More reaction to Harvard's curricular changes

Picking up on Jim's post the other day, wherein a blogger at Law School Innovation called Harvard's changes "wimpy," check out these related entries at that blog:

Dean of Stanford on why tinkering with 1-L is barking up the wrong tree: link
Dean Larry Kramer notes that when he speaks to alumni, they inevitably tag the first year of law school as the most formative period of their law school career. He wonders why students in 2nd and 3rd year lose interest, and thinks we need to tinker in those upper year curricula and leave 1-L alone, since it seems to be working reasonably well.

And Orin Kerr responds on Volokh Conspiracy here,

I agree with a great deal of what Larry says, although I think he is overlooking something important: j-o-b-s. By a month into their second year, many students (and almost all at a school like Stanford) are going to have lined up summer jobs at law firms. As long as they don't act like freaks over the summer, they will get full-time job offers. As a result, the rat race is effectively over for many students the moment they accept their summer positions; they pay less attention than before because, well, they can.

Pretty insightful. Check out the many comments at both sites. The image above is a refrigerator magnet with Harvard Law's coat of arms, available for purchase at http://www.seaboston.pointshop.com/ : link