Opinion of the Socratic Method in teaching

[John Dule]

The Socratic Method is a teaching method currently employed at most law schools in the US. Here, the professor/teacher asks specific students at random to explain elements of what's being learned. The situation can be very tense, as students often don't know when they will be called or what they will be asked to explain. This forces students to prepare carefully for every class, and keeps them paying attention in the moment.

I like this method of teaching, and I think it should be put to use in our public schools. Obviously the questions should not be as in-depth or punishing as in law school (yesterday I was asked to explain f**king Seila Law v. CFPB, lol), but I think it gets students more involved in studying. Also, having a student "teach" the class for a short period of time helps with public speaking skills and social anxiety, and allows good students to demonstrate their knowledge. "Cold calls" are not graded, but the risk of public humiliation incentivizes students to bone up on at least the basics of the material before class.

What does Atlas think about this idea?

[Big Abraham]

I think it works well for many subjects, including law/jurisprudence as you mentioned, but also philosophy, literary studies, and probably many history classes as well. For more traditional "lecture-based" subjects, such as mathematics or the hard sciences, and possibly foreign languages, the more old-school method of rote learning will likely have to suffice.

[Del Tachi]

"Cold calling" is not synonymous with Socratic pedagogy.  There are Socratic methods that do not utilize cold calling, such as more open Harkness-style discussion or conference methods.  The American law school method is pretty limiting in how dependent it is on the instructor to guide discussion.

Proper Socratic methods should be a given in any kind of advanced coursework.  Even my upper-level graduate econ classes (i.e., statistics, international development, experimental design, etc.) were mostly about drawing out and questioning the presuppositions underlying our work.  "Good science" is inherently critical and should always be aware of its own limitations and assumptions.

[John Dule]

"Cold calling" is not synonymous with Socratic pedagogy.  There are Socratic methods that do not utilize cold calling, such as more open Harkness-style discussion or conference methods.  The American law school method is pretty limiting in how dependent it is on the instructor to guide discussion.

Proper Socratic methods should be a given in any kind of advanced coursework.  Even my upper-level graduate econ classes (i.e., statistics, international development, experimental design, etc.) were mostly about drawing out and questioning the presuppositions underlying our work.  "Good science" is inherently critical and should always be aware of its own limitations and assumptions.

Sure, but a more open discussion probably wouldn't work for most subjects. I can see it being useful in history, civics, or philosophy though, where it could be useful for students to put forth their own ideas.

[Ferguson97]

It can be beneficial for law school or other institutions of higher education, but I don't think it's useful at a K-12 level.

[John Dule]

It can be beneficial for law school or other institutions of higher education, but I don't think it's useful at a K-12 level.

Mr. Ferguson. Please explain the facts of Hawkins v. McGee.

[Ferguson97]

It can be beneficial for law school or other institutions of higher education, but I don't think it's useful at a K-12 level.

Mr. Ferguson. Please explain the facts of Hawkins v. McGee.

So I just did a quick google search and this is actually a pretty interesting case:

On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the amount of damages awarded should be equal to the difference between the value of what Hawkins was promised to receive—a "one hundred percent good hand" — and what he in fact received—a hairy palm—as well as any incidental losses he incurred as a result of the breach.

How would you even quantify something like that to award the damages?

[John Dule]

It can be beneficial for law school or other institutions of higher education, but I don't think it's useful at a K-12 level.

Mr. Ferguson. Please explain the facts of Hawkins v. McGee.

So I just did a quick google search and this is actually a pretty interesting case:

On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the amount of damages awarded should be equal to the difference between the value of what Hawkins was promised to receive—a "one hundred percent good hand" — and what he in fact received—a hairy palm—as well as any incidental losses he incurred as a result of the breach.

How would you even quantify something like that to award the damages?

This is actually the archetypal contract law case. We have three stages of the hand:

1) Perfect hand (this is the original state of the hand, and what the doctor promised)
2) Burned hand (the status quo before the surgery)
3) Burned and hairy hand (the situation after the surgery)

Dr. McGee argued that the damages should be calculated only in relation to the additional damage he caused. However, this is an erroneous view of how contracts work. In a lawsuit, damages awarded for a failure to complete a contract are meant to take you forward to where you would be if the contract was successfully completed-- not restore you to the prior situation.

I brought this up because of the classic scene in The Paper Chase (most cold-calls aren't this cringeworthy). Mr. Hart gets this question wrong because he agrees with Dr. McGee and calculates restorative damages. However, restorative damages don't apply in contracts, because if they did, then a person could simply refuse to complete their half of the contract and then argue they didn't damage you at all because you aren't any worse off. The correct calculation of the damages compares what was promised (a perfect hand) to what was delivered (a burned and hairy hand).

[Meclazine for Israel]

I use the Socratic method for sales in my business.

It is a persuasive style of conversation that (if structured correctly with the right questions) can reveal objections to purchasing, thus very useful.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Good. Should be used more in K-12, honestly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a TA, most of my work consisted of asking students questions about what they'd learned in lecture and the readings. Most often the exchange was pretty straightforward and I would end up summarizing the main takeaways at the end, but on at least some instances it gave rise to interesting conversations.

I have to admit I'm more comfortable lecturing, though. The back-and-forth is particularly hard on my social anxiety, and as an educator the last thing you want to do is come off as anxious.

[Orwell]

I like it, but it might put students who are more introverted into a bit of a bind. One love.