Comments on: Who are we teaching, anyway?

By: Sarah S

Sarah S — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:10:24 +0000

MMM – I agree with your sentiments. For us, it’s Fed Courts; most students scream and run at its mention. What my secondary school did, and which I think most schools do for AP level courses, is to bump the grade a third of a step come report card time. (Ie, if you get an A- in AP Physics, it’s calculated as a 4.0.) While this might seem to “cheapen” (or inflate) the system, such an incentive may motivate some students to take more challenging courses. Indeed, one of the most nauseating coversations I overhear in the lunchroom includes: “Dude, according to last year’s grade distributions, my average this semester is a 3.9.”

By: Belle Lettre

Belle Lettre — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:36:26 +0000

A tough issue, and very sensitively written about.

When I taught at the college level, I tried not to “hide the ball”–I quickly outlined the main points I wanted everyone to get in lecture, and then allowed interlocutory methods (questions, class discussion) to flesh out the “extras.” This way, everyone got off on the same footing, and the 80% students stayed interested and the 50-60% students were prepped enough to join in when ready. I didn’t drill the lecture in more than once usually though–that’s the benefit of posting powerpoint slides online, which I would do right after class. If the lesson called for it, I would rehash the previous lesson for a bit. But I find that most students appreciate that no matter what their teaching level.

Also, some cases are so central to a course that it’s just a matter of teaching the material effectively to reinforce the lesson, just to show the continuity and cumulative nature of the material. So the 80% kids should just accept that.

An interesting question is not just at what level you teach, but at what level you provoke discussion. Some students love to talk, some are more shy at first, some never get comfortable. Having a sensitive pedagogy, like yours, especially w/r/t female students (here I think of Guinier’s Becoming Gentlement) and minority students would help restructure the classroom space so that everyone can learn effectively and participate meaningfully.

By: MMM

MMM — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:32:12 +0000

Sarah S -

Let me point out that while law school does not “track” students, students do that themselves.

Certain classes tend to draw certain types of law students. An example, at least for me, is a course like Antitrust. That class is tough, and the mediocre students simply don’t take it. I found the same things happen with courses like international tax (or actually any advanced tax course) and administrative law.

On the other hand, there are certainly classes that attract the other spectrum of students which everyone who cares can probably identify.

By: Sarah S

Sarah S — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:05:35 +0000

Do any law schools offer tracking, a la middle or high school? (Ie, advanced and regular sections.) Upper level classes could be tagged as “advanced” because they in fact move more quickly, or tackle more difficult material (and not simply because they are part 2 of a sequence).

Or, maybe after first semester, or quarter, students are re-assigned according to their abilities, or according to how they learn. I strongly believe there are students who are naturally “good at law school” (can read cases and take exams well on the first try) and those who “get it” after a few semesters. Furthermore, there are those who simply thrive in small discussion and don’t do as well with issue-spotting exams.

While I’m guessing it would take a lot of time and effort, I think schools should take chances on alternative approaches to the traditional law school methods.

By: NJLS

NJLS — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:49:14 +0000

A critical pedagogical tool in any setting is the ability to differentiate lessons. You are clearly concerned with reaching and challenging as many students as possible — which, unfortunately, is not a characteristic of every professor — by making an effort to “appeal to and challenge the 80% level” by adding in “side discussions.” There are, however, more formalized ways to consistently, effectively, and efficiently differentiate your lectures. While most of the studies I am aware of focus on elementary/secondary education, the principles of instruction remain the same (with obvious accomodations for the Socratic method). I have not taught at the college level, but my experience as a public school teacher and a law student leads me to believe that a professor that takes time to critically reflect on his/her teaching methods and differentiate lectures would be invaluable to the law school’s student body.