I got two student reports in quick succession. A student in my Brooklyn Contracts class reported to me that some of his/her classmates had tracked down some of my Hastings students from last year to procure their outlines. And some of my Hastings students also contacted me to let me know whose outlines were in circulation (just so I wouldn’t think my Brooklyn students were smarter when they aced my test from using the Hastings outlines!).
My first (obnoxious) instinct was to get these outlines myself, find where they had mistakes or omissions, and use them to trip up the students who were relying on them. My ground rules for my modified open book exam is that you can bring into the exam room the course materials and “any materials that you had a hand in preparing.” Then I had a few days of vacation and realized that was sort of mean. In any case, the instruction about what students may use in the exam room (of which they have notice) is ambiguous and is clearly meant to exclude commerical outlines and old student outlines from the exam room; it is clearly meant to enable students to work in groups to form outlines. Under my exam policy, students aren’t barred from making group outlines (indeed, they are encouraged to collaborate) nor are they barred from consulting outside materials in the preparation of their outlines (though I do actively discourage this behavior).
I confess that I found it rather amusing that people would go to such lengths to get old outlines. I realize that my visiting status leaves my curent students at some disadvantage because I assume it is extremely common for people to use old outlines. But I still think it is a rather silly crutch. Not only is the class different from year to year (and the test covers only what the class covers in a given year) — but it seems so fundamentally misguided to take the short cut presented by using old outlines. From what I remember, making the outline is most of the studying. Cutting and pasting from old outlines just doesn’t work the same way. Perhaps that is just my idiosyncratic need for active learning. But I remain convinced that students are actually wasting valuable studying time when they try to get the material in an already-processed form (whether that comes from commercial outlines or old student outlines). Reasonable people could differ and have different studying needs.
Yet, I believe the Brooklyn student who alerted me to the issue had some ethical qualms about the practice. I don’t see the issue as an ethical one, just a practical misstep. What’s your take?
Posted by Ethan Leib on November 29, 2006 at 10:07 AM
Comments
On my final exams, I, like Prof. Leib, ban the use of commercial outlines and outlines that the student did not materially participate in creating. In addition to the reasons cited by Prof. Leib, there are two other reasons why I do this:
(1) Student finances — I don’t wish to encourage students to spend their money on expensive commercial outlines, and not allowing them to be used on the exam tends to discourage them from purchasing them. Allowing them to be used, moreover, would to some extent advantage those students with greater financial resources, or at least put those students with fewer resources in a bind.
(2) Unequal access to old outlines — When I was in law school, as a member of law review, I had access to what were some excellent outlines. However, those outlines were not available to non-law review members.
Posted by: Public School Prof | Dec 3, 2006 3:50:24 AM
Old outlines are helpful in some classes and not in others. I used no commercial outlines and no student outlines for Leib’s class. Did pretty well. I used an old outline from a good friend and a commercial outlines for torts. Of course I didn’t mindlessly use the old outline. I actively read the material, edited and chaged the other outline, listened in class, etc. But, the basic structure was there and that really helped. I got the same exact result as in Leib’s class.
It’s all about the professor and their focus and their way of teaching. Leib said from day 1 that he was interested in us learning *his* contracts class. Such is not the case in other classes. I used the examples of torts and contracts because the professors were very different in approach but equally effective. But, realistically, not all law professors are good at their jobs. When you’re learning from one of them, an outline of any type is crucial.
Posted by: SarahH | Dec 1, 2006 1:22:19 PM
Also to “getoveryourselves” – It seems to me that in any event an ethical professor would generally ignore compliments he/she receives when grading. And second, anonymous posters are the obnoxious ones. If you really want to call people out, do it with your own name, or no one will take you seriously (and I don’t think in this case anyone has taken you seriously).
Posted by: Sam H. | Dec 1, 2006 9:50:25 AM
“getoveryourselves”:
1. It is my understanding that the finals (the only thing our grades depend on) are graded anonymously. “Kissing ass” would not help me in the least. I just wanted to speak up as one of his students because so many people were commenting on his teaching methods who had never even taken his course.
2. Why would you trash Mike for actually caring about the substance and quality of the course? He had a very valid point, if nothing else.
3. I’m always up for discussing this in an open environment. Please, feel free to approach me and make yourself known so that we can have an intelligent discussion instead using a pseudonym to lob hollow critiques at people.
