Okay, I know I usually only post here about running, or, more recently about not running. But today I'm going to post about competition law. I have been wondering recently about the status of the antitrust course in the modern law school curriculum. When I was in law school everybody took it. But that was back in the 1980s when folks didn't yet realize that the Reagan revolution was permanent.
By the time I went on the teaching market, I proposed to teach antitrust, but most schools' priorities were elsewhere. One school that made me an offer said they didn't think there was sufficient student interest to even offer the course. Since Spencer left Brooklyn many moons ago, the hole has never been filled. Indeed, the gap has existed for so long that my colleagues don't even realize that it exists.
In my view, antitrust is foundational. It is the one place in the law school curriculum where we expose law students to the basic economics of business regulation and market structure. My fear is that our students get haphazard exposure to these topics at best. The modern paradigm is financial services regulation, which is devoted to preventing fraud rather than addressing market structure. Students get bits and pieces of theory about global markets in an international trade course, but there are too many other things going on in that course for that to be sufficient.
I guess my question for the group is whether this is a problem at one school, or is it a deeper problem in the law school curriculum??