TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE
1. Vernellia R. Randall, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, First Year Law Students and Performance, 26 CUMB. L. REV. 63, 65 (1995-1996).
2. Moot Court is a notable exception; however, often moot court is not contextual or very useful.
3. See Michael Josephson, Learning & Evaluation in Law School: Principles of Testing & Grading Learning Theory Instructional Objectives (submitted to the Association of American Law Schools, Annual Meeting, Jan. 1984); Michael Josephson, Learning And Evaluation in Law School: Volume 2, Test Construction Scoring, Grading and Ranking Institutional Policies (submitted to the Association of American Law Schools, Annual Meeting, Jan 1984). In a study of bar examiners with essay exams, the study showed that when asked to grade the same exam on the basis of pass-fail, the examiner only assigned the same grade 2/3 of the time. Similarly, when two different examiners were given the same exam to grade on the basis of pass-fail, the examiners agreed only 2/3 of the time. See id. See also ROBERT M. THORNDIKE & ELIZABETH P. HAGEN, MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION 253 (5th ed. 1991) (enunciating that the greatest “disadvantage of essay tests is their low reliability, partially resulting from variations within and among readers and partially resulting from the small number of questions”); Robert C. Downs & Nancy Levit, If it Can't Be Lake Woebegone... a Nationwide Survey of Law School Grading And Grade Normalization Practices, 65 UMKC L. REV. 819 (Spring 1997); see also Philip C. Kissam, Law School Examinations, 42 VAND. L. REV. 433 (1989); see generally Douglas A. Henderson, Uncivil Procedure: Ranking Law Students Among their Peers, 27 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 399 (1994).
4. “Cooperative Learning” is a well-defined teaching methodology which is why it is capitalized whenever it is used in this article.
5. See generally INTERACTIVE LEARNING IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION CLASSROOM (Harvey C. Foyle ed., 1995); DAVID W. JOHNSON ET AL., COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM (1994); SHLOMO SHARAN, COOPERATIVE LEARNING: THEORY AND RESEARCH (1990); SUSAN S. ELLIS & SUSAN F. WHALEN, COOPERATIVE LEARNING: GETTING STARTED (1990); DAVID W. JOHNSON & ROGER T. JOHNSON, COOPERATION AND COMPETITION: THEORY AND RESEARCH (1989); DAVID W. JOHNSON & ROGER T. JOHNSON, LEARNING TOGETHER & ALONE: COOPERATIVE, COMPETITIVE AND INDIVIDUALISTIC LEARNING (1987); DAVID W. JOHNSON ET AL., CIRCLES OF LEARNING: COOPERATION IN THE CLASSROOM (1986); ROBERT E. SLAVIN, COOPERATIVE LEARNING (1983).
6. “At-risk” is not used to imply that the students lack some skill. Rather, given the teaching environment of law school, some students who are intellectually capable and studious will not perform up to their potential merely because of the problems described above. “At-risk” students include minority students, students from educationally and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, students with disabilities, students with non-writing backgrounds (i.e. art, music, engineering majors), and students with non-traditional family situations that impact their need for additional support.
7. See Alison King, From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side, 41 C. TEACHING 30, 30-31 (1993). See generally Lani Guinier, Reframing the Affirmative Action Debate, 86 KY. L.J. 505, 520-21 (1997-1998) (describing how law professors set themselves up as “sages on the stage”); Cheris Kramarae, Technology Policy, Gender, and Cyberspace, 4 DUKE J. GENDER L. & POL'Y 149, 154 (Spring, 1997) (asserting that many teachers use the sage-on-the-stage model with the expert informing others about what the expert thinks the others need to know); Fran Quigley, Seizing the Disorienting Moment: Adult Learning Theory and the Teaching of Social Justice in Law School Clinics, 2 CLINICAL L. REV. 37, 60 (Fall 1995) (asserting that most of the time the role of a “clinical supervisor is truly ‘guide on the side’ rather than ‘sage on the stage’.”).
8. DAVID W. JOHNSON ET AL., ACTIVE LEARNING: COOPERATION IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM 1:4-1:12 (1991).
9. See Richard K. Neumann, Jr., A Preliminary Inquiry into the Art of Critique, 40 HASTINGS L.J. 725, 728-29 (1989).
The term ‘Socratic’ often is used misleadingly to identify a style of classroom teaching in which a professor interrogates students. As actually practiced in the classroom, however, this method is not Socratic at all: the accurate term would be ‘Langdellian’ or even ‘Protagorean.’ Langdell's technique coincides with the pedagogical technique of Protagoras, the leading Sophist and Socrates' rival. Protagoras taught through eristical questions centered on the interpretation of textual material, a method Socrates scorned.
Id. While the term socratic is misleading, it is the accepted term and I will adopt it to avoid confusion.
10. See, e.g., Russell L. Weaver, Langdell's Legacy: Living with the Case Method, 36 VILL. L. REV. 517, 518 (1991) (asserting that the case method became the dominant teaching method just after the turn of the century). The so-called Socratic Method originated with Professor Christopher Columbus Langdell in 1870. See id. Professor Langdell considered the study of law to be a scientific one. See id. at 527.
11. See, e.g., Ruta K. Stropus, Mend It, Bend It, and Extend It: The Fate of Traditional Law School Methodology in the 21st Century, 27 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 449, 453 (1996). But see, e.g., Jennifer Jaff, Frame-Shifting: An Empowering Methodology for Teaching and Learning Legal Reasoning, 36 J. LEGAL EDUC. 258-61 (1986) (arguing that the Langdellian method is inherently flawed because of its hierarchical and patriarchal nature).
12. See generally Steven I. Friedland, How We Teach: A Survey of Teaching Techniques in American Law Schools, 20 SEATTLE UNIV. L. REV. 1, 28 (1996) (reporting that out of 383 first year law professors, 370 (97%) “used the Socratic Method at least some of the time in first year classes.”).
13. See generally Michael L. Richmond, Teaching Law to Passive Learners: The Contemporary Dilemma of Legal Education, 26 CUMB. L. REV. 943, 943 (1995-1996) (asserting that students learn actively and use active approaches, such as the case method; although, many educators view the Socratic Method as an active method of learning rather than a passive method); Elizabeth Garrett, Becoming Lawyers: The Role of the Socratic Method in Modern Law Schools, 1 GREEN BAG 2nd 199, 201 (1997) (describing the Socratic Method as “cooperative” “in which the teacher and students work to understand an issue more completely”). But see, e.g., Brook K. Baker, Beyond MacCrate: The Role of Context, Experience, Theory, and Reflection in Ecological Learning, 36 ARIZ. L. REV. 287, 293, 356 (1994) (maintaining that “practice-based learning may also offer unique educational benefits for those students whose best learning style is not the passive absorption of abstract, neutrally constructed concepts from ‘scholars'.”).
14. See, e.g., Cheryl M. Herden, Women in Legal Education: A Feminist Analysis of Law School, 63 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 551, 556 (1994) (asserting that “law students learn that if they submit to passive learning by their powerful professors, one day they will be able to dominate others”); Gerald F. Hess, Listening to Our Students: Obstructing and Enhancing Learning in Law School, 31 U.S.F. L. REV. 941, 958 (1997)(“[T]here are lots of skills in law school that we never get to practice. We only sit in the class and read.”); Jan M. Levine, “You Can't Please Everyone, So You'd Better Please Yourself”: Directing (or Teaching in) a First-Year Legal Writing Program, 29 VAL. U. L. REV. 611, 616 (1995) (comparing the active learning that occurs in legal writing courses with the passive learning that occurs in other law school courses)
15. See generally sources cited supra note 3; Phillip C. Kissam, Law School Examinations, 42 VAND. L. REV. 433, 466 (1989) (identifying the immediate function of law school grading as establishing a highly desegregated class ranking system for sorting students); James D. Gordon III, How Not to Succeed in Law School, 100 YALE L.J. 1679 (1991) (asserting Tongue-in-cheek that “[c]lass standing is what saves law school from being a boring, [c] ooperative [l]earning experience and makes it the dynamic, exciting, survival-of-the-fittest, cutthroat, competitive, grueling treadmill of unsurpassed joy that it is”).
