Law School Teaching: Paternalism or “Live and Let Live”?
posted by Daniel Solove
There is an interesting discussion raised over at PrawfsBlawg about how law professors should enforce student preparedness in the classroom. Mike Dimino (law, Widener) (guesting at PrawfsBlawg and a former guest blogger here at Concurring Opinions) described a chronically unprepared student and noted the strong punishment he intends to deliver: “[I] plan to call on the lazy student every day for the rest of the semester (or at least a suitably lengthy period short of the whole semester) plus decrease his grade one step for poor class participation, but I suspect such treatment is not nearly severe enough (plus it wastes the time of other members of the class).” In a follow-up post, Mike noted that enforcing preparedness “is a lesson in professionalism, encouraging students who would otherwise slack off to expend the effort necessary to learn.” He argued that “student unpreparedness fosters an attitude of apathy that lowers the expectations of everyone and makes it impossible to teach to the high end of the class.”
I must disagree with Mike. I wonder how strong the correlation is between being prepared for each class and performance on the exam or being a good lawyer. We often assume this, but do we have good data to back it up?
My attitude toward teaching has changed throughout the years. I began in a much more paternalistic way. I had a vision of what the ideal students should be doing and I tried to force it upon them. I wanted all students to be highly engaged in class, to be on the edge of their seats, to be paying 100% attention, to be pouring their hearts and souls into the class. But part of me wanted students to be prepared not just for their own benefit but for my own ego. After all, I was trying very hard to make class interesting and worthwhile, and the unprepared student hurt my image of myself as a teacher.
Now, my view has changed. I try to encourage students to be prepared and engaged, but I don’t try to force them. There will always be students who are diligent and ones who are not diligent. I don’t think it is my job to try to force upon students a sense of diligence or work ethic. That needs to come from within. If students are preparing for class out of fear, the “diligence” is forced and illusory. I doubt that those students will be diligent in real life situations without the fear. Instead, diligence must be generated internally. The student must find motivation from within to do the work. As a teacher, I can try to encourage the development of this motivation, but I can’t force it.
I use an on deck system, so only a few students are on call each class. I care about student preparation for the days they are on call, and I will enforce it. But I do so for a different reason — not because I want to force them to be diligent but because I asked them to do a small task and they haven’t done it. With the on deck system, I’ve asked the students to assist me and the class with the day’s material. So if they are unprepared, they have let me and the class down.
So although I don’t go so far as adopt a “live and let live” attitude, I don’t believe in being too paternalistic either. I don’t always know what’s best for students. I don’t think it is effective or wise to force my vision of the ideal student upon students. What I try to do is encourage students to be engaged and interested in the material.
October 8, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Posted in: Law School (Teaching)
Print This Post
Responses (3)
Eric Goldman - October 8, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I’m with you, Dan. Ultimately, I think we do a lot of teaching simply by modeling behavior, and I think there’s pedagogical value to your approach. Eric.
Patrick S. O'Donnell - October 8, 2006 at 7:50 pm
The role of the teacher in modeling proper behavior, as a compelling figure for emulation, is the pivot on which everything turns in Confucian pedagogy. It also is in keeping with the manner in which we learn from infancy onwards. However, as Derek Smelser reminds us in The Act of Thinking (2004), such emulative modeling is not a one-way street, being what he terms ‘educative concerting:’ ‘The best way to get another person to attempt to perform the action in question is to demonstrate it and invite him to join you in a concerted performance of it. The demonstrator can then best assist the pupil by making demonstrations of actions, ostentations, inviting, unambiguous, detailed, patient and repetitious, so as to best exploit the pupil’s desire to engage in concerted activity.’ The Socratic dialogues finds Socrates engaged with his interlocutors in the agora, essentially modeling for them the sort of thinking and behavior necessary to appreciate the manner in which images, intuition, and propositional thinking are bound up with non-propositional thought. With Socrates, emulation and imitation (mimesis) are hand-in-hand, for ‘In formulating, examining, and refuting distinct definitions [for instance] of virtue reference must constantly be made, at least implicitly, to persons or actions that exhibit virtue. [....] In seeking to understand a nature that transcends its sensible images, Socrates’ dialectic must always start with these images and return to them. It is grounded in the concrete world of experience even if its vision is drected elsewhere.’ [....] Plato chose to communicate the truths of philosophy by imitating the process of philosophizing. Therefore, this process (dialectic) not only employs imitation, but is itself an object of imitation.’ (Francisco J. Gonzalez, Dialectic and Dialogue: Plato’s Practice of Philosophical Inquiry, 1998).
NJLS - October 9, 2006 at 11:32 am
As a former teacher, and current law student, I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that “diligence must be generated internally.” However, it is also incredibly frustrating, and wasteful of precious time, when what might otherwise be an engaging, fluid discussion is stopped dead in its tracks when a student (often many more in the 2L and 3L years) elect to “pass” or are “unprepared.”
The intimidation approach is arguably inappropriate when dealing with graduate level students, yet, something needs to be done to protect the valuable time of other (prepared) students the classroom. Negative discretion might be useful — but for students that are chronically underprepared, a lower grade is of little import. As for the on-deck circle, I think it is a a good compromise, and reinforces principles of resposibility and mutual respect. Some form of peer-pressure would likely be most effective. The notion that to be unprepared is simply unacceptable must be a sine quo non of the law school classroom. One professor of mine granted positive and negative discretion, but permitted any student to notify him before class (without any negative consequences) if he/she was unprepared. This protected the vitality of discussions, expressed a respect for professor and student, and helped to create a rigorous learning environment where students expected much from each other and our professor.
Leave a Reply