Clinic is the Basis for a Complete Legal Education: Quality Assurance, Learning Outcomes and the Clinical Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinic is the basis for a complete legal education. The time has come to stop treating clinic as a marginal, alternative approach to learning some but not all things requisite for a sound legal education aimed at producing capable practitioners. It is a powerfully effective, experiential and varied, comprehensive approach to the structure and contents of a legal education. I will argue that given a full interpretation of the term “Clinical Legal Education” (CLE), CLE in its many forms can serve as the model for a legal education. Also, in this paper I will examine the relationship between the learning outcomes we have for a legal education and the learning methods characteristic of a variety of forms of clinical legal education. At another time it will be useful to show how assessment of learning through clinic suits the full range of outcomes as well. There is a discussion of the meaning of the term Clinical Legal Education, as I use it, in Section 6. Some readers may wish to come back to the beginning after reading the section entitled “What is clinical legal education?”.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".