Are law schools talking about but avoiding a revolution? My own view is yes. I am sort of an outsider in academia, having practiced for 15 years before starting to teach, and believing firmly that studying old substantive law is a waste of time when the same skills can be taught while, also, learning substantive law that still matters. (Yes, I hear you say, "the bar exam still might cover the Rule Against Perpetuities, so we must. Alas, we are beholden to the bar exam!" Nonsense, I say. If you think the kids remember that stuff 2.5 years later, one, and two if that justifies 3 years of law school, well, we just disagree.)
Here's an interesting article on this, by Sara K. Rankin entitled "Tired of Talking: A Call for Clear Strategies for Legal Education Reform: Moving Beyond the Discussion of Good Ideas to the Real Transformation of Law Schools." I may have missed it the first time around, but as I'm sitting working as an expert in trial this summer (while on a hiatus from my teaching job before a judicial clerkship (at age 51!)), I am again pondering the discconnect, especially with property and contracts, and the real world.