In a recent post, Orin expresses doubts about whether the “traditional” form of the Socratic method is still used in many law schools. If by “traditional form” he means something like what is portrayed in The Paper Chase, I agree that not many use it. Very few lawprofs are as obnoxious as the mythical Professor Kingsfield. But, in my experience of teaching at three different US law schools over the last six years, a large number of professors do still use the Socratic Method in the sense of spending the bulk of their class time cold-calling on students and asking them questions about legal doctrine. A recent report on The Faculty Lounge blog states that most entry-level candidates on the lawprof job market say that they intend to use “soft Socratic” method as their primary teaching tool, by which they mean that they “like to create a welcoming atmosphere in the classroom where students feel free to participate, but also be sufficiently rigorous in calling on students to ensure that everyone is prepared.” To the extent that it still involves large amounts of cold-calling (as in most cases it does), “soft” Socratic method has many of the same shortcomings as the “hard” version. I discuss some of those problems here and here.
I don’t claim that all law professors should completely abjure all aspects of SM; I use some elements of it myself. For example, I have students sign up to be “on call” a couple times during the semester, when I assign myself the right to call on them involuntarily. But I only devote a minority of the class time to this activity, and don’t use SM at all in classes with fewer than 30 or 35 people. The optimal level of SM probably varies from class to class and teacher to teacher. However, I do think that the method is still overused by many professors and that, overall, we would do well move to closer to the teaching methods used by social science and humanities professors in the US and law professors abroad.
Early Bird says:
Most of my profs use it, with some variations (one professor lets you email her that day if you’re not prepared so she won’t call on you). I think it works well in large classes. As someone with a masters in history, I can say that most of my classes have also involved a fair amount of student discussion, reminiscent of what went on in grad school, after the rule has been teased out socratically.
I actually like SM (tee-hee)and feel like it helps me figure out what the professor thinks I should be getting out of the material. If you prepare for every class and try to answer the questions in your head as they’re being asked, you are assured to be above the curve on the final, at least in my experience.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 8:14 pmDoc Merlin says:
I had a chemistry class taught using the socratic method, but the instructor was very nice and nonjudgemental about it, and it ended up being horrible. The people who didn’t show up to class ended up with better grades than those of us who showed up.
I also had a philosophy class taught that way and it was one of the best classes I have ever taken.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 8:20 pmA. says:
О вкусах не спорят: есть тысяча мнений . . .
(Without something more than anecdotal evidence to support it, this chain of threads says more about the predilections of its participants than about anything else, notwithstanding the occasional argument-like phrases in which these predilections are expressed.)
Quote
November 21, 2009, 8:21 pmOrin Kerr says:
I would put it a different way: It’s hard to tell how much of this is genuine disagreement and how much is about definitions.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 8:39 pmChrisTS says:
I would like to admit to a heresy: I am not sure that every person is equally suited to every pursuit.
I have no idea if being a ‘verbal learner’ is necessary for success in law. I do know that it is central to doing philosophy.
I can [and do] work hard to help students who ‘have other learning styles’ to gain and enjoy as much as they can from my field. But there is a limit to the effectiveness of visual representations of precise abstract ideas.
I respect Prof. Somin’s efforts to help all of his students achieve their best. But, isn’t it possible that some of them have talents better suited to other endeavors?
Quote
November 21, 2009, 8:46 pmJon Rowe says:
ChrisTS,
There is no question that law school requires more of a verbal as opposed to a math intelligence. AND, there is a relationship between philosophical argument and legal argument. Law is a species of philosophy, with some eccentric rules of its own, like arguments from authority are fallacious in philosophy but not in law.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:00 pmJon Rowe says:
It should be noted, Chris, that those of us with higher than average verbal intelligence still have different ways of learning material. Some of us do better reading, some listening, some writing with our hands, some in group studies, some not, etc.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:02 pmAnuj Desai says:
Anyone interested in this question should read my colleague Beth Mertz’s book, The Language of Law School, which explores in some detail what it is that law professors do in the classroom.
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Law-School-Learning-Lawyer/dp/0195182863
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:28 pmGainesvilleGuest says:
As a student (for what my two cents are worth), I think law school would really loose something valuable if the Socratic Method (or at least SM-lite) was not employed by at least some or most of the professors. I truly do think it has changed the way I think for the better. And, in my experience, it has been an effective learning technique, so there is no trade-off problem between teaching the subject matter and teaching students to “think like lawyers”.
If students are not prepared and engaged, SM will not teach them. However, law Professors do not have an obligation to teach in a method that presumes students are not prepared and engaged in class.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:28 pmGainesvilleGuest says:
I’d be very much interested to here the other conspirators thoughts on this. Any takers?
Quote
November 21, 2009, 9:31 pmBeldar says:
I’ve spent the last 30 years practicing civil trial and appellate law. I’ve yet to have a single judge ask me a “soft” Socratic question.
Coddling does students no favors.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 11:21 pmWilliam Combs says:
My professors routinely use the socratic method in class. In some classes it is used less frequently, but those classes are more historical in nature. For example, I’m a course called “Federalism” right now. Since the class has more of a history feel to it rather than a traditional legal feel, the socratic method isn’t as necessary (fewer cases, more history, lots of interesting discussion). I have personally enjoyed the socratic method to this point, as it makes me really delve into the reading rather than simply absorbing it.
Of course, I may not know what the “traditional socratic method” is. To me it’s “Mr. Combs, could you tell us about Doe v. Doe?” That happens a lot.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:57 amWilliam Combs says:
My professors routinely use the socratic method in class. In some classes it is used less frequently, but those classes are more historical in nature. For example, I’m a course called “Federalism” right now. Since the class has more of a history feel to it rather than a traditional legal feel, the socratic method isn’t as necessary (fewer cases, more history, lots of interesting discussion). I have personally enjoyed the socratic method to this point, as it makes me really delve into the reading rather than simply absorbing it.
Of course, I may not know what the “traditional socratic method” is. To me it’s “Mr. Combs, tell us about Doe v. Doe.” That happens a lot.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:03 amGene Madison says:
It seems that these days, students are told what to think, rather than full comprehension. Almost like a child matching up the shape of the blocks to put into the toy. Sure, they can do it, and will do it, over and over like an ace. What’s the difference between scientific law and legal law? Is our Justice system Just? Do incentives promote a good work ethic, or does it promote self interests?
Can the Highest Law of the Land be amended in a way that is contrary to it? (Since in order for an Amendment to our Constitution to be Constitutional, it must be valid to all intents and purposes decalred in the Preamble, which secured for themselves and their posterity.. but no security in the Supreme Laws?)
It seems that most law schools educate students in the manipulation of the laws.. when such a thing is criminal in country governed by the rule of law. I could possibly be that rather than educating people in modern times, we’re telling them.. and they conform... Programmed like a machine who doesn’t realize.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:44 amBenP says:
You would really prefer the student not be told “what to think” when it comes to the UCC? or the Rules of Civil Procedure?
Just like I see the benefits of a liberal arts education, I see the benefits of having discussions about grand ideas “the law” and whether it’s just or how it ought to work. But ultimately such discussions aren’t effective at either teaching students to be lawyers or teaching them how to pass the bar. That’s the sort of thing law professors specialize in.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 7:11 amBenP says:
Also,
As for me, of the five professors I had my first year, only one used the full out socratic method. The others tended to use a soft socratic type method. Calling on students to give the holding of a case then explaining it themselves if necessary. One did almost pure lecture and very rarely asked questions.
In the second and third years the socratic method got rarer and rarer and lecture classes tended to predominate.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 7:14 amtRE says:
When the SM was instituted in American law schools what were the class sizes like? I’m guessing much smaller than now? I would have less objection to the method in a smaller class size.
My hypothesis is that law profs don’t generally use it in small classes because, counterintuitively, it is easier to dominate a large class than a small class. Several of the “socratic” professors used verbatim scripts and this would be more evident in a small class, and they would have to put up with more pesky student interaction.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:35 amCornellian says:
The Socratic method is useful in law school, especially in first year because it is the first time the students will have had their ideas directly challenged in real-time and have to respond to that challenge immediately, not after thinking about it for a few days or a week. That’s something they’re going to have to get used to if they’re going to be practicing law (at least in litigation).
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:49 amHBM says:
This topic has generated an incredible amount of heat, both in this and the other thread. Yet no one has suggested the existence of any evidence-based rationale for use of the Socratic method, or regarding whether the Socratic method works at all, or works better than any competing method. With all of the money that is spent on law school education, one would think that, by now, someone might have conducted a controlled experiment to determine whether the Socratic method is more effective at producing the desired outcomes — whatever those are. Anyone?
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:30 pmOrin Kerr says:
HBM,
If you tell us what you think it means for a method to “work” and what the “desired outcomes” are, we can give you an answer, I think.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 12:54 pmHBM says:
Well, good questions, but mildly frightening that you have to ask. What I know about the formal theory of education is pretty simplistic: there are supposed to be objectives to any course of instruction, and it doesn’t “count” as education unless you can measure whether those objectives have been achieved. Surely there must be some literature regarding the measurement of law-school-instruction outcomes.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:56 pmSuperSkeptic says:
the desired outcome, I suspect, is bar passage rate...
Quote
November 22, 2009, 1:59 pmOld Folks says:
I graduated from Vanderbilt in 1968 and have always felt that the sometimes brutal SM teaching I received in my first and second year was crucial in my learning to “think” like a lawyer.In 1965 Vanderbilt had a three day orientation course which among other things demonstrated the Case study approach and the SM. The whole class was in one room and I was the first one called on. After being reduced to blithering,I remained standing while the prof called on others.Everyone remained standing and he would come back to me to comment on other’s recitations. I remained standing for the entire 90 minute class. The second person called on walked out of the class and disappeared, never to return. Thus, it is clear the SM method is not for everyone.
However, based on my anecdotal experience,it is how I learned to think on my feet (literally.) to engage in debate and to deal with smart people who were changing my thinking even as we stood there. In my dealings with young lawyers, I am surprised at how easily their feelings are hurt in an energetic argument about a point of law. I have to say, however, that I never felt it was personal when Paul Hartman was swabbing the deck with me. I was never called called names but it was clear that I had better learn a better way of thinking.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:19 pmyankee says:
Yes, but:
1) The environment of a SM class bears little relationship to trial or appellate advoacy. In actual practice (at least if you are doing it competently) the lawyers have have been preparing for a considerable period of time and have had a chance to read prepared opposition briefs. You also have a good idea of the fact pattern in advance. This is very different from having a small chance of being asked questions about cases you read for the first time yesterday, especially when you have no idea what fact pattern you will be considering or what side you’ll be asked to argue for. A judge may ask you about a hypothetical, but distinguishing a hypothetical from the circumstances of a particular case is also very different from answering a professor-posed hypothetical.
2) Why should the objective of a subject matter class be to mimic the environment of trial or appellate advocacy? Many students will never need those skills; even those who go into litigation trial and appellate advocacy will need them only rarely.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:25 pmyankee says:
This sounds about right to me. Probably the arguments are mostly based on how useful the commenter did or didn’t find the Socratic Method.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:28 pmFat Man says:
Eye roll.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:32 pmOld Folks says:
Fatman ‚Kingsfield was not mythical . He was based on either Kasner or Leach both Harvard Property Profs. Old Folks’s memory ain’t what it used to be.MY college roommate had the guy for property and was left hanging for the buzzards when he didn’t figure out that the right answer was“test case”.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 3:51 pmPeter Buxton says:
I fail to see how learning to think on your feet and how to debate a point of law is not valuable to any lawyer, regardless of whether they go on to argue before the bar.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:31 pmJohn says:
This statement cannot logically be true.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 5:44 pmperverted mind says:
I read your article rather quickly. So when I saw: “I don’t claim
that all law professors should completely abjour all aspects of SM.
...” I rather forgot that you were discussing the Socratic Method
not sadomasochism and rather lost it for a moment.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 7:22 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » How Common is the Socratic Method? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Web Startup Group, hrjn_rss. hrjn_rss said: How Common is the Socratic Method?: Comments http://url4.eu/oCAR [...]
yankee says:
Sure, but is the Socratic Method a good way to teach that skill? I think not. In a 100-student lecture (or more!) a student can be called on only a few times a semester, which isn’t much practice. And is the very limited practice in verbal argument skills provided through the Socratic method worth the dramatic reduction in time spent teaching the actual subject matter of the course? I think not.
It would be much better for all students to be given regular writing assignments, just as students are expected to write several papers a semester in other humanities and social science disciplines. That would teach all students both subject matter knowledge and legal writing skills (which all lawyers need). But grading papers would mean more work for the professors, and that would be unacceptable.
Quote
November 22, 2009, 8:59 pmuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by hrjn_rss: How Common is the Socratic Method?: Comments http://url4.eu/oCAR...
KAB says:
Many of us homeschoolers employ this method frequently. Anything is better than being told what to know.
http://www.centerforlit.com/ttc.htm
Quote
November 22, 2009, 10:14 pmEricM says:
If nothing else, Ilya, the traditional SM avoids the biggest problem related to the “soft” SM — disincentivising preparedness. SM may not be the best way to achieve the goals of law-school teaching, but my own experience suggests that it’s a good way of insuring students actually read and/or think about the material, which presumably are important to achieving those goals (and to preparing one’s mind to absorb all of the information required of the trained-monkey exercise of passing the Bar exam). I saw this in practice at George Mason, actually — professors notifying students in advance on whom they would or would not call resulted in boring classes full of relatively unprepared people who nevertheless were on their toes once or twice per semester.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 2:20 pmConnecticut Lawyer says:
I vote with the old timers. Hell, I’m an old timer.
The simple fact of the matter is that the very worst, most overbearing, bullying law professor you’ll ever meet is like Bambi compared to the judges you stand before or the lawyers on the other side of the conference table with whom you are negotiating in front of your client. Part of the SM is to weed out those unfit to wage combat on behalf of a client (you know, those people who trust us with their liberty and property), and that’s a good thing. The other part, especially in the hands of a great professor (e.g., Yale Kamisar, Jerry Israel, Paul Kauper), is to teach you how to make all the different kinds of arguments that lawyers make, under pressure, and without letting emotion get in the way. That’s also a good thing. Learning the substantive law is interesting, but not the primary purpose of law school.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 2:42 pmGruntled_2L says:
I tend to be more faithful about preparing for classes where the socratic method is employed. In one of my courses, the instructor actually will dock points if you show up unprepared–so that provides an added incentive.
That said, I don’t find that I learn the material better in SM courses. Early in my first year I realized that I don’t care if I don’t look like a star in front of my classmates. The only thing that matters to me in the long run is my grade anyway.
The real question is–do students even care if they look stupid? Some might, but they likely would have prepared anyway.
The good ol’ boys will tell me that I should be more concerned about developing my answer on the fly skills, but I don’t think the SM provides meaningful help in this arena given that even if you’re well prepared for class you still don’t understand the law at the level you would if you were working on a case.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 12:33 pm