Inspired by Last Week's Guest Post, a Worldly-Wise Law Student Offers Six Tips for Law Professors

by Dave!

First, congratulations to Prof. Childs on completing his first semester of teaching! His guest post on last week's Notes from the (Legal) Underground inspired me to write this guest post, since I have just completed my first semester of law school.

Everyone has an opinion about the law school student experience, "Working hard to be average," "Three years of hell to become the devil," "First year they scare you to death, second they work you to death, and third they bore you to death." There's so much mythology surrounding the hazing aspect of law school that it's often a self-fulfilling prophecy for students. It's a bit like watching "The Exorcist" before going to bed; is it any wonder we have nightmares?

We students do a pretty good job of providing the fodder for horror on our own. Between the gunners, the podium trolls, the deer-in-headlights, and the Silent Bobs, we're all working to freak each other out, sometimes intentionally, but mostly through mass panic.

This is my open invitation for you to help us help you. With what I promise is very little effort, you, dear law professor, can create an atmosphere in your class that will actually foster learning and increase your scores on student evaluations. Not that those matter as much as they should-we understand the tenure process needs fixing, too, but that's another guest post for another day.

So, without further delay, here's what you can do to help your students, and in return (hopefully) make your teaching experience more joyful as well:

1. Let us know the assignments for a full week in advance. You're busy. We're busy. Busy people benefit from planning and scheduling their workload. We understand that the class moves at its own pace-you don't have to date the entire syllabus. However, on the last class of the week, tell us what you would like to get through in the next week's classes. This is especially critical if you skip around in your case book. Yes, we could just read the next few items on the syllabus, but if we're not going to get to it for a long time, that would be counter-productive. And if it's going to come up in the next week, why not give us a "head's up"?

2. Respond to e-mail. I don't know how to put this without being insulting, so in advance, I apologize to the Professors who do respond to student e-mail, even if it's just to say, "This requires a more detailed response than I have time for, come see me in office hours."

To those of you who never respond to student queries--and you are out there--the year is 2005. You may have noticed that a lot of students in your class have these magic slates they are constantly peering at and pounding on during class. They are called laptop computers. You see, we use computers.

Now, you're smart, right? You must have done fairly well in school. You made it to "law professor" so you must be doing something right. So learn to use your damn e-mail! It's not that hard. The school offers you support. It's quick and it's easy. And it's a very good way for those of us who might have a regular conflict with your office hours to contact you. Seriously. Your 10 year old knows how to use it, you should, too.

3. Review sessions are helpful. We can't read your mind. We're working on it, but as of right now, we can't. The Socratic Method is great for torturing, er, developing our thought processes. But let's have a moment of candor, shall we? We all know there's a lot of "subjectivity" when it comes to grading exams. So have a review session where you can be a little less "The Paper Chase" and a little more "To Sir, With Love."

4. Recommend a Commercial Outline. Yes, yes, yes, we know they are no substitute for writing our own outlines. We know that most of them are all glitter and no gold. We know that they don't follow your syllabus exactly and we know that they are actually the tool of Satan designed to spawn walking lawyer jokes.

We are going to buy them anyway. A drowning man will grab at anything he can to stay afloat.

So do us (and yourself) a favor: throw us a line! There are a million outlines to choose from: Gilbert, Emanuel, Nutshells, Understanding... the list goes on and on. We already know you would prefer we didn't use one; you already know we will anyway. So why not point us to the one you find least offensive? And in that review session, why not point out any glaring no-nos from the commercial outline. (Such as the "proximate cause" vs. "legal cause" issue pointed out by Prof. Childs.) It will result in less frustration for you when it comes to reading our exam answers, and honestly, most of us aren't turning to these outlines as a quick and easy method of short-cutting to answers; we're turning to them because, well, to put it delicately, you're not teaching the material well enough for us to fully grasp it first time around.

