"Ignoratia legis non excusat."

Ignoratia legis non excusat.  

These case digests are for the personal consumption of the blogger and review of other law students who may also find use for it.  

It is also the opinion of the blogger to (sometimes) state the issue first as this helps narrow down the facts of the digest to essentials.

May this blog be of help to you.


Thursday, October 3, 2013

HIGH OR LAW


Shocking.  The study of law is not what I imagined it would be.  I have heard challenging stories from law students on how their professors castrated, and castigated them.  I have heard stories of law students crying, which I then thought to be "too" much.  Having heard all these, I knew that what I was putting myself into was not an easy matter.  Now, I am an irregular 2nd-3rd year law student, and I have witnessed the same.  And yes, they are a bit "too" much.  Apparently, there is a generally accepted practice among law professors to antagonize their students inside the class.  I tried reading blogs from law students both locally and internationally, and well, it seems that this is the trend and practice.  IT DOESN'T MAKE THE PRACTICE RIGHT.  And so goes my appreciation to the law professors who make learning a collaborative and an interesting one.

Having taken Education and having passed the LET (Licensure Examination for Teachers), I somehow understand the basic foundations of and concepts in education.  These concepts are nowhere near the classroom of a law class and this makes me wonder.  I will not claim to have observed classrooms in other law schools but I will claim to somehow know that in teaching, there are principles and methods that are effective and are not so effective.  I also know that these principles and methods apply to all levels of learners be it in the elementary, secondary, or tertiary, or even in further studies.  I will not attempt to discuss learning styles because while related to learning, it is a different topic requiring a more in-depth discussion.  However, if there is one foremost objective of an educational institution, it is to ensure student learning - nothing more, nothing less.

Here is one of the principles of learning from Horne and Pine (1990): Learning is an experience which occurs inside the learner and is activated by the learner.  the process of learning is primarily controlled by the learner and not by the teacher (group leader)… Learning is not only a function of what a teacher does to, or says to, or provides for a learner… Learning  flourishes in a situation in which teaching is seen as a facilitating process that assists people to explore and discover the personal meaning of events for them.

In law school, recitation is the most common practice in teaching.  Other professors call it the Socratic method (although I'm not sure if some professors really understand the underlying principles in Socratic method.  Some of them just threateningly ask questions.  Such is not Socratic.)  While learners control their learning, they should also be provided a situation where teaching is seen as a facilitating process.  This is where some of the professors lack a skill in - the skill in facilitating and assisting.  It is as if their expectations of their students should already be that of a lawyer's and anything that fall short of should be regarded as mediocrity.

To add, "no one directly teaches anyone anything of significance.  If teaching is defined as a process of directly communicating an experience of a fragment of knowledge, then it is clear that little learning process occurs as a result of this process and the learning that does take place is usually inconsequential… People forget most of the content "taught" to them and retain only the content which they use in their work or content which is relevant to them personally.  Then it must be wise to engage the learners in an activity that is connected to their life experiences.  It is unwise to impose teaching on our students.  No amount of imposition can cause student learning."  

Imposition of teaching on our students is counterproductive.  You can't teach anyone anything.  A teacher must know how to use the students' experiences as the basic foundation of their own learning.  While some professors engage students, other professors would regard teaching a one way process, that is students should think only the way professors think.

Learning is also a social activity.  Human beings are by nature and culture a small group species.  We have survived, despite our physical vulnerability, by working together as a group.  And it is through collaboration - not competition - that we learn best.  In fact, competitive learning environments (my mark is higher than your mark) encourage surface-level thinking, increase dislike for school and decrease both creativity and subject interest.  People learn best through interactions with others, and these interactions strengthen both communities and individuals. (changelearning.ca)

I enjoyed two of my subjects not because the course was easy but because our professor allowed the class to group and to solve a case together.  Not only did this promote friendship inside the class, it also diffused the tension of competitiveness among us.  It allowed us to exchange ideas no matter how silly the ideas were.  It forced us to actively question each other.  It helped us overcome that trickle of insecurity by making us work as one.

On the other hand, I cannot completely discount the fact that the training I got from my professors continuously makes me to be stronger and more competent in what I do.  I am sure that just like any other law student, there were a lot of times when they felt disappointed of themselves each time they walked out of their classroom; disappointed that the question probably was the topic they didn't read that day or simply because their nerves got to them before the question the professor asked did.  These experiences all in all would make one a stronger person but being a stronger person is not the only thing we need to pass the bar.  We need to maximize our learning with the guidance of those who stand in front of us.

I remember one professor telling my classmate while he was reciting nervously, "Are you sure you want to become a lawyer?  Why don't you know that?"  

I wanted to say to my professor, "Maybe he doesn't know that because he still wants TO BECOME a lawyer since he is NOT YET one."  

Another professor says, "We are preparing you for real-life.  In real-life, if you fail the bar, you fail the bar.  So if you fail my exam (patterned after bar questions), you fail the course."  

In my head it rang, "Seriously?  You're a lawyer and you don't know logic?  That is false analogy.  Baristers have finished 4 or 5 years of law studies and most of them fail after taking the bar.  Now, you expect us to be able to answer bar questions while we are only on our second year?"  I bit my lip and I murmured, "That's not realistic."

Shocking.  But I'm getting used to it.  Although, I do not understand yet how law education has evolved into such a competitive, and adversarial system.  Maybe some law professors should take a step down from their pedestals and start reaching out to their students more.  Or maybe they should also be required to take at least 18 units of education before being allowed to teach; being a good lawyer is not tantamount to being a good teacher.  Or maybe it's high time law professors realize the importance of applying learning principles in their classroom instructions.  After all, law students are not excused from benefiting from these learning principles; neither are our professors.