« Georgetown's "Apostles" | Main | "Smart Mice, Not So Smart People" »
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
What Is a Student-Focused Casebook?
I am finishing my work on one casebook and hoping to start another (or two) over the next year. Of course, by "finishing," I mean that my co-authors and I still have something close to a lifetime of work remaining, when one considers the time that will be required to do an index. Nevertheless, most of the page-proofing is done and I am pleased with the way it has come out.
Doing the project, however, has caused me to reflect on the goals of a casebook. When I was initially choosing the ones I would use in my courses on constitutional law and criminal procedure, I was amazed by the number of books that purported to be student-focused or student-friendly. (I chose Farber, Eskridge & Frickey in constitutional law and Dressler & Thomas in criminal procedure, both of which take something of a middle-of-the-road position.) Nobody wants a book that is unfriendly to students for the sake of making the task of learning more difficult than it would otherwise be, but I have never quite understood whether there is more-or-less universal agreement on what a student-friendly casebook is. Do books receive more adoptions by marketing themselves that way?
My sense is that books that offer themselves as student-friendly typically edit cases heavily; ask relatively few unanswerable, philosophical questions; and include very little in the way of academic commentary. I am unlikely to adopt such a book, but I don't know that this makes me less "student-friendly." For me, the ultimate in casebooks is Hart & Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System, which stated in the preface to the first edition, "We have proceeded here on the conviction that over-simplification is no service to advanced students and have tried to put before the reader something of the breadth of background and knowledge that an experienced teacher brings to a subject -- or a teacher's manual seeks to give an inexperienced one."
The approach shown in that sentence has two important elements, as I see it. First, the casebook serves an important function by presenting a subject with some complexity. "Advanced" students who gravitate to the subject can use the text to spark research, and all will come away with an appreciation for how involved the subject is. Second, though the material should not be "over-simplifi[ed]," it should provide adequate background to allow students to approach the material knowing the way in which portions of the subject fit together. I've especially appreciated books that use this second animating principle to introduce sections with brief essays that place in context the material that follows the essays. I think doing so makes an otherwise hard and inaccessible book much more inviting, without watering-down the substance.
In short, casebooks can be student-friendly in different senses, and it really depends, it seems to me, on which students one wishes to focus on. A book, like a professor, can be student-friendly by not challenging the students, or it can be student-friendly by being a resource that will serve them well beyond the requirements of the class itself. The first approach hopes to reach more students and keep them interested in the subject by not overwhelming them with unessential details or academic debates. The second attempts to encourage the students who already have the motivation to throw themselves into the material. Aren't both approaches student-friendly in their own ways?
Am I out-of-tune with the times? Is the trend to treat casebooks as teaching tools only, or is there a market for books that are in effect hybrid casebooks-treatises? Is the "student-friendly" casebook movement concentrated in survey courses, or is there a move in that direction in the upper-division subjects as well?
Posted by Michael Dimino on November 15, 2006 at 04:08 PM in Life of Law Schools | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d83460fd4b69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Is a Student-Focused Casebook?:
» Student Friendly from Crescat Sententia
Michael Domino has an intriguing post at PrawfsBlawg about what makes a textbook "student friendly." As he notes, the phrase is probably used to signal that the cases are heavily edited, that the notes consist mostly of answers rather than... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 15, 2006 10:48:03 PM
Comments
I would tend to think that the latter type - those which "encourage the students who already have the motivation to throw themselves into the material" - would serve students better, but on the other hand, I have the luxury of saying that as someone who would be reading it without crushing time pressures of concurrent classes (each with their own casebooks to digest) and deadlines to meet.
Posted by: Simon | Nov 15, 2006 5:30:31 PM
I think "student friendly" is a usability concept, not a content concept. A student will want a textbook that tells them what they need to know, the least painfully as possible. Thus case-editing is important; typography can be important; effective use of sidebars and endnotes can be important. You can communicate a lot of sophisticated content in a book as long as you figure out how to communicate it effectively, and I think that's what "student friendly" means.
Posted by: Cathy | Nov 15, 2006 6:31:22 PM
I'm currently in Evidence, and the professor uses a casebook (Mueller/Kirkpatrick) that may be the least student-friendly thing ever written. I understand the notion that the case method is meant to lead students to certain conclusions on their own, but this thing makes Socrates look like the master of the declarative statement; everything is in the form of a question, with roughly three quarters of sentences ending with the phrase "isn't it?" or "doesn't it?" I DON'T KNOW -- DOES IT? It drives me and my classmates up the wall.
