The problem isn't ignorant first year students. The problem is legal research
teachers with attitude: a minimalist, 1Ls-aren't
smart-enough-to-figure-out-our-discipline approach. What 1Ls need is
basic civics: how the courts are structured, how a bill becomes a law,
what are administrative agencies and where they fit in the scheme of
things. (Lower schools don't seem to be teaching this.) Once the ground
work is laid, then set out patterns ala Berring: patterns in publishers
and publications.
We need to:
1. get our subject tested on the bar exam;
2. have it taught for a full semester, not just a few weeks (we are real
faculty with real course content); and
3. have our course given 3-4 graded credit hours, just like torts and
contracts and property (our course content is as important and takes as
much time to learn).
At Tex. Wesleyan Univ. we are teaching students how to access and
integrate information. We have a 2 credit, graded course (so students take
it seriously.) And they figure it out: the same lead players publish
statutes and caselaw, and the retrieval concepts in the books are the same
as on WESTLAW and LEXIS (tbl of cases=ti(____)=name(____). We teach CALR
in tandem with the books, compare and contrast them, and discuss
cost-effectiveness. And based on feedback from our legal writing
instructors, 1Ls have figured it out.
Try giving the 1Ls some credit. They are educated consumers who won't
take seriously a one-hour pass/fail course. They remain ignorant because
we insist on keeping them that way!
LLydia M. Valenti lvalenti@class.org
Jim Hambleton jhamble@class.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/07/00 PST