16. Douglas A. Henderson, Uncivil Procedure Ranking Law Students Among their Peers, 27 U. MICH. J.L. REF. 399 (1998).
17. See generally Barbara Glesner Fines, Competition and the Curve, 65 U.M.K.C. L. REV. 879 (1997)(arguing that “law schools rely too much on grading systems (as opposed to evaluation systems); that require norm-referenced grading undermines an effective learning environment; and that ranking is wholly counterproductive in a program designed to prepare individuals to serve justice.”).
18. See generally Cheryl M. Herden, Women in Legal Education: A Feminist Analysis of Law School, 63 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 551 (1994)(asserting that the impersonal atmosphere and traditional manner of instruction in many law classes socialize law students to learn passively and to fail to question their professors and their education). This is true even when they know the class is diverse and includes students with different learning needs. While part of the problem is attributed to our lack of formal training as teachers, most of the problem is due to our resistance to learning and implementing an educationally sound pedagogy. See id.
19. See, e.g. Kevin Smith, How to Become a Law Professor Without Really Trying: A Critical, Heuristic, Deconstructionist and Hermeneutical Exploration of Avoiding the Drudgery Associated with Actually Working as an Attorney, 47 U. KAN. L. REV. 139 (1998)(stating that “If you are worried about your lack of teaching experience, do not be. Just take a moment and reflect on your law school experience; it is immediately obvious that no experience with, or particular aptitude for, teaching is required.”); Phyliss Craig-Taylor, To Stand for the Whole: Pluralism and the Law School's Professional Responsibility, 15 NAT'L BLACK L.J. 1,2 (1997-98)(quoting JOEL SELIGMAN, THE HIGH CITADEL: THE INFLUENCE OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL (1978)) (“[W]hat qualifies a person, therefore to teach law, is not experience in the work of a lawyer's office, not experience in dealing with men, not experience in the trial or argument of cases not experienced in short, in using law, but experience [and perceived success] in learning law.”).
20. See generally Burnele V. Powell, A Defense of the Socratic Method: An Interview with Martin B. Louis, 73 N.C. L. REV. 957 (1995). See, e.g. Albert Harno, Legal Education in the United States: A Report Prepared for the Survey of the Legal Profession (1953); ANTHONY T. KRONMAN, THE LOST LAWYER: FAILING IDEALS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION 109-21 (1993); Robert J. Condlin, Socrates' New Clothes: Substituting Persuasion for Learning in Clinical Practice Instruction, 40 MD. L. REV. 223 (1981); Paul D. Carrington, Hail! Langdell!, 20 L. & SOC. INQUIRY 691, 742-49 (1995); Cf. generally Ruta K. Stropus, Mend It, Bend It, and Extend It: The Fate of Traditional Law School Methodology in the 21st Century, 27 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 449 (1996) (arguing that Langdellian method provides a necessary bridge between students' undergraduate training and the practice of law); Steven A. Childress, The Baby and the Bathwater: Salvaging A Positive Socratic Method, 7 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 333 (1982); Jennifer L. Rosato, The Socratic Method and Women and Women Law Students: Humanize, Don't Feminize, 7 S. CAL. REV. L. & WOMEN'S STUD.
21. See generally W. Lawrence Church, Law School Grading, 1991 WIS. L. REV. 825, 826 (suggesting that law school grading may reflect writing style, organization, and persuasiveness more than it reflects mastery of the subject matter); Roger C. Cramton, The Current State of the Law School Curriculum, 32 J. LEGAL EDUC. 321 (1982)(discussing basic flaws in legal education and suggesting reforms); Roger C. Cramton, The Ordinary Religion of the Law School Classroom, 29 J. LEGAL EDUC. 247 (1978)(arguing that legal education neglects areas such as legal reform and legal morality); E. Gordon Gee & Donald W. Jackson, Current Studies of Legal Education: Findings and Recommendations, 32 J. LEGAL EDUC. 471 (1982)(discussing the results of a survey of current and former law student evaluations of their law school experiences); John B. Mitchell, Current Theories on Expert and Novice Thinking: A Full Faculty Considers the Implications for Legal Education, 39 J. LEGAL EDUC. 275, (1989)(asserting that “educational psychology and learning theory . . . have not yet become a central focus in discussions of legal education.”).
22. See generally Ronald M. Pipkin, Legal Education: The Consumers' Perspective, AM. B. FOUND. RES. J., 1161, 1163 (Fall 1976); Suzanne C. Segerstron, Perceptions of Stress and Control in the First Semester of Law School, 32 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 593 (1996).
23. See, e.g. B.A. Glesner, Fear and Loathing in the Law Schools, 23 CONN. L. REV. 627, 628 (1991); James B. Taylor, Law School Stress and the “Deformation Professionelle,” 27 J. LEGAL EDUC. 251, 253(1975); Stephen B. Shanfield & G. Andrew H. Benjamin, Psychiatric Distress in Law Students, 35 J. LEGAL EDUC. 65, 65 (1985); G. Andrew H. Benjamin et al. The Role of Legal Education in Producing Psychological Distress Among Law Students and Lawyers, AM. B. FOUND. RES. J., 225, 225-26 (Spring 1986); Faith Dickerson, Psychological Counseling for Law Students: One Law School's Experience, 37 J. LEGAL EDUC. 82, 82 (1987); Phyllis W. Beck & David Burns, Anxiety and Depression in Law Students: Cognitive Intervention, 30 J. LEGAL EDUC. 270, 272-73 (1979); Barry B. Boyer & Roger C. Cramton, American Legal Education: An Agenda for Research and Reform, 59 CORNELL L. REV. 221, 264 (1974); Susan Daicoff, Lawyer, Know Thyself: A Review of Empirical Research on Attorney Attributes Bearing on Professionalism, 46 AM. U. K. REV 1337 (1997).
24. See generally Ronald M. Pipkin, Legal Education: The Consumers' Perspective, AM. B. FOUND. RES. J. 1161, 1163 (Fall 1976).
25. See generally Gerald F. Hess, Listening to Our Students: Obstructing and Enhancing Learning in Law School, 31 U.S.F.L. REV. 941 (1997)(asserting that law students arrive at law school as “bright adults who have succeeded academically in college, are excited about the study of law, and are motivated to learn”); Paul T. Wangerin, Skills Training In “Legal Analysis”: A Systematic Approach, 40 U. MIAMI L. REV. 409 (1986)(comparing the transformation of law students to the cult movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers in which normal humans are replaced by alien pods which have taken over the legal profession.”); Douglas A. Henderson, Uncivil Procedure Ranking Law Students Among their Peers, 27 U. MICH. L.J.L. REF. 399 (1998).
26. See generally Joshua Rosenkranz, 1988 Law Review's Empire, 39 HASTINGS L.J. 859 (1988)(asserting that students become so obsess with grades that learning becomes incidental).
27. See, e.g., Deborah L. Rhode, The Professionalism Problem, 39 WM. & MARY L. REV. 283, 317 (1998)(suggesting that “0ne-size-fits-all model of legal education and professional regulation badly needs revision. Changes in accreditation standards for law schools could permit more varied curricula and degrees.”); Lani Guiner, Lessons and Challenges of Becoming Gentlemen, 24 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 1 (1998)(suggesting that the academic performance and quality of life for women reflect the shortcomings of a one-size-fits-all approach to pedagogy).