So, uh, don't do that.
Posted by: en | Nov 15, 2006 6:58:40 PM
Someone should consider making a casebook that has answers to questions and problems, just like books for every other field on the planet. People learn through feedback. Problems are great, but without answers, they don't provide the necessary feedback. This is why the Examples and Explanations series is so popular: it provides answers to problems!
Posted by: Anonlawstudent | Nov 15, 2006 7:33:24 PM
As a student, I looked at my casebooks as learning/teaching aids, exclusively. I never expected a casebook to describe the complexity of a given area of the law--I assumed that any given area of the law was more complex than a semester's worth of a casebook could convey while remaining comprehensible and digestible. When researching a particular field of law in greater depth, I found the casebook a generally unhelpful place to start.
As a practicioner, I have never referred to a casebook in my research. Treatises, class notes, and law journals, yes, but never a casebook--even though I kept several in anticipation that they might be useful. Casebooks are just not formatted, indexed, or edited in a way that makes them the most efficient use of my research time. I cannot envision a casebook that would effectively balance its primary role as a vehicle for law student education and a secondary role as the best (or even a very good) resource for a researcher, whether an academic or a practicioner.
I think this reflects the tension between what each group needs most. Law students are being trained in reading cases and piecing together an argument from various primary sources--whether statutes, case law, or academic resources. In order to for this exercise to be fruitful, the student needs to have primary responsibility for teasing out distinctions, making comparisons, engaging in critical reading and generally filling in gaps. The practicioner wants a quick and dirty statement of what the law is--the black letter law, where it exists; circuit splits and a summation of why they have come to be; a boiling down of academic disputes in interpretation or application; and a comprehensive, well-indexed set of sources for further research. This at least partly reflects the fact that clients don't want to pay for inefficiently used research time. I don't think a casebook can meet these needs while providing enough gaps and inviting enough reflection to be useful as a law student teaching tool.
Posted by: kmg | Nov 15, 2006 8:08:04 PM
Interesting thread. I have to confess I find that, the longer I prep courses anew or choose a casebook (hat tip, Michael: I'd never have the stamina to write one!), the less confident I am in my choices for what works and doesn't work. It's not that there aren't obviously bad moves. For example, books w/ incessant rhetorical questioning with no feedback or even any clues as to answers are bad (as en says). But I have to agree that from the "all things considered" perspective and how different people learn, different people teach, and different times open up different teaching moments, Hart & Wechsler must rank at or near the top. Of course, it's problem is you have to assign ~30-40 pages a night in a 4 credit class to get into range of its power stroke--a reading burden not feasible w/ many people. My bottom line for people doing these monsters today: make sure there are real choices in the market for different learning styles, paces, etc., and be accountable to a student reader and not a future practitioner. The latter will consult something else as authority, anyway.
Posted by: Jamie Colburn | Nov 15, 2006 9:19:35 PM
Of course, it's problem is you have to assign ~30-40 pages a night in a 4 credit class to get into range of its power stroke--a reading burden not feasible w/ many people.Justice O'Connor remarked in a speech last year that pre-retirement, she was reading something on the order of 1600 pages a day. I sometimes wonder if there is some secret to reading and digesting material rapidly that no one ever told me; I could skim 30 to 40 pages a night for a class, but to read and contemplate and digest? I just can't imagine.
Posted by: Simon | Nov 15, 2006 9:50:39 PM
Hart & Wechsler is a great textbook because the students in Federal Courts are a self-selected group anyway. In another class - Corporations, for instance - a casebook like that would be a disaster.
The best casebook I used as a student was Warren & LoPucki's Secured Transactions casebook. Based on practice problems rather than cases, the book was perfect for a student that wanted to learn the basics of the subject.
The worst casebook I used as a student was Keaton & Sargentich's Torts book. Almost nothing by cases and squibs. No commentary at all.
Posted by: Joe | Nov 15, 2006 10:39:43 PM
As a student, I find these "casebook-treatises" and the teachers that inflict them on us more than a little disingenuous, because even if I had the time to read 40 pages of 55%+ note material with more than mild understanding, I wouldnt have the time to tease out all the subtleties on the final. And, in law school, the final is everything. I think the best thing to do is to give us a hint of what the larger questions/debates are, without block-quoting extensively from your own scholarship.
