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

About grading: CLS is the second law school that I go to. In my first one (a law school in Taiwan, where law is provided as a college degree), there was no curve so professors could give whatever grades they liked. Professors wanted to be “nice” so it was common that more than 80% of the class got an A. Therefore, virtually no one studied hard. As a freshman (sophomore, or junior) all you had to do was party and drink every day, just like an American undergrad. The time I spent on studying last semester was at least twice the first three years in my Taiwanese law school combined. Sounds attractive, right? But in the senior year everyone started freaking out because what was waiting us was the bar exam, with an 8% passage rate.

In other words, in Taiwan we don’t need first year grades to distinguish students, but we still need something to make the distinction between the “good” and the “not-so-good.” (But it’s probably not as cruel as the first year curve, since you can always take the bar again if you fail this time.) So it brings me to another question: why is such a distinction based on exam-performance necessary everywhere? Can’t we distinguish ourselves in a more meaningful way? In an ideal world, every prospective employer would try to hire the applicants who are most competent for the job not simply based on grades, but on “a totality of circumstances.” And then we would train ourselves in a way that makes us cut out for the job we want.

Unfortunately, we are not living in an ideal world. Last week I went to a lunch session about career in teaching, and a panelist put it clearly: if you want a teaching career, the first thing is to get killer grades. It may not be true, but to some degree it does explain why people feel anxiety about grades: people are made to believe that grades affect our future.

Assuming CLS is not going to abolish letter grade this semester, I think there are two possible ways we can ease the anxiety. Firstly, we can choose not to believe the panelist that I mentioned. What he said is simply wrong; even though we have mediocre grades in the first year, we are still capable of doing everything as long as we train ourselves in the right way and acquire good lawyering skills in the law school.

On the other hand, we can also just recognize the fact that poor grades do keep us away from some specific jobs, the so-called highly selective ones. (That’s the reason why I mentioned Taiwan at the beginning as an example: without a license, you just can’t be an attorney.) However, there are still countless jobs out there that don’t require good grades. And some of these jobs may be even more meaningful and lucrative than the “highly selective” ones. For example, Taiwan’s 8% bar passage rate creates lots of law school grads without a lawyer’s license. Those people have to find some living other than being an attorney. To my knowledge, lots of them are living meaningful lives, the current Taiwanese President included.

Also, there is no Socratic in a Taiwanese law school. I'm still forming my perspective about the pros and cons of SM, and hopefully I'll have something to say about it as soon as possible. My primary idea leans toward positive side, but I do agree with Jonathan's doubt about the "extremely specific questions." (I remember once I was asked what was the primary issue of a case, and I answered "a component of the airplane is defective." But I forgot the name "altimeter" so the prof excruciated me for ten minutes.)

-- WenweiLai - 08 Feb 2010