At the Yale Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School the first two years of work are prescribed. At Yale fifteen hours out of twenty-two and at Pennsylvania twelve hours out of twenty-five must be elected in the third year.

I pass by the first type, that of apparently free electives from the outset, because I strongly suspect that it differs little in reality, however much it may differ in form, from the second. As the free elective is tempered, in any event, by the will of the dean, we can have no very clear notion of the actual state of things without a familiarity with the views of that official.

The second type seems to be the one of most interest. Only one-third of the entire work required for a degree is prescribed. The other two-thirds is freely elected from a list of subjects including, at Harvard, agency, persons, damages, quasi contracts, equity, trusts, property, evidence, corporations, negotiable instruments, suretyship, sales, carriers, insurance, partnership, constitutional law, conflict of laws, bankruptcy and admiralty. Each of these subjects extends through an entire year, occupying one or two hours per week, and two of themequity and property-extend through two years, although one course in property has already been required in the first year. The entire list would occupy the average student about four years, upon the basis of work required each year toward a degree. This school offers, then, five years of work, but gives its degree when three of the five have been completed.

is

The first question that naturally occurs to one contemplating the system where all the work of the second and third years elective is, What do the records show as to the choice of subjects? Does the system, after all, result in a normal curriculum, such as would be advised by experts?

In only one school having the elective system have I found in print the record of electives covering a series of years. All students are required to take during their first year contracts, torts, property, pleading and criminal law. Second and third year students elect freely from about forty hours of work and are required to have twenty hours (ten each year) for gradua

tion. I have sought from the reports to tabulate these electives. Taking the senior electives for a particular year and the junior electives for the preceding year, we obtain approximate results for a particular graduating class. It is not entirely accurate, for some who elected as juniors are not present as seniors. The result is therefore too favorable, since we credit a particular senior class with the junior electives of those who have dropped out. Disregarding this, however, we obtain some instructive results.

Of the 167 seniors of 1903 we find that 83 have elected agency; 19, persons, and 7, damages. Now these are precisely the subjects which Professor Beale, at our session of 1902, in his paper upon The First Year Curriculum," thought suitable for first year and fundamental work, and two of whichagency and damages-he regarded as highly desirable. In the same class 36 had elected third year property, which included the subjects of future and conditional estates, curtesy, dower, etc.; 81 had elected carriers; 42, insurance; 23, partnership; 104, bills and notes; 47, quasi contract; while 80 had taken conflict of laws; 118, bankruptcy; 122, suretyship, and 134, constitutional law. Practically all had taken equity, trusts, second year property, evidence, corporations and sales.

Preceding years show many curious variations. For example, in several classes tabulated, only from fifty to sixty per cent. of the graduates had taken equity in any form other than trusts. During a series of years nearly all had taken quasi contract and then the number dropped as low as 9 out of a class of 94, and 21 out of a class of 129 and 16 out of a class of 149. For many years only a very small fraction took suretyship, and then the number rose to considerably more than one-half the class. In general, we find that agency, trusts, second year property, evidence, corporations, bills and notes and sales have been the favorite electives, while the other subjects have fallen into lower ranks, showing quite erratic variations. 1

1

1A member of the Columbia Law School faculty has kindly furnished a table of electives for that school, which shows a pretty steady election of

These results answer, for at least one leading school, the inquiry as to the actual workings of the elective system. The results raise another and vital question. Is it, then, immaterial whether a student pursues during his law school course such primary subjects as agency, equity and evidence or such practical subjects as sales, negotiable instruments, wills and corporations? May he profitably substitute the conflict of laws for equity or admiralty for advanced property or international law for agency or bankruptcy for evidence?

There would seem to be some subjects without a knowledge of which neither professional acquirements nor professional efficiency could be predicated. First among these may be named contracts, torts, property, agency, equity, pleading, evidence and criminal law. Of these all but agency, equity and evidence are usually first year subjects, in whole or in part. But upon what argument may agency, equity and evidence be omitted from the required curriculum? Certainly agency is a fundamental and indispensable topic of the law, essential to the proper understanding of many other topics and in some of its phases involved in an enormous and growing mass of litigation. Certainly equity, with its peculiar doctrines and its peculiar remedies, is essential to any clear understanding of property rights. Evidence along with pleading must be familiar to anyone who proposes to engage in legal practice. As well send the physician into practice without a knowledge of therapeutics as a lawyer without a knowledge of pleading and evidence. Yet under an elective system we find that these subjects may be taken or omitted at the choice or the whim of the student.

Certain other subjects, while not so fundamental as these, rise to prime practical importance, because touching so closely the daily life and trade and property of men. Among these might be named sales, negotiable paper, corporations and wills. equity, second year property, agency, sales, negotiable paper, corporations, evidence and partnership, although it would appear that a few graduates may have omitted any one or more of these topics. The variations are far less erratic, however, than those given above,

Now these subjects, because of their vital relation to everyday life, ought to be familiar to every lawyer. Yet these also may be omitted under an elective system upon considerations more or less obscure.

Whatever might be said or argued concerning the rest of the curriculum, it seems, from the point of view of practical legal acquisition and of professional fitness, that the subjects named in these two groups should be among those required of all students. It is hardly a satisfactory answer to aver that most students do voluntarily take these subjects under an elective system. The point I desire to emphasize is that every student who is given a law school degree should take them.

It may be granted that some subjects may well be electives, which is equivalent to saying that they may be omitted by the student altogether. Certainly specialized subjects like admiralty law and patent law, and perhaps such topics as international law and the conflict of laws, may be left out of the curriculum. These are, as it were, at the negative pole, while those previously named are at the positive pole of legal study.

Between these two extremes lie a large number of topics which might be included among electives, if there is to be any elective system at all beyond that which warrants the omission of topics from the curriculum altogether. Such are the topics of carriers, insurance, partnership, suretyship, persons, damages, insolvency and bankruptcy, trusts (except so far as covered in the general equity course), quasi contract, constitutional law and procedure.

But what is to be said in favor of such an elective system covering and including these topics? First, that time will not permit that they should all be taught in detail in a required curriculum, and, second, that the choice among them may, for various reasons, better be left to the student than prescribed by the faculty.

The time problem is certainly a grave one. The courses offered at Harvard, which I have taken as the leading example

of an elective school, occupy about fifty hours per week. If only ten hours per week be required, it would take five years to complete them; if twelve hours per week be required, it would take about four years; and if fifteen hours per week be required, as in some schools, the topics not indicated above as concededly proper for electives could all be taken in three years. Moreover, experts might differ as to whether too much time is not allowed proportionally to certain subjects, and whether, if subjects were arranged by semesters instead of by years, a subject occupying two hours for a year might not, for example, be as well covered in three hours for a half year. But even with a reasonable increase in the number of required hours and a reasonable decrease in the time allotted to certain minor subjects, there would still be some excess of hours offered over hours required.

The problem of choice is also a difficult one. Some subjects, like carriers, insurance and persons, are comparatively easy, have slight disciplinary value, and any lawyer equipped with the fundamentals could readily master the details of any one of them. Some subjects, like partnership, though difficult and excellent for discipline, are of dwindling practical importance. Some, like persons and damages, are so implicated in other courses as to become more or less familiar without resort to separate study. Some, like bankruptcy, are matters of statute and statutory construction, and may be followed down to any necessary point by digests and annotations. If there is to be an elective system, the above subjects might properly be included in it, along with admiralty, patent law, international law and conflict of laws. About trusts, quasi contracts, suretyship and constitutional law there is more doubt, because of their inherent importance and their technical difficulties.

It would certainly be true, from the point of view here taken, that the subjects without which no student should be sent forth as professionally equipped would occupy somewhat more than two years of his time, counting twelve hours of class room work per week. This does not seem an excessive