Posted by: jmess | Dec 1, 2006 12:15:27 AM
To Anonlawstudent:
I’m taking the “self-righteous” comment as a compliment.
To address your question, I use the word “should” as a conditional – that is, if that is all you are using, it shouldn’t come as a surprise if you don’t get the top grade in the class. I’m not saying it can’t be your only outline – if you don’t do outlines, that’s cool. Nobody is saying you have to make an outline. But your information – your source – should not be an outline from an old student, it should be your own notes, or the book, or both. In an ideal world.
Yes, most courses don’t change from year to year – some profs are word for word the same, year after year. But Leib is not. So your prep should be different. Frankly, I’d rather have a professor who was not just a glorified tape player.
Posted by: Bev | Nov 30, 2006 6:51:35 PM
Ronnie Dobbs, you are onto something. Leib- what do you mean by “it would be justified”? For all of you who wish to kiss Leib’s ass, it’s simply absurd. I too think Leib is “the man.” But I choose not to sign this with my initials so that he can bump up my grade. At least make it anonymous if you want to flatter him. That to me is cheating more than looking at some shitty outline. However, I fully agree with Josh, in one point only: if you really think the outlines are not helpful then you should be HAPPY that people are using them. How about the economics of law school (ie. the curve) Mike??? If you do not think it is immoral then just stop preaching- no one cares that you think contracts is fascinating!!!
Posted by: getoveryourselves | Nov 30, 2006 6:44:47 PM
i was the hastings student who was originally contacted, and who provided my own outlines, and a few others from willing folks in my section. i see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and would happily do it again- i considered it no different than the active outline banks already in (long) practice at hastings. i was more than willing to help out BLS students. i used to be a teacher; maybe i just like to facilitate learning, i don’t know. i really struggled with the material in Professor Leib’s class (sorry Professor), even after reading and briefing ALL the cases, practice problems, etc. and ultimately found Emmanuel’s, and not other students’ outlines, to be very helpful. to each their own. i didn’t come from the snazzy academic background that other law students often do, so even looking at an outline to see what the structure and big picture was supposed to be like was helpful. this process isn’t intuitive for everyone.
Posted by: kommishonerjenny | Nov 30, 2006 5:50:03 PM
To those Brooklyn students who are taking Prof Leib’s class this year, what do you make of his comment regarding how if he was to trip up his students that, “I do think in my particular class, this particular year, it could be justified?” What does that mean?
As a speculative side note, I do think that Prof Leib is enjoying, at least a tit bit, all these lively debates and controversies that his post has provoked. And I also think that his comment about the thoughts of tripping up his students was only to provoke a response.
Just some thoughts…
Posted by: Ronnie Dobbs | Nov 30, 2006 5:24:24 PM
I totally agree with Mike about the overall goals of our classroom discussion. It is frustrating as well for those who want to get into the deep issues but get stuck in the rules. Unfortunately this whole system is set up with adverse incentives in many courses to engage in “deep” thought that goes beyond the specific concerns outlined in the syllabus or by the professor. You will end up not getting a good grade and since we HAVE to get a good grade (or so “they” say) or else you are going to be paying off your debt for years and years longer than you would like while the banks rob you blind (capitalization of interest anyone?).
This is certainly NOT the case in Contracts 101 with Professor Leib, and it should be clear that any outline should include a few reminders about the deeper issues we should be thinking about in approaching different rules or issues. But take Pitler’s class (for those of you at BLS), why would you spend much time thinking about the deep constitutional issues involved when that is not really his focus. He is more interested in statutory interpretation and proper application of black letter law, than the social or economic considerations behind the law (which are in any event much more clear than in contracts – thanks to Dressler!). I personally love thinking from a more practical socio/economic perspective, but the fact is, I am so lost just trying to get the rules strait in my head that any aid- even the apparantly crappy outlines that we got from the Hastings students – in that process is welcome so that I might hit that magic moment where things click in my head and I can actually speak on an underlying issue without sounding totally stupid. And it is very easy to sound stupid in front of a professor like Leib, who is obviously 200 steps ahead of me (us) all of the time and for the last half of the course rushing to get us to see the point. Of course you, Mike, never sound stupid and therefore obviously profit from joining in discussion more than I or some others do (this is not a sarcastic statement by the way, I do appreciate your comments in class). Good luck on that outline, but if you somehow find out that one of us took a “shortcut” and still did well, you owe that person a beer!
