Some data points:

+ A graduate recently told me that Columbia switched from an Excellent/Very Good/Good grading system to a letter system sometime in the 90's, in response to concerns that students weren't as competitive with out of town firms.

+ Professor Rapaczynski has also talked in Torts class last fall about his struggles in trying to avoid having to use the curve.

- Without grades, there would probably be a lot less chatter on the wiki. -mz

I thought I would also post/update a list of resources on grade reform. (cites to Westlaw)

97 CLMLR 178 - An article by Judge Kozinski on what he sees as the problems with law school moot courts

30 W. St. U. L. Rev. 177 - Another article on a proposed non-curved feedback system

-- JonathanWaisnor - 04 Feb 2010

I'm not sure if this issue has been addressed anywhere, but since this topic is titled "CLS Education Reform," I thought it would be the most appropriate place to discuss something that I really struggled with last semester. I'm talking about the amount of reading we have and the "Socratic" method of teaching. There seems to me to be something very strange about a system of teaching where students are required to read 60+ dense pages each night, and then be able to answer extremely specific questions about that reading if a professor decides to call on them.

I think this method really inhibited my learning last semester. Perhaps it was adjusting to law talk and it will not be a problem this semester, but I think it is a deeper problem with the way the Socratic system is set up. Instead of thinking about the big picture/blackletter law from each case we read, I spent my nights focusing on highlighting my casebooks in a way that would give me the best chance of answering questions in class. But does anyone really care what the procedural posture was in some case that was decided a century ago?

Hopefully this semester I'll be smarter about the way I read/study, but I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the Socratic method. Does it force you to read more closely? Are you more prepared for class when you could be called on at any time? Does it inhibit you're ability to concentrate on the reason for reading the case? Is it just a system that exists so professors can embarrass students?

---

I agree with your concerns about the Socratic Method. Although I haven't heard any of my professors speak at length on the reasons for using the SM, I would think the main justification is to make sure students are doing the nightly reading assignments. There may be other justifications, such as providing a bridge for further discussion, gauging how well a random sample of students is understanding the material, or the always nebulous "teaching them how to think like lawyers." However, I think I am not alone when I say that the SM's practical effect is that it pushes me to read by inducing fear and anxiety. This is obviously easier (as it strikes us at a time when we are particularly vulnerable and elicits an instinctual response) than trying to design a lesson plan that incentivizes students to read because that will allow them to fully participate in an engaging class. While I question the effectiveness of the casebook method of teaching altogether, I'll focus right now on the SM and alternatives.

First of all, I do not think any of these methods work in a class of over 30 people, if we assume the casebook method is used and our goal is to encourage reasoned, thoughtful, on topic discussion by a diverse range of participants. The only classes in which I have consistently observed vibrant discussion with a high percentage of student involvement, regardless of the method used, are Eben's class, my LPW, and my 30 person Civil Procedure section. I think that we would need to have a limit on class size before we would begin to see improvement in the quality of class discussion.

I define the SM as prolonged questioning of every aspect of a case and assorted hypotheticals. The three alternatives I have seen are voluntary participation, panel-style questioning, and random cold-calling. Cold-calling is different from SM because a professor will spend no more than three or four questions on one person and those questions will be about the major facts, holding, notable points of reasoning, etc. I think the best method would be random cold-calling, then opening up the floor for voluntary participation. I would like to get other people's input on this topic. What do you think would be the best method?

My other question is a broader one: is it possible within the casebook curriculum to develop a system where we would have discussion that not only flows between the professor and a student, but among the students themselves? The SM completely closes off input for everybody but the particular student and the professor. I don't know if first year law students are emotionally able cope with the fear and anxiety of challenging your classmates (most of whom you don't know very well) and having your ideas challenged. In fact, most students would probably prefer being made a fool by professors rather than students, and this begs the even broader question- is it even possible under the current system to divorce our sense of self-worth from what we do in class?

-- JonathanWaisnor - 07 Feb 2010