IT's been a really interesting discussion regarding the use of edited vs. unedited cases -- Daniel Solove's added some thoughts on the debate at Concurring Opinions as well. Orin's last comment:
"In my view, a well-edited case still requires the student to do all the work that you think is so important. It may be that you have had unfortunate experience with over-edited cases, in which they just had the facts and the holding. Or it may be that there are some particularly incoherent opinions in the areas that you teach. But in my view, none of the skills you mention are less well raised when a student reads 5 well-edited cases as compared to 2 or 3 unedited cases. Indeed, I think the contrary is true.
Perhaps we're really just bickering about matters of degree, though. In particular, you say in your original post that you try to choose unedited cases that don't have too much irrelevant stuff in them. I gather you do that for precisely the reason that I think edited cases are better; you think too much irrelevant stuff is distracting and useless to assign. If so, perhaps our differences are more narrow that it appears.
I think that's a fair comment, and I think it usefully pinpoints our disagreement. "None of the skills you mention are less well raised when a student reads 5 well-edited cases as compared to 2 or 3 unedited cases." If one of the skills I'm talking about is "learning how to sort out the irrelevant from the relevant," having an editor sort it out for you does not help you learn it, even if you read 100 edited opinions.
At the same time, I do acknowledge that truly irrelevant stuff is distracting, and that sometimes getting rid of it does help students focus on the task at hand. Our definitions of the "truly irrelevant," though, are probably worlds apart; very, very little falls in that category for me, while I suspect that a good deal more stuff falls in that category for Orin.
Related Posts (on one page):
- On Legal Doctrine, and Teaching Law:
- A final (for now!) word on "on teaching law"
- On Teaching Law, II:
- On teaching law:
How much of this skill is generated or taught in a legal writing course? I felt like there we had to go get the unedited material and review it for the pertinent areas.
Mr. Dowling and NatSecLawGuy raise an interesting point. As valuable as it may be to learn how to sift through irrelevant material in cases, there are time constraints. There are lots of things that it would be nice if law students learned while in school, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those things should be added onto the syllabi of all their courses or that their time would be better spent learning those things than learning substantive law.
For example, why not give students a brief statement of an issue and ask them to write a two-page memo on it (e.g., The city passed a zoning law that will derail your client's plans to build a widget factory on property she owns. Can she sue the City under the Fifth Amendment? If so, what clause? What will she need to prove?).
Such an assignment would require the students to hone their Westlaw skills (an essential skill in each job I've had), as well as to read a number of cases. If they perform the assignment correctly, they should notice that lower courts cite repeatedly the same same handful of cases, which should signal to them that these are the key cases to read and to understand.
I understand that no law prof wants to take the time to grade 100 short memos, but there are ways to avoid this problem (e.g., collect memos from only ten students on any given day; collect them all and "grade" only to see whether they've identified the governing cases; etc.). But in my humble opinion, such an approach to law teaching would better prepare students for whatever jobs they have after law school, while still forcing students to grapple with the uncertainty of the law, as Prof. Post rightly emphasizes.
When I was in law school (thirty-plus years ago, now) we had a class that required exactly that.
The thing I thought was most missing in the appellate case analysis we did in law school classes was some sense of "what happened next?" OK, the case was remanded - did the plaintiff win on remand? Was it appealed again?
I can't see actual students putting particularly much work into this sort of assignment once they realize that professors aren't going to grade them attentively.
I sincerely think he would receive an excellent education.
"I can't see actual students putting particularly much work into this sort of assignment once they realize that professors aren't going to grade them attentively."
Bama, here's what you do. For starters, forget what you think anyone in law school is thinking.
In law school, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Such is why I constantly advocate all Article III players undergo neuro-psychological testing before/throughout their tenure.
(1) Read, re-read the entire case assigned.
(2) Open the "handbook" and read the section that discusses the case. Make a few notes from the handbook, go to class.
(3) Sit back and wait for the prof to query the question the handbook/manual tells your prof to ask.
(4) Wait for the other students to struggle to get the prof's question wrong.
(5) Raise you hand slightly and give the answer the handbook tells the professor is the "correct" one, regardless of the fact you think the book has it wrong. Profs NEVER deviate from the handbook.
You will notice your exams will usually follow the suggested examination questions" listed in the "Officials Teachers Handbook" to a "T."
The law review geeks always manage to get their hands on the "Official Teachers Manual." The "manual" is a dirty little secret they try to keep to themselves. Ever wonder why the law review geeks always do so good on law school exams despite the enormous time they spend in law review?
PEACE