This is in response to a point Eben made more than something you said Adam. I'm not convinced that teaching law is the same as teaching math. I don't think you can teach philosophy the same way as you can teach math. The Premise of all the legal realism stuff we read at the beginning of the semester implies that understanding the law is a little like understanding the soft sciences, and people do develop different conceptions and different understandings of different things in the law. I agree that there are a lot of teachers at Columbia who could do a lot of things better. But, maybe the reason that the teachers can't clearly articulate their goals is because they're just trying to teach us how to think and analyze things on our own, under the assumption, that afterwards, we'll be able to teach ourselves anything. How do you assess the answers to questions that have no right answers? Should the Supreme Court apply strict scrutiny to gender inequalities the way it does to race inequalities? No one can "teach" you the answer to that question.

So, while i agree that there's much room for improvement, ie, there's a lot about the actually practicing law that we all realize we learn virtually nothing about here, i still disagree with the premise that teaching law like second grade math is the solution. I for one, would like to discover the law more than have it taught to me, and i feel like some aspects of the current method are good, because they leave room for me to pave my own way to some degree, in my law school experience.

-- OluwafemiMorohunfola - 08 Apr 2008