Posted by: Sam H. | Nov 30, 2006 3:53:42 PM
To Professor Leib: I agree completely that you are well within your rights to write a final that tests the materials as taught in your class and therefore indirectly penalizes students who use commericial outlines. And since you did not go through with the tripping up plan, I agree I should harp on it no more.
To some of the other posters: I am amused to hear comments like “shortcut” to refer to the use of old outlines, as though the creation of an outline was an end in itself. The goal of studying is to master the material, not write an outline. It’s an only-in-law, obsession with precedent situation that everyone uses the exact same process to study. There are, after all, other ways of studying besides creating an outline.
To the self-righteous poster who provided the old outline: What is the nature of the “should” in this sentence: “The old outlines should only be a supplemental resources and should therefore not be relied on (says the girl who is learning all of Con Law I from Legalines).” A moral should? A conditional on the idea that you can’t do well? I agree it is generally better to create your own outline, but, and here I repeat myself, there’s no physical law that you can’t do well with an old outline or no outline at all. Creation of an outline is just one particular way of studying, which some people swear by and others don’t.
The reality is that most courses change little from year to year. There’s no reason they should change significantly every year.
Posted by: Anonlawstudent | Nov 30, 2006 10:31:11 AM
Leib is the man. Period. He has bent over backwards to prepare us for his exam. He’s given us last year’s final and midterm (with his own sample answers!) He has suggested to us what he thinks is the best way to prepare for the exam. All this talk about Leib being unethical or mean for thinking about tripping up his students is such nonsense. He clearly cares about his students, and this is more apparent in him than any other teacher I have this year.
As for our classmate with the “ethical qualms”: If you want “access to the thoughts and input of [your] fellow classmates”, strike up a conversation. Make a comment in class. Go see Leib in his office hours (I hear he’s pretty available.) If you want access to the outlines, anyone would be happy to share them. Some might argue that you should be happy if classmates only use recycled outlines on the exam because, as was said, it will end up hurting them. You know… Academic Darwinism!
In all seriousness though, Leib said from the outset that he found it “amusing.” Translation: no big deal.
Posted by: jmess | Nov 30, 2006 12:36:23 AM
1L: Since you called me out in your comment, allow me to respond.
First, I didn’t miss the point. I got the point just fine: Prof. Leib thought it was “silly” and a “waste of valuable time” to bother with supplemental materials. I disagree and said as much. His post did not make it clear that he told the class if they wanted to use them, that was fine. And I can’t respond to his comments in class because I’m not in it.
Second, re-read my posts. I never once said it would be “unethical” for him to use them to “trip students up” or that he should or shouldn’t do that. Frankly, I don’t care if he did. Would it be very nice? Of course not. Would it make me think he was petty and vindictive? Probably. Would it be within his right to do so as the Professor teaching the course? Yep. So, if you “find it tiresome that you have continued to harp on the fact that Leib contemplated the possibility of trying to trip students up by finding errors in old outlines” you aren’t responding to *my* posts.
You go on to say, “if a student chooses to study exclusively from an outline that fails to take this into account, he can do so at his peril.” *THAT* was my point. And apparently you agree with me. It should be *their* peril and he’d actually be doing them a service if he let people learn on their own whether such materials help or hinder their learning process. Trying to protect students from what you think is a bad habit is both paternalistic, and sometimes, wrong. Different people study differently.
My second point was that by banning such materials from the final is mis-guided. It’s a poor compromise for actually requiring the students to know the material. In the real world, students have access to such materials. And if they choose to rely solely on them and do poorly, as you say, caveat emptor. Some people would do worse, some might do better. But it should be their lesson to learn, either way. Or, by contrast, just ban *all* materials from the test–that’s a decent measure of mastery.
I also never once said Prof. Leib doesn’t understood the importance of grades. What I objected to (again, if you care to re-read *my* comments) was that he automatically leapt to the conclusion that using outside resources–be they old outlines or commercial outlines–was a ‘crutch’ when, in fact, if used *properly* they might *help* a student.
