secured transactions, agency, partnerships, corporate law). I've also taken each of those classes in law school. The course descriptions were very similar, but the approaches were fundamentally different.

The graduate approach is to familiarize students with basic concepts and to apply them, with the intent of being able to interact intelligently with a legal professional. For example, in business school, the goal was for students to better interact with their in-house counsel. There is little to no emphasis on understanding how the law evolved, how to attempt to change it, and we never read a single case.

In law school, as you surely recall, it is the exact opposite. The semester generally begins with older cases that have been overturned in whole or in part, followed by the landmark cases that caused the changes, and analysis of the issues in each case, with the intent of the students being able to "spot issues" in any given scenario and argue each side of the issue to make an assessment of how the law is likely to be interpreted and whether/how to approach it.

By analogy, the former would be equivalent to getting a class on how to select a lawyer, how to prepare for a meeting with him, and what services you can reasonably expect from him. The latter would be equivalent to learning how to address clients' legal needs, how to extract necessary information from them to fully analyze the issues relevant to their situations, and what you can expect to do for them.

That said, in looking at the core curriculum that you posted, I don't know why a person wouldn't just go to law school. It would probably open more doors and, as you noted, it is very similar to most 1L curricula. Why anybody would subject themselves to the tedium of those courses without getting a JD in return is beyond me. After the 1L year, students can take whatever courses their hearts desire, to include those listed (though my school, I'll admit, does not offer a course on "Islamist warfare" but there are equally enlightening and interested courses to choose from that have an international flavor to them).

I do agree with your overall analysis that it looks like a good program, though.

[jmm99]

As to this, you presume too much:

from S
In law school, as you surely recall, it is the exact opposite.

and for breakfast this morning, I had ???

Seriously, I agree with your analysis:

The graduate approach is to familiarize students with basic concepts and to apply them, with the intent of being able to interact intelligently with a legal professional. For example, in business school, the goal was for students to better interact with their in-house counsel. There is little to no emphasis on understanding how the law evolved, how to attempt to change it, and we never read a single case.

but it does depend on how the classes are taught - case by case analysis, etc.

That having been said, I was never fond of the typical Socratic case by case approach, and had a hell of a time with it. Fortunately, I found the wonderful world of hornbooks, which gave me the needed perspective and overview to "ace" first year.

As to a JD, I don't know whether there are schools equivalent to AMU that offer that. Also, there is the purpose for which the courses are taken - unless you want to be a practicing lawyer (civilian or military), a JD is just fancy window dressing. Nice window dressing though. It's worked for a few generals.

One way to approach AMU Legal Studies (which may well be a liaison type program as you mentioned) would be to try a few courses. In the Core, the two Criminal Law and Procedure courses, and the Constitutional Law course, would be my choice for starters. All fit into background for the UCMJ. Then follow up with International Law, Islamist Lawfare and Law of Armed Conflict.

So, a number of choices.

Regards

Mike

[Xenophon]

Is that really the name for it?!?!? Plays into many, many USMC related jokes if so.

Yeah I know. Probably why they rarely have enough applicants to fill their quota.

I very much appreciate the analysis of the program, and I understand the reasoning of "Why do the work without getting a JD?" My reasoning went like this. Since the SEP program only accepts applicants for Technical or History programs, I HAVE to do my History M.A. through that program. So, to bolster my academic record, I'm going to "diversify" and take some non-history courses. My next interest after History is Law, but I have no desire or plans to ever practice. So, legal studies looks interesting and I can afford it/get accepted into it/have the time to do it.