28. See, e.g., JEFF ADACHI,THE FIRST YEAR LAW SCHOOL SURVIVAL KIT; KEITH AOKI & GARRETT EPPS,THE ACCIDENTAL LAW STUDENT: A GRAPHIC INTRODUCTION TO LAW SCHOOL; JAMES P.DAVIS,HOW TO MAKE IT THROUGH LAW SCHOOL: A GUIDE FOR MINORITY & DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS; JEFF DEAVER,THE COMPLETE LAW SCHOOL COMPANION; JOHN DELANEY, HOW TO DO YOUR BEST ON LAW SCHOOL EXAMS; JAMES D. GORDON,LAW SCHOOL: A SURVIVOR'S GUIDE; T.D. LEWIS, THE LAW SCHOOL RULES: HOW NOT TO SWEAT THE SMALL STUFF OF LAW SCHOOL; GARY A. MUNNEKE, HOW TO SUCCEED IN LAW SCHOOL; CAROLYN NYGREN, STARTING OFF RIGHT IN LAW SCHOOL; GEORGE ROTH,SLAYING THE LAW SCHOOL DRAGON: HOW TO SURVIVE & THRIVE IN FIRST YEAR LAW SCHOOL; BRIAN SIEGEL, HOW TO SUCCEED IN LAW SCHOOL; THEODORE SILVER, INSIDER SECRETS TO STRAIGHT A'S AT LAW SCHOOL: A HEAD START ON ALL YOUR COURSES; THEODORE SILVER, SECRETS TO SUCCESS IN LAW SCHOOL: A PROFESSOR'S STRATEGIES FOR STRAIGHT A'S; CHARLES H. WHITEBREAD, EIGHT SECRETS-LAW SCHOOL; KARYN L. WYNN, HOW TO SUCCEED IN LAW SCHOOL: FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY; KARYN L. WYNN, HOW TO SUCCEED IN LAW SCHOOL: WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE FAILING; IRVING YOUNGER, HOW TO TAKE & PASS A LAW SCHOOL EXAMINATION
29. See generally, Cathaleen Roach, A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT: TAPPING INTO THE INFORMATIONAL STREAM TO MOVE STUDENTS FROM ISOLATION TO AUTONOMY, 36 ARIZ. L. REV. 667, 670 (1994)(suggesting that nontraditional students are disadvantaged because they do not have ready access to the information streams necessary for success); Valerie Fontaine, Progress Report: Women and People of Color in Legal Education and the Legal Profession, 6 HASTINGS WOMEN'S L.J. 27, 28 (1995)(concluding that men do better in law school than women, in part, because of the Langdellian method); Lani Guinier et al., Becoming Gentlemen: Women's Experiences At One Ivy League Law School, 143 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 59 (1994)(concluding that the law school experience of women overall differs markedly from that of their male peers including finding strong academic differences between graduating men and women despite identical entry-level credentials; strong attitudinal differences between women and men in year one, and a striking homogenization by year three; and finding substantial material consequences for those women who graduate with less competitive academic credentials); Stephen R. Ripps, A Curriculum Course Designed for Lowering the Attrition Rate for the Disadvantaged Law Student, 29 HOW. L.J. 457, 467-68 (1986)(noting that minority students need a process course that is geared toward developing student confidence and legal skills); Vernellia R. Randall, supra note 1,(reporting a statistically significant difference in grades based on learning style); but cf. Marsha Garrison, Brian Tomko, and Ivan Yip, Succeeding in Law School: A Comparison of Women's Experiences at Brooklyn Law School and The University of Pennsylvania, 3 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 515 (1996)(describing that Brooklyn law school had adopted many of the law reforms suggested by Lani Guiner's University of Pennsylvania study and that Brooklyn women's academic performance was compaAlternative in Legal Education, 15 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 1011, 1014-15 (1989); Alice K. Dueker, Diversity and Learning: Imagining A Pedagogy of Difference, 19 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 101, 118-19 (1991-92); Paul Bateman, Toward Diversity in Teaching Method in Law Schools: Five Suggestions from the Back Row, 17 Q.L.R. 397 (Fall, 1997)
30. See Lani Guinier et al., Becoming Gentlemen: Women's Experiences at One Ivy League Law School, 143 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (1994)(reporting that many women are alienated, self-reporting much lower rates of class participation and not “engaging” pedagogically with a methodology that makes them feel strange, alienated, and “delegitimated”);See also, Morrison Torrey et al., What Every First-year Female Law Student Should Know, 7 COLUM. J. GENDER & L. 267 (1998).
31. See Rodney J. Uphoff et al., Preparing the New Law Graduate to Practice Law: A View From The Trenches, 65 U. CIN. L. REV. 381 (1997)(arguing that law schools do not adequately prepare their graduates to practice law and that few law graduates are competent to begin representing clients when they pass the bar); Gerald B. Wetlaufer, Rhetoric and its Denial in Legal Discourse, 76 VA. L. REV. 1545, 1546 (1990)(noting that although lawyers are equipped for confrontation they are not equipped “for other less costly means of resolving disputes”); Connie J. A. Beck et al., Lawyer Distress: Alcohol-Related Problems and Other Psychological Concerns Among a Sample of Practicing Lawyers, 10 J.L. & HEALTH 1 (1995-1996)(reporting data that supports the conclusion that elevated psychological distress may continue to occur in a significant percentage of lawyers throughout their careers); see also Jennifer L. Rosato, All I Ever Needed to Know about Teaching Law School I learned Teaching Kindergarten: Introducing Gaming Techniques into the Law School Classroom, 45 J. LEGAL EDUC. 568, 571 (1995)(suggesting that lawyers work cooperatively to solve problems and that gaming would help students learn that skill).
32. See Carrie Menkel-Meadow, The Trouble with the Adversary System in a Postmodern, Multicultural World, 38 WM.& MARY L.REV. 5, 6 (1996)(arguing that the adversary system is inadequate, indeed dangerous, for satisfying a number of important goals of any legal or dispute resolution system); David Dominguez, Beyond Zero-Sum Games: Multiculturalism as Enriched Law Training for All Students, 44 J. LEGAL EDUC. 175 (1994)(arguing that cultural diversity, even in a zero-sum environment, can generate joint-gain instructional methods that enrich the law training of all students); see also, JEROLD S. AUERBACH, JUSTICE WITHOUT LAW 144-46 (1983)(discussing the diverse and multicultural history of alternative dispute settlement institutions in the United States); Kenneth J. Arrow, INFORMATION ACQUISITION AND THE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT, IN BARRIERS TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION 259, 270 (Kenneth J. Arrow et al. eds., 1995) (explaining the deficiencies of the adversary model in information gathering and conflict resolution); DAVID W. JOHNSON & ROGER T. JOHNSON, SOCIAL INTERDEPENDENCE: COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN EDUCATION, IN CONFLICT, COOPERATION, AND JUSTICE: ESSAYS INSPIRED BY THE WORK OF MORTON DEUTSCH 205, 221 (Barbara B. Bunker et al. eds., 1995) (stating that “cooperative efforts are more effective than competitive and individualistic efforts.”).
33. See Ann L. Bateson & Christina L. Kunz, Cooperative Learning Techniques for Legal Research and Writing Courses, 2 INTEGRATED LEGAL RESEARCH (Winter & Spring 1990).
34. See Friedland, supra note 12, at 32-33.
35. JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 1:6-12.
36. See John J. Costonis, The MacCrate Report: Of Loaves, Fishes, and the Future of American Legal Education, 43 J.LEGAL EDUC. 157 (1993) (explaining that there is an often-heard comment that we can't change the way law school is taught because of economics; that is, tuition multiplied by the number of students equals many universities' operating budget. Notwithstanding the arguments for changing student-teacher ratio, Cooperative Learning can be conducted effectively with in the current student-teacher ratio. For a discussion of economics and pedagogy).
37. See Guinier, et al., supra note 30, 67-69 (describing “one-size-fits-all,” Guinier refers to the uniformity of first-year law school classes as being large and predominantly taught by the Socratic Method, where students are encouraged to be adversarial and individual competition is high); Heather A. Carlson, Faculty Mentoring As a Way to End the Alienation of Women in Legal Academia, 18 B.C. THIRD WORLD L.J. 317 (Spring 1998)(asserting that Guinier's study reveals that there may be an academic price to pay for failing to fit within the uniform, “one-size-fits-all” standard); see also Susan P. Sturm, From Gladiators to Problem-Solvers: Connecting Conversations About Women, the Academy, and the Legal Profession, 4 DUKE J. GENDER L. & POL'Y 119, 122 (1997).
38. See Vernellia R. Randall, Director's Report on Academic Excellance Program 1991-1996 at 19-11 (1997) (unpublished manuscript, on file with the author).
39. See Charles C. Bonwell & James A. Eison, ACTIVE LEARNING: CREATING EXCITEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM, IN ASCHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATIONAL REPORT 1 (The George Washington School of Education and Human Development ed., 1991); June Cicero, Piercing the Socratic Veil: Adding An Active Learning Alternative in Legal Education, 15 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 1011, 1014-15 (1989)(describing a legal practicum course that provides students an alternative to the Langdellian method and involves them in a Cooperative Learning experience).