I have no problem with Prof. Leib expressing his opinion on what he feels is the best way to study for his class. But asked, “What’s your take?” My take is that he’s being over-protective. I also think, in his original post, he failed to recognize that supplemental materials don’t *have* to be abused and used incorrectly. My take is that he should give his students a little credit for knowing how they study best, and not just assume that they are incompetent to make their own study choices. (I’m not saying he *does* feel that way, but his original post certainly had those overtones.)
So, thanks for calling me out in your response to *other* posters comments.
“Some people will take shortcuts, and that’s not just true for law school – that’s how the world works. Take solace in the fact that one day those shortcuts will catch up to them.”
Keep in mind that sometimes, the people who take shortcuts actually win.
Posted by: Martin Vail | Nov 29, 2006 11:50:15 PM
I believe my outline may be one of those circulating among your current students. I gave it out without much reservation for two reasons: 1) many 2Ls did the same for me last year, and 2) I know it won’t be very useful to them. If any of Leib’s current students are still reading, note this: he is absolutely right that commercial outlines and such won’t help much. He tests on what he covers in class – his was the only class I didn’t use a commercial guide in, and I did quite well.
Also, I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for him to try and trip people up using errors in the old outlines. The old outlines should only be a supplemental resources and should therefore not be relied on (says the girl who is learning all of Con Law I from Legalines).
And now I’m tempted to send him my outline to see what errors it has.
Posted by: Bev | Nov 29, 2006 10:24:57 PM
It seems one of my classmates beat me to the punch in responding to what has, to my surprise, become quite a feisty discourse on the merits of using old outlines. Quite frankly though, I think that many of you have missed the point, and it is to those of you (that’s right Mr. Vail, I’m talking to you) that this post is directed.
Leib has made it clear, from the first day of class, that it is his belief that commercial outlines and other outside materials are not the keys to success in his class. Not only has he not been ambiguous about it, but he’s stated it explicitly on more than one occasion. That being said, he has also made it abundantly clear that if outside reading somehow augments our understanding of the material, than it is certainly fine if we choose to look at those outside resources. Proscribing commercial outlines (or outlines made by previous students) in the exam room is, as Leib stated in his post, certainly well within his right as a professor.
Many of you may attest to the fact that commercial outlines, or those made by students, are helpful study aids. I don’t think anyone is arguing that it is unethical to look at old outlines, and I don’t think Leib would argue that either.
I find it tiresome that you have continued to harp on the fact that Leib contemplated the possibility of trying to trip students up by finding errors in old outlines. The fact is, he didn’t do it. And if he had, well those of us that heeded his advice and focused our attention on that which he actually taught us would have been able to spot the mistakes on the old outlines. I absolutely agree with my colleague that we have many smart students in our class, many of whom share enlightened and interesting comments, and truly add to class discussion. And as Leib himself has pointed out, his classes are different from semester to semester because of this very fact.
Though this round of finals will be my first in law school, I can only assume that exams reflect not only these differences, but also reflect that which the professor thinks is important (as opposed to what the editors of Legalines think is important). Commercial outlines certainly don’t communicate this, and students’ outlines don’t necessarily convey it either. So if a student chooses to study exclusively from an outline that fails to take this into account, he can do so at his peril. As we discussed in class today, such a scenario can only be one of caveat emptor.
On an unrelated note, it is quite frankly ridiculous to assume that Leib doesn’t understand the importance of grades – I mean, the guy is not an idiot. We’re talking about a Yale graduate three times over. So any implication that he doesn’t understand that law students take their classes, and the grades they get in them, seriously is just simply ridiculous.
And one final thought to my colleague – while I understand your desire to engage with your classmates and hear their “two cents,” I would advise that you be less concerned with what your classmates are doing. Some people will take shortcuts, and that’s not just true for law school – that’s how the world works. Take solace in the fact that one day those shortcuts will catch up to them.
Posted by: 1L | Nov 29, 2006 9:37:52 PM
Of course exams are serious. That is why I write fair ones that are reflections of the course I teach AND NOTHING ELSE. Not what Gilbert’s says the law is; not what some former student thinks I said last year. I think if you asked any of my students, they would tell you that I go out of my way to be as transparent as possible about what I’m thinking and what I’m doing. My original post called the move assumed here (trying to trip people up) obnoxious and mean and I didn’t do it. End of story. I do think in my particular class, this particular year, it could be justified. But those of you not in my class can hardly assess whether that is true and I don’t very much care whether you agree with me (though I would be curious what my actual students who attend think on this lovely hypothetical).
