Practice-oriented legal education system: innovation – exploration at bit law school based on “two-wing synergy and three-dimensional collaboration”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16914798Keywords:
practice-oriented, legal education, curriculum-based political education, digitalization, internationalizationAbstract
Legal education should be practice-oriented. However, practical training remains a weak area globally. Traditional methods like moot courts, legal clinics, and internships require further improvement. In response to new circumstances, several targeted measures should be implemented. First, ideological and political education should be integrated into practical legal courses to help students understand the achievements of China’s rule–of–law development and enhance their sense of social responsibility. Second, the digitalization of practical training should be advanced through the use of virtual simulation technologies, the establishment of smart legal laboratories, and internships in legal technology firms. Third, internationalization should be promoted by building collaborative innovation platforms for cultivating international legal talent. Fourth, practical evaluation in professional degree programs should be improved by establishing clear standards for Juris Master thesis writing, including formats such as research reports and case analyses.
Downloads
References
Feng T. Research on the educational objectives of undergraduate legal education. In: Xia L, Li E, editors. theory of legal education. Beijing: China People’s Public Security University Press; 2006.
Xue J. Reform of legal education in the United Kingdom and its implications: focusing on the Omrod Report. New Horizons. 2016; (2): 125.
Hao Y. The German legal education system and its implications. Academic Theory. 2012; (5): 204.
Bu Y. The characteristics and causes of German legal commentary culture. Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities, and Social Sciences). 2020; (4): 122–123.
Wang C. The current state of legal education reform and macro-level institutional design: reflections on the lessons learned from Japan and South Korea and preliminary discussions on China’s reform. Law. 2016; (8): 61.
Langdell C. Harvard celebration speeches. Law Quarterly Review. 1887; (3): 123–124.
Rubin E. What’s wrong with Langdell’s method, and what to do about it. Vanderbilt Law Review. 2007; (60): 609–650. [Accessed 17 June 2025]. Available in: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol60/iss2/12/
Tiscione KK. How the disappearance of classical rhetoric and the decision to teach law as a “science” severed theory from practice in legal education. Wake Forest Law Review. 2016; (51): 385–398.
Stevens R. Law school: a century of legal education in the United States: from the 1850s to the 1980s. Li L, translator. Beijing: Peking University Press; 2017.
Lande J. Reforming legal education to prepare law students optimally for real-world practice. Journal of Dispute Resolution. 2013; (2013): 1–5. [Accessed 20 June 2025]. Available in: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1667&context=jdr
Dilloff NJ. Law school training: bridging the gap between legal education and the practice of law. Stanford Law & Policy Review. 2013; (24): 425–428. [Accessed 13 June 2025]. Available in: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2288714
Zheng YL. “The Chinese question” and its legal analysis. Tsinghua Law Review. 2016; (2): 7.
Zhou GQ. The practice-oriented approach in criminal law doctrine. China Legal Review. 2022; (4): 120.
Ren C. Cultivating outstanding legal talent in the field of international engineering under the new liberal arts paradigm. Education and Teaching Forum. 2022; (2): 14.
He MH, et al. The Ideal Professional Legal Education (Revised Edition). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press; 2016.
Zhang WX. Legal Education. Beijing: China Law Press; 2011.
Feng G. The historical consciousness of transitioning from a legal education powerhouse to a legal education superpower. Legal Education Research. 2022; (1): 7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Shouping Li, Dezhong Guo, Tianquan Sun, Yi Pei

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.