Let's conduct a thought experiment. "If someone you loved were entering as a 1L in September of 2008, how would you help that person do better than you did?"

Pretend that the person you love wants out of law school the same thing you wanted out of law school.

Multiple suggestions, multiple comment boxes.

-- AndrewGradman - 24 Apr 2008

---

---

---

I'll go first.

I define "doing better" as "minimizing the effort to get the grades you want," hypothesizing that confidence in one's future grades impacts happiness, ability to learn, and all the other qualities of life.

---

Holmes said that "The law consists of that paraphrase of Precedent that a judge is most likely to utter." (To paraphrase.)
If

• the professor is a common-law Judge,
• each day's lecture is a Precedent,
• and the exam is the Law,

then

• the [exam] is the paraphrase of [lectures] that the [professor] is most likely to generate.
  
• Students can predict the upcoming exam as the one which a student empathizing with the professor is most likely to write.

You empathize with a professor by paraphrasing, into your own words, his chosen language -- the syllabus and lecture -- the "primary sources". You define how your peers empathize with a professor by paraphrasing, into your own words, their own paraphrases of the primary sources -- the language of your study group (present classmates) or multiple G-drive outlines (past classmates) -- the "secondary sources."

LESSON 1: DO NOT attempt to empathize with the professor privately; empathy is a relative term, a social construct, a function of the curve. Define a student empathizing with the professor in terms of how your peers empathize with your professor. All your learning is from your peers.

LESSON 2: Only bother with the primary sources when they differ from the secondary sources.

• If you find good G-Drive outlines, you'll rarely need to take class notes, because your teacher's lecture will differ little from past years' outlines;
• if you find your syllabus fully represented there, you'll only need to read a few cases -- won't even need to buy a casebook;
• and if you find enough G-Drive outlines, you'll only need a study group for social purposes.

---

---

Information equals ordered data. In principle, one single document could come into being that permits future students to empathize with and predict the professor without buying a casebook or transcribing a word of lecture. My outlines for Contracts and Civil Procedure, combining the best of six G-Drive outlines, might permit a student to do this. I plan to contribute them to the G-Drive.

But that's part of the problem: the addition of outlines makes it MORE difficult for future 1Ls to qualify all the data. If our goal is to provide the 1L with more information and less data, we should lower the costs to him of identifying information. We must identify for him a Maxwell's Demon that has the incentive to weed the data from the information.

Suppose a CLS Wiki. Not a free-for-all Wiki, like this one. Instead, each teaching assistant gets her own real estate; everyone else gets various posting rights in the neighboring real estate. The question is, What rights, and which people, do we assign to the respective pieces of real estate?

Don't give up; tweak the assignments of rights & persons as they fails. This is an experiment. The Maxwell's Demon that you are creating is The Wiki itself; you owe it to the next generation of 1Ls to not give up.

---

-- AndrewGradman - 24 Apr 2008

Andrew, and i've already said most of this to you already, but your lessons rely on a few assumptions that cannot be proven: 1) that there's as much data online as their is from other sources, 2) that any of us are able to separate the good or useful data from the misleading or irrelevant data without consulting secondary sources, and 3) that the person implementing the method is smart enough to infer a lot from outlines which are essentially summaries of a greater wealth of knowledge. These assumptions are unverifiable and will sometimes be true, but almost certainly not always.

I believe that the benefits of collaboration can be better achieved if we all work together to put more information online, in wikis and such, instead of just working together to better understand what is already there.

Finally, I think focusing on grades at all is dangerous because of the curve. If a single person collaborates better with others, that person will likely learn more and get better grades. But, if the whole school begins to collaborate better together, then we'll all learn more, but none of us will get better grades. If collaboration is going to be the primary means, then the primary goal should be better learning and not better grades.

-- OluwafemiMorohunfola - 25 Apr 2008

1) RE my "assumptions" 1 & 2 & 3: ...
... the perception that there's insufficient data / insufficient methods / insufficient intelligence can all be paraphrased as saying "there's sufficient data, methods and intelligence ... but not enough TIME." Someone investing the time (as I have done) into the G-Drive outlines can create that magic document; the criticism, which is a good one, is that this technique is not TIME-EFFECTIVE; but that's just to say that we need to outsource the process.

2) The curve is bullshit. Teachers could just as well grade us in absolute terms and then tweak the boundaries to conform to the curve. It makes sense: we're a motley bunch ... given a fair test, a random cross-section of 90 1Ls is going to conform to a curve.
Given that fact: More CONFIDENCE in grades is what I'm after, not better grades -- my goal is to make the content of the class (the object of empathy) more objective, less fuzzy, so that a bad grade can be defined in terms of "not learning material" rather than (as it currently is) "insufficient empathy."

-- AndrewGradman - 29 Apr 2008