The panel discussion, chaired by Avrom and responding in part to the film produced by UKCLE, started with useful contributions from Chris Maguire, Melissa Hardee and Roger Burridge. There were spirited responses from the floor but the debate resolved yet again into an either/or, between versions of the liberal law school and versions of the vocational training school. From various quarters there were warnings that the economy was against us, that government funding was an instrument of a policy of utilitarian impoverishment of our traditions, that critical thinking was the essential ground of the law school's vision, that engagement with the profession was essential; and the longer it drew on the more abstract and heated the discussion became.
Does the debate have to turn out like this? Is there another approach we can take?