The new law school at the University of California, Irvine is attempting to implement an innovative vision of top-tier legal education that focuses upon preparing students for the practice of law, and which emphasizes skills-based and experiential training. As part of that effort the school has restructured the traditional first-year law school curriculum so that several of the courses each focus on particular analytical methods, specifically common law analysis, statutory analysis, procedural analysis, constitutional analysis, and international legal analysis, rather than on a particular subject matter such as contracts, torts, etc. While there are some advantages to this new approach, I discuss in this brief article my concerns regarding whether this approach will be as effective in teaching first-year students basic contract law as would be a more traditional approach that attempts to simultaneously expose students to both the common law and statutory aspects of the subject in a more integrated and holistic fashion.
Gregory S. Crespi, The UC-Irvine Experiment: Will it Be Effective at Teaching Contract Law? (2011)