education

Race to Nowhere: How Are Tomorrow's Lawyers Being Educated?

Several weeks ago, I saw Race to Nowhere, a film screening to small audiences in the San Francisco Bay area. This movie documents the incredible demands we place on elementary and high school children. Many of these kids spend over seven hours a day at school, followed by two or more hours doing activities such as sports, music, or clubs. They visit with tutors. When they return home, they have several hours of homework. This over-scheduling is compounded by an incredible amount of time spent consuming media.

Despite these time commitments, children aren't learning more. Educators must increasingly prepare children for standardized tests in order to comply with state and federal mandates, lest they incur penalties and further budget cuts. Teachers spend less time teaching critical thinking skills, problem solving, and instilling a love of learning. Those passionate about teaching lose interest and burn out. Students cram material for the tests, then purge it from memory.

As a result, kids are a mess. They're stress out and sleep-deprived. Boys get frustrated, begin to dislike school and learning, and alarming numbers drop out.  Girls get depressed, and some develop eating disorders and resort to suicide.

And to what end? While U.S. elementary students perform slightly better on tests than those in other countries, this advantage disappears by high school. Tellingly, even the most academically selective universities - think Harvard, Yale, Stanford -- must remediate half their incoming students. That is, fifty percent of entering freshman at our best colleges lack basic reading, writing, and math skills.

How does this affect the legal profession?

Lawyer Sara Bennett, featured in the film, is co-author of The Case Against Homework: How Homework is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It. She left the legal profession partly out of frustration that incoming members of the bar couldn't do the work without extraordinary levels of handholding.  She argues we are creating generations of adults lacking critical thinking skills and the ability to work independently.  Today's adults are still "studying for the test."

Bennett invites us to consider what might have happened to a kid like David Boies today and references this excerpt from his biography.

And then there's this depressing vinette from Ralph Losey.

If our educational system is as infirm as reported, what type of lawyers will lead in twenty years? Will we be equipped to deal with the future's increasingly complex problems.

I've written about the importance of nuturing creativity in young people so that we can solve humanity's emerging problems. We don't seem to be on track.

Our professional institutions also reinforce the problems in our educational system. Law school admissions still fixate on standardized test scores -- despite being a poor measure of lawyerly ability -- draining the pool of legal talent. Associates are "over-scheduled" with billable hour requirements. The work frequently lacks the depth and intellectual content that promotes growth and satisfaction. Attrition rates were high (at least until the recent economic downturn).

What's the lesson here? Recognize that test scores are not the full measure of a person. Acknowledge the human limits on how long we can work, especially when humans are still growing and developing. Provide nourishment and allow time for rejuvenation. Understand that physical and mental health are prerequisites to academic and professional excellence.

And lawyers, and indeed all professionals, should remember their fundamental responsibility: to resolve society's most difficult problems though -- yes, hard work -- but also though creativity, compassion, and other unquantifiable traits that make us human.

Respect For Teachers

The New York Times had an interesting article earlier this week about Diane Ravitch, an education historian and former official with the U.S. Department of Education.  She recently went public with dramatically changed views on standardized testing and charter schools. It's a nice story about a person's willingness to examine core opinions and basic assumptions in the face of adverse career and political consequences. The article also raises the issue of Respect for People. This quote particularly caught my attention:

“Nations like Finland and Japan seek out the best college graduates for teaching positions, prepare them well, pay them well and treat them with respect,” she said. “They make sure that all their students study the arts, history, literature, geography, civics, foreign languages, the sciences and other subjects. They do this because this is the way to ensure good education. We’re on the wrong track.”

I think educators are highly respected for what they do, but our system doesn't reflect it by providing good compensation, career opportunities, and autonomy. I wonder how many of the problems in our educational system can be traced back to this fundamental problem.

Would focusing on this single flaw -- one that is highly interrelated to other elements in the system -- make a big difference?

D. Mark Jackson

The Future of Legal Education: Online?

Ralph Losey persuasively argues that online education will replace bricks-and-mortor education, including law school, as the dominant form. The major advantage of online courses, he claims, is that they are asynchronous, meaning:

A student can logon to study at the time when they are most alert and receptive. They can do so in an environment of their choosing, one that they have found to be most conducive for learning. They may choose to study alone, or in a group.  Some may learn best in a crowded coffee-shop. Others may prefer a quiet room by themselves. For some the preferred time to learn may be in the morning. For others it may be late at night. Online learning can happen anywhere and anytime.

Traditional institutions that ignore this trend -- even our most venerable top universities -- risk being left behind.

This resonates with me. I studied for the California Bar exam while living in Virginia, entitling me to use the study course's audio tapes, rather than having to attend the live lectures.

Granted, it was the bar exam, but it was one of the most intense learning experiences in my life. Since I devoted my days entirely to bar preparation, I could plan all my activities around my personal preferences and natural rhythms. For me, this meant taking practice tests in the morning, studying outlines in the morning and early afternoon, and listening to the lectures in the late afternoon when I didn't have the energy to do much else. I could listen lying down on the sofa when particularly exhausted. I could take breaks at will. I could clear my head with a run. This freedom allowed me to absorb a huge amount of material in the most personally effective way.

This wouldn't work for everyone. Some people need that mandatory lecture in order get on task in the morning. One can't really do class projects and study groups without personal interaction. People learn differently through dialogue. And how do you do the Socratic method in a WebEx session?

But let's leave aside whether this education is better, in the sense of being more convenient, cost effective, and otherwise efficient.  Will online education make for better lawyers?  Or will something essential be lost in translation?

D. Mark Jackson

Bookmark and Share