Eben is the only professor who provides the "alternative learning experience" you speak of. And he handles the constraints of the grading system rather well. The rest of the professors don't get grades in on time for other reasons. Eben can continue to assign interim grades next year by June 15 and revise them by July 15 without public shaming or penalty.

I admit, I don't really get your outrage over this. This new policy is designed to shame professors that just DGAF and get them to do their jobs. Eben and this class's experience won't really be affected.

Our 'breakpoint' is July 25. After that, work on the wiki will only receive credit if you do independent study with Eben. Next year, that breakpoint will be July 15.

Is your outrage really over a 10 day difference?

-- HarryKhanna 10 Jul 2012

I don't think anyone who took this class was mislead about Eben's views on grading, nor have they been denied the ability to receive a grade within the administratively determined time period. But by attempting to empower students by giving them grades in a more timely manner, this policy ends up disenfranchising those who wish to have an alternative learning experience with professors who are willing to provide it by pressuring professors to fall in line.

Furthermore, this email frames the entire problem as one of professorial laziness rather than administrative structure and a failure of managing the various expectations placed on academics. Perhaps this proposal would be more palatable to me if Dean Schizer had promised to place himself and every member of his administration on every public shaming list and also agree to a personal fine equivalent to the sum total of all fines allocated on professors as a demonstration of the equal responsibility of management as well as the workers in addressing this issue. Until then, I remain outraged.

-- HarryKhanna 10 Jul 2012

Thank you for your comments. I will address all of your points in turn...

First, I was not upset with Dean Schizer's e-mail either. I have no problem with him wanting to make sure that students receive their grades in a timely fashion. However, those grades don't tell us much and should not be used by employers in order to ascertain who "has the right stuff." The first year does not replicate legal practice and most professors could care less if you actually learn the material that they do teach. Grades are anonymous anyway and the curve allows many professors to be lazy. After telling one of my professors in the fall semester about my time as a high school teacher, he said that he was too lazy to work that hard. In that vein, grades and the curve are actually counterproductive because they allow professors to not be held accountable for their teaching. Thus, it is no so much the "grades" as it is that the emphasis should be placed on the teaching/training. Money or time is not an excuse. It is just a stubbornness to actually change the status quo.

Second, I disagree that evaluative feedback is not a feasible goal. If medical students can receive extensive feedback, we can as well. Eben actually gave us feedback every single day in class and if it was not for one professor not being able to teach this past semester, we would have had more feedback on the wiki too at this point. Plus, the course is not over and I am not sure it ever really will be. Eben is attempting to build relationships with us in this process called life. He engaged us in class periodically and pushed us to strive to pass the imagination test. I believe part of this imagination test is understanding that the law school system or anything for that matter can change if you have the proper strategy and follow through with it. Professors' first obligation should be their students or they should pick a different "profession." Why else would they be professors? We might as well call them academics. There are enough resources at this school to make sure every student has feedback in their classes. It is not that there are not enough good professors, but rather that many professors have their priorities mixed up. Professor Gluck (now at Yale) was a really good professor who gave her students feedback. She was willing to devote a lot of time to her teaching. There are other professors like this, but they either are not at Columbia or there is not enough administrative pressure to force them to change. One of the reasons why I really like this class is because Eben realizes that students are a great source of feedback too. If we cooperated more like students do in medical school, for instance, students would learn more. Not only could we use more upperclassmen as TAs to help us, but we should be required to open up to each other about our learning to help each other be the best lawyers we can be.

Third, I also disagree that preparedness is not a real concern, especially if you are referring to "real lawyers." Granted, many people here are okay with the current system as long as they have a six figure job after graduation. However, lawyers that strive to make an impact yearn to be prepared. Also, these "top law schools" are not really great if they are not providing more practical training during year one. We are actually being trained to appreciate hierarchy, and we are not given enough skills so that we will be just fine with doing doc review for our first few years at a corporate law firm (CLS does not hide that it is a corporate law firm factory). If we had more skills when we graduated, we would expect more out of ourselves and our profession. Instead of reading a contract, we should actually work to write one for instance. Medical school is not a good comparison because they receive a lot of practical training their first two years. I was in a previous relationship with a medical student who is now a doctor, so I had an intimate view of her day to day life. They did have lectures with about 100 students, but they supplemented lectures with labs where they practiced on cadavers. Also, no one expected employers to pick the "best doctor" after the first or second year of medical school. Grades were P/F with a possible honors distinction, which fostered a more cooperative community.

It is not really doing "well" in the current structure, but it is about making a difference in your profession. Training will always occur and should, but we should definitely come with more skills to make the transition easier and also with a better understanding of why we picked a certain route. Many people burn out after four years, with relatively few skills or experience to fall back on. Residency could not start without medical students receiving the proper training/education beforehand and, do to significant exposure to different fields during the their third year, understanding what area truly makes them happy and most fulfilled.

Pawning occurs when you sell your license for monetary gain instead of actually using your license to be a positive force in your community. Before we can get to pawning, however, we should make sure the license is meaningful. Since law school is now required before taking the bar, it should provide the proper training/education in order to create the type of lawyers that really make a difference in society. Coming from Columbia Law School, we are among those best positioned to actually change the world for the better. Yet, we are being trained to be cogs in the machine. We deserve better. The world deserves better.

-- WilliamDavidWilliams - 10 Jul 2012