Although I haven’t made a final choice (still waiting for the GULC numbers) it looks increasingly likely that August will find me in D.C.
GULC offers two different curricula for first year law students: Curriculum A and Curriculum B.
Curriculum A appears to be the “standard” first year spread of courses as taught by nearly every other law school in the country (CivPro, ConLaw, Contracts, Torts, Property, Criminal Justice, Legal Research and Writing, plus one elective).
Curriculum B is presented as an alternative approach to the same topics. From the webpage linked to above:
The "B" curriculum, available to one section of full time students, requires seven courses different in emphasis from those in the "A" curriculum: Bargain, Exchange, and Liability; Democracy and Coercion; Government Processes; Legal Justice Seminar; Legal Practice: Writing and Analysis; Process; and Property in Time. The "B" section emphasizes the sources of law in history, philosophy, political theory, and economics. It also seeks to reflect the increasingly public nature of contemporary law.
From the materials they’ve sent me, it seems that Curriculum B was designed to provide an overview of the law which might not be as easily generated through the traditional first year courses. Specifically, the materials suggest that Curriculum B was developed to address “the emergence of the regulatory state,” the erosion of “doctrinal boundaries” (say between torts and contracts), and the influence of other disciplines, economics, poli-sci, etc.
My initial response is to go down on my knees and say, “Sign Me Up, Please.”
Any thoughts on why that might not be a good idea? The obvious boogey men would be a) more inter-disciplinary reading, b) less commercial products designed to help one study, c) lack of a “tradition” of advice to draw upon, d) skittery “traditional” employers, e) perhaps some isolation from other law students who are not covering the same materials as you are.
On the other hand, all those could be seen as positives.