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.

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.

http://www.centerforlit.com/ttc.htm

This post was mentioned on Twitter by hrjn_rss: How Common is the Socratic Method?: Comments http://url4.eu/oCAR...

Peter Buxton: 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.

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.

Early Bird…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.

Very few lawprofs are as obnoxious as the mythical Professor Kingsfield.

Eye roll.

A.: (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.)

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.

Beldar: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It seems that these days, students are told what to think, rather than full comprehension

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.

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.

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.

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.

Coddling does students no favors.

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.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195182863/thevolocons0d-20/

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.

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?

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.

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.

(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.)