210 Conclusion
two people to become fluent in the language of the law while feeling quite different
senses of comfort or ownership.
Some scholarship has indicated that there are differences among law schools
in terms of typical pedagogical style, overall goals of legal training, and law school
cultures. A study of students and professors at 22 law schools by Alfred Smith
found “significant differences in cognitive styles among law schools.”^5 Teaching
at elite schools was not as rigidly focused on rules, but “aim[ed] to cope with
legal ambiguities and alternatives,” whereas lower-status schools tended to be
“oriented to law practice and black letter law.”^6 Zemans and Rosenblum simi-
larly noted that graduates of elite schools were more likely to “emphasize ana-
lytical thinking and the theoretical basis of the law” than those of “non-national”
law schools.^7 Robert Granfield makes a similar point in his comparison of Harvard
and Northeastern law schools, as does Christa McGill in her contrast of three law
schools that differ in status.^8 Although my study does provide some support for
this view, finding somewhat more emphasis on theory in the more elite class-
rooms (with some exceptions, however), it also provides some important cau-
tionary notes.
First, law professors in all of the first-year classrooms of this study are heavily
focused on teaching a legal reading of cases, which is a genre unlike any students
had likely encountered before law school. During this initial exposure to law in
the first semester of law school, we see some striking similarities in overall em-
phasis in these classrooms. Although it is important to notice status-based dif-
ferences, a full picture must also take account of these empirically observable
similarities in first-year classroom discussions across diverse law schools. It seems
likely that differences among the schools will become more marked during sub-
sequent semesters, after students have assimilated the rudiments of the new genre,
and will also be more noticeable in the overall curricula of the schools. But the
initial task facing law students during their first semester is the same across law
schools of different statuses, and this is reflected in the classroom discussions
when carefully analyzed.
Second, there are differences among schools of similar rankings. A local law
school in a city may be quite different from one located in a rural area, as might be
a large state university (i.e., regional) law school located in the farm belt from a
smaller, regional law school in an urban center. Thus, generalizations about insti-
tutions based only on status rankings may elide other distinctions that are also
having an impact on schools’ priorities and cultures.
Third, there are individual differences among professors that do not map
neatly onto traditional status hierarchy divisions. Several of the professors in this
study who taught in local or regional law schools had a keen interest in aspects
of legal theory, which they conveyed to their students, whereas one of the pro-
fessors in a very elite law school downplayed theoretical discussions. As we have
seen, professors teaching at lower-status institutions who were trained at elite
law schools may turn out to share some aspects of pedagogical style regardless of
where they are teaching. In addition, professors as individuals do not always re-
main in one kind of law school throughout their careers. Indeed, one of the pro-