LESSONS FROM THE WEB

Lessons | Talkback | Archive
—————————————————————————————
In this monthly column, law professors comment on the many academic opportunities and challenges presented by Web technology.

As with all JURIST columns, you're invited to Talkback. This month...
—————————————————————————————
There Is Something Foul in Legal Education. And the Internet Is Part of the Cure.

Peter Tillers, Cardozo School of Law

Legal education in America (and perhaps everywhere else) is still predominantly “hierarchical” - the teachers teach and large masses of students imbibe the teachers’ wisdom. Yes, many law teachers in the U.S. still use the “Socratic Method.” But this question-and-answer procedure does not really significantly change the master-servant nature of the educational experience at law schools; “Socrates” still runs the show and the questioning does not amount to free inquiry. The internet, however, holds the promise, if not the guarantee, of a more equal, a more free-spirited, a more truly exploratory educational experience. This is so if only because e-mail internet discussion allows each participant to speak as often as any other member of the group, and the physical trappings of the usual classroom, which make the teacher the center of attention, are absent. However, the internet by itself cannot free the consumers of legal education from intellectual servility. The teacher must want to use this new educational instrument in a liberating way.

I use internet discussion in the course on “fact investigation” that I now teach with Zachary Weiss of New York State’s Office of the Attorney General. The job of the students in this course is to investigate. But Zach and I do not give the students “canned” problems to investigate. The students do real investigations of real-world puzzles and questions. This dedication to the investigation of novel real-world problems is the first step that puts students on a more nearly equal footing with their teachers. We the ostensible teachers have no better notion than the students do about what sorts of matters are worth investigating. Furthermore, we the ostensible teachers have no better idea than our students do about what sorts of evidence and information will be found as an investigation proceeds - we are all equally in the dark. Hence, in our course on fact investigation Zach and I resemble collaborators more than teachers.

Zach and I use the internet to have the students and the teachers discuss inter sese what sorts of matters might be worth investigating and what sorts of steps might be taken during an investigation. If we the teachers are wiser than our students, it is not because we know in advance more than the students do. True, we do pull rank now and then. For example, we do not hesitate to tell our students what our preferences are – what the preferences of their teachers are – and that they, the student investigators, are obliged to pay attention to their teachers’ preferences. (For example, we readily tell them we are not interested in investigating night clubs that discriminate against potential customers’ who are not elegant enough to gain admission.) And when we think that a particular type of investigation is likely to “tank,” we do not hesitate to tell our student investigators what we think. But even on these points, the use of e-mail allows more democracy than would otherwise be possible. Students can and do argue that their teachers’ preferences are wrong, and sometimes we the teachers will yield to strong counter-preferences of the students. Moreover, students often argue that their proposed course of investigative action is sound. And sometimes they prove that they are right and that we the teachers are wrong. These exchanges (between teachers and students) are all the more effective because they can take place quickly. A student with a gripe or a question can go on the internet and get a reaction from Tillers or Weiss or both almost immediately.

The matters just mentioned are weighty considerations in favor of e-mail discussions as part of the law school educational “experience.” But the internet offers one other very important advantage for legal education: spontaneity! When things are going well, students and teachers alike get on the internet and “think out loud.” This sort of thinking out loud – this sort of writing before thinking – can be hazardous. It sometimes leads to insensitive comments, for example. On the whole, however, spontaneous e-mail exchanges are a very good thing in our course. Many ideas are floated, and some of them turn out to be good. And almost all of the ideas floated turn out to be at least worth considering, which makes the students (and the teachers) think better of themselves. Furthermore, and perhaps most important, there is often a good deal of wit and sometimes pure joy in e-mail exchanges. Legal education would be a more worthwhile enterprise if it were a bit more joyful and playful than it is now.

© 2000 by Peter Tillers. All rights reserved.
—————————————————————————————
 The views expressed in this column are solely those of its author, and do not reflect those of JURIST, its Advisory Board, its staff or its host institutions.
 ———————————————————————
Talkback

Where you have the last word...

  • As a former student of Professors Tillers and Weiss, I can confirm that our classes' use of the internet made my educational experience more enriching, more spontaneous and also more fun. The use of e-mail discussion groups made it possible for our class to engage the professors and each other in meaningful debate and discussion at our own leisure. I would certainly welcome this kind of access and interaction in my other courses. A (perhaps unintended) consequence of using email in this way is that it would have been impossible for any student to not be thinking about the questions raised in our course everytime they checked their email. As our course met only once a week, email was a very nice way to stay "in touch" with the material.

    Mandi Odier-Fink
    Cardozo School of Law

—————————————————————————————

Engaged? Enraged? JURIST would like to hear your reactions to this column and the issues it raises...

Your comments:

Your Name:
Organization:
E-Mail Address:
State/Country:

If you would like your comments to remain anonymous, check here: 

———————————————————————
Archive

Previous columns in this series: