I came across the following comments I made in the Summer of 97 after the students had performed particularly badly on the Midterm Examination. They might be interesting to read in advance. Later in the term you will be linked directly to the exams rather than this comment.

The following comments WILL NOT BE ON THE EXAM! However, I am convinced that those who fail to read further will suffer in some fashion, sooner or later.

HELP PLEASE! Somebody explain to me how this was a hard test. Maybe it was a bad test - I'll explain below.

I have thought long and hard about teaching and about teaching online most recently. The results we have achieved online, as expressed by your performance on the midterm, is not out-of-line with prior courses. I must admit I'm disappointed, but I've come to the conclusion that my classroom courses are underperforming and you are underperforming. Really, an average 66% on a test that basically requires simply that you know the terms is rather dismal. A number of reasons could account for this, a new teacher, a new subject, a new kind of multiple-choice test, and, of course, the favorite reasons: The test was unfair, ambiguous, there was more than one correct answer on several questions, or, simply, it was just a bad test.

I discount the last characterization; having taught for 25 years and raised ( or raising ) six children, I have discovered the measure of a bad test: it is a test you didn't do well on. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that the test was bad, although not necessarily a poor measure of your accomplishment in this course. I think my mistake has been to pretend that learning about the law is easy. If you haven't seen it yet, go out and rent the movie "Paper Chase." It's about the rigors of being a freshman at Harvard Law, where the notorious Professor Kingsfield terrorizes the unprepared and the less-than-brilliant. His method works, mine apparently doesn't. [Whenever one of my children brought back a poor grade from high school, she told me what a rotten teacher she had; she couldn't learn anything. I asked, "Did anyone get a good grade?" "Oh, sure ...." So-and-so, either a geek or the teacher's pet managed a good grade.]

CAVEAT #1: No teaching takes place without learning. (axiomatic)

CAVEAT #2: Teachers don't teach; students learn (or don't learn)

What I mean by this is that teachers cannot force-feed information, knowlege, or wisdom. Without active learning, no teaching takes place. The burden is on you. Teachers are really "facilitators," a term which has unfortunately acquired a 'touchy-feely' connotation but which is nevertheless an accurate, in my estimation, description of the best a teacher can do. You should know, if you don't already, that the reputation of today's college student is not good. They are described as unmotivated, lazy, dishonest, and, worst of all, totally complacent about their appalling ignorance.How did this image arise? Perhaps it's the constant whining. My own explanation is that the many years of 'feel-good' ("The important thing is that the students feel good about themselves.") public education has produced a generation of students who expect to be praised no matter how minimal their effort and performance.

But I guess we teachers have 'facilitated' your downfall. Is this a game you're playing or do your instructors usually tell you precisely what is on the test? Do they simply read from their notes and test you to see if you got it all down precisely? If this is really the archetypical university classroom, then your professors have been facilitating minimal learning. My impression, however, is that this is merely the preferred teaching scenario, preferred by students because they can choose their grade without the discomfort of serious thought. They can aim for that A-, B-, or C- by tailoring their effort to the test measurement.

Now, let's talk about my midterm in this context. After I received the computer printout of the grades and handed them back to the students, I decided to do some rough analysis. First, I went through the test and marked all those questions which I considered to be simple identifications or straightforward definitions. I found that 25 out of 50 of the questions fit in that category. Obviously my attempt to make this test easy did not work. Next, I decided to see how many questions were missed in each decade, and I found a strong trend, more powerful even than I expected:

There is a remarkable consistency here, considering that the test covered the chapters in the order in which they were assigned. Two possibilities that I could think of: Either the material became progressively more difficult or my students learned less as the term proceeded. Both these factors could be at work and the test questions could have been progressively more difficult. I noted that the first two chapters were largely narrative, about lawyers and paralegals, while the last chapter, Civil Procedure, covers a rather complex and little known (to novice laypersons) area of the law. When I mentioned this to my wife, however, she said she had found civil procedure easy to study for the test because all she had to do was memorize the definitions of the terms (e.g., 'deposition,' 'voir dire'). I checked this out and found to my surprise that questions 41-50 had eight simple questions (identification and definition) and only two requiring a higher order of mental activity. My conclusion, then, is that you learned less each week as the term progressed. I also concluded that you learned less each week because you applied yourselves less each week. If my conclusions are false, I would be very interested in hearing another explanation.

MEA CULPA While this argument puts the blame for poor performance on the students, I must accept my own responsibility. How did I take a bunch of bright college students and let them perform so far below their capabilities? I feel certain that you would have studied more diligently for Professor Kingsfield of Harvard Law. In fact I came to the conclusion that law students at law schools learn largely because they are terrorized into studying 70 hours a week. At Harvard the tradition has been to test freshman law students at the end of the year - no midterms, no midyears, no guts, no glory. Now, imagine you were in school with the very best and brightest students from around the country and you didn't know how you were doing until the end of the year. You would definitely buy the book and start reading. If your teacher wasn't any good, you'd just have to study harder to learn it yourself.

MEA CULPA It's my fault. I made it seem too easy. The study of law is not easy and it's not fun. I found my two and a half years at law school to be the most boring of my life. I never cease to be amazed that many of our Legal Studies students like it, but then maybe we're coddling them.

MEA CULPA It's my fault. I didn't challenge you. My reading questions were too easy - I really believe this. Since the course is basically an online course, I felt compelled to make sure you read the chapters and I wanted to point out important areas of law for you. I find from discussions with some of the students that many students simply take the questions and look for the answers without reading the rest of the chapter. (This would account for the repeated question, "Now the midterm questions are going to be taken from the reading questions, aren't they?") Also, the questions take little thought. Unfortunately, it is a little late to ask different questions, BUT...

I can change the exam and the class discussions. So I propose to make the final exam much HARDER than the midterm with the expectation that you will do much BETTER. It is an experiment. So you need to study a lot harder, maybe even read ahead (blasphemy!) so you don't neglect the last chapter. As with the midterm, there will be no review - that's baby stuff. How will I make it more difficult? Well, let's concentrate on the cases. The case questions are the more difficult questions in the book and the course. I propose to draw one-half of the final exam questions from the cases, very likely they will be adapted from the case questions. I also propose to devote class discussion to case questions. Actually, I think this is appropriate. You have covered the basics with regard to the American legal system and should have acquired a familiarity with much of the terminology, at least enough to be able to read the cases.

The other area for useful discussion is 'Themes.' The themes disccussions are not due just yet but I think it is time we discussed them. I will post 'stuff,' probably in the form of queries - something for you to think about, a hint in the right direction.

Daytona and Brevard: I have written this without consulting Drs. Hall and Flagg, so I cannot promise that their sentiments are the same as mine. Nor should I force them to give the same final as mine, although that was the original intention. I'll let them speak for themselves. And, by the way, I made up the questions on the midterm, so don't blame them too much.