1. Introduction

The articles introduced under the title Times Change in Law Fac.' October 2 1975 contain many factual inaccuracies. This rejoinder is in two parts. The first part concerns the socratic or case-method of teaching and second concerns in-term assessment.

Salient claims that the present Dean of the Faculty, John Thomas, is responsible for the change in law teaching methods which "is spreading throughout the Law Faculty." The introduction reads "the 'Socratic Method' is a new innovation which comes from East Coast American universities." These statements are wrong.

History of Socratic or Case Method

The case method is detailed in the 1975 Law School Record of the University of Chicago by Professor Max Rheinstein. The professor traces case method back to one Christopher Columbus Langdell. At the Harvard Law School in 1870 Langdell prepared a collection of cases on contract The collection was carefully chosen to represent the rules and principles of the field. Students were expected by their own study of these cases to discover the underlying rules and principles. They were to be guided by the instructor, by asking questions, so as to stimulate analysis and discussion.

The case method has been used at Victoria University's Law Faculty since the mid 1950's. It was employed by Professor I.D. Campell (now Deputy Vice Chancellor) in both Crimes and Land Law. It was used regularly in the same period by Professor B.D. Inglis and others. At present it is used by lecturers in contract, torts, legal system, commercial, crimes and constitutional law. Of the present staff of approximately 25 only 5 members use the method. Some of these rely on it all the time while others use it occasionally. The suggestion that Mr Thomas is responsible for its increased use is incorrect. The method is over 100 years old and has been used by some members of the Faculty for twenty years.

Aims of the method

In short it teaches students to think for themselves. The aim of teaching "the law" is no longer attainable. The vastly increased volume of law due to the regulation of social problems hitherto given little attention has led to new fields of law - administrative, industrial planning, tax, commerce which have little similarity in content, except a set of common principles, traditions and thinking. Teach the method of thinking, show the development of the principles and you provide the key to understanding and working the law in a given area. The body of New Zealand law is a vast and complicated object No single mind could "know it" or "learn it.'

Student Reaction to the method

The introduction states: "The fact that some law lecturers feel that forced learning could be an integral part of Socratic Method' is a sad commentary on their feelings toward students and their concerns as teachers. 'Apathetic' students are generally apathetic because they feel repressed." The article goes on to examine the 'black mark' system used in torts. It is said that many students claim to be terrified but many take it in good humour This is not borne out by the facts. In a survey the torts class was overwhelmingly in favour of the case-method style of teaching. Only 15 students thought it was one of the three worst features of the course (of 135 responses). To say that students generally "hated" the no-response rule and compulsory lectures" is untrue. Only 45 thought it was one of three worst features. Many of the critics of the compulsory attendance - preparation rule were critical because of the quantity of material to be prepared. Professor Palmer has heeded that criticism. The method will, accordingly, be modified for next year.

Salient claims that "Students have had little say in either of these major changes." The fact is that students have little to say about case method. There are three student representatives on the Law Faculty. None have been approached by any student complaining of socratic method. The Law Faculty Club has 2nd and 3rd year representatives. Neither has been approached by any student about the rigours of "case method" or compulsory lecture attendance and preparation.

Preparation and participation

There is, nevertheless, some unease about the no-response rule shared by teachers and students alike. The key is preparation. In the United State law schools this is no problem. There is tremendous competition to gain entry and perform well. The entrants to law school are all graduates with excellent academic qualifications. The pressure to perform well is absent from New Zealand law schools because there is no competition for places. New Zealand students enter law school at 17 or 18 faced with engaging in disciplines never before encountered. Salient claims these students are 'apathetic' because they feel 're-pressed.' This is nonsense. Many law students do as little work as possible Academic excellence is not a goal for many. Socratic method can only work when students are prepared and participate in class. The skills developed by the method are considered vital to the practice and teaching of law. Those skills cannot be taught by straight lecturing. So long as competition is lacking, compulsion is necessary if efficient use is to be made of the time available. Compulsion also means that students are less able to plagiarise the ideas of others. As Mr Thomas recognises, a volunteer method lets the non-thinkers just sit there while the others do the work. Equity demands equal preparation and participation. Case method also enables teachers to know their students and their abilities. This a clear advantage to teacher and students.