5. Provide old exams. Being that we are all adults here, let's dispense with the objectivity myth. Anonymous grading is, at best, a "legal fiction." Yes, there are objective points awarded for spotting certain issues and raising certain points of discussion. But on the mandatory curves that law schools inflict upon both professors and students, we're fighting over crumbs. And those crumbs come largely from style. Every professor has personal preferences for organizational styles, writing styles, etc. That's only human.

However, we're being evaluated for an entire semester on one exam. We don't have any "trial and error" process in place which will allow us to learn what you are looking for. And you aren't all looking for the same thing. Woo, boy, this semester taught me that! Old exams (or, if you're a new professor, sample answers) provide a way for us to give you what you are looking for. I've heard arguments that we're supposed to "figure it out" or that "this is like the real world-you sink or swim" both of which are total and complete bullshit.

Any employer who is going to stay in business provides training for their employees. Think of old exams/sample answers as training manuals. I'm a non-traditional student. I've been employed as a professional for over a decade, and I have never once been given an assignment at work that went into new territory and then been denied training when I've requested it. Hell, even in the "cut throat" legal profession a first year associate will be able to look at a few other office memos before writing that memo the partner's asked for. The idea that we are supposed to go into the exam blindly, not knowing what you want from us is just plain stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

6. Consider the Students. To continue on something Prof. Childs touched on... while students shouldn't be "Faulkner on meth" when answering exams, professors shouldn't be Joyce when writing them.

(Disclaimer: I very much enjoyed Torts and the professor who taught the class, this is just an easy example, but there were others in my other courses as well.)

On my marathon, 4.5 hour, closed-book torts exam, there was a 25 point question that consisted of four, four part answers. Yes, 16 "parts" in total. Weird structure. But, okay, that alone would not be quite so tortuous except that for each part we were supposed to write one page on why one part was better than the others. Okay, a little more confusing, but not entirely incomprehensible. Then came the "corrections" sheet. This consisted of several corrections to the wording of several of the parts. Usually, it was changing one word, from "did" to "did not" or something like that (I've tried to block this from my mind, so it's hard to recall).

I did made a valiant effort not to post-mortem my exams, but I noticed everyone was talking about this section of the exam. It was just plain confusing. You might be writing a casebook, so maybe notes are on your mind, but notes on an exam are just confusing and weird. If you expect to read cogent answers, it helps to write cogent questions.

There are a ton of other suggestions I could make that would help improve the teaching skills and the classroom experience for a lot of professors, but many of those start to get into teaching style, and I don't like to impose style on anyone. I'll just say that lively discussion beats relentless questioning any day of the week. But the six suggestions I've offered above should be relatively easy for anyone to implement regardless of how your classroom is run. I don't think they would cramp anyone's style too much, unless your style is boorish ogre, and then, well, all bets are off.

About the Author: Dave! is also known as David Gulbransen, a career chameleon who has done many things over the years, a bit like Homer Simpson. He's been a film producer, a published author and an IT professional. Currently, he's flexing his IT and production muscles at a fine academic institution, while torturing himself and his poor spouse by attending night school to earn his JD. His maniacal ranting can be found at Preaching to the Perverted.

Comments

[DannyNoonan]

I guess I'd offer a seventh tip for law professors after reading this post: Not all students are the same. Or even close to the same. My experiance has led me to some different results. (1)I don't need my assignments a week in advance. If I have time to read ahead (which, between work, working out, going out and dating undergraduate chicks, is pretty rare) I'll look on the syllabus and read the next assignment. Are you really getting a week ahead on all of your readings for all of your classes? Do you do anything else? (2) Yeah, responding to email is definately a good thing. However, I'd be surprised to find a law prof who doesn't. If one exists, I highly doubt it is because he/she doesn't understand how it works. Email can be bad though if the prof thinks a student's question might be something everyone is wondering about and sends the answer to the entire class. Law students as a lot of dumb question that I don't need flooding my inbox. And those magic slates are more trouble in class than they are worth. (3) Review sessions are a total waste of time. The only good thing about them is that they waste a few hours of study time for the neurotic gunners that attend them. (4) Although I do like commercial outlines and study aids, despite most of my profs saying they are "no substitute..." and "will not help you..." I don't think there is any reason why a prof need to reccomend one to the class. You know which company is best for you and if you don't, ask the professor yourself or ask a 3L. I mostly agree with you about (5) and (6). Old exams are very helpful and difficult to get if your school doesn't have an exam bank or the professor doesn't provide them and an exam does need to be clear for it to be fair. I just did terrible on my evidence exam. It was a 4 hour, 200 question true/false test. My professor is a brilliant guy and a damn good attorney but the words "may or may not" should not appear in a true or false question and if they do, the answer, logically, has to be true. Or so I thought.

[Dave!]

Danny-

You raise some good points... just for the record: (1) I actually have had professors who don't give out a full syllabus(!) (2) I've had two professors who didn't respond to e-mail, one just plain *never* responded, even to procedural requests! Hard to believe, but they *are* out there. (3) Review sessions are mostly a waste of time because they are poorly run, usually by a TA, which is my point--they could be a valuable resource if they were done correctly. (4) Sure, Profs don't have to recommend an outline. But Prof. Childs was commenting that people did poorly on his exams because they relied on an outline vs. class. My response to that is two part: people use outlines because they aren't *getting* it in class, which is a failing of the teacher as much as the student; we all know these study aids exist and we all know students use them why *not* mention it? What harm does that do the professor? At least recommend a hornbook.

[Bill Childs]

It's a very interesting post, and I appreciate the response. I would challenge this assertion:

<< My response to that is two part: people use outlines because they aren't *getting* it in class, which is a failing of the teacher as much as the student; we all know these study aids exist and we all know students use them why *not* mention it? >>

I think the first part of this is largely inaccurate and significantly oversimplifies why students use commercial outlines.

My recollection from law school (which is not that out-of-date) is that students use outlines for one of three reasons. The first is the one you note, which is that they're not getting the material in class, which I agree may reflect poorly on the teaching. The second is that they are getting the information in class but use the outline to confirm their understanding. The third is that they don't much worry about getting the material in class and don't particularly try to do so. Taking them out of order:

- I have no objection to the second use so long as students understand that I get to trump commercial material and if they see a conflict they know how to reach me. (And, incidentally, I responded to every e-mail, usually within thirty minutes or so, had a review session [run by me -- no TAs here], and was in general nearly obsessively accessible.)

- As for the first use -- the one you mention -- it's a reasonable use if the material really isn't being presented clearly in class. I happen to believe (unsurprisingly) that at least that issue was in fact presented pretty well in class, and I think the number of exams that got it right provide some evidence of that. And in even the most incoherent class, *someone* probably can point out a disjunction between the commercial material and what the prof said -- and then you can ask the prof what his or her right answer is.

- And as for the last one, if a student is using a commercial outline to avoid dealing with class, I can live with the student doing poorly and feel little guilt for failing to point them to the best way to avoid paying attention.

I do recommend hornbooks in my upper level classes. At the start of Torts, I said essentially exactly what I said above: I know some people will use commercial outlines, and I think they can be useful as a check on what you're getting in class. I also said that if there's a conflict, they should assume that there's a Professor Supremacy Clause, which means I win.

In short, I think students using commercial materials for what I would consider good reasons have the resources to catch disjunctions. And I don't really think it's my role to endorse commercial outlines, any of which likely directly conflict with something I think about the subject. I don't have a problem with people who do such endorsements, but I think they would be likely to cause more confusion than they would avoid for me.

[Dave!]

Prof. Childs-

Fair enough. I don't doubt that there are many students who do use commerical outlines as a means of avoiding actually paying attention in class and I agree you shouldn't have to endorse a commercial product, per se. That said, why not recommend hornbooks to your introductory classes as well? I've heard the excuse that we lowly 1Ls need to learn the case method and all that, but honestly, most of the casebooks I've used so far are pretty poorly edited and are *greatly* enhanced with the right hornbook.

And I also don't mean to defend people who couldn't understand why you would prefer "legal cause" to "proximate cause" just to point out that there are _good_ reasons for using commercial outlines, and many members of the faculty seem to ignore that fact. Additionally, I don't mean to imply you don't use e-mail or aren't available--just that it can be (and is) a problem among faculty.

[Bill Childs]

Also fair. I could and perhaps should recommend a hornbook. My only hesitation is that it can be relied upon too much to the exclusion of other preparation, but you're quite possibly right that it's going to happen anyway.

Incidentally, I certainly hope you're aiming for a job at Yahoo! so that there can be even more surplus exclamation points. Or perhaps you'll be a new drummer for the band !!!.

[Dave!]

Actually, it started when I was younger... as a "David" I got tired of being asked, "Is it David or Dave?" No ambiguity with "Dave!" (No one calls me "Davey" but my grandmother... )

Recently, I thought I should change it to Dav! but I figured only regular Westlaw/Lexis users would get the joke...

[david giacalone]

Dave!, it seems to me that you're taking law school exams way too seriously and expecting a lot of spoon-feeding. Do the reading, attend class, ask questions while in class, review your notes and ask around about good commercial outlines, prepare for the exam with a little less worrying about psyching out the professor, and take the exam knowing that everyone is apprehensive, but you're well-prepared on the subject matter. Meanwhile, find classes to take that include papers as part or all of the grade.

[Dave!]

David-

I don't think I take them half as seriously as most people in my class. I do have the perspective of being out of college for 10 years and I know that grade matter, but they aren't the end-all-be-all. However, if professors can give advice on things law students can do to perform better on exams (and I think Prof. Childs' advice was excellent, btw) why can't *students* give advice to professors on how to teach better? I don't mean to be disrespectful--my professors are generally good teachers and obviously experts on the law. But none of them have much training in *education*. I'll save my rant on the state of higher education for later... watch for my article in the Chronicle. :)

However we *are* being evaluated on *one* exam. And as a 1L I can't choose classes that are more paper oriented--these are required courses at any school. I do the reading, I ask questions in class (as do my peers), etc.

The problem, as I see it, is that any way you slice it exam grades are *subjective*. That's okay by me, really, it is. But that's why you can't say, "know the material and you'll do okay." You _might_ do *okay* but with mandatory curves, the difference between "sub-par", "okay", and "well done" is often a few points--points that are as likely to come from writing your answer in the style the professor likes as they are anywhere else.

As I've said, no where in the real world is anything structured like this. In other academic pursuits, grades are based on either a combination of papers and exams or at least on a series of exams and quizzes. In the "real world" you might only have one annual performance review, but you still get a great deal of feedback along the way from your boss about your performance. In law school, you sit in isolation until the one 3-4 hour exam that determines your entire grade for the semester. You have to admit, that's a little backassward. It's like being on trial and never being able to present any evidence, file any motions, and having the verdict rendered on the strength of your closing argument. :)

[Evan]

I know I'm coming in on the tail end of this discussion, but I agree with Dave!. The lack of feedback during first semester really made law school seem out of whack with the rest of the world.

As for David's advice not to take law-school exams so seriously . . . speaking for myself, I gave up a great job in order to go to law school, and I had to agree to take on more debt, and as I saw it, I absolutely couldn't fail under any circumstances--so I wouldn't have paid any attention at all to someone who told me I was taking exams "way too seriously." In fact, that's the attitude I hoped my classmates would take, since they were my competition.

In the end, things were looking pretty good after first semester, and the fact that I did take exams seriously certainly didn't hurt.

[Bill Childs]

One (final?) comment:

It does not have to be the case that the final is the only idea you get of how you're doing. 15% (I think) of my Torts grade was based on four in-class quizzes. Multiple choice, yes, so you didn't get a sense of how I was likely to grade written work, but you did get a sense (an accurate one, I submit) of what sort of questions I like. (Most, if not all, of those quizzes are also up on my website.) In future years, I plan to expand -- though not dramatically -- the breadth of during-the-semester stuff. It is not at all uncommon among first-year profs at WNEC to have some portion of the grade come from non-exam work.

I also dispute the idea that -- even in those classes where there's nothing but the final -- you lack any chance to know how to do well. Professors like hearing the same sorts of arguments they like making; we're funny that way. I don't disagree with you that extra information about what we want to hear is a good idea, and (other than not having old exams to give [though I did distribute other profs' exams that I liked]), I try to do that. But it is not impossible, or even terribly difficult, in my view, to tell what a prof wants by listening to him/her in class.

[Dave!]

Bill-

I think the 15% quiz thing you did for your Torts class is excellent. But I would like to add at my school that's virtually unheard of...

On your second point, I think we all realize how much faculty like to hear themselves talk... :) But again, how easy it is to discern what a professor wants based on their performance in class varies wildly from professor to professor.

I do really appreciate you providing these comments though and your guest post. It's great to see faculty who are obviously interested in teaching and who do care about the student perspective.

[Dave!]

Evan & David-

Evan actually brings up a very good point. I, too, am giving up a solidly acceptable career path because I'm more interested in the law. So I'm risking a lot more than your average straight-out-of-undergrad 1L. I'm making both career and family sacrifices most (certainly not all) 1Ls don't make.

I'm also in a part-time evening program, for which I don't expect any special treatment, other than taking one less course per semester. But it also means I feel I'm pretty grounded in reality and not simply caught up in the whirlwind "law school" experience. I deal with the "real world" every day and I hope that helps give me some perspective about what is and what isn't B.S. about the mythos of law school.

Either that I'm just too tired to think straight. :)

[DannyNoonan]

"In law school, you sit in isolation until the one 3-4 hour exam that determines your entire grade for the semester. You have to admit, that's a little backassward. It's like being on trial and never being able to present any evidence, file any motions, and having the verdict rendered on the strength of your closing argument. :)"

I think it would be much more unfair to grade anything that occurs early in the semester before you have a chance to put it all together. I think law tests are diffent from tests in other subjects because law is different than other subjects. It's all so interrelated. You can't adequately use what you learned in the first two weeks if you don't have a solid understanding of what you learned in the last two weeks. I think that the 1 test = 100% of your grade is the best possible way to grade a student's knowledge of the subject matter. (Note: unless it is a 4 hour true/false test)

[Dave!]

Danny-

Actually, that's a very good point... and a good arguement for no grades or pass fail your first year... :)

[DannyNoonan]

"a good arguement for no grades or pass fail your first year"

That's taking it way to far. There would be a great deal of practicle problems with having no grades.

[david giacalone]

Evan, please re-read my Comment, and I think you'll agree that I was not advocating a non-serious approach to exams -- instead, I was saying "study hard but don't get overwrought with anxiety and with psyching out your professor."

If I want someone to twist my words and meaning, I'll ask Aaron. [emoticon omitted to protect the guilty]

[Evan]

David: Yes, I see what you mean--you were saying not to take exams too seriously.

[-Dave!]

What would be the problem with not having grades first year? Or more specifically, making them pass/fail?

[Myra]

Hey Dave,

The biggest problem I would see with not having grades the first year is that for us full time students- how would employers evalute us? We interview for jobs for the 1L summer after the first semester, and for 2L jobs at the beginning of the second year. If there were no grades, or even if it were pass/fail, then there would be no way for employers to evaluate what we've done in law school. What seems weird to me is that we actually interview for essentially our post law school job when we're 1/3 of the way through law school, but I guess that's another issue...