40. See JOHNSON ET AL. supra note 8, at 1:7. (citing C. Barnes, Questioning: The Untrapped Resource, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston (April 7-11, 1980)); D. Karp & W. Yoels, The College Classroom: Some Observations on the Meanings of Student Participation, 60 SOC. & SOC. RES. 421 (1987)(documenting that in classes of less than 40 students, four to five students accounted for 75 percent of all interactions and in classes with more than 40 students, two to three students accounted for more than 50 percent of the exchanges); E. Stones, Students Attitudes to the Size of Teaching Groups, 21 EDUC. REV. 98 (1970)(finding that of 1000 college students 60 percent stated that being in a large class would deter them from asking questions).
41. See Laura F. Rothstein, The Affirmative Action Debate in Legal Education and the Legal Profession: Lessons from Disability Discrimination Law, 2 J. GENDER RACE & JUST. 1 (1998).
42. See Daicoff, supra note 23, at 1418-20. Many law students do not cope with the problems of law school using other people for social support, instead they cope “by becoming more aggressive and ambitious, turning to workaholism and substance abuse, or becoming depressed.” Id. See, e.g., Robert Stevens, Law Schools and Law Students, 59 VA. L. REV. 551, 555 (1973); Paul Van R. Miller, Personality Differences and Student Survival in Law School, 19 J. LEGAL EDUC. 460-67 (1967); M.J. Hamilton et al., Thirty-Five Law Student Suicides, 11 J. PSYCHIATRY & L. 335, 336-37 (1983).
43. See Hess, supra note 14, at 947 (reporting that “many students withdraw if the teacher creates an adversarial relationship between students and teacher or among students in the classroom.”).
44. See Guinier et al., supra note 30, at 74 n.198 (relating story of a male colleague at the Law School who felt that mentoring is similar to “spoon-feeding”).
45. See generally DAVID W. JOHNSON & ROGER T. JOHNSON, Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning, Cooperative Learning, EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 1 (1978)(discussing the use of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures as a basis for understanding the dynamics of Cooperative Learning).
46. JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 1:9-10.
47. See id. at 1:9-10. A learning goal is a “desired state of demonstrating competence or mastery” of the knowledge and skills that the professor is teaching. The learning structure designates the “ways in which student(s) . . . interact with each other and with the teacher” during the instructional session. Id. The instructional session includes the typical classroom session and any other meetings designed by the faculty for promoting instructional goals. Id. at 1:15.
49. See Gene R. Nichol, Comments to New Lawyers, 25 COLO.LAW. 65,65 (1996) (“You have been introduced to class rank--that marvelous tool that transforms legal education from a boring, cooperative, learning experience to the wonderful cutthroat competition that it is. You have learned, in short, why law schools are best compared to a besieged city-everyone outside wants in, and everyone inside wants out. And you got out--now you have gotten licensed and the world is good.”). See generally Jennifer L. Rosato, All I Ever Needed to Know About Teaching Law School I Learned Teaching Kindergarten: Introducing Gaming Techniques Into the Law School Classroom, 45 J. LEGAL EDUC. 568, 571-72(1995)(advocating the use of games to encourage cooperation to counteract the characteristically competitive law school environment).
50. See generally JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:1-2; SHARAN, supra note 5; SLAVIN, supra note 5; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, supra note 5.
51. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, see also SLAVIN, supra note 5, at 39-65; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Cooperative Learning and Achievement, in SHARAN, supra note 5, at 21-37.
52. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:12-2:14. See generally DAVID E. JOHNSON & ROGER T. JOHNSON, supra note 5, at 39-56; SLAVIN, supra note 5 at 31-65; David W. Johnson, et al., Effects of Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement: A Meta-Analysis, 89 PSYCHOL. BULL. 47, 47-82 (January 1981).
53. JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:13-14.
54. JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:13; DONALD H. WULFF, ET AL., STUDENTS' PERCEPTION OF LARGE CLASSES IN TEACHING LARGE CLASSES WELL, 17-30 (Maryellen Gleason & E. Weimer eds., 1987)(reporting that the second most cited factor for contributing to the learning of students in large classes was other students); HENRY M. LEVIN, ET AL., COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS, A11 INST. FOR RES. ON EDUC. FIN. & GOVERNANCE (1984)(concluding that working with classmates is the most cost-effect support system for increasing student achievement at the college level).
55. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:19; CHARLES E. WALES & ROBERT A. STAGER, THE GUIDED DESIGN APPROACH, (Danny G. Langdon ed. 1978); Britt Tatman-Vasquez, Impact of Cooperative Vs. Traditional Instruction on Acquisition of Knowledge in Naval Air Traffic Control School, 50 DISSERTATIONS & ABSTRACTS INT'L HUMAN & SOC. SCL. No. 9 2844-A (1990)(reporting that Cooperative Learning processes led to an increase in achievement and a reduction in trainee attrition).
56. See Donna J. Micheaux, Effective Teaching Strategies for African American Students in an Urban Setting, 56 DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS INT'L, HUMAN AND SOC. SCI. NO. 5 1647-A (1995)(finding that effective teachers of African American students utilize culturally relevant strategies . . . [s] trategies . . . utilized to the greatest extent and with the most consistency were high expectations and beliefs and varied teaching strategies including [[[accommodation of] students' learning styles, as well as (sic), clear goals, cooperative learning, oral expression and building upon prior knowledge.”).
57. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:20; Philip Micheal Treisman, A Study of the Mathematics Performance of Black Students at the University of California, Berkeley, 47 DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS INT'L, HUMAN & SOC. SCI. NO. 5 1641-A (1986).
58. See generally Alex M. Johnson, Jr., Think Like a Lawyer, Work Like a Machine: The Dissonance Between Law School And Law Practice, 64 S. CAL. L. REV. 1231 (1991); Gail A. Jaquish & James Ware, Adopting an Educator Habit of Mind: Modifying What it Means to “Think like a Lawyer,” 45 STAN. L. REV. 1713 (1993).
59. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:14; See generally Barbara Gabbert, et al., Cooperative Learning, Group-to-Individual Transfer, Process Gain and the Acquisition of Cognitive Reasoning Strategies, 120(3) J. PSYCHOLOGY 265-78 (1986)(finding that groups achieved more than individuals did on tasks assigned and that the higher achievement transferred to individual testing in some higher level reasoning tasks); David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson, Effects of Cooperative and Individualistic Learning Experiences on Inter-Ethnic Interaction, 73 J. EDUC. PSYCHOL. 454-59 (1981); Marcel Marie Robles, The Impact of Cooperative Learning Instructional Strategies on Students and Faculty at a Small Midwestern University, 57 DISSERTATIONS & ABSTRACTS INT'L, HUMAN & SOC. SCI. NO. 10 4333-A (1996)(reporting that students perceived that they had become more interested in their own learning, were more open to other points of view, and had increased their critical thinking skills because of the Cooperative Learning instruction); Barbara Belle Perry Cichy, Student and Faculty Perception of Cooperative Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study of a Small University, 55 DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS INT'L, HUMAN & SOC. SCI. NO. 12 3758-A (1994)(reporting improved critical thinking).
60. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:14; Cf. Feleta Louise Andrews Wilson, The Effects of Age, Gender and Level of Education on Moral Reasoning among Registered Nurses, 53 DISSERTATIONS & ABSTRACTS INT'L, HUMAN & SOC. SCI. NO.4 1045-A (1989).
61. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:20; See generally SLAVIN supra note 5, at 66-88; JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 5, at 129-40.
62. See, e.g. Lea Ann Hubbards, Academic Achievement Among Minority Students: The Effects of Institutional Mechanisms and Student Ideology, 56 DISSERTATIONS & ABSTRACTS INT'L, HUMAN & SOC. SCI. NO.8 3315.6 (1995)(citing that with the encouragement of a school program, minority students become academically successful without losing or subtracting from their ethnic identity. That is, these students adopt the strategy of “accommodating without assimilating.” This research reveals some of the social circumstances which can be constructed to enable so called “involuntary” minorities to maintain dual identities and achieve academic success); cf. Christine Louise Lawrence, Female Police Officers: Relationship Between Social Support, Occupational Stress and Strain, 47 DISSERTATIONS & ABSTRACTS INT'L, HUMAN & SOC. SCI. NO.5 2171-6(1986)(hypothesizing that perceived social support has a direct negative effect on perceived strain. Findings supported this hypothesis. Qualitative support was more strongly related to burn-out than the quantitative support of friends and family).
63. JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:19.
64. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:18. See generally, SLAVIN, supra note 5, at 66-88; JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 5, at 131.
65. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:18. See generally, SLAVIN, supra note 5, at 66-88; JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 5, at 129-37.
66. See JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:15. See generally JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 5, at 77-103.
67. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:16-17 (studies have shown that students in Cooperative Learning environments: have much more liking among students; develop more commitment and caring for each other, like the instructor better, and perceive the instructor as more supportive and accepting, both academically and personally; have greater interpersonal interactions; have less absenteeism; have greater student commitment to learning; have greater feelings of personal responsibility for assigned work; have increased willingness to take on difficult tasks; have increased motivation and persistence in working on learning tasks; have increased satisfaction and morale; have increased willingness to endure pain and frustration to succeed; have increased willingness to defend the college or colleagues against external criticism or attack; have increased willingness to listen to other students and to allow others to influence them; have increased commitment to peers' success and growth.). See generally JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 6, at 141-65 (showing that studies found that students had increased psychosocial adjustment in Cooperative Learning environments).
68. See SLAVIN, supra note 5, at 66-69, 74-88. See generally, Kathleen Mae Miller, The Effects Of Inter-ethnic Contact In Cooperative Learning Groups On Student Attitudes Toward Race And Ethnicity, 55 DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS INT'L, HUMAN & SOC. SCI. NO. 5 1209-A(1994).
69. JOHNSON, ET AL., supra note 8, at 2:16; see Slavin, supra note 5, at 66-69, 74-88.
70. Id. See generally D.W. JOHNSON & R. JOHNSON, COOPERATION AND COMPETITION: THEORY AND RESEARCH (1989).
71. JOHNSON ET AL. supra note 8, at 2:27.
75. See Randall, supra note 38, at 2.
77. See generally A.B.A. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF LAW SCHOOLS AND INTERPRETATIONS S.211 (1961)(“The law school shall maintain equality of opportunity in legal education, including employment of faculty and staff, without discrimination or segregation on ground of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or sexual orientation.”); Association of American Law Schools, 1993 Handbook § 6-4(a), (c) (1993). The AALS Bylaws require that: “A member school shall provide equality of opportunity in legal education for all persons, including faculty and employees with respect to hiring, continuation, promotion and tenure, applicants for admission, enrolled students, and graduates, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, handicap or disability, or sexual orientation.” Id. § 6-4(a). In addition, the AALS requires that a law school “shall seek to have a faculty, staff and student body which are diverse with respect to race, color and sex.” Id. § 6-4(c).
78. See Randall, supra note 38, at 3.
79. See generally Beverly Falcon, Helping Minority Law Students 21 MD. B.J. 26 (1988); Nerissa Bailey-Scott Skillman, Misperceptions Which Operate As Barriers To The Education Of Minority Law Students, 20 U.S.F. L. REV. 553 (1986); Leslie Espinoza, Empowerment and Achievement in Minority Law Student Support Programs: Constructing Affirmative Action, 22 U. MICH. J.L. REF 281 (1989); Kevin Deasy, Enabling Black Students To Realize Their Potential In Law School: A Psycho-social Assessment Of An Academic Support Program, 16 T. MARSHALL L. REV. 547-70 (1991).
80. See Vincent Tinto, Stages of Student Departure, 59 J. HIGHER EDUC. 439 (1988); See also INCREASING RETENTION (M. Stadt & W. Klepper eds., 1987), Barbara Astone et al., Intensive Academic Advising, 65 C. & U. 31 (1989); John P. Bean & Barbara S. Metzner, A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Undergraduate Student Attrition, 55 REV. EDUC. RES. 485 (1985); John Braxton et al., The Influence of Student Problems on Student Withdrawal Decisions, 28 RES. HIGHER EDUC. 241 (1988).
81. See Jacquelyn H. Slotkin, An Institutional Commitment to Minorities and Diversity: The Evolution of a Law School Academic Support Program, 12 T.M. COOLEY L. REV. 559 (1995)(asserting that there is a need to provide methodologies, techniques, and skills to help these law students develop feelings of self-worth, of successful participation, and of belonging).
82. See generally Wangerin, supra note 25 (maintaining that students may need counseling for “laziness, conflicting priorities, and feelings of inadequacy” which all point problems of motivation); Zillmand & Gregory, The New Apprentices: An Empirical Study of Student Employment and Legal Education, 12 J. CONTEMP. L. 203 (1987)(considering the impact of conflicting priorities on lack motivation for studying); G. GIBBS, TEACHING STUDENTS TO LEARN (1981); DEVELOPMENTS--COUNSELING SERVICES FOR LAW STUDENTS, A NATIONAL SURVEY, 34 J. LEGAL EDUC. 534 (1984)(surveying psychological counseling services in law schools); Dickerson, Psychological Counseling for Law Students: One Law School's Experience, 37 J. LEGAL EDUC. 82 (1987)(describing a systematic account of law students who sought psychological counseling at their law school health service); Gutierrez, Counseling Law Students, 64 J. COUNSELING & DEV. 130 (1985); Everett Bellamy, Academic Enhancement And Counseling Programs: Counseling Minority Law Students, 10 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 289 (1991).
83. See Wangerin, supra note 25 (asserting that student-run programs may do substantial harm and rarely attract students with the highest grades as tutors).
84. Slotkin, supra note 81, at 563 (reporting that in January 1990 California Western School of Law became the first law school in California with a full-time Director of Minority Affairs).
85. See generally Slotkin, supra note 81(asserting that many ethnic groups, including Hispanic, African American, Native American, Asian, and Filipino, have experienced difficulties and failures at every stage of the acculturation process) (citing John H. Chilcott, Some Perspectives for Teaching First Generation Mexican-Americans, in READINGS IN THE SOCIO-CULTURAL FOUND. OF EDUC. 358, 359 (1968)) (discussing acculturation, the process of becoming adapted to a new culture).
Some faculty may assert that it is not their job to address issues of psychological and cultural adaptation; and that they are not capable of doing it even if they wanted to. There is a two part response to that critique. Certainly, it has been the dominate view that faculty should not have to attend to differences. If we want students from all backgrounds to have the same potential of succeeding, then we will have to attend to differences. Faculty who lack the skills to so will have to obtain the training to develop the appropriate skills. Id.
86. See, Slotkin, supra note 81, at 566.
87. Id; see also Duncan Kennedy, How the Law School Fails: A Polemic, 1 YALE REV. OF LAW AND SOC. ACTION 71, 73 (1970) (critiquing the Socratic Method and describing the Socratic dialogue, consisting of harassing students with aggressive questioning and leading students through the steps of legal reasoning); Donald K. Hill, Law School, Legal Education, and the Black Law Student, 12 T. MARSHALL L. REV. 457, 486 (1987)(describing the teaching methodology of the fifth century B.C. Greek philosopher, Socrates, who engaged people in conversation, seeking, in question form, to induce young men to think clearly and to act reasonably)(citing G. Kreyche, 13 THINKERS PLUS: A SAMPLER OF GREAT PHILOSOPHERS 3 (1984)).
88. See Slotkin, supra note 81, at 569 (describing minority law students acculturation needs; asserting the minority law students seldom actively ask questions in class; go to professor's office, or participate in study groups).
89. See generally A Report on the NBA/ABA Legal Education Conference: An Assessment of Minority Students' Performance in Law School: Implications for Admission, Placement, and Bar Passage, 20 U.S.F.L.REV. 525 (1986).
90. Charles L. Finke, Affirmative Action in Law School Academic Support Programs, 39 J. LEGAL EDUC. 55, 57 (1989); see also Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., The View from the Podium, Speech to the 1992 Convention of The Washington, D.C. Bar Association (June 25, 1992), reprinted in 12 T.M. COOLEY L. REV. 559 Jordan stated:
I believe that America and its legal profession are evolving to become more inclusive, more effective, more positive forces in the world. Our role is . . . to bring the promise of diversity to the one profession above all that should embody the principles of freedom, justice and opportunity for all Americans of all colors, races, genders and backgrounds. It is up to us to desegregate America's most prestigious, influential-and segregated--profession. Id.
