LSAT instructor says what?

One of my friends is an LSAT instructor.  On the topic of closed-book examinations in law, he asserts the following:

"To those who say that closed-book examinations are a poor parallel to anything you might do in law, I present the following scenario: What if you are kidnapped, locked in a small basement without internet access or your legal materials, and forced to draft memos? If you don't have the closed-book examination skills, your work in those situations would be sub-par."

Comments

[Greg W.]

I stand by my assertion to him: If you let yourself be taken alive, you don't deserve to be a lawyer.

[Marnie Tunay]

ha ha ha!

And, "looking things up" is not the same as learning them.

Moreover, it's a lot easier to relate knowledge to our understanding and experience, if that knowledge has been instilled in us, become a part of our being.

[Jim Young]

Marnie, I am not sure I want tort law, for example, to be "part of my being".

also, memorization and reguritation may be appropriate in some fields, but I think looking thinks up and correctly applying is more appropriate to this field.

but, what do I know. I'm just a law student.

[Marnie Tunay]

Yes, Grasshopper Jim, that needs clarifying. We know something when: we really understand it and can apply it, can appreciate its significance, relate it to other things we know, can teach it to others.

What we really understand, becomes a part of our psyche. Eventually, it changes us, changes our perspective, our choices.

When it changes our behavior, it has become a part of our 'being.'

Example: last year, when I decided to publish a report on accountability issues at Grant MacEwan College (now University), the first thing I did was invest in some serious books on Canadian libel law: "Libel," by Peter A. Downard; and "Canadian Libel and Slander Actions," by Roger D. McConchie and David A. Potts.

I read both books all the way through several times each, made notes, read 'em again.

Then I had a deep understanding of what I could and could not say, without getting sued for libel.

I could not possibly have published the materials I did on MacEwan, and got away with it, if I had relied on looking up libel law cases and principles to walk me through what became a series of slam-downs of both MacEwan and the Minister of Advanced Education.

I would have made fatal errors. And I would assuredly have been sued. I am certain of that.

In short, details can be looked up. But, if they are not in your mind, will you know to look them up when you're in a hurry?

Morevover, principles have to be instilled in your understanding. And principles are often embedded in the details.

Another example that transcends the legal: one of my favourite subjects of study is that of strategy. Two of my favourite books in that study are: The Art of War by Sun Tsu, and the 33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene. I have three different translations of the first, and I have read both many times. This area is a good example of one you can't really learn by "looking things up." But, intensive study changes one over time, and the principles begin to seep into one's behavior, get applied in life situations.

This, too, is an example of knowledge becoming a part of one's being.

I recently commented on Gareth Morley's ability to teach. Gareth is a good example of someone whose legal knowledge has become a part of his being. Do you know who he is, exactly, Grasshopper? He's a nationally recognized legal expert** on government liability. Yet, when he has a mind to, he can teach legal principles even to novices, very clearly and simply: for example, when he is talking about the difference between disgorgement and punishment here:

http://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/faculty/2010/03/saskatchewan-v-thatcher-or-curtailing-expression-an-ad-hoc-approach.html

and, wherein you can see that he KNOWS to draw on the relevant cases, - because he knows of their existence.

At one point in his education, they were drummed into his mind, and he had to learn them. He learned them well enough to abstract the legal principles they embedded, and to make those principles a part of his understanding of law.

http://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/faculty/2010/03/pullman-no-one-has-the-right-to-spend-their-life-without-being-offended.html

In short, if you can apply and use your knowledge in new circumstances, if you can relate it effectively to other things you've learned, last: if you can teach it, then, Grasshopper Jim, it has become a part of your being.

** Which is why a slam from Gareth can really hurt a lawyer, and he of all people should know what it feels like to be on the business end of a public slam - before he dishes it.

[Ian R]

Marnie: Is there really any reason to be so disrespectful to Jim Young? This is particularly curious given that you have chosen to lecture him on law exams, which is an area where he has direct knowledge and which I don't believe you do (correct me if I'm wrong there).

You can't walk into an open book law exam and expect to pass. An open book law exam assumes that you know the material well, and will ask you tough questions that you can't teach yourself during the exam. What it does allow you to do is to ensure you don't accidentally confuse two cases with some similarity (was that Martineau or Cardinal?). It also allows you to spend less studying effort on mnemonics to ensure that you don't accidentally miss one element of the however many (say, five) elements a given test may consider, even if the only role that element plays in the exam question is just to mention that it's not a live issue. As a result, you can spend more effort in engaging the material in a deeper way, including considering how you'd tackle particularly tough legal issues that haven't yet been addressed by the courts, the usefulness of arguments made in the dissents, and so forth.

In short, you've based an insulting post around serious misunderstandings and a tenuous grip of the actual facts. You owe Mr. Young an apology, but I don't hold out much hope for that.

[Jim Young]

Anyway, whether open-book or closed-book, I do not expect that law school exams are much similar to any sort of lawyer work. But, I guess they have to come up with some way to rank us.

[Shawn King]

Was any of this on point with anything at all?

[Marnie Tunay]

To Ian: Funny, Jim doesn't seem to be too broken up about it. Probably because a: he knows me a lot better than you do, and b: he has a sense of humour.

[emilyscott]

It also allows you to spend less studying effort on mnemonics to ensure that you don't accidentally miss one element of the however many. He learned them well enough to abstract the legal principles they embedded, and to make those principles a part of his understanding of law.

Best Attorney

[Marnie Tunay]

Oh, speaking of Grant MacEwan College (now University), this just in:

Goodbye, Paul Byrne:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Byrne+bids+fond+farewell+MacEwan/2925139/story.html

I look forward to hearing good news about Brent Quinton, MacEwan's Chief Financial Officer, within the next year.