Many defend the use of the Socratic method in law school classes on the grounds that it teaches students to "think like a lawyer." There is some merit to this point, though I think it is greatly overstated, for reasons Steve Bainbridge discusses here. It is useful for lawyers to be able to think on their feet, answer difficult questions posed in an oral argument, and so on. At the same time, it's important to realize that classroom SM is only vaguely similar to the work of most real-world lawyers. Transactional lawyers rarely confront SM-like situations at all. And even many litigators spend far more time doing research or writing briefs and motions than answering questions at an oral argument. Nonetheless, SM can help hone advocacy skills that many lawyers will find useful.
But the fact that SM conveys some useful skills doesn't mean that it should be employed in all or most classes. Most law schools have specialized courses devoted to trial practice, oral advocacy, brief writing, and other advocacy skills. It's not necessary for those skills to also be taught in classes where the principal objective is to master a particular body of law. To the contrary, it is usually best if the law school curriculum exploits the benefits of specialization.
Professors whose main expertise is in the subject matter of a given body of law can best serve their students by teaching what they know best, without diverting class time to the teaching of advocacy skills in which they are less expert (if they have any expertise at all). Those who specialize in advocacy skills (e.g. - many clinical faculty), by contrast, can teach courses specifically focused on those subjects. Even if a particular professor has great facility with both a given field of substantive law and advocacy skills, it doesn't necessarily follow that he should teach both in the same course. He might serve the students better if he teaches one class solely devoted to the former and another focusing on the latter.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Socratic Method and "Thinking Like a Lawyer" Revisited:
- What Does It Mean to "Think Like a Lawyer"? And How Does The Socratic Method Help?:
- The Socratic Method and "Thinking Like a Lawyer":
- The Socratic Method and Diversity in Teaching Styles:
- The Case for Diversity in Teaching Styles:
- Doubts About the Socratic Method:
I think you misunderstand what "thinking like a lawyer" means. It doesn't necessarily mean simply thinking on your feet or having skills at oral advocacy. While it is late, and I may not make this point well, let me try-
There is a difference between giving a man a fish and teaching a man to fish.
In the same way, there is a difference between telling the class something you want them to understand and having the class tell themselves what you want them to understand. The second, skillfully used, is much more powerful.
I agree. But if you want to teach him how to fish, it's usually better to show him how directly rather than to try to elicit the right method from him by asking him a series of questions about fishing.
In the same way, there is a difference between telling the class something you want them to understand and having the class tell themselves what you want them to understand. The second, skillfully used, is much more powerful.
Maybe, but I'd like to see some proof that this is true. Even if it is, the professor is much more likely to screw up an effort to get the class to "tell themselves" than the simpler task of telling them himself.
This is true, of course. But it is even better to have someone actually practice fishing. That, in theory, is what the SM is suppposed to be. It is the act of learning to fish (which is kinda appropriate really, since often you will just come up with an empty hook). The point of doing this in a class that is teaching a substantive area of law is that being a lawyer is a combination of having legal knowledge, of being able to understand how to find and apply the law, and of using the skills of advocacy.
That's my attempt at defending SM. Of course, really, the true purpose of the SM is not to teach law students to think like laywers, or to give law professors the joy of crushing their charges' souls. It is to give students the chance to get their professors to go silent for a few awkward sentences before they mumble something about "that may well be true, but it's not what I was looking for."
I agree that a professor who can't do SM shouldn't do SM. I also agree that "All SM all the time" is silly. But I disagree that "thinking like a lawyer" skills should be relegated to trial practice and legal writing classes. My best professors not only taught us the subject, but taught us how to use the substantive knowledge ethically and strategically to advance a client's interest.
Professors should integrate advocacy and professionalism into their case discussions. Often, it's as easy as asking, "Do think the lawyer in this case was effective when she did ______? Why?"
A law professor who lacks advocacy skills is a less useful law professor. If a law school has more than a few professors who lack advocacy skill, it should review its hiring standards. Academic who want to teach a subject without teaching advocacy skills should consider seeking out a PhD program.
After a year and two days of law school, I'm not an expert, but I've found that my best (most informative and most enjoyable) classes have been those in which the professor makes the black letter law clear with a brief summary and then challenges students to see that the black letters might be grey (and how to deal with that) using SM with problems from the casebook or other hypos.
It's not "hide the ball" in the traditional sense, but gives students the ball and the rules, and then let's them figure out how to put it in a goal.
But all practicing lawyers must consider how their work would play out in litigation. A transactional lawyer must consider how litigators will tug and pull at a document's language (of course, they can overdo it and create a document that's almost useless outside of litigation). Lawyers writing briefs or preparing for trial must consider how their work will be attacked.
Done correctly, the SM teaches clarity because it gives lawyers an understanding of how their words can be dissected and twisted. We don't need the SM in every class, but every class should stress how lawyers will use the material to advocate for their clients, whether that advocacy is in a trial court, an appellate, a corporation's conference room, or elsewhere.
Oh, right, everyone just studies the outlines. "If it's not on the syllabus, it doesn't exist."
What would we talk about for the remaining ~12 weeks of the term? Policy? Our feelings?
In other words, I agree with those commenters who say that the Socratic method works well only if the instructor can do it well.