91. See Kristine S. Knaplund & Richard H.Sander, The Art and Science of Academic Support, 45 J. LEGAL EDUC. 157, 158-62 (June 1995) (indicating that academic support programs tend to focus on empowerment i.e. finding ways to help students cope with law school which could, in turn plausibly, substantially improve their learning abilities in ways that might offset other disadvantages. A “message of incompetence” or failure can be telegraphed to the student in a myriad of ways, including actions by professors who have lower expectations of minority students).
92. Slotkin, supra note 81, at 565-66; Simpson, Facilitating Transfer in College Reading Programs, 30 J. READING 620, 624 (1987)(suggesting that independent learning skills may be important for promoting long term grade improvement for high risk and probationary students. In order to assureempowerment it is necessary for students to monitor, then change, their learning and studying activities as the situation demands, that is use to techniques of meta-cognition).
93. See Knaplund & Sander, supra note 91, at 161-168 (June 1995) (reporting three approaches to academic support programs: 1give students a head start on law school through some kind of preparatory program during the preceding summer; 2 provide academic support in tandem with first-year courses, using it to translate and interpret what is going on in those courses; 3focus on minority students, regardless of how they were admitted, and reduce the alienation they may experience at a mostly white professional school). Even well structured programs with “equal funding, faculty involvement, and institutional support can have widely varying levels of academic effectiveness.” Id. Cf. David P. Leonard, Personal and Institutional Benefits of Offering Tutorial Services to Students Experiencing Academic Difficulty, 37 J. LEGAL EDUC. 91, 94 (1987)(reporting academic effects only as long as students remain in the program).
94. See generally Espinoza, supra note 79, at 292-93; Darryl Brown, Note, Racism and Race Relations in the University, 76 VA. L. REV. 295, 326 (1990).
95. See Randall, supra note 38, at 11.
96. A student-of-color (or minority) is a person who self identifies as either African American, Hispanic American, Asian American or Native American. AEP was started because of the consistent and long-standing problem the University of Dayton had with the performance and graduation of students of color in general and African-American students in particular. The attrition rate for African Americans prior to the development of this program had consistently run about 50 percent. In addition, the students who remained tended to have the lowest law school GPA's.
97. Any student who self identifies as having been raised in economically or educationally disadvantaged background as a child is admitted to AEP. For example, this includes individuals who are the first from their family to graduate either from high school or college.
98. While the program may be of particular benefit to students with learning disabilities, it is also offered to all disabled students on the assumption that the program's focus on study skills, stress and time management may be of particular importance to a person with a physical handicap.
99. At the University of Dayton, small colleges are those colleges which have so few students that take the LSAT that LSAC does not calculate a mean for the college for the LSAT, indicating that the college may not have prepared the student for the students adequately for law school.
100. Paul T. Wangerin, A Little Assistance Regarding Acedemic Assistance Programs: An Introduction to Academic Assistance Programs, 21 J. CONTEMP. L. 169, 178-9 (1995).
First, they do not possess the traditional academic credentials which are necessary to gain admission to law schools. In other words, privileged students' scores on standardized tests and/or grades would normally cause schools to reject their admission applications. Second, privileged students might be the children of wealthy or prominent alumnae or the children of prominent or wealthy people generally. Or, these students themselves might be prominent or wealthy. Third, most privileged students are not from minority backgrounds. Id.
101. See Darlene C. Goring, Silent Beneficiaries: Affirmative Action and Gender in Law School Academic Support Programs, 84 KY. L. J. 941, 947 (1995-96)(reporting decision of law school faculty to adopt laissez-faire approach to stigma while “most expedient for the faculty members, the students were left to make their own decisions about their response to the stigma associated with their participation in the program.”). See generally John K. Wilson, The Myth of Reverse Discrimination in Higher Education, 10 J. OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUC. 90 (1996) (attributing the stigma associated with affirmative action programs to an ongoing perception that unqualified Blacks have been the recipients of educational benefits at the expense of white males). Wilson states that:
There is no doubt that affirmative action often stigmatizes those who benefit from it, but mainly this is because the myth of reverse discrimination denigrates the abilities of minorities. Minorities admitted to elite colleges or hired for top faculty positions are widely presumed to be unqualified beneficiaries of an undeserved preference. The fact that the charge is untrue does not always mitigate the harmful effects it produces, from minorities doubting their own abilities to racist assumptions about them by others. But it is racism, not affirmative action, that stigmatizes minorities. Id.
102. See generally Wangerin, supra note 100, at 176 (asserting that academic support programs should include statistically valid mechanisms for evaluating the success of the programs themselves).
103. See Randall, supra note 38, at 34.
143. The correlation coefficient is a number between 1.0 and 0 or a number between -1.0 and 0. The larger the number the stronger the relationship between the variables. The strength of the relationship is related in part to the number of cases in the sample. Whether the correlation coefficient is positive ( 
) or negative (-) indicates the direction of the relationship. A positive (as one variable go up the other goes up) and negative (as one variable goes up the other goes down). In the Charts below, I provide you with correlation coefficient, and the significance level.
144. See generally Randall, supra note 38, at 42.
147. See generally id. (raising several issues: Why aren't the African Americans with the stronger UGPA and LSAT performing better? Are there characteristics other than GPA and LSAT which we should be using more overtly in the admission process?).
155. See generally Randall, supra note 38.
159. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:2. See generally SLAVIN, supra note 5 (explaining various cooperative learning methods).
160. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:2 (citing N. Kerr & S. Braun, Ringelmann Revisited: Alternative Explanations for the Social Loafing Effect, 7 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. BULL. 224-31 (1981)). Some group members do not actively work on the group task to avoid doing the work. See id. Social Loafing involves the less able or less inclined members of the group leaving it to others to complete the group's tasks. See id. As a result, group members expend decreasing amounts of effort on the cooperative learning task and just go through the motion of teamwork. See id. See generally ELIZABETH G. COHEN, DESIGNING GROUPWORK: STRATEGIES FOR THE HETEROGENEOUS CLASSROOM 20-33 (1986).
161. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:2 (citing N. Kerr, The Dispensability of Member Effort and Group Motivation Losses: Free Rider Effects, 44 PERSONALITY AND SOC. PSYCHOL. BULL. 78-94 (1983)). The sucker effect involves more able group members expending less effort to avoid being taken advantage of. See id. See generally COHEN, supra note 160, at 20-33.
162. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:2. (“High ability group members may be deferred to and may take over the important leadership roles in ways that benefit them at the expense of other group members . . . .”). This may occur because some members of the group are socially isolated or because some members' status allows them to socially dominate the group. See id. “Inequality in a group can be caused by status characteristics such as perceived ability, social class, race, ethnicity—and among older students, gender.” Elizabeth G. Cohen, Making Cooperative Learning Equitable, 56 EDUC. LEADERSHIP NO. 118, Sept. 1, 1998, 1998 WL 15380104, at 2. See generally COHEN, supra note 108, at 20-33.
163. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:2 (citing E. Langer and A. Benevento, Self-Induced Dependence, 36 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. NO. 8, 886, 886-93 (1978).
164. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:2 (citing G. Salomon, Communication and Education: Social and Psychological Interactions, 13 PEOPLE & COMM. 9-271 (1981)). See generally Mark V. Tushnet, Evaluating Students as Preparation for the Practice of Law, 8 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 313 (1995) (reporting on failed attempt to design an examination system that would systematically allocate higher grades to those who worked collaboratively).
165. See, e.g., JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:2 (discussing the concept from SHEINGOL, HAWKINS, & CHAR, “[T]eam characterized by division of labor based on perceived importance of a role: I am the thinker and you are the typist”).
166. See David Johnson et al., Cooperative Learning Returns to College, 30 Change No. 4, July 1, 1998, 1998 WL 15023937, at 5.
167. Focus is on teaching students basic terminology or rules of law.
168. Here the goal is for students to be able to discriminate between objects and events by classifying or grouping.
169. Students should be able to articulate statements that show the relationship among two or more ideas.
170. Students should be able to apply principles to new situations by solving problems, explaining circumstances, inferring causes or effects, or predicting outcomes.