But of course exams ARE games too: students are trying to guess what the professor wants to see — and I try to be as helpful as possible to keep the mind-reading to a minimum. I am happy to defer to however they wish to prepare; I also can tell them, as I do, that I think they would be better served struggling with the material itself. It isn’t a moral objection (as I’ve now said a number of times); it’s just the little wisdom I think I can offer from the other side of the desk. I just don’t think as a matter of fact someone who internalized Gilbert’s is in very good shape for my test.
I am talking in circles here.
Posted by: Ethan Leib | Nov 29, 2006 9:16:49 PM
Full disclosure: I’m a student in Professor Leib’s contracts class this fall, and I may in fact be the student who he refers to in the post as having an ethical qualm. This blog is all the buzz among my classmates.
It seems clear that any student who brings an unaltered old “Leib” outline into the exam has violated the examination rules proscribed by the professor. However, that was not my original concern. My classroom is full of brilliant students, and some of them make critical, insightful comments that enrich the collaborative learning environment. My frustration (first identified as an ethical qualm, although now I think that was an overreaction on my part) is with the students who appear to be waiting for the clear answers and black letter law to emerge. I understand that everyone has the right to study as they choose and to swallow up old outlines rather than engage material individually, or to do some of both. I just selfishly, jealously want access to the thoughts and input of my fellow classmates. Contract law is replete with pro-business economic efficiency arguments that disguise the ruined lives of the down trodden poor in the tidy language of “transaction costs” and “efficient breach”. This is worth talking about. This isn’t a legal rule, this is the system that runs (ruins?) our lives! My two cents: No more shortcuts!
I’d say more, but I have an outline write…
Posted by: Michael P-F | Nov 29, 2006 8:32:00 PM
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I did intend to be arrogant and condescending, it was to reinforce my point about your presumptions. But there’s no paternalism, I’m not in a position of power over you–but you are over your students.
Yes, you are the teacher–and were once a student–obviously your opinion on how to do well in your class is valuable information. But the people in your class are currently students, in a graduate, professional degree program, perhaps some deference to the way they choose to study would be appropriate.
Finally, if closed book exams freak students out, but open book exams make them lazy, I don’t know that using a poor compromise really helps them at all–if that’s your goal.
Posted by: Martin Vail | Nov 29, 2006 7:19:39 PM
2. “I limit what they can use during the exam; that’s my right. I could make it all closed book too.”
Of course it is your right to make whatever rules you would like. The question is why you would want to make certain rules, such as one that forbade the use of old outlines.
3. “As for whether I should be disciplined for having the thought to trip up students who are using outside material. Ridiculous. I can have whatever thoughts I want about torturing my students. I didn’t do it.”
Excuse me if I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean being disciplined for having thoughts about tripping people up. I meant disciplined for actually doing so. You can have whatever thoughts you want, as far as I’m concerned. These exams are high stakes for the students. Performance on these exams will determine what kinds of job opportunities they will have in the law, or whether they will be employed at all. You have a duty, as a professor and as a human being, to try to be fair.
“Though given how many times I emphasized in the class that I wanted people to do things for themselves, I do think people are on fair notice.”
Do you really believe that saying you want people to do things for themselves would be fair notice that you plan to go out of your way to trip up students who use outlines from a previous year? That you are going to use time that could be spent on teaching to try to hurt students who have chosen a method of studying with which you disagree? If you have said “students who use outlines from a previous year will be penalized on the exam,” then I agree they have fair notice. Otherwise, no.
“If I want to find a mistake in Emanuel’s and trip up those students, that’s my right.”
What do you mean “right?” What purpose would it serve to do that?
“I can’t give out warranties for outside outlines, last year’s outlines, or commerical supplements. I make this plain as day.”
Of course not, but surely you see the difference between making warranties and deliberately tripping up students!
The exam is not a game for students. It is serious business.
If students could perform better on your exam by supplementing their reading with a Gilbert outline, what would be wrong with their using one? Shouldn’t the implication be that a Gilbert outline is a useful study aid? You seem to have almost a moral objection to using these outlines.
And to think in the comments to a different blog post you tried to claim that professors care about teaching and the future careers of their students.
I think you can see why I wish to remain anonymous, by the way. Based on this post, I would be very concerned about petty retribution should the opportunity every arise.
Posted by: Anonlawstudent | Nov 29, 2006 6:17:05 PM
Mr Vail:
No intention to be “arrogant and condescending” or “overly paternalistic.” I think I’m entitled to my opinion — and that my students are entitled to my sense of how best to do well in my course. They needn’t take my advice. That’s more than most students get from most professors. I feel I owe the students a bit more discussion on exam prep and strategies because as of yet I don’t have a library full of old exams for students to inspect. Now whether it is arrogant, condescending, or overly paternalistic for you to tell me to “focus on writing a fair, solid exam based on what you covered,” I leave to others to ascertain.
I do think you may be onto something about “modified open book” — and I struggle with what the right rule should be. I tend to think students just freak out about closed book and I don’t want to add to their stress. By contrast, complete open book induces a sense of laziness (first semester students rarely realize that you can’t spend much of the exam looking things up). And for the reasons I offer here, I don’t want to encourage students to feel that they should go outside the materials; it’s all there. So I opt for a sub-optimal compromise. And as I’ve said many times, the only thing I can count on them knowing — and knowing equally well — is the material I assign in a given year. As for anything else, caveat emptor! And I make that point clear as day.
Posted by: Ethan Leib | Nov 29, 2006 5:46:48 PM
Agreed – it makes about as much sense as saying that when borrowing a pencil from someone who took the class the year before, one can only get a mark as high as one grade lower than the prior pencil owner.
Posted by: anon | Nov 29, 2006 5:11:43 PM
Well, I agree that to me, *making* the outline *is* the studying process. For my money, I do all of my learning during the outlining process, and when I’m done, I basically pitch it.
However, I do also get lots of others old outlines–and I use them *during* my study process. I actually find your dismissal of this as a “crutch” or the assumption that students who get them are just “cutting and pasting” as a bit arrogant and condescending. I use others outlines as a reference point when I’m having trouble with some material, because they (presumably) heard the same (or similar) lecture I did, and perhaps by seeing how they interpreted the material it may aid my understanding.
Frankly, I think students should be able to use any study material they can (legally) get their hands on. You cannot tell me in the “real world” of law practice, a partner would restrict you from using a free resource if it helped you get the job done. Of course, the students are still responsible for knowing the material you presented in class and making sure that the outside material (especially older outlines from an unknown source) is accurate. But that’s part of the process… if they screw it up and rely on bad info, they get a bad grade. I think students understand the consequences and should be left to face them.
Stop being so overly paternalistic about *how* your students choose to prepare and focus on writing a fair, solid exam based on what you covered.
Frankly, the “modified open book” exam always seemed like a waste to me. If you really want to test mastery, go closed book. If you really want to test “real world” go completely open book. Come to grips with the fact that (for 90% of all JDs) you are not training academics: you are training lawyers. A close book exam really reflects mastery of the material because you can’t rely on notes. And in the real world of law practice, you’d have access to all the books and outlines you could get your grubby hands on. Modified open book exams make no sense to me at all.
Posted by: Martin Vail | Nov 29, 2006 5:09:03 PM
“As a general rule, if you use an old outline alone, you can get a grade lower than the person whose outline you are using, at best. You can’t get an A without doing the work yourself. Access to old outlines can actually make students lazy and harm their grades.”
I don’t think this is true as a general rule. I got the top mark in a class (of only 20 people, admittedly) using the outline of my study partner who got under 70%. Law exams test more than knowledge of the finest details of the law. Especially on exams with a tight time limit, and a lot of issues to analyze, I have found I tend to do better when I rely on someone else’s outline, with some light updates.
Every student is different, of course, but there is at least a substantial subgroup of us who benefit from using older outlines.
Posted by: LawStudent | Nov 29, 2006 4:59:24 PM
I think we should remember that students are more likely to tailor existing electronic outlines to their current then they are to laze around all term and then go in to
the exam blind with an old outline (not to say that doesn’t happen). As a practical matter it can save a ton of typing during class – you can just make notes where the class extends or diverges from what’s in the existing outline rather than type like a crazy person. In this way, having an outline can facilitate learning. It’s hard to simultaneously transcribe and understand a lecture.
