Re: Socratic Method

More | Report Post

I'm a DL student myself, but If all the stars aligned and I
could attend a brick & mortar school with the case method and
Socratic method I would be better off. Let's face it anyone can
learn the law and pass the bar, but those who can take a case
analyze it and extract the legal theories from it is much better
off than one who cannot, and one who can answer a question on
the spot about a legal problem even from a professor who is
pontificating their superior education will be able to stand up
to some of the toughest judges the system can concoct. You have
to be able to think like a lawyer to be a lawyer. Most people
would probably say the time honored and proven method of
instruction does make one into a lawyer. A DL program qualifies
one to become a lawyer, but may fall short of making one a
lawyer, an individual needs to find a way to become a lawyer on
their own. A DL student, who has the discipline to complete the
DL program, probably has the ability and discipline to become a
lawyer, but that will be found out in their practice. Even ABA
graduates are not a lawyer either, they just have a better
chance. Becoming a lawyer is a process. All lawyers continue
to learn, that’s why it’s called practicing the law.

On 2/04/09, Karen wrote:
> Here's what Taf t has to say on their website:
>
> A. The case method, also often referred to as the Socratic
> method, is a method of learning first implemented by in the
> early 20th century by Harvard and Columbia law schools. The
> case method requires students examine ("brief") and discuss
> actual court decisions. In recent years a growing number of
> legal educators have expressed dissatisfaction with this
> model. In 2007 the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education
> released a report which recommended sweeping changes in how
> law was taught. These recommendations included de-emphasizing
> the case method of instruction.
>
> While the Carnegie report questioned the value of the case
> method in classroom programs, our experience has shown that it
> has even less value in a distance learning program.
> Historically the greater emphasis a distance law school places
> on the case method, the lower the bar examination pass rate.
> Most Taft Law School courses utilize "casebooks," but of equal
> importance are treatises, outlines, recorded lectures and
> other study aids.
>
>
>
> On 2/04/09, atty wrote:
>> Right on point. I also believe that the Socratic Method is
>> pure waste of time. I remember most students in my class used
>> to check emails or browse the Internet during the class. Only
>> a few used to participate in the discussions. These students
>> (I was among one of them most of the time) were in the class
>> because the attendance was required (and I am talking about
>> one of the top ranking schools). I always learned through
> self
>> reading.
>>
>>
>> On 2/03/09, Iggyrip wrote:
>>> One of the previous posts, mentioned their school taught
>>> by the Socratic Method. This stirred some past memories
>>> and I thought I would kick this around to see how people
>>> felt about it.
>>>
>>> I spent a year at a Cal Bar arroved school who taught by
>>> the Socratic Method. I thought it was a waste of time. Too
>>> much time discussing cases and not enough time learning
>>> the law and how to write an essay. It has it's place, but
>>> I believe that law can be taught in a more efficient
>>> manner. Case in point: After law school, just about
>>> everyone attends a bar review to learn the law (or what
>>> was forgotten) and how to write for the exam. There is no
>>> Socratic Method teaching in bar review. Why do law schools
>>> continue to teach this way? Tradition? Or it is really the
>>> best way to teach law?
>>>
>>> Does anyone agree?
>>> Iggy
>>>