Posted by: Too many citations... | Nov 16, 2006 12:48:49 AM
Joe, funny you say that - I had Sargentich for Torts and although I (and most of the class) agreed that he was a disaster, we loved the book. I generally don't find a lot of the commentary in casebooks useful, but having squibs that are well-edited so you can understand what's going on in the case and get the point without reading the whole thing are priceless.
Posted by: kmm | Nov 16, 2006 8:37:54 AM
the best thing to do is to give us a hint of what the larger questions/debates are, without block-quoting extensively from your own scholarship.Well, on that front, isn't there a reasonable argument for setting a casebook that includes discussion of the cases by the author(s) - written by someone other than the prof themselves - that the student is then provided with a perspective on the cases that the prof might disagree with?
Posted by: Simon | Nov 16, 2006 8:43:48 AM
In a good book, the author should be able to explain why each page is there and why it is worth the time it takes to read it. More often than not, it should be obvious to the reader as well—although maybe not until much later. “Bad” casebooks are ones that read like the professor churned out a book by preparing an outline and digging up one case for each rule.
Posted by: Jarndyce | Nov 16, 2006 8:55:05 AM
The better casebooks I've used are teaching tools only. If I need a treatise, I know where the library is (all too well) and the treatises are usually more useful than casebook notes. A treatise helps you find information on a specific topic, but when I'm reading a casebook, what am I going to do with all the in-depth information? Innumerable paragraphs saying "Professor x argues that ____. Citation. But professor y thinks ___. Citation." All I get is the opinions of some professors. I don't have any real way to judge the validity from that and have no intention of spending more time to find and read the cited articles during reading.
I've found Hart & Wechsler to be frustrating for that reason. Its cases are well-edited, but it contains so much side information that makes it hard to tell what I should be focusing on. (Not to mention that the side information makes it back-breakingly heavy and, when reading near either the front or back, slanted toward the middle so badly that highlighting is difficult.)
I hardly think a casebook that's primarily cases is "not challenging to students." Rather, it's not *unnecessarily* challenging to students. You could speak in gibberish during class and give a final exam in Wingdings if you want to make sure your class is challenging. But how useful is that? I don't want to be challenged by the volume or complexity of the reading--I want to be challenged by the content. And if properly taught (as my Fed/State Courts class is), the cases turn out by themselves to be plenty challenging, because the content is really dug out of them.
Posted by: Ivan | Nov 16, 2006 9:11:18 AM
1. Don't present "famous" cases that are no longer relevant or have been overruled except in discussion or as squibs.
2. Always try to highlight the current state of the law. You can talk about how Professor Finklebottom feels, but make sure that its clear through relative emphasis what's important, and that's the current state of the law.
3. Sometimes less is more. But sometimes its not. A factual background and information about procedural history is always welcome. Often, its best to give a bracketed summary of these things instead of relying on the court's description. On the other hand, important facts pr procedural stuff that the court is relying on, or background that is not readily apparent--like, the reason that the court is taking a harsh tack is because the lawyers misrepresented something or one of the parties screwed over the other one in excessively shady fashion--please let us know via brackets or notes at the end.
4. There's other stuff but I can't think of it now.
Posted by: Bart Motes | Nov 16, 2006 10:47:31 AM
Sometimes less is more. But sometimes its not. A factual background ad information about procedural history is always welcome.In legal materials as in drumming, recall the wisdom of Neil Peart: "the problem with KISS - 'keep it simple, stupid' - is that it tends to lead to LOVE - 'leave out virtually everything.'"
Posted by: Simon | Nov 16, 2006 12:14:25 PM
LoPucki and Warren's Secured Transactions book is also the best casebook I have encountered.
Posted by: R2 | Nov 16, 2006 12:33:34 PM
1. "Student-friendly" is code for hornbook or shallow.
2. Hart & Wechsler is in a class by itself.
In its favor, it presents a complicated subject in all of its complexity, and does a good job of pointing out where the debates are.