171. DAVID W. JOHNSON ET AL., Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom (1986).
172. See Kagan, COOPERATIVE LEARNING: THE GRADUATE COURSE, 1:9 (stating that team-building strategies create enthusiasm, trust, and support among teammates). Team-building is especially important where there is diversity or tension and conflict. See id.
173. See id. (explaining that Class-Building strategies create enthusiasm, trust, and support among the class). Class building strategies are similar to team building that occurs at a class level. See id.
174. See id. (explaining that Mastery of Content Strategies produce mastery of academic content and skill). These strategies are useful in dealing with high consensus skills, knowledge, and comprehension. See id. They also promote convergent thinking. See id.
175. See id. (explaining that Critical Thinking Skills strategies produce improved critical thinking skills such as application, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation). This also promotes divergent thinking. See id.
176. See id. (explaining that Communication Skills strategies help to build specific communication skills). They also help to equalize communication among team members and promote positive communications. See id. Communication Skills strategies help groups decide while respecting individual opinions. See id.
177. See id. (explaining that Information Sharing strategies help in sharing information within the team, among teams, among classmates, and others).
178. See Joseph B. Cuseo, The Practice of Cooperative Learning: Key Implementation Questions and Answers, 4 COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND COLLEGE TEACHING 4 (1994).
179. See Randall, supra note 1, at 93 (explaining that feelers think “to clarify their values and to establish networks of values”). Consequently, “even when their expressions seem syllogistic, they usually evolve from some personally held belief or value.” Id. Feeling law students need to be encouraged to keep that perspective. See id. If they are placed in a group surrounded by thinkers they may get little support and encouragement. See id. Without personal encouragement, feeling law students may find it difficult to be motivated, since they may find many law school activities boring and unrewarding. See id.
180. See id. at 63 (explaining that legal education as currently structured rewards the learning style of introverts, although a person could be misled if he or she sat in on a typical socratic classroom). However, in a Cooperative Learning environment, the introvert could be disadvantaged because they need time to think before they start answering. See id. If they are in a group surrounded by extroverts, they could be overwhelmed by the extroverts need to talk to facilitate thinking. See id.
181. See id. I have never had anyone criticize the groupings or say that they had a terrible learning experience because of them. Occasionally, a person will want to change groups. I have never changed a person from one group to another. Instead, I help the person figure how to work with the issues they have identified. I do not know whether things work out, or whether students resign themselves to stay in the group because they know I will not change. No one has ever said anything on their course evaluations about the groups.
182. See JOHNSON ET AL., ACTIVE LEARNING, supra note 8, at 6:6.
183. In my smaller classes, especially seminar classes, I use informal Cooperative Learning groups. I also use these groups to assure that all students discuss a significant question.
184. See JOHNSON ET AL., ACTIVE LEARNING, supra note 8, at 6:4.
185. I have used this format in first year torts class with 90 students.
186. JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 5:12.
187. JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 6:6.
188. Cf. Warner et al., TEACHING LAW WITH COMPUTERS, 24 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L. J. 107 (1998) (suggesting using the Internet “to facilitate cooperative studying among students by creating a web site that only students in a particular study group can access,” and to provide a virtual classroom “environment in which students can easily share questions, insights, and materials through e-mail, online discussion, and study group and course Web sites”).
189. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:4 to 3:7.
194. See Cuseo, supra note 178, at 5.
196. See Cuseo, supra note 178, at 5. For instance, assign the responsibility for analysis, synthesis, evaluation, elaboration, and application to different individuals.
197. See ELLIS & WHALEN, supra note 5, at 33. The responsibility of the encourager is to make sure that “everyone has a chance to contribute ideas and is complimented for those contributions.” Id.
198. See id; JOHNSON ET AL., ACTIVE LEARNING, supra note 8, at 3:6.
199. See ELLIS & WHALEN, supra note 5, at 33.
201. See JOHNSON ET AL., ACTIVE LEARNING, supra note 8, at 3:4 to 3:6. See generally ELLIS & WHALEN, supra note 5, at 35.
202. See ELLIS & WHALEN, supra note 5, at 35.
206. See ELLIS & WHALEN, supra note 5, at 34; JOHNSON ET AL., ACTIVE LEARNING, supra note 8, at 3:5.
207. See generally JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:6 to 3:7.
214. See id. When I have used this technique, I generally count the peer valuation as a very small portion of the overall grade.
216. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:9; JOHNSON ET AL., CIRCLES OF LEARNING: COOPERATION IN THE CLASSROOM, 43-53 (1984).
218. See Paul T. Wangerin, Skills Training in “Legal Analysis”: A Systematic Approach, 40 U. MIAMI L. REV. 409, 411-19 (1986) (asserting that legal analytical “skills are not all that law teachers teach”). Cf. JOHNSON ET AL., ACTIVE LEARNING, supra note 8, at 3:9.
219. JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:9.
220. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 171, at 45-46.
221. See id. at 46 (discussing that the skills include the ability to: encourage other members to complete tasks; find effective work procedures; and foster friendly/pleasant work atmosphere).
223. See id. at 47 (discussing that formulating skills include: summarizing aloud what has been read or discussed; seeking accuracy by correcting summary adding important information, and pointing the ideas or facts summarized incorrectly; seeking elaboration by relating the material to previously learned material; having members make overt the implicit reasoning process; challenging each other's conclusions and reasoning; causing group members to dig deeper into material; assembling for their conclusions; finding more information to support their positions; and arguing constructively about alternative solutions or decisions).
224. See id. at 47-48 (discussing that fermenting skills include: 1) criticizing ideas not people; differentiating ideas when there is disagreement; 2) integrating many ideas into one position; 3) seeking justification for a member's conclusion; 4) extending a conclusion or answer by adding additional information or implications; 5) asking questions that lead to deeper analogies; and 6) producing plausible alternatives).
226. See id. at 45-46 (diagraming the four skill levels).
228. See JOHNSON ET AL., supra note 8, at 3:10.
231. See id. at 3:11 (citing S. Yager et al., Oral Discussion, Group-to-Individual Transfer, and Achievement in Cooperative Learning Groups, 77 J. EDUC. PSYCHOL. 60-66 (1985)).
233. See ELLIS & WHALEN, supra note 5, at 52-53.
234. What academic and/or collaborative skills are students to learn or practice in their groups? Start with something easy.
235. Students often lack collaborative skills, so start with groups of two or three students; after several experiences advance cautiously to groups of fours.
236. Heterogeneous groups are the most powerful, so mix abilities, sexes, cultural backgrounds, and task orientations. Assign students to groups randomly or select groups yourself. Do not routinely let students select. Remember not to isolate minorities, women, etc. in long-term groups.
237. The closer the students are to each other, the better they can communicate. Group members should be knee-to-knee and eye-to-eye. Have the class assigned to a room much larger than needed so the groups will have space to work.
238. Materials can send a “sink or swim together” message to students if they are given only one paper, or give each member a part of the material to learn and the responsibility to teach the group.
239. Students are more likely to work together if each has a job that contributes to the task. Assign work roles, skill roles, critical thinking roles.
240. Students must feel that they need each other to complete the group's task so that they “sink or swim together.” Some ways to create this are by establishing mutual goals (students must learn the material) and help make certain that group members learn the material, joint rewards (if all groups achieve above a certain percentage on the test, each will receive bonus points), and share materials, information and assigned roles.
241. Each student must feel responsible for learning the material and helping the group. Some ways to ensure this feeling include frequent oral quizzing of group members picked randomly, giving individual tests, having everyone in the group write (pick one paper at random to grade), or having students do work first to bring to the group.
242. Having groups check with and help other groups, and giving rewards or praise when all class members do well can extend the benefits of cooperation to the whole class.
243. Prepare students by teaching them any material they need to know, then make certain they clearly understand what they are to do in the groups. This might include explaining lesson objectives, defining concepts, explaining procedures, giving examples, and asking questions.
244. Evaluate student work on a criteria-reference rather than a norm-referenced basis. Make clear your criteria for evaluating the groups work.
