Self-important law students

I found this on another blog last night, and got a big kick out of it. This is a copy of an email exchange between a 1L (obviously a gunner) to his Property professor. I can't believe how pompous the initial letter is. It's like he sat down with his "Big Words That Smart People Use Thesaurus" and came up with this. Sorry about the length, but it really needs to be enjoyed in full.

UPDATE: This is NOT an email from an NDLS student. It's a student at Hastings Law School. Totally a coincidence that I posted this about the same time as the eruption of the NDLS 1L Property Petition Scandal.



Dear Professor [Property]:

I'll limit myself to one initial caveat. I intend this to be an attempt to engage in a good faith conversation about the state of our Property class. I have concerns about the way the course is being conducted, and I feel the need to express these concerns to you directly with the hope that it will effectuate a change in the way the course is being managed and alleviate some of the anxiety that I, and many others, have been feeling. I hope that this communication is interpreted not as an attack, but as a honest effort to confront some issues which are proving to be troubling to me and many of my colleagues. Although I know that there are at least a dozen others who share my concerns, I will limit what I say to my opinions and observations alone.

With that said, here goes:

My primary concern is with the level of discourse the class is being taught at. While Hastings is admittedly no Boalt or Stanford, I feel your approach to the class evinces a lowest-common denominator approach that undermines both the intellectual rigor and critical thought that lawschool [sic.] is supposed to cultivate in those who incur large debts to attend it. I feel that you laud comments from students that reflect only the most cursory readings of the material, and deflect or defer comments and questions when they reach any level of sophistication or complexity. This [sic.] come across at best as paternalistic, and at worst as insulting. In anticipation of a response that points to participation as the only measure available to you to gauge where the students are at, I absolutely agree that there is a shortage of tools at your disposal to discern where the students are, and what their level of understanding is. I can tell you from experience in other classes, and I have mixed feelings about this, that the student body (or at least our section) varies widely in terms of how quick they understand the material, and what level of complexity they can tolerate before getting lost. I can only imagine the difficulty in trying to tailor your pedagogy to this fact - keeping it interesting enough and complex enough to do justice to those students at the top, while ensuring that the most basic ideas and concepts get across to those at the bottom. So far though, I don't think this balance has been achieved.

For example, in today's class [] brought up the question of whether or not using the land for storage, rather than for classroom use, was sufficient to satisfy the 'for school purposes' provision in the deed. Your response was to point out what an interesting point that was, and that it had not been raised. As it was then pointed out, in fact the opinion did address that point, and others. This, among other things, can only lead me to believe that you did not read the opinion in its entirety, and I cannot find any means of justifying that. I know that your primary interests, and your numerous articles and books clearly evince this, lie outside of property, and that you are most likely incredibly busy working on other things. I cannot admit to know what the attitude towards 1L classes is among academics of your caliber, but I do not find it acceptable that, at least on appearances, you only skim the material before teaching it.

You chose to use another Professor's syllabus, and the materials she pulled together on her own in lieu of a case book. The benefit of case books is that they provide readers with commentary, notes, historical information, etc. which helps fill in the gaps and explain the material, while providing questions which are meant to provoke the students to think critically about what they are learning. Presumably this feature also can help professors in teaching their courses. Working without the benefit of such a resource, you are in the sole position of providing us with this kind of material. I know students who took Property with Feldman last semester, and it was among the hardest courses they took. I cannot reconcile that fact with the way the course, on my account at least, has been conducted thus far.

Again, I do not intend this as a personal attack. I have the highest regard for your work (I've actually read many of your articles during class), and you are undoubtedly a tremendous asset for Hastings. I am concerned though that you are not preparing for class, and that the manner in which you lead discussions is deleterious for us both intellectually, i.e. in terms of incentivizing cursory readings (you do laud 'extremely close readings,' but the comments that have merited that response did not evince a 'close' reading, they were simply parsing the text itself - a close reading is one which unveils discrepancies or inconsistencies, or something that does more than just repeat the gist of the opinion) and discouraging comments/questions which display a level of sophistication or critical thought (even []’s question today, the one the court did address, was lauded because of its 'insight' - it was not insightful, although [] is an incredibly bright guy, but rather displayed a lack of reading which should have merited a correction, or for some professors, a reprimand), and practically, insofar as we are not being prepared for the real work of lawyers, which is intellectually arduous and demands a high level of competence and attention to detail.

This is not doing justice to those of us, very possibly a majority, who can engage the readings (which are incredibly sparse anyway, and demand very little time relative to other classes to get through) at a higher level of discourse, nor is it doing justice to those at the bottom who are being falsely encouraged. I understand that the paradigm of law school as a brutal experience predicated on shame and fear is history, and that there are feasible alternatives to the Socratic method, but the benefit of that method is that it entices students to read and engage the material - to spend time with it, and think about it comparatively and critically.

I understand and sympathize with your desire to encourage and help students with the material. However, when that help and encouragement comes at the expense of alienating many if not most of your students, and admits of an unwillingness to answer some of the tougher questions or shed light on the historical reasons why the law is the way it is,
I cannot see the benefit. Again, I know that there is the participation problem - which is a problem that extends well beyond the confines or your class - but I cannot see that as a sufficient excuse.