The discussion in this thread makes it sound like lawyers think the Socratic method amounts to asking randomly selected students loaded zingers like "blah blah blah why did the court get it exactly wrong?" Back at the wikipedia entry, the description of the SM at law schools bears little resemblance to the rest of the entry.
Does anyone know why in legal circles the Socratic method has seemingly been made synonymous with "asking lots of questions"?
In chemistry, there is are lectures to educate what and why etc, and labs to illustrate how what was previously presented works. Like most things, simply 'learning the laws' doesn't work.
In karate -- a closer analog to practicing law-- the instructor uses a Socratic variation so that students can see how what was (previously) presented is actually used.
Students are educated by observing the struggle, looking at arguments' weaknesses and strengths, and how particular methods prevail.
1) Since there is very little black letter law in first year common law courses, the Socratic Method is best fitted for these courses. One of my favorite professors in law school taught Torts and Environmental Law. The Torts class was 90% Socratic, while the Environmental Law course was 90% lecture. In both cases, the style seemed appropriate to the material.
2) In general, students will get out of a class what they put into it, but this is especially true in classes with the Socratic method. If one student is being called upon, what are the others doing? Are they just passively listening to the banter (or not listening to the banter)? Or are they engaged in active listening--critiquing the answers, coming up with better ones in their head? A student who is actively engaged in the material will get much more out the class.
See this.
The overall effect is generally "Socratic," though not every question in the series need not challenge pre-existing hypotheses.
Also, in the example I've cited, the students answers each question correctly. The average first-year/semester law student would have been led down the garden path, as it were, several times in the exchange because the case(s) at issue "clarified" the applicable statute in a non-literal manner, and the statute itself arguably deviated from a strict interpretation of the common law. Therefore, a student who reasoned directly from the common law would have reached a conclusion contrary to point of law at issue.
At my (top 20) law school the SM consists of: "what are the facts of this case?" and "what was the court's reasoning?" Largely a waste of time and money I feel.
But lectures are less "show you how" than "tell you how". SM seems to be a combination of "show you how" with "watch you do it and correct the mistakes you made", whereas lecture is just "tell you how and walk away assuming you know it"
Lecturing, in other words, gets no immediate feedback on how well the class is actually learning something. Especially in a class setup where there are no intermediate tests of knowledge (quizzes, midterms, etc.) and everything is based on one final exam, pure lecture is a very poor and inefficient teaching method. How does the lecturer actually know his or her students are learning what he or she wants them to learn?
I take it that Ilya hasn't negotiated many deals. I would say transactional lawyers on a daily basis face as many or more SM-like situations than your average litigator, who rarely spends time in court. Personally I think the SM is very useful. It forces you to get over your discomfort with public speaking and prepares you for the barrage of on-the-spot questions you will get from clients in practice.
As someone above noted, there is not much black letter law in first year classes. The socratic method is good for those classes even though it may be less appropriate for more code-based classes.
Let me emphasize that I never personally knew Socrates, so I don't know which of the eponymous "methods" were actually his. I'm also not making claims about which forms of classroom education are better or worse than others.
method. . . "I still don't understand the distaste that Prof. Somin seems to have ((I can only guess, based on his comments) for SM. No, not all Professors can do it well. But done well, it is great. As pointed out above, I think it goes to a general trend of mollycoddling the law students. As someone who was recently in school, I was shocked to find out that there were parents (PARENTS!) who called to complain about their child's grades. Are those parents going to call the name partner the first time their precious snowflake gets chewed out on the job? (Uh, hello, is there a Mr. Cravath working today????).
So it goes with the Socratic method. It takes more work for the professors, and more work for the students. But amazingly enough (again, for the professors that could do it well) those were always the classes in demand and the classes I still rave about (obviously!). I am ashamed for the current generation that the reason given for dropping SM is that the students aren't prepared. If it's a hindrance to class, move on and call on them the next day. Most students don't like the embarrassment, and learn quickly to be prepared.
Is it too much to ask students to prepare for class today?
At bottom, however, if a professor is neither comfortable with nor skilled at using Socratic dialogue as a teaching tool, he shouldn't use it. Sort of like how folks who aren't comfortable or skilled with a gas-powered chainsaw shouldn't use that tool either. And even if you're really good with the Socratic method, if the topic doesn't lend itself to that technique or your students don't seem to be able to play their part effectively, you should probably switch to a different tool. Even the best chain saw user shouldn't use that tool to trim steel poles.
The Athenians just decided to be more efficient about handling the problem by eliminating it at the source! ;~)
- Dick the Butcher, Henry VI, Part 2, ACT IV, scene ii.
Yes, because without lawyers we can impose the reign of a tyrant.
I am sure you know the context Zippy but I find it useful to point out that Shakespeare's line is a complement to lawyers, or at any rate, the law.
First take- "kill all the lawyers" is against lawyers.
Revision- "kill all the lawyers" is pro-lawyer.
Re-revision- "kill all the lawyers" is, in fact, a lawyer joke.
Analysis
Revision- "kill all the lawyers" is pro-lawyer.
Re-revision- "kill all the lawyers" is, in fact, a lawyer joke.
Contra: It's a "back handed compliment" perhaps