245. The more specific the behavior to be displayed in the group's work, the more likely the students will do them. Make behavioral expectations clear: contributing, helping, listening with care to others, encouraging others to participate, and asking for help or clarification.
246. After students are used to working in groups, pick one collaborative skill they need to learn, point out the need for it, define it carefully, have students give phrases they can say when using the skill, post the phrases, and observe for and encourage the use of the skill until students are doing it automatically. Then teach a second skill. Consider praising, summarizing, encouraging, checking for understanding, asking for help, or generating further answers.
247. The beneficial educational outcomes of Cooperative Learning groups are due to the interaction patterns and verbal exchanges that take place among students. Make certain there is oral summarizing, giving and receiving of explanations, and elaborating going on
248. This the fun part! While students are working, circulate to see whether they understand the assignment and the material, give immediate feedback and reinforcement, and praise good use of group skills.
249. If students are having trouble with the task: clarify, reteach, or elaborate on what they need to know.
250. If students are having trouble with group interactions, suggest more effective procedures for working together or more effective behaviors for them to engage in. Ask students to figure out how to work more effectively together. If students are learning or practicing a skill, record on an observation sheet how often the skill is observed, then share observations with the groups.
251. Assess how well students completed the task and give them feedback.
252. To improve, students need time and procedures for analyzing how well their group is functioning and how well they are using collaborative skills as well as time to do better after receiving the information. Processing can be done by individuals, small groups, or the whole class. To start, have groups routinely list three things they did well in working together today and one thing they will do better in the next meeting. Then summarize as a whole class.
253. Reinforce student learning by having groups share answers or papers, summarize major points in the lesson, or review important facts.
254. See Henderson, supra note 3, at 399 (discrediting the institutional practice of ranking law students among their peers); see also John N. Hobbs, Grading Versus Teaching, 22 IMPROVING C. & U. TEACHING 239, 239 (1974) (stating that “students . . . view grades as . . . an arbitrary, persistent nuisance.”); Steve H. Nickles, Examining and Grading in American Law Schools, 30 ARK. L. REV. 411, 455 (1977) (stating that “eggs in the supermarket still are more accurately compared than are students in the law schools”); Paul F. Teich, Research on American Law Teaching: Is There a Case Against the Case System?, 36 J. LEGAL EDUC. 167, 169 (1986) (“Relevant studies however, uniformly seem to conflict with long-held and cherished assumptions about the special educational value of predominant law-teaching modes.”); Jeffrey Evans Stake, Who's “Number One”?: Contriving Unidimensionality in Law School Grading, 68 IND. L. J. 925 (1993) (arguing that in the practice of law, being “Number One” is contingent and contextual, while in law school, grading and ranking hides that contingency and context).
255. See Nancy H. Kaufman, A Survey of Law School Grading Practices, 44 J. LEGAL EDUC. 415, 417-18 (1994) (reporting that 2/3 of the law schools responding had some form of a grading curve).
256. See Henderson, supra note 3, at 414. (“The confusion over norm referencing and criterion referencing sends students the wrong message about their grades and subsequent rank. Students believe exams evaluate not what they know in terms of minimum competence, but what they know in relationship to the class.”)
257. Kissam, supra note 3, at 489-90 (asserting that the use of grading curves discourages law professors from providing much instruction or effective feedback to students on their performance of basic examination skills, for to provide this guidance would make it more difficult to impose such a grading curve).
258. See id.; see also Henderson, supra note 3, at 399.
259. See generally Kissam, supra note 3, at 433 (citing 81 BOALT HALL, ANNOUNCEMENT FOR ENTERING STUDENTS, at 9 (Sept. 1988) (High Honors, Honors, Pass and Fail grades); STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO, FACULTY OF LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE 1986-88 BULLETIN, at 8 (1988) (Honors, Qualified, Marginal, and Fail grades); YALE LAW SCHOOL, INFORMATION AND APPLICATION FORMS FOR CLASS ENTERING SEPTEMBER 1988, at 2 (1988) (Credit/Fail grading first semester; Honors, High Pass, Pass, and Fail grades thereafter)).
260. See generally Kissam, supra note 3 (asserting that a law school could modify the harsher aspects of its grading curve for classes in which writing exercises are employed).
261. See JOHNSON & JOHNSON, supra note 5, at 141.
263. See generally Kissam, supra note 3; Feinman & Feldman, Achieving Excellence: Mastery Learning in Legal Education, 35 J. LEGAL EDUC. 528, 545-47 (1985); Janet Motley, A Foolish Consistency: The Law School Exam, 10 NOVA L.J. 723 (1986); John M. Burman, Out-of-Class Assignments as a Method Of Teaching And Evaluating Law Students, 42 J. LEGAL EDUC. 447 (1992).
264. See generally Kissam, supra note 3, at 494 (describing and recommending the use of short, ungraded writing exercises to help teach doctrinal courses).
265. See Leon E.Trakman, Law Student Teachers: An Untapped Resource, 30 J. LEGAL EDUC. 331 (1979) (discussing the educational value of employing law student teaching assistants in legal education); Jay M. Feinman, Change in Law Schools, 16 N.M.L. REV. 505, 506-07 (1986) (discussing the need to employ teaching assistants to institutionalize educational reforms in law schools).
266. Cf. Mark V. Tushnet, Evaluating Students as Preparation for the Practice of Law, 8 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 313, 315 (1995) (reporting that the need for random selection creates problems in administering a “collaborative” examination).
267. A.B.A. Sec. of Legal Education & Admissions to the Bar (Standards for Approval of Law Schools and Interpretations S304) (1993).
269. See generally Tushnet, supra note 266.
271. See also Barbara Glesner Fines, Competition and the Curve, 65 U.M.K.C. L. REV. 879, 898 (1997) (noting that “[a]ny time that educational policies encourage faculty to move from ‘sage on the stage’ to ‘guide on the side’ protests arise that faculty control is necessary to insure effective, challenging education.”); King, supra note 8, at 30-31.
272. See generally Kissam, supra note 3.
274. See Kissam, supra note 3, at 433; Kissam, Thinking (By Writing) About Legal Writing, 40 VAND. L. REV. 135, 148-149 (1987); Roth, Student Evaluation of Law Teaching, 17 AKRON L. REV. 609 (1984) (discussing the nature and use of student evaluations in law schools).
275. See Harvard Professor Colleagues' Tenure Denials, N.Y. TIMES, June 9, 1987, at A-14, col. 2 (quoting Robert Clark of Harvard Law School on the denial of tenure to two critical legal studies professors: “Neither of those people were very good teachers . . . both were among the bottom ten percent in student ratings”).
276. I encountered significant negative evaluations in first year students who had me for torts. The fact that the content of my tort course was non-traditional may have also compounded first year's negative reaction. That is, race, gender, disability, religion, sexuality issues were a significant part of the course. The student's reaction was in all likelihood a combination of many factors including a non-traditional teaching method. Students were engaged, involved, attentively, and active. When I was teaching first year torts, I was always a little surprised at the evaluations. Early in the first few weeks of the semester, students like the method. However, as I began to give them feedback (through exercises and exams), they because more dissatisfied. I assumed it was because I was the first one in the substantive courses to give them any kind of feedback. As they became anxious about their grades in other classes, they saw a non-traditional teacher, and a black woman using Cooperative Learning, and attacked me.
277. See generally Kissam, supra note 3.
278. For instance, in my torts and health care law course, the assigned reading includes readings from the appropriate hornbook.
279. See JOHNSON & JOHNSON, supra note 5, at 131-32.
280. See IASCE, Box 1582, Santa Cruz, CA 95061-1582 USA. Phone (408) 426-7926.
281. See JOHNSON & JOHNSON, supra note 8, at 10:12.
282. Cf. Stropus, supra note 11 (suggesting that professors can ease students into the new law school environment by giving context to the Langdellian Method).
283. See Tushnet, supra note 266, at 313-14; see also Peter K. Rofes, Grades, 73 WASH. U.L.Q. 1643 (1995).
Make no mistake about it: Grades are a big deal in law school. A very big deal. Viewed from the perspective of students, just about every aspect of the law school experience--from job prospects to whether vending machines in the student lounge return the appropriate change--is affected by grades. In this respect, the law school represents a genuine meritocracy.
Id. at 1643.