I fully anticipate coming across as arrogant and elitist, and I have no means of addressing those charges save denial. In either case, this reaction would be unwarranted and beside the point, as it would not obviate my observations nor the frustration of many of my colleagues. Suffice to say that I simply have no other recourse of which to avail myself, and I feel that an anonymous effort to correspond with you about these matters - again, a good faith effort - would be the best thing.

I mean no disrespect, but I feel like this is becoming untenable, and I would like to converse with you (albeit anonymously, forgive my cowardice) and see if there is light to be shed on your pedagogy or on available alternatives, if any exist. I know that your recent seminar was remarkably well received, so I have no doubt as to your capacities as a professor nor as a scholar (and even less doubt as to your character and disposition). My concerns are limited to this class, but my concerns are serious, they are shared by many, and I feel that not reading the opinions before you lead classroom discussions, particularly when they are mere pages in length, is grossly unprofessional and far below the standard of care. I need not point out (though obviously, I am) that you are handsomely compensated, and we pay a great deal, to make this an educative enterprise that is competitive (or at least tries to be competitive) with Boalt and Stanford, and so far I do not think that this class is commensurate with what is accorded other Property classes, here or at either of those institutions.

I sincerely hope that you respond to this email with your comments; undoubtedly you have a response, even if it is a purely negative one, and I would greatly appreciate hearing it.

Best Regards,

Anon.

***


Dear [],

I appreciate your letter and your decision to approach me so directly. Several points:

1) In terms of the materials, until last year I used the property casebook I co-wrote. Because it had grown out of date, I taught from a different casebook last year. It was, of course, more work for me to change materials for the third year in a row, but I was dissatisfied with that casebook. I recognize that Professor Feldman's materials are much shorter than the "normal" amount of reading. This was one thing that attracted me to them. I was intrigued by her approach of teaching only a few cases in a given class period, which is what I did at the start of my career. In more recent years, I typically assigned 20 – 35 pages of reading for a 2-hour class. But inevitably, with that much reading, much of the material is barely discussed, and there is a breathless pace that makes it impossible to really engage with students in a way that I come to know their individual strengths and weaknesses, which is what I have been able to do in Property this semester.

2) One challenge of teaching a first year course is that students engage with the materials at very different levels. This is true of all the schools I have taught at, including Harvard. Different people have different strengths and different learning styles, and this plays into my teaching style. I have in the past sometimes mistaken the level of the class by engaging only with the students who seem to "get" a given point most quickly, and have been surprised and disappointed when I see the exams to learn that a hefty number of students understood neither the materials nor the basic legal skills I was trying to teach.

3) Let me reassure you that I prepare 3 - 4 hours for each class session regardless of my other responsibilities. My first duty is to my students, and to the taxpayers of California who help pay my salary. Alas, whenever I teach new materials (and even sometimes when the materials are not new) I do make mistakes. This stems from the fact that I don't have a rigidly pre-scripted class, and things emerge in a different way from what I anticipated, or when students focus on points different from those I focused on. I know that some people feel more comfortable with a more tightly controlled class, and the projection of infallibility that technique permits. I feel that is not worth the cost in terms of intellectual engagement. I strive to avoid mistakes – making errors in public is never fun -- but errors are a part of life. I make them; other students make them; as your letter shows, you make them, too. Lawyers are embarrassed in oral argument all the time, and they must carry on. That is an important message for law students.

4) I would urge to stop reading my articles and pay closer attention to the class, and to participate. My records indicate that you have not once volunteered, and the one time I called on you, last class, you were unprepared. Your letter suggests that you are not fully aware of the various levels at which the discussion is taking place. I am, of course, teaching property doctrine, but I am also teaching: the methodology lawyers turn to when using a case as precedent; jurisprudence, including the distinction between formalism and functionalism (also called consequentialism and legal realism); how to interpret statutes; how to interpret deeds and other real estate documents; how lawyers seek to persuade, including the resources they mobilize for making a persuasive argument when the law seems to cut against you, as well as how different strategies for responding to your opponent's strongest arguments; and the rhetorical traditions judges and lawyers turn to when arguing property cases in the context of legal uncertainty. I know that the class would be enriched by your participation, and I suspect your legal education would, too.

Thanks again for your comments. I would be happy to talk with you further, by email, in person or by phone.

[Prof. Property]

***
My last response:

Professor [Property]:

I only have a moment in between classes to respond to your email, but there are two clarifications I would like to make at the outset of this dialogue.

1) With respect to your assertion that I was unprepared last class, please note that there is another [], as you well know, sitting two seats in front of me. It was unclear who you were calling on, which accounts for my silence. In the future, please discern, either by last name or some other indicator, to whom your questions are addressed to avoid this confusion. I know that calling on unprepared students feels lousy, and in my view constitutes an insult to the professor, so I apologize if that was what was connoted by my silence and bewildered look.

2) I am aware of the multiple dimensions of the law being explored in your class, from methodology, competing schools of thought, matters of substative [sic.] law, advocacy, etc. My objection is not that your treatment of the material ignores these crucial aspects (I can't imagine what law school would consist in if not this), but that your treatment ignores the capabilities of the vast majority of the class to treat the material with a degree of sophistication that exceeds what you seem to be willing to address. Since sending the letter, I have spoken with a number of classmates (beyond those who I had discused [sic.] this matter with prior to writing you) who agree that the class comes across as 'remedial' - which was the word that came up the most.

Class is about to begin, so I will leave this here. I appreciate your response, and when I have the time I will try and respond more fully.

Best Regards,