Law school pedagogy

The law school teaching pedagogy has been referred to as a a "labyrinth"; that is a winding, confusing and circuitious path that is the study and later, the practice of law. In addition, due to the dynamic and evolving nature of law, legal scholars have frequently referred to the path of understanding of a particular area of the law as a "labyrinth". The law school pedagogy is most noted for the intense reading by law students of countless appellate judicial opinions; and then being subjected to the relentless Socratic scrutiny of their professors.

Background
The word "labyrinth" refers to a circuitous maze comprised of a series of winding corridors, with obstructions and false paths. The origins of the labyrinth are mythological, and based upon the story of the Minotaur, a beast that was half-man and half-bull, as encountered by Theseus. . According to legend,King Minos of Crete commissioned a labyrinth to be built by Daedalus, to house the Minotaur in its center. As punishment for crimes committed, Theseus was imprisoned in the labyrinth to his apparent doom, but ultimately he found his way out of the labyrinth thanks to a golden thread provided by Ariadne, King Minos' daughter.

Students embarking upon the journey that is law school frequently find that it is also a Labyrinth of sorts, a winding maze of decisions, obstacles and opportunities. From making the decision to attend law school, to gaining acceptance through the winding path from the Law School Admissions Test (this test, also referred to as the "LSAT"[] is adminstered by the Law School Admissions Council to choosing a law school and succeeding in one's legal studies, the uninitiated student will find ample obstacles and issues, which if misunderstood, will ultimately prevent that student from achieving his or her goal of law practice.

The law school pedagogy
The Socratic Method and the case study method are the two major components of the law school pedagogy. The law school pedagogy has essentially remained unchanged since it was utilized by Harvard's Christopher Columbus Langdell in the late 1800's and as a result, has been criticized as outdated. Law students and legal scholars[] have argued for its reform. In a typical Socratic dialogue, the professor requires the student to make assertions about a particular appellate brief, and forces the student to articulate and understand the assumptions hidden within those assertions. Needless to say, this dialogue, no matter how skillfully engaged in, will likely result in bruised student egos.

Regardless, as countless law school graduates understand, one's performance in the Socratic dialogue has little, if any, effect on student grades and arguably has no bearing on one's future ability as a lawyer. This is because the Socratic examiner knows all of the questions, as well as the answers. As a result, the law student is best served to accept the Socratic Method for what it is- simply part of the law school pedagogy.

The casebook method, as developed by Langdell [] was intended as a method in which the students critically read and analyze appellate briefs written by experienced jurists; rather than simply read the "black letter" law. This method is a variation on the "give me a fish and I eat for a day; teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime.

Criticism of the law school pedagogy
Law school is notoriously competitive, with most schools employing an ubiquitous grading curve. Worse, in most cases the student's entire grade is generally determined by one exam at the end of the semester, unlike the typical undergraduate experience in which other variables such as midterm exams and class participation have an effect on one's grades. Law school mythology is abundant with stories of law students mis-filing books in the law library, in order to prevent other students from fulfilling assignments. John Jay Osborn, Jr.'s hugely successful novel "The Paper Chase" later memorialized in film, describes the angst and paranoia among law students participating in a study group. In the movie, John Houseman, as the curmudgeonly but extremely intimidating Professor Kingsfield, tells his class of neophyte law students that "You come in here with a skull full of mush, and if you survive, you'll leave thinking like a lawyer."

Further, a student's first-year grades (first-year law students are referred to as "1Ls") generally have a substantial impact on the law student's ability to secure employment upon graduation. This competition is complicated by the fact that most law professors utilize the Socratic pedagogy, in which the student is essentially an adversarial method designed to test the student's assumptions and conclusions.[]. As a result, students invest a great deal of time in reading and re-reading appellate briefs, included in legal "casebooks" by editors to illustrate a particular point of law.

In addition to the competitiveness of law students, competition also extends among law schools themselves. Although disdained by legal governing organizations such as the American Bar Association and the Law School Admissions Council,[] law school rankings have become arguably the single most important in the student's law school choice. This is because legal employers frequently embrace these rankings and students graduating from highly-ranked schools have better employment opportunities than those graduating from the lower-ranked schools.

An alternative hypotheses
Nonetheless, the law school Labyrinth actually simulates the challenges one faces in the practice of law. Students must learn to identify legal issues, often buried deep within the recesses of arcane case law, detemine the applicable law, and apply it in order to successfully resolve the legal issue. This is, in essence, the practice of law- seeking out facts in order to understand the legal issue presented and coupling those facts with legal precedent, in order to reach a legal conclusion. If the student understands that the goal of the study of law is to develop the skill necessary to sift through voluminous information, develop hypothesis and later, conclusions, the law school Labyrinth begins to make sense. At the same time, the student must also deal with the impending threat of exams, in esence, his or her own personal Minotaur in this Labyrinth.

If the neophyte law student allows it, the Labyrinth will teach him or her the skills necessary to succeed in the practice of law. The student learns to "think like a lawyer", which means the inductive, deductive, analytical and logical reasoning process used by lawyers in analysis and advocacy. In the study of law, the student "learns by doing", as opposed to the rote regurgitation of information frequently found in undergraduate studies. Further, because the student receives very little direction, he or she is required to develop an understanding of the strategy and tactics of the practice of law. More akin to the training found in a trade or craft, which is also the pedagogy used in most professional programs, this "learning by doing" teaches students to teach themselves, a critical skill for any student contemplating the lifelong practice of law.

Additional reading
* "Law School Labyrinth- A Guide to Making the Most of Your Legal Education," by Steven R. Sedberry, Esq.(to be released by Kaplan Publishing, Inc. in April, 2009). Kaplan Publishing, Inc. is a subsidiary of Kaplan, Inc.
* "Getting to Maybe: How to Excel on Law School Exams," by Richard Michael Fischl and Jeremy R. Paul. Carolina Academic Press; 1 edition (May 26, 1999).
* "The Shame of American Legal Education", by Alan Watson. Vandeplas Publishing, 2006.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu