« Domestic Spying and Criminal Appeals | Main | Congratulations Caravan4Christmas »

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mowabb.com/mt32/mt-tb.cgi/5037

Last semester I had a class with three exams and seven pop quizzes. It was the most stressful class I have ever taken. IMHO, law school is the least stressful when there is just one final exam at the end of the class.

Posted by: JR at January 6, 2006 04:13 PM

Correction: I don't remember the exact number of pop quizzes, but it was somewhere in the neighborhood of seven. Regardless, you get the point.

Posted by: JR at January 6, 2006 04:20 PM

Hi thanks for the shout out.

I'm sorry to hear that one class was the most stressful, but generally I think it makes sense.

It's a gamble, that at one moment in time you will be 100%, and that everything is riding on a cold, or life, not happening to you. I know this from personal experience.

Grades are everything, and they are illogical. I am not looking for less work, I am looking for accuracy in how I am judged. Three exams, 25%/25%/50%. A teaching assistant who is trained by the professor, knows what the professor wants, not only can give us comprehesive review sessions, but also insight.

Any questions he or she can't answer, we (or the TA) can approach the professor. It cuts down on the nonsense they have to bother with. A TA would be more approachable.

I would rather be tested three times than once. Like I say on my blog: Multiple tests inspire motivation, incentivize continuous preparation, mitigate procrastination, and therefore better educates students. Star performers will continue to shine. Multiple exams expose topical weaknesses and strengths which may or may not be important to an employer's hiring needs. We will provide records of all exams (not only finals) for use in interviews.

Thanks again. I'll put you under my law blogs to keep track of you.

Posted by: Chris Laurel at January 6, 2006 09:13 PM

By the way, the partner I spent the last four years working for, who edited the three volume treatise on asset finance, said Stanford tried to get rid of the 3rd year. There was allegedly an uproar by alumni.

"I suffered, so should you." The third year is a whole other ball of wax, which is why I don't touch it.

I will note I am bringing this up with my school. Change is going to have to come from students.

Posted by: Chris Laurel at January 6, 2006 11:13 PM

But 3L is when we really get to have fun & take whatever the hell we want...if law school were more compressed and functional, I would not get to take Inmate Advocacy or Inner City Economic Development! I say get rid of 1L :)

Posted by: AH-P at January 7, 2006 12:18 AM

I still maintain that law school needs that third year.

Posted by: Audacity at January 7, 2006 08:03 PM

If law school needs that third year, why is that no other country requires of its lawyers the entire law school program, but just an undergraduate study with a bar-type exam and then years of apprenticeship?

The US is the only one (to my knowledge) that requires the crushing cost of three years of a juris doctor program.

Not only is the third year questionable, but the necessity of a graduate program for aspiring attorneys is also questionable.

Again, I do not touch this topic. More exams, and give us TAs. So easy, and takes cares of so much anxiety. I don't know why it would even need to be a fight.

Posted by: Chris Laurel at January 8, 2006 12:47 AM

I'm not sure that TAs are the best solution. At my school, the legal writing classes are mostly taught by TAs, and it's really not effective. (There are two sessions a week - one is a 100-student lecture with a professor, and the other is a 10-student section meeting with a TA.)

It's really hard to maintain quality with TAs teaching. Some of the TAs are hard graders and some are soft, some know the material better, some are just better teachers, some have a grasp of the material better, etc.

I mean, it's one thing if you're an undergrad at a large research institution - having a grad student teach your class might be better than a prof that doesn't have time for you and might be more personable. But a 2L or 3L has probably forgotten Contracts already, and wouldn't care anyway.

Posted by: monica at January 8, 2006 07:01 PM

Hey Monica. We still suffer from many of the issues you raised with a professor alone.

I'm not advocating TAs teaching the courses, as much as assisting with review sessions, aiding us in understanding better what the professor wants on the exams, etc. I also do not advocate free license with TAs - there has to be a standard set for use of a TA, of course. The lack of comprehensive review sessions is a major problem I think.

The professor would select the TA based on interest in the subject and pursuing an academic career or clerkship. They would effort to ensure the quality of the TA, and ensure they are doing a good job.

I certainly am not saying, "Give them TAs and let them run wild."

Posted by: Chris Laurel at January 9, 2006 03:22 PM

chris, you are totally right. if the goal of law school was to create better lawyers (and as a result better society), this is what they would do. but this is not the goal. law schools are about perpetuating a hierarchy under the guise of being meritocratic institutions.

it seems to me that there are two important things about the current system: it is lucrative and it perpetuates an entrenched hierarchy (top students, top firms, top $, top power). a few people manage to escape their station. this seems to create enough of a meritocracy to keep people happy (i.e. no one really cares about how unfair it might be as long as they have a chance to benefit from the unfairness). and with such strong financial incentives to keep things as they are, it is hard to imagine law schools ever changing.

the two big problems with legal education:

1. we don't practice (or do) analysis in class, but it's what we are assessed on. all semester we talk about the cases and then at the very end we are tested on something we haven't done all semester: legal analysis of a novel fact pattern.

what is the sense in that? to solve this problem more tests would help, but this is not necessary. just more feedback on written analysis from the very beginning would make for better lawyers at every level (and the ta's could do it since it doesn't have to count for a grade ... and students could come in an discuss it during office hours if they needed more help).

2. the tests rate the ability to quickly "spot issues," write good first drafts, and quickly come up with potential arguments. not the ability to come up with good ideas/thinking generally, which is more often the product of mental tenacity, careful thinking and/or genuine curiosity.

although the system is pretty stupid as a teaching method, it is (like the borg) brilliant at perpetuating itself. i guess i'm surprised that such smart and careful thinkers don't consider the kind of social power they wield as "gatekeepers" in this legal system and maybe, as a result, become inspired to do something about the apparent unfairness and pedagogic obtuseness because in my experience the people the current hurts most are those who come from groups with the least social power already (i.e. poor/public school educated, minorities, etc).

Posted by: a-train at January 9, 2006 11:02 PM