While legal education plays an important role in upholding the rule of
law and protecting the rights of individuals, there is a dearth of research on
the impact of differences in institutional and cultural contexts on legal
education. This Article examines the impact of educational systems and
culture on the law school experiences of American and Chinese students and
assesses whether the students\u2019 experiences meet the educational goals of law
school diversity. Using data from LSSSE 2020-2021, we compared and
evaluated the law school experiences of 21,706 American and 218 Chinese
students using descriptive statistics and linear regression. We found that
differences in educational systems and cultures influence Chinese students\u2019
satisfaction with law school to some extent. Chinese students focus more on
interactions with faculty rather than students, and their enjoyment of law
school life relies more singularly on quantifiable achievement motivations.
This study contributes to an understanding of how culture and institutions
have shaped the development of legal education in different countries, and
how a very different socio-political environment affects the satisfaction of
American and international Chinese students with their law school
experience. These findings help to rethink whether legal education effectively
contributes to the fulfilment of liberal legalism. In addition, the findings urge
policymakers and law schools to adjust their strategies in order to achieve the
goal of diverse interactions in legal education.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
While legal education plays an important role in upholding the rule oflaw and protecting the rights of individuals, there is a dearth of research onthe impact of differences in institutional and cultural contexts on legaleducation. This Article examines the impact of educational systems andculture on the law school experiences of American and Chinese students andassesses…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,22,451],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles-2","category-print-archive","category-57-3"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4280","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/58"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4280"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4280\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4286,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4280\/revisions\/4286"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}