Against it, Fallon, Meltzer and Shapiro's ulterior motive of self-promotion is rampant throughout the book. It starts at the beginning where two of the authors dedicate it to the third author, and continues right on through. Some of the more confusing passages of the textbook turn out to be pitches for their law review articles, in which they make an area of the law out to be hopelessly confusing, then cite their articles as miraculously clearing all of that up. Whenever cases are edited, they seem to be edited with an eye to emphasizing the portions that cite their stuff rather than with an eye to focusing on the salient parts of the case. And the supplements are basically letting students know which cases have cited their articles since the last edition went to press.
Throughout federal courts, I would go back and forth between thinking that the casebook was the best thing ever and thinking that I was being misled by a trio of snake oil salesmen.
Fortunately, I also had the Chemerinsky book on Federal Jurisdiction.
Posted by: anonymous | Nov 16, 2006 12:38:50 PM
I would say hypos and problems -- maybe some with answers provided and some without -- are really great and very under-utilized in many casebooks. Since that is how you *test* it suggests that should also be how you *teach*, not just as a matter of fairness in preparing students but also because of the pedagogical value (ratified by its use on exams) of applying law to facts in ways that exhibit "thinking like a lawyer." In some instances, a good case study or hypo will teach more than reading an appellate opinion.
Posted by: anon | Nov 16, 2006 4:38:04 PM
We should also ask why courses use "casebooks" at all, considering that most lawyers do not spend the majority of their time reading appellate opinions. Let's face it. The current system is in place simply because that was what Langdell created at Harvard in the 19th century, and for a variety of institutional reasons, law schools have been shamefully slow to abandon this system. Harvard's dean admitted as much in discussing the schools recent curricular changes, which she called long overdue.
So perhaps the real question should be why the casebook should center on appellate opinions. Why not use statutes, rules, etc. in rough proportion to their actual importance for the relevant area of law?
Posted by: Anonlawstudent | Nov 16, 2006 6:03:22 PM
Hart and Wechsler is the worst law school textbook I have ever used. That it is both exhaustive in coverage and useful for finding cases on obscure topics of federal court jurisdiction, does not make it a good casebook. It makes it useful for research. For one thing, cases dealing with the jurisdiction of the federal courts tend to be dense and poorly written. The idea of trying to shoehorn the "main idea" of some of those cases, especially in the (related) areas of sovereign immunity, Section 1983 liability, qualified immunitity into a squib case or edited version is a disaster. This is not to say that it is impossible to write hornbooks/outlines for Fed Courts (Chemerinsky's book is quite good), but a casebook author needs to make a choice of whether he/she wants to focus on substance or give the student a feel of the governing rules of federal jurisdiction. Hart & Wechsler strives for completeness when such a goal is impossbile - and this renders the book a mishmash of poorly edited opinions, useless commentary and an unnecessary abundance of law review articles and commentary about the debates raised in those articles. That is all and good and very interesting for an academically inclined student (which I was and am) but it leaves one without a sense of "what am I suppose to get out of this opinion," yet alone a federal courts class. To point out one specific example, the habeas section of that book is terrible --the cases on retroactivity in the habeas context need to actually be presented in a more complete manner than as a squib. And how about the authors admitting that St. Cyr is virtually impossible to explain? But oh no - they highlight it as a squib with nothing more. A federal courts textbook would be FAR MORE USEFUL if the authors included lower federal court cases interpreting these challenging (if not mystifying) Supreme Court opinions. I think the general approach of that book -- the kitchen sink approach -- makes it more suited as a desk reference rather than a classroom textbook. I also want to echo the comment above that the book was overwhelmingly self-promoting. And enough with the didatic already. (In contrast, Hazard, Tait and Fletcher's civil procedure book is an example of a truly useful, well-organized, well written textbook. To me, that's a model of an excellent law school textbook.)
In terms of more general comments about law school textbooks (or rather their use), a professor needs to be straight with his/her students on how he/she is going to teach the class. If the class is highly theoretical in nature, then certain textbooks are more suited for that approach - but the professor has to be CLEAR to the students that that is the approach and that is the reason for selecting a particular textbook. It gives students an idea (at least for upper level classes) if they should drop the class or not. Sometimes a choice is not possible because of the limited choices in a field - the result being that there is no good textbook. In that case the onus is on the professor to recognize how a generally useless (i.e. poorly written/organized textbook) will complement the class rather than be the primary source for the class.
Posted by: Alex | Nov 16, 2006 6:11:26 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