Of course in a perfect world the student will already have read and briefed the cases themselves as well.
Posted by: anon | Nov 29, 2006 4:41:02 PM
Some very interesting perspectives. Since so many of you go anonymous, it is hard to make specific responses.
A few points:
1. As I said, I found it amusing, not ethically troublesome. Since this post went up, I have learned that my students contacted each other THROUGH THE BLOG! That is even more amusing.
2. I completely concede (in the original post) that students have different ways of studying. But since I write the tests and grade the answers, I can offer my opinion that students who study the material itself do better than students who use outside sources. It is easy to tell who got their knowledge from the book and who is spitting it back from Farnsworth’s treatise. That isn’t the skill I’m looking for, so I encourage students to do things themselves. Obviously I can’t stop them and I do not make a rule that they can’t look at outside material. I limit what they can use during the exam; that’s my right. I could make it all closed book too.
3. As for whether I should be disciplined for having the thought to trip up students who are using outside material. Ridiculous. I can have whatever thoughts I want about torturing my students. I didn’t do it. Though given how many times I emphasized in the class that I wanted people to do things for themselves, I do think people are on fair notice. If I want to find a mistake in Emanuel’s and trip up those students, that’s my right. I told them many times that there is no substitute for learning it yourself — and students are responsible only for what we cover. I can’t give out warranties for outside outlines, last year’s outlines, or commerical supplements. I make this plain as day. I don’t tell them what they can and can’t do (other than what they can bring into the exam room). I tell them how I think they are most likely to do well. They are free to do whatever they want with the professor’s advice.
Posted by: Ethan Leib | Nov 29, 2006 4:26:34 PM
“As a general rule, if you use an old outline alone, you can get a grade lower than the person whose outline you are using, at best. You can’t get an A without doing the work yourself. Access to old outlines can actually make students lazy and harm their grades.”
Any evidence for this claim? I actually do make my own outlines, but I’ve seen old outlines work really well for other people. You’re still doing the work–i.e. the studying–yourself. The outline is just a tool you use to study. Who says you even have to create an outline at all? There’s no cosmic decree that law students must use outlines to study. It’s just a tradition.
Posted by: Anonlawstudent | Nov 29, 2006 2:58:04 PM
If people can do well using old outlines, why do you care? What difference does it make whether they succeed using their own outlines, other people’s outlines, or no outlines at all. Why not set a word limit on what they bring and let them choose.
“My first (obnoxious) instinct was to get these outlines myself, find where they had mistakes or omissions, and use them to trip up the students who were relying on them. . . . Then I had a few days of vacation and realized that was sort of mean.”
In my opinion, this kind of behavior should be grounds for disciplinary action against the professor. These grades matter to students, and to penalize them for choosing a particular way of studying is mean (more than sort of), petty, and a violation of your duty as a professor. It is all the more outrageous given that the students appear to have no notice of your strange hostility toward studying from old outlines. I can only guess at your motive. Perhaps you feel insecure about your course and resent the idea that it could be “reduced” to a bunch of organized notes. I don’t know. I can only guess.
Incidentally, the rationalization that students learn better from preparing outlines is clearly a poor one. Given equal time investment, most people would prefer to make their own outlines. Using an old one, however, frees up time to invest in other forms of studying. Regardless, it is inappropriate for you to tell students they can’t study in certain ways, even if those desired methods work well for particular students and lead to excellent performance on the exam.
Posted by: Anonlawstudent | Nov 29, 2006 2:50:53 PM
Old outlines are openly circulated. We were even taught how to use old outlines during my 1L orientation. Shouldn’t this be encouraged? I make my own outlines but I read through old ones to see if there’s bits that may help me fill in gaps. As a general rule, if you use an old outline alone, you can get a grade lower than the person whose outline you are using, at best. You can’t get an A without doing the work yourself. Access to old outlines can actually make students lazy and harm their grades.
Posted by: b | Nov 29, 2006 2:32:42 PM
I don’t think I will ever understand this sort of paternalism. Everyone studies for exams in different ways, and the “best” way of studying will be the one that results in the best final exam grade. My best (non-seminar) grades have always been in classes where I used an old outline and my worst were in classes where I made an outline from scratch. Clearly, using an old outline was a pretty smart move.
