A Few Things Are Changing at the College of Law
It's a simple-enough philosophy: If professional correspondence is a big part of an attorney's job, why not teach law students to write strong emails and memoranda in law school? And if it's important for attorneys to think on their feet, shouldn't law school prepare them to handle such situations?
Stephanie Hunter McMahon thinks so—which is one reason she designs her courses with a view to what her students will do in their work as lawyers. She gives her students what they'll need when they leave her: practical skills, such as writing effective emails and gaining the trust of their clients and peers, and critical-thinking skills, such as the ability to view legal decisions with an eye trained to spot biases. In other words, McMahon is practicing what cutting edge law professors practice: She's preparing her students for real-world work.
In her syllabus, McMahon makes explicit the reasons underlying this cutting-edge shift—the shift from a lecture-based course to a course in which students actively engage with primary and secondary sources; the shift from a course in which students write essays to one in which they compose professional emails and memoranda; and the shift from giving students the option to "pass" on a question in a Socratic-method course to one in which students are invited to work through an answer aloud even though they may not know the answer right off the bat.
McMahon is purposeful in her teaching...it's important to her that her students understand why she asks them to do things differently in the classes she teaches. Therefore, while she continues an age-old practice of using the Socratic method of questioning, a method that few colleges in our universities have retained, she does so to prepare her students for life after law school.
In real life, attorneys must address questions to which they don't know all the answers. And because it's important for those attorneys to display capability while avoiding the bravado we associate with some lawyers—an attitude which can serve their clients better in court than on the phone or in the office—Professor McMahon does not allow her students to simply "pass" when they don’t know the answers to questions she asks them in her classes. For McMahon, much is gained when students practice the art of talking through an answer—when those same students later become lawyers, this practice allows them to exhibit credibility while also keeping them from appearing as if they know something they don't actually know.
How does this work, you ask? Well, McMahon invites her students to respond along the lines of, "I'll need to do further research on this; however, my first instinct tells me..." Even if students don't know the answers to McMahon's questions, she expects them to practice thinking critically and speaking competently, and the points they raise via their attempt to work out the logic without knowing the "correct" answer often inform a richer conversation.
McMahon applies a similar practice-oriented approach to assessing her students. In most classes, law students write essay responses on their final exams; however, they'll write very few essays once they become new employees, whether at law firms, government agencies, or other forms of employment. In practice, attorneys are much more likely to write volumes of emails and memoranda. So, in order to ease her students' transition from student to capable new employee, Professor McMahon substitutes memoranda for essays and emails for short answers, insisting that her students practice writing in the forms lawyers use professionally and work at articulating legal concepts by composing emails and memoranda to hypothetical senior partners or clients.
And speaking of encouraging a richer conversation...in 2009, McMahon redesigned the previously lecture-based legal history course to a course in which students wrestle with primary and secondary sources by viewing them through the lens of interpretation. Now, rather than listening passively as McMahon lectures, her students examine the time in which an argument was written and talk together about why such an argument would have then been considered persuasive. This way, they learn the art of different and effective ways to persuade.
McMahon is quick to say that it'll take another semester or two to work the bugs from her newly redesigned courses; but she's just as quick to say she's not likely to return to the old lecture style of teaching or the old essay-style exams. Funny thing, though: Spanning an entire wall of McMahon's office is a real, live chalkboard. With words written on it. Some things are definitely worth keeping.
written by Liz Tilton