| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Let's conduct a thought experiment. "If someone you loved were entering as a 1L in September of 2008, how would you help that person do better than you did?"
Pretend that the person you love wants out of law school the same thing you wanted out of law school. Multiple suggestions, multiple comment boxes. |
| |
- the [exam] is the paraphrase of [lectures] that the [professor] is most likely to generate.
- Students can predict the upcoming exam as the one which a student empathizing with the professor is most likely to write.
|
|
>
> |
- Is this characterization really useful? It seems like a needlessly complex way of saying that the professor teaches material, which students are expected to reproduce on the exam, and doing well is a matter of meeting that expectation. Why obfuscate it like this? Am I missing something? -- JuliaS - 30 Apr 2008
|
| | You empathize with a professor by paraphrasing, into your own words, his chosen language -- the syllabus and lecture -- the "primary sources".
You define how your peers empathize with a professor by paraphrasing, into your own words, their own paraphrases of the primary sources -- the language of your study group (present classmates) or multiple G-drive outlines (past classmates) -- the "secondary sources." |
|
>
> |
- Presenting success as measure of "empathy with the professor" elides a much more interesting claim about the nature of our education - namely, that the content itself is not intrinsically valuable, and success is only a matter of mimicking expectations. If that is what you mean to say - it's interesting and worth discussing directly. -- JuliaS - 30 Apr 2008
|
| | LESSON 1: DO NOT attempt to empathize with the professor privately; empathy is a relative term, a social construct, a function of the curve. Define a student empathizing with the professor in terms of how your peers empathize with your professor. All your learning is from your peers. |
| |
- and if you find enough G-Drive outlines, you'll only need a study group for social purposes.
|
|
<
< | Information equals ordered data. In principle, one single document could come into being that permits future students to empathize with and predict the professor without buying a casebook or transcribing a word of lecture. My outlines for Contracts and Civil Procedure, combining the best of six G-Drive outlines, might permit a student to do this. I plan to contribute them to the G-Drive. |
>
> | Information equals ordered data. In principle, one single document could come into being that permits future students to empathize with and predict the professor without buying a casebook or transcribing a word of lecture.
- Here again, you're flirting with the idea that the content of our education is not important. If you're gonna premise this whole project on that idea, I think you have to be able to defend it.-- JuliaS - 30 Apr 2008
My outlines for Contracts and Civil Procedure, combining the best of six G-Drive outlines, might permit a student to do this. I plan to contribute them to the G-Drive. |
| | But that's part of the problem: the addition of outlines makes it MORE difficult for future 1Ls to qualify all the data. If our goal is to provide the 1L with more information and less data, we should lower the costs to him of identifying information. We must identify for him a Maxwell's Demon that has the incentive to weed the data from the information. |
| | ... the perception that there's insufficient data / insufficient methods / insufficient intelligence can all be paraphrased as saying "there's sufficient data, methods and intelligence ... but not enough TIME." Someone investing the time (as I have done) into the G-Drive outlines can create that magic document; the criticism, which is a good one, is that this technique is not TIME-EFFECTIVE; but that's just to say that we need to outsource the process.
2) The curve is bullshit. Teachers could just as well grade us in absolute terms and then tweak the boundaries to conform to the curve. It makes sense: we're a motley bunch ... given a fair test, a random cross-section of 90 1Ls is going to conform to a curve.
Given that fact: More CONFIDENCE in grades is what I'm after, not better grades -- my goal is to make the content of the class (the object of empathy) more objective, less fuzzy, so that a bad grade can be defined in terms of "not learning material" rather than (as it currently is) "insufficient empathy." |
|
>
> |
- Yes, the curve is bullshit. But Femi is right. If your goal is to achieve more confidence in your grades, you would have to do so by increasing your performance and abilities relative to everyone else's. Collaboration that enriches yourself and your classmates equally is not the way to do that. Also, your very last sentence seems backwards to me. You want to free us from understanding bad grades as insufficient empathy? I'm not sure anyone did understand them that way until you contrived it, and I'm not sure you've given us any reason to accept that characterization. -- JuliaS - 30 Apr 2008
|
| | -- AndrewGradman - 29 Apr 2008
|
| | -- JosephMacias - 30 Apr 2008
|
|
>
> | If the idea is to improve grades (or confidence in grades) by gaming the system, I don't think collaboration is the right way to do that, given the curve. If the idea is to enrich learning through collaboration, I don't think that minimizing effort is the right criteria. More fundamentally - are you concerned with actual learning or merely grades? You seem to advocate pursuing the later without regard for the former, which seems like the exact wrong advice to give an incoming 1L.
As for your initial question: if someone I loved were entering law school and I wanted to help them do better, I would tell them to relax. Caring less about grades seems like the best way to maximize those dimensions - happiness, ability to learn, and all the other qualities of life.-- JuliaS - 30 Apr 2008 |
| | |