90 Similarity
further into case analysis. The dialogue here arguably attempts to mirror a thought
process, an idea captured in the popular description of law school education as
“learning to think like a lawyer.” In Socratic classrooms, this process of thinking
like lawyer is taught through dialogic speech in which students are by example
encouraged to ask themselves a series of questions about the case and to consider
the arguments on both sides in answering those questions. (In Chapter 6 we will
consider other ramifications of this dialogic form.)^6 Typically, the most canonical
Socratic teachers avoid giving direct answers or summaries, leaving it to the dia-
logic process and the student’s diligence in following it through to do the teach-
ing. This pure form is not common in the transcripts from this study; it is more
often the case that professors step back and provide answers, if not immediately,
then at the end of a particular case or doctrinal discussion—or as class is conclud-
ing. However, we can find some whispers of the canons of strict Socratic teaching
at points in the modified Socratic classes.
Transcript 5.4 [1/4/10]Prof.: Well, let’s go back to Mr. H. [Returning to selected Socratic dialogue
participant] What is the good involved in the transaction?
Mr. H.: I would say that it () service.
Prof.: Is there a good in that transaction? Is Article 2 applicable at all?
Come on now, I don’t want to (). Yes or no.
Mr. H.: No, it’s not.
Prof.: Is that a “no” that you believe in, or is that a “no” that you’re just
wimping out? [[Class laughter]] Are you sure?
Mr. H.: I am sure. I would say that it is “no”--
Prof.: --No. No good in that transac-
tion. UCC, no. Common law, yes.
Student #2: So they, they’re- the UCC presents a point that isn’t a good.
Prof.: For you to discern a difference between the two. And to wonder,
and be concerned about, lose sleep. That’s what this is all about.
Okay?[... ]In this rather elliptical exchange, the professor is focusing on a key distinction
in U.S. contract law: whether the contract involved goods or services. Contracts
for goods are covered by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC); contracts for
services are not, and must be dealt with under common law rules.^7 Although the
professor’s question and subsequent comment presuppose that the students
understand this distinction, Student #2 seems to be indicating that this is a
new insight and attempts to clarify the point. Despite his apparent refusal
to respond at the end of this excerpt, the professor has actually already pro-
vided the answer to the student’s question in a previous turn. Note also that, as
in Transcript 4.1 at the beginning of Chapter 4, these comments by the profes-
sor at times approach a satiric level, operating at a metalevel to make fun of tra-
ditional conceptions surrounding law teaching. (Yet, in each case, there is