It’s always great when a throwaway line in a blog post creates another throwaway comment, which then creates a lot of teeth gnashing that can’t be thrown away. So why not join in?
When discussing wisdom vs. smartness and which is better when picking a Supreme Court Justice, Dave Hoffman of Concurring Opinions made a comment criticizing the Socratic Method. That led to a comment (in the blog sense) from Orin Kerr who also took a pot shot at the Socratic Method. Scott Greenfield then stepped in to defend the Socratic Method. That led to a post on the WSJ Law Blog and the Shark (a post that for some reason is gone), and here we are.
The criticism of the Socratic Method was that it’s not teaching people the type of intelligence that should be valued (or valued more) among Justices specifically and lawyers generally. Greenfield’s defense of the Socratic Method was that it is quite useful in teaching a useful set of skills:
For these others, the Socratic Method is like death by a thousand knives, jabbing and poking his inadequate psyche and intellect, demanding that he performs in ways he can’t and never will. For these lawyers, it was humiliation and shame.
For the trench lawyer, this was preparation for life. We work with a gun to our heads, given half a second to analyze the situation, the spectrum of possible responses, ascertain the correct response, put it into comprehensible words and utter those words in such a way that we have served our client’s interest.
Is the Socratic Method a way to teach trial skills to a lawyer? Yes. But not a way. Greenfield argues it’s the only way:
Law school is the time to learn how to beat them at their own game. Learn this and the rest is a snap. And if you go to one of those law schools where they are deeply concerned about how you feel about yourself and want to foster a nurturing environment, tell them you want your money back.
One day I’ll have to read the post on nurturing more in depth, but if the author is willing to take it out of context, I won’t lose sleep over it. But it’s clear that the argument isn’t that the Socratic Method is a useful way to teach in law school, it’s an inherently superior way to teach at least some of the skills.
The problem is that defense does not explain why the Socratic Method is so prevalent in legal classrooms, especially 1L courses. The fact is that the vast majority of students in a 1L course room are never going to need the special skills necessary to face a judge. And of those that do, it will be only a small fraction of their career. An important fraction, yes, but still only a fraction.
Without some evidence other than the anecdotal evidence in his post, I have a hard time buying that the Socratic Method is so vastly superior that any other way of teaching trial skills is doomed to failure at best, and another example of the “me first, be gentle” demands of the Millennial generation at worst. There are some, maybe a lot, maybe a few, but at least some people who could be excellent trials lawyers but are transactional attorneys or not practicing law at all because they got brow-beaten by a professor from day one of law school.
The Socratic Method has a place in law school. And while the cheery tagline might say otherwise, I don’t think law school is all lollipops and merry-go-rounds. I probably adhere to the “exam as combat” theory as much as anyone. Part of being happy and sane as a lawyer or law student means accepting that some of this stuff is really hard. And the Socratic Method, even if it isn’t the One True Way to train a trial lawyer is still a good way.
But justifying the Socratic Method as the dominant teaching practice for all law students sounds a lot like a fraternity. A fraternity argues that their brotherhood is the greatest bond two friends can have. The frat goes on to argue that the only way that brotherhood can be forged is through subjecting a group to some type of hazing. I disagree with both those statements as universal truths, not to mention the conclusion that anyone who disagrees just can’t hack it, for frat brothers and I disagree with them for law students too.
<
p style=”clear: both”>In this post: Smart. Smart! Smart? [Concurring Opinions] In Defense of the Socratic Method [Simple Justice] What’s the Point of the Socratic Method, Anyway? [WSJ Law Blog] The Slackoisie Go to Law School [Simple Justice]
