<p>Which law schools/programs are known for emphasizing the philosophical elements of law? I'm double majoring in philosophy and history of math and science, and double minoring in comparative literature and classics. I would love to find a law program that has an interdisciplinary, humanistic approach to law, or really any program that is more theoretical. I know University of Chicago offers such a program. Are there other schools with a similar focus? I am hoping law school will offer more than practical training.</p>
<p>any top law school is very theoretical in nature-- which is why you need to take a bar review course to actually pass the bar. Most (top) law schools don’t actually teach you how to be a lawyer, but rather how to think. It’s only as you go down in selectivity that you get a more practical education.</p>
<p>Then which law schools are known for having an intellectual environment where students are care more about ideas than their grades/future careers?</p>
<p>YLS, pretty much. Maybe Chicago.</p>
<p>Bluntly … none. You can take classes in intellectual areas at any good school but for every “history of the common law,” you’ll get 3 that cover the base material in a fairly practical manner. Understand that every subject has its ideas and the material in each class is a history of how the courts have grappled with the ideas. Every line of cases works that way.</p>
<p>No school is particularly interested in the philosophy of law. You won’t find much discussion of alternate legal systems outside of international law classes or the nature of laws, but rather you discuss the philosophy - the practical philosophy - of full disclosure as a root of evidence.</p>
<p>[The</a> Philosophical Gourmet Report 2009 :: The Study of Philosophy in Law Schools and Top Law Schools](<a href=“http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/lawsch.asp]The”>http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/lawsch.asp)</p>
<p>I wouldn’t argue with someone called ThePhilosopher, but I stand by my post. All legal discussion is at some level philosophical - in the rigorous sense, not in the common usage - but that is not the focus of a legal education. My best teachers in the philosophical sense included the former head of DoJ antitrust; this was his bent.</p>
<p>I would agree with Lergnom to a certain point. Yes, the underlining purpose of JD instruction is to enable a graduate to actively practice law. Certain schools have a more academic approach to this learning than others who have a more practical approach. If a person wanted to study legal philosophy as an academic subject, then a PhD or legal doctorate would likely be most appropriate.</p>
<p>To agree, the difference in instruction is that the lesser quality schools tend to be more nuts & bolts while the better schools are more about the ideas. The latter is, IMHO, the right pedagogical approach. But you don’t need to go to a top 10 ranked school to get this kind of instruction.</p>