Does using an old outline instead of making my own cause me to learn less? Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, it’s not something I would even care much about. As a law student, let me tell you, I’ll take an A with little or no learning over a B with a good understanding of the subject. I can obtain a good understanding of a legal field later, either through self study or taking classes for that purpose. But once I get a law school grade, there’s nothing I can do to get rid of that grade or make it better — that grade is stuck on my transcript for the rest of my life, and I’d rather get stuck with a bunch of As and A-s than a lot of Bs and B+s.
Posted by: Anthony | Nov 29, 2006 1:53:14 PM
Different strokes for different folks. I never was a big maker or user of outlines, and I did well in law school. I knew people who swore by making their own detailed outlines (and did well), and I knew people who habitually borrowed old ones (and did well).
I certainly don’t see an ethical problem with using old outlines, as long as you’re not copying them wholesale into your exam answers. I agree that they’re probably not of great practical use, though they can probably be helpful reference works in much the same way as it’s helpful if the casebook’s index is decent.
But given that they’re likely not keys to success–why bother to forbid them?
Posted by: David Krinsky | Nov 29, 2006 1:36:03 PM
You’re not kidding when you say that having a visiting professor puts students at a disadvantage compared to their other classes – no chance to go over course evaluations or talk to other students who have taken it, no old outlines, no old exams. It’s a pretty big risk to sign up for such a class at all (and one I am bitterly regretting at the moment), so I think it is nice to recognize that it throws students into untread territory and forces them to give someone they don’t know much about power over their grade in a given subject.
That said, I do make my own outlines and still find old outlines useful to double check something I’m not sure I wrote down correctly in class or to lift an especialy succinct rule summary from or something of the like. Just because they’re prepared by students doesn’t mean they can’t be good summaries or explanations of parts of the course material that weren’t clear the first time.
Posted by: Katie | Nov 29, 2006 11:20:09 AM
I’m not even sure it would take “great lengths”.
Posted by: a | Nov 29, 2006 11:17:58 AM
My anecdotal evidence — from my own experience and from my discussions with classmates and, later, my students — suggests that outlines have different value for different people. I never made any outlines at all during law school. In a few classes, I looked at friends’ outlines, or even commercial ones, while preparing for exams. But I didn’t generally find them a helpful way of reviewing the material. I seemed to get more mileage out of narrative material like treatises. Yet, I can certainly understand how others might find them useful, even indispensable. Different strokes, as they say.
Posted by: The Continental Op | Nov 29, 2006 10:51:17 AM
Up until my last semester in law school, I would have agreed with Professor Leib. I stubbornly insisted on writing my own outlines, never used commercial materials. Apparently, I did an awful job, because I wound up in the middle of the class with very mediocre grades. For my last semester, however, I became very busy and had no time to study for, much less make an outline for my commercial law class. A good friend of mine had basically copied a commercial outline into her notes and she made a copy of it for me, which I brought into the exam (it was open book). Not only did I get a B+ with just an hour or two of work, but several months later, when I took the bar, a question on Article 6 bulk transfers came up and I aced the question, all from what I recalled from my 1 hour scrutiny of a commercial outline.
In retrospect, I wish that I had copied outlines and used commercial materials. I might not have learned more or become a better lawyer, but I believe that it would have put me in the top 1/3 or top 1/4 of the class which might have made the difference with respect to several job opportunities.
Posted by: Carolyn Elefant | Nov 29, 2006 10:28:54 AM
Does printing count as “having a hand in preparing”? At Penn there was a more or less official outline bank and students were encouraged to contribute their old outlines at the end of the year. I sometimes used these as a start for my own and then read through my notes adjusting the one I started with so that it better fit what I thought was important. It seemed to work fairly well. (And if the Hastings students were really worried about seeming less smart they now look a bit silly.)
Posted by: Matt | Nov 29, 2006 10:26:35 AM
Everyone relies on old outlines when they are available. The solution in my opinion is to make the old outlines available to the entire class at the beginning of the class and make it clear that reliance on the old outline won’t get good grades–and if you have one don’t be complacent about your advantage.
The reason old outlines are so useful is that so many exams reward “kitchen-sinking” the test. If you want to prevent that, give strict page/line limits and reward analysis in context over boiler-plate.
Posted by: Bart Motes | Nov 29, 2006 10:22:26 AM