"Classroom rigor serves two functions in this regard: First, it increases the possibility that the worst students will give up or be dismissed, leaving the pool of graduates with more average talent, skills, and commitment. Second, it is a lesson in professionalism, encouraging students who would otherwise slack off to expend the effort necessary to learn. (Yes, this is paternalistic, but laissez faire is not enough when the quality of students is less than stellar. There is a market failure in that too many of the "consumers" -- notably anonymous law student -- do not know what is good for them. And yes, we do.) We as a school -- the good students and the professors -- cannot afford the hit that our reputation takes due to the post-graduate performance of a substantial portion of our students."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743428)

the funny thing is that the guy has causality messed up badly. If the school takes a hit, its because of the pre-matriculation performance of the students it accepts...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743448)

although it was probably more true when the top schools were first opening their doors...it is a feedback loop.

chicken egg problem. a school like widner can't attract top students because they can't get top jobs, and graduates can't get top jobs because they don't attract top students.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6744478)

i think its naive to think class participation has a significant effect on that though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6744579)

but of course its probably not good to post as much on the internets.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743457)

I even "took" a semester of law school in new york while I was living in DC. Professors who penalize students for missing or not being prepared for class are just engaged in their own ego trip--as far as learning goes they might as well penalize students for not using rainbow highlighting or having an up to date outline.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743482)

In all honesty, who cares if that student went to class or not if they got a decent grade? does anyone think that that person knows less of the material than his classmates who did worse on the final?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743534)

i don't have a lot of sympathy for people who don't show up or prepare a bit for classes though. unless there is a good excuse (work/family) it just shows a lack of character. is it really asking THAT much to show up for a couple hrs every day or so?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743568)

"A follow up. Angry law students (not just "angry law student") routinely assume that "teaching" is something that can be done without student engagement in the classroom. This deeply misunderstands legal education. It has nothing to do with our egos (though we've got those, to be sure); it is simply impossible for us to do our job well if students don't do the reading and refuse to let the classroom be a forum for engagement. Students are not paying to be lectured at; that's what they pay for when they pay for their bar courses. You are paying for a lot more -- and some of that added value can only be accomplished if you do your part. And you aren't just getting a bad value for yourself (and potentially a bad grade) if you are passive; you are actually reducing others' value. Your fellow students are paying, in part, to hear what you think."

how typical of a law professor to assume that it is impossible to learn the material in any way other than what has been done for a hundred years. I suppose he should let his colleagues who do not use the socratic method know that they too deeply misunderstand legal education.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743506)

But just as I'd find it annoying if all my classmates were gunners, it would also suck if nobody did any work or said anything in class when called on...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743546)

i'm not sure.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743579)

when I was in law school I had absolutely no problem telling a professor straight out "I haven't done the reading. Can you answer that question?" More often though, I didnt bother going to class.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743601)

the only relevant argument he has -- besides outright paternalism -- is that the class as a whole benefits from participation. but he's not claiming to have run out of participation; there's no indication that he could not find enough engaged students to fill the class just by asking for volunteers, or at the very least just skipping over people who aren't prepared.

so i think we can conclude that he is a mustachioed tard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743757)

i don't know why a prof should have the right to grade you based on a final but NOT have the right to grade you on whatever the hell he pleases (such as class participation)...especially if the prof has a mandate where part of his job is to train you to think on your feet.

It is interesting that this attitude of 'just teach me the black letter law and stfu' seems more prevalent at schools like widener than at top schools.

still think the blawg was a bad idea though....

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6744562)

As far as the Chicken/Egg thing goes -- there's not much Widener can do about who applies and accepts admisson offers, but they can try to address the quality of the students who graduate and form relationships with employers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6744496)

Posted by: John | Oct 7, 2006 2:19:38 AM

lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6743808)

i know this is a respectable "professor's" weblog (actually, it's not even a normal blog. it's a "blawg"), but i have to say some things.

let me get this straight: "average" widener students are harmed by their dumber schoolmates because the dumb schoolmates lower the reputation of the school, which makes employers reluctant to hire widener students? pure nonsense. employers don't give a damn who talks in class or whether one widener student is more "committed" than another. widener grads don't get jobs because they scored horribly on the LSAT, had horrible GPAs in college, and attended a horrible law school. your class has little to do with widener students' inability to get jobs, and class participation generally has no effect on students' job prospects (query whether these "bad" students would have anything useful to say even if they were to "prepare" for your class), except to the extent that you decrease their grade because they didn't answer a question correctly or didn't bother to read some irrelvant case (make no mistake about it: 96% of the material you cover in your class has no practical value to these students, most of which will become public defenders or insurance defense attorneys or something similarly dreadful).

and i like how you insist on calling students "bad" and lazy, as if they could become "good" students if they just had the motivation and "committment." i guess you don't realize that, because of the forced curve, there will always be "bad" widener students, even if every single student were equally intelligent and motivated.

i wonder how widener students feel when their professors call them "average" and "less than stellar" (read: far from stellar). professor, if you wanted to teach a bunch of smart kids, perhaps you should have tried harder to land that job at virginia law or whatever moderately prestigious law school you applied to before settling on widener.

i really hope a widener student reads your post. these kids ought to know what their professors really think about them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6744459)

"most of which will become public defenders or insurance defense attorneys or something similarly dreadful"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6744521)

I get it dude HAHAHAHAH!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6744545)

con law is actually relevant to a lot of public defenders, though admittedly less so than crim pro

"i guess you don't realize that, because of the forced curve, there will always be "bad" widener students, even if every single student were equally intelligent and motivated."

but it's absolute levels of skill and dedication that matter in the workplace, not relative. so if he makes his whole school smarter, there will still be people at the bottom of the curve but job prospects for all of them should improve over time to reflect the students' newfound competence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6744973)

I particularly like the last comment:

"...I have often heard of and personally experienced your blatant disrespect for Widener University School of Law and its students through comments essentially meaning “You're at Widener, don't bother applying for ..." or “go back and talk to your 5th grade English teacher because most of you didn’t learn how to write.” Your approach in class of "fear me for I am thou your professor" was at first terrifying and then absolutely insulting...HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT WE ARE LESS THAN STELLAR?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=501698&forum_id=2#6749353)