I think that actual learning also requires an understanding of why the new information matters. The "smartest" people I know seem to have brains like a huge sticky framework - when they learn something new, they think about how it relates to the information they already have and if/why that is interesting in some way. If it is interesting, they decide where this new information belongs in the framework and stick it there. This is related to the consilient learning idea as well.

Law school starts throwing piles of information at us from day one without ensuring that there is some framework of understanding to put it in. Why not spend the first semester in law school thinking about the law as philosophers would. What is this institution? What is it trying to accomplish? Then as we read new cases, whether it be in property or contracts, we should always be encouraged to think about the larger framework - where this fits in to our notions of social good/justice/punishment and whether it should be that way. Professors should tell us their thoughts and, encourage us to think about why this new information matters. Then we will be more likely to learn and more likely to do something worthwhile with the knowledge.

-- ErikaKrystian - 26 Apr 2008