Business schools are mercifully free of what a German MBA classmate called, (imagine the German accent here) “qualitative bullshit.” CMU’s Tepper school, especially, is ranked among the Top 10 because, true to Andrew Carnegie’s disdain for the liberal arts education, it focuses its curriculum on rigorous quantitative course work.

A truly radical experiment in legal education may be to similarly cut the “qualitative bullshit,”– what that means is anyone’s guess, but it may be worth a shot. We have nothing to lose but our chains…!

Teams. At Katz, you’re assigned a team from day one and work with them your entire first year of business school. The law is a solitary profession, but there may be some value in assigning teams in law school. I’ve heard that a few law schools are starting to experiment with teams and it sounds like a great idea– Pitt should be one of the first, too.

The Socratic Method. I am by no means convinced that this is the best method for teaching law, or at least certain areas. It too often reduces class sessions to 50-minute free-for-alls by ignorant law students who’d be better off absorbing knowledge from their Professor.

The case method. Business schools recognize that case teaching works for some classes and not for others. Econ, finance, and statistics are not taught through case studies. Strategy is. Law schools’ pathological devotion to case-based teaching makes no sense given the wide variety of law. Should courses like tax really be taught 100% through cases?

Teams. Pitt’s business school (and probably most) assign students a team from day 1The law is a solitary profession, but I

I’ve heard that a few law schools are starting to experiment with teams and it sounds like a great idea– Pitt should be one of the first, too.