Anna Bninski ‘23
Features Editor
There are few things I enjoy more than a good, productive griping session. Legal education is one of my favorite topics to kvetch about, and so prior to the Virginia Law Review’s February 18 symposium, “Interrogating Legal Pedagogy and Imagining a Better Way to Train Lawyers,” I asked Professor J.H. “Rip” Verkerke[1] for a comment on what is changing—and should change—in legal education.
From that conversation, I can report that the symposium took place in the context of developments in learning theory (and an accumulation of evidence) indicating that straight lecture is not the most effective way to teach—nor is the somewhat adversarial structure of a traditional cold call. According to Professor Verkerke, acceptance of more evidence-based, interactive pedagogy has grown in the last decade, as both students and professors internalize that law school “doesn’t have to look like The Paper Chase.” Moreover, the practice of adversarial questioning is meant to mimic being put on the spot in court… but in most courtrooms, Professor Verkerke noted, “most people think it’s dysfunctional if you’re that hostile.” What’s more, courtroom drama makes up a tiny slice of legal practice, which has much larger components of “talking on the phone and teamwork.” Hence Professor Verkerke’s goal of creating a “harmonious and collaborative environment” in the classroom.
But making dramatic shifts in pedagogy “is really hard! None of us [professors] experienced those kinds of teaching methods in law school.”
Logging into the symposium, I tried to keep that perspective in mind: that however frustrating the student experience of law school may be at times, educators on the other side are doing their best to move into new territory.
Law School Dean Risa Goluboff, in her opening remarks, noted that an increasing number of law faculty have “cross-training” in other fields, leading to interdisciplinary education, and that, in the wake of the ABA’s reinstatement of skills requirements, law schools offer many more experiential classes. These changes, she posited, form an improved training ground for the increasingly diverse cadre of lawyers.
Professor Molly Shadel presented the first paper, with backup from her fellow researchers Professor Verkerke and Professor Sophie Trawalter of the Batten School. Using recordings of first-year-classes, the team had discovered that, undeniably, men talk more in class than women—but not more accurately. Student surveys showed a fear of backlash for being too vocal. “Gender gaps in participation are not inevitable,” Professor Shadel explained, because in smaller classes, and when students are called upon rather than volunteer, the difference in airtime evaporates.[2]
Following this, Professor Anne Coughlin spoke about what not to take away from the prior presentation. Her primary point was that classic, adversarial cold-calling is not the solution to the airtime equality gap. The practice arose, she pointed out, in the late nineteenth century as a gatekeeping practice “right when women, immigrants, and people of color [were] seeking access to the bar,” and it continues to unfairly affect people who have traumatic experiences related to material covered in class. Professor Coughlin agreed with the prior presenters that legal education would benefit from increased pedagogical training that expands the range of teaching techniques,[3] and mentioned that when she began teaching, she and female colleagues were told that they would have to cold-call ruthlessly and “could not appear to be kind or nice … or the students would not respect me.”
Does this article cover all of the good points raised in these presentations? No. Were there many more talks on other meritorious topics? Yes. Did I attend all of them? Lamentably, no—but I will blame that on my professors for assigning me (pedagogically sound) work to complete over the weekend.[4] For anyone interested in the process of the education we’re in the midst of, though, it was a terrific event.
---
amb6ag@virginia.edu
[1] The Law Weekly style guide demands that Professor Verkerke be referred to as “Professor Verkerke.” (Sorry, Rip!)
[2] Among the many interesting details of the presentation was the fact that the recordings used in the research, which were from classes conducted about ten years ago, did not have a sufficiently large number of female professors to study the effect of the instructor’s gender on class participation. The percentage of female faculty has increased since then, happily, but the research question remains.
[3] Alternative methods mentioned include panels to give people a heads up that they will be on call, giving students the “job” of volunteering during a certain period, calling on students repeatedly throughout the semester to lower the stakes of each interaction, establishing equal participation as a goal of the class, and “warm-calling,” which is basically cold-calling but done very kindly.
[4] And I also wanted time to do things like grocery shop and hang out with my nieces. Sue me.