My friend and colleague Mehmed did an excellent post last week about why Kent Law School is a great place for postgraduate studies. In this post, I would like to build upon by discussing my personal experience till now and how it substantiate all the good name and reputation which Kent Law School has earned.
Kent Law School was highly recommended to me by several people who have been involved in the U.K. academia for being one of the very few educational institutions in Europe where critical approach to the study of law is pursued quite seriously. It is true that no law school in today’s era label themselves an “non-critical”, as Prof. Iain Ramsey pointed out in his lecture on Critical Legal Thinking (which was a part of a weekly lecture series on legal research and writing skills which we have here at Kent as a compulsory module), but at the same time it seems pointless to simply endorse critical thinking without actually following it. It is here, I think, where Kent Law School stands apart.
What I have experienced in the last few weeks is already very satisfying. The aim of the various modules taught here is not just to restate the law and make students the masters in remembering the provisions, but is to inculcate a sense of deeper and fundamental understanding of the various assumptions and justifications on which the law is structured and the different policy choices which are reflected in it. Furthermore, students are encouraged to question and evaluate these fundamental assumptions, justifications and policy choices on basis of their own normative ideas and preferences. The importance of such an approach can be understood through an interesting anecdote about Albert Einstein which goes like this: though Einstein, since childhood, was excellent in math and natural sciences he repeatedly failed to pass his history test. He was summoned by his history teacher and was asked to explain why he hadn’t answered the questions asked about some particular war. The answer of young Einstein was simple. “I am least interested in knowing the dates of the war and how many people died because I can always look up for such things in the books. Rather, I am interested in knowing the reasons which led to the war and how can they be prevented in the future.” I am sure there is little historical accuracy to this story itself and the little importance attached to historical facts is quite overstated, but the idea is appreciable.
However, such an approach towards the study of law requires a considerable degree of effort. At Kent Law School, the students are treated as researchers and expected to be sincere from their side. I believe this is not such a bad thing and prospective students must not see this as a discouragement. In fact, the kind of discussions initiated by teachers in class itself encourages you and makes that extra effort interesting. For instance, though I have already studied intellectual property laws in my undergraduate course, the structure and the content of the Intellectual Property module which I am taking here has rekindled by interest in examining the various theoretical justifications behind granting intellectual property rights. This, in my opinion, would greatly enhance and complement my understanding of the IP laws and their working. Similarly, I am extremely impressed by the way the module on WTO law and policy, my main area of academic interest, is being taught by building from the ground up the understanding of the various rules and disciplines governing and regulating the multilateral trading regime and the interplay of the underlying theory, history and policy motives.
In conclusion, I would say that for students who are genuinely interested in a research-intensive educational experience and want to pursue a holistic and truly critical approach towards the study of law, Kent is definitely the place to be!