I couldn´t believe anybody would be supposed to do in only three years what I am attempting to do with a complete loss of social life in four years at the moment- so I checked out the lignes directrices and some other sources; Jean-Francois, the new curriculum doesn´t expect students to do both degrees in three years, but in four years. Doing it in three years merely is an option and it actually sounds as if the four year approach will be encouraged. However, after having thought about this and about the kind of students that study law at McGill, I must assume that there will be students finishing the double degree in only three years. There certainly are reasons to attempt this, such as the fact that three years of law school simply are cheaper than four years. However, is it even possible to receive a full, reflected and good comparative legal education in such a short time? Won´t students just rush through their studies, focusing not on understanding, but on passing exams? And won´t this be contrary to the very core of the idea of a comparative approach?

The mere existence of students finishing in three years will considerably increase the pressure on others to do the same, no matter which approach is encouraged and, as Yves-Marie Morrissette, I am wondering whether students will actually “have the linguistic skills needed to absorb the new materials?” and whether the “student workload is realistic?”. Probably, it will be possible to do it and, knowing McGill students, there will be some able to do it with good grades- it is crucial to ask, however, at what price this “crash course legal education” comes. Extracurricular activities will suffer if too many people fast-track through in three years– what about the legal clinic, and the faculty clubs, and skit nite? We need students with a manageable course load to participate in these events and keep the faculty vibrant and alive!

Another aspect I would like to question is Anne-So´s assumption that ´this form of legal education will be useful in so many countries´. I am not sure about that. If any of you guys have read Professor Kasirer´s article you will know the distinction between Law´s Cosmos and Law´s Empire. He claims that “law students and their teachers often seem more naturally disposed to imperialism than cosmology”, meaning that they see legal education as means to an end. He holds that there is a “(…) sense of first-duty to the profession- that law schools must train lawyers rather than educate citizens”. This argument is a valid one. While it is nice to be an educated citizen, to have compared loads of systems, it is questionable whether this will actually be of any use in the ´real legal world´; and, let´s be honest, we all want a good job and we cannot all pursue a career in academia. Most of us will actually have to go out there and practice law- and I don´t think that many of our future clients will be interested in what would happen to them in another, foreign legal system. Also, let´s think about the bar; in order to pursue this career outside of university, we will need to pass the bar and we will need to do well; the envisaged McGill program does not sound like the optimal preparation for this challenge to me…

Marie U.