McBride states "The aim is not oppress students merely for the sake of it" The implication is twofold. Firstly there is the suggestion that case-method does "oppress." Secondly, there is the suggestion that such oppression is intentional. Neither suggestion can be substantiated. The second is an allegation of teaching malpractice which is unwarranted and unfair. The first is also unwarranted. Law students feeling oppressed have failed to make any representation to the faculty or to their elected representatives. They are, of course, volunteers in that they are free to enter or leave law school as they please Just as a science student is required to learn skills by attending laboratory practicals so too is a law student required to attend classes so as to learn skills necessary for a lawyer - both academic and practical.

Geoff Harley

2. An answer to John McBride's article on I.T.A. in the Law Faculty

John McBride states that the abolition of I.T.A. resulted from a failure of communication between students and staff in the Law Faculty. In fact the Student Reps on Faculty had advance warning from March 7th 1974 that a report would be presented (and consequent action would follow), after finals in 1974. If any failure of communication arose it might more properly be laid at the feet of student - law fac club communcation.

The Congrene report has been on closed reserve in the Law Library since February 1975. At the date of the Law Fac. Club AGM (March 1975) two students (myself and one other) had read it. Perhaps the majority of law students couldn't care less about ITA.

The report summarises the arguments for and against ITA as follows:

Every student will have his own opinion about most of these arguments, however as a member of the Law Faculty Club Committee for the last two years I have had some contact with both sides of the story and venture to offer some comments.

(a) By far the strongest factor as far as the Faculty is concerned is a lack of confidence in ITA marks. As the report notes at pp7 & 8, if the bulk of the marks in an exercise are awarded for correctly identifying the issues involved then there is no way of distinguishing between the person who worked it out for himself and the person who had it pointed out to him. In an exam however you can be reasonably sure that a person has identified the issues without assistance.

This does not seem an unduly unreasonable attitude for the Faculty to take. If ITA is to count for the final mark it is not good enough to give students a guaranteed method of cheating the bulk of their marks. While it is reasonable to say that a majority should not suffer for the actions of a minority it is perhaps reasonable too to adopt a procedure that discriminates least against the honest student.

(b) In my opinion ITA has had a disasterous effect on student life in general. Work loads did increase, pressure throughout the year did increase and pressure at the end of the year did not decrease.

(c) As John points out the Faculty are prepared to do, allow ITA in subjects where individual assignments can be set. i.e. where they can be sure that work is indeed the work of the student concerned. The subjects that are doing this now are all fairly small classes, and none of them is a 'technical' legal' subject.

In a large class the setting and marking of, say, 130 different exercises is obviously beyond the Faculty's man-power resources. Also the majority of students are not happy to do original research of their own Contrary to radical belief the average student would prefer to do as little work as possible, and if he has to do anything he would sooner have it pre-digested for him

Those students who through genuine interest or natural peuersity wish to demonstrate their skills at original and exciting research are well catered for by the Law Faculty's honours programme. As yet no one has been killed in the rush to get into this programme.

(d) One of the main reasons for the decision being made before students returned at the beginning of this year was that the Law Faculty had to comply with a Professorial Board directive to inform students of the assessment scheme within 2 weeks of the beginning of the academic year. Presumably the time allowed did not give sufficient time to allow for the full commentation which John McBride would have preferred.

In view of the total lack of reaction by law students it seems clear that the faculty will continue in 1976 as it has this year.

(e) Four weeks ago an S.G.M. of the Law Faculty Club was held to discuss, amongst other things, ITA. With the benefit of hindsight John McBride was conspicuous by his absence. Only 16 students attended, most of them members of the Law Fac Club committee.

Perhaps the issue is not such a 'vital' one to students as he believes. The Law Fac Club Commitee has done a good deal of work and devoted a lot of thought to the question of ITA. The general feeling is clearly that law students as a whole prefer not to have it. No substantial complaint about its abolition has been made, Mr McBride's included. But then, uninformed criticism is a lot less time consuming than going to boring old meetings, eh, John?

Doug Wilson