-- ElizabethOsei - 18 Jan 2021

I completely agree, Liz! The anxiety that is caused by the cold-calls sometimes distracts me from actually absorbing the knowledge the professor is saying.

Although I do see the value in thinking on your feet, a tool I have seen come in handy during my moot court competitions this past weekend, it is a form of teaching that has always perplexed me. Great entry; it really articulated a lot of the feelings I have been experiencing! Best, Maryam Asenuga

-- MaryamAsenuga - 19 Jan 2021

I also appreciate this post! I agree that it can be distracting, especially when I'm on a small panel and I know that I'll be called on in a certain class. I strangely find that I enjoy the socratic method more when people aren't told who is "on call" ahead of time because I guess I feel like it's unlikely I'll be called on and it only becomes something on my mind in that instant when the professor asks a question.

I do think cold calling/the socratic method can be valuable depending on how it's executed. While sometimes I feel like it's not clear what value is being added (I can imagine that was the case when your professor asked you to read his mind), there have been times where I've really benefited from cold calls. Whether I'm called on or someone else is, the questions the professor asks helps me think about the case in a way I've never thought about before. And instead of the professor just telling us what to think, I appreciate the chance to think independently before hearing the professors opinion. While I agree the same could be accomplished with volunteering, I feel like one benefit of cold calling is that it increases the chances that we'll hear from more people and get different perspectives.

Overall though I completely get where you are coming from. I don't think I ever realized the distraction cold calling can be for me when I know I'm "on call" so this post helped me be more aware of that. I hope it's something I can work on in the future re not being as distracted by it.

-- EthanSinger - 20 Jan 2021

I am not a fan. Even before applying to law school, I knew about "cold calls." I remember friends telling me about their apprehension of applying to law school simply because of the Socratic method. I thought it was weird that they would allow something so trivial, so small deter them from becoming an attorney. However, the day before I was "on-call" for my Civil Procedure Class, that fear was realized. We've been exploring what it is to be creative in law school, and to me, only our Professors are allowed to be creative using this method. I imagine our Professors have an exact answer or path they want us to follow when they ask their questions. In one of my doctrinal classes, my Professor explicitly told me he wanted me to read his mind. I am still recovering from that trauma.

My problem with the Socratic method is that I think it does more for the Professor than for the students. Professors get insight into how well students "perform" on the spot. However, I spend all class worried and anxious that I might be called on to explain some nuance that I do not understand or recall a small fact from one of the 10 cases I read days ago. After going through it last semester, I realized I never remembered anything from my cold call; I would always blackout--apparently, this was something familiar among many of my peers. Which leads me to ask, why do we still use it? I found absolutely no correlation between cold call performance and test performance. With test performance culminating in most if not all of our grades--why do we still use the Socratic method? Voluntary participation, rather than random cold calls, can accomplish learning the law just as well, or perhaps even better. Volunteering can enable students to gain more confidence in understanding the law and eliminate most of the anxiety that entirely only deter/get in the way of learning. I am all for abandoning tradition for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness.