Student Participation and Social Difference 197suggest that in some, but not all, Socratic classes, this dynamic may be fed by
women’s tendency not to volunteer (which would differentially exclude them from
the more voluntary, less formal, shorter exchanges). Thus, if a professor is going
to use a more heavily Socratic teaching style, a higher percentage of extended, struc-
tured exchanges might produce more egalitarian results than frequent interrup-
tions of those exchanges for shorter interjections, particularly if those interruptions
rely primarily on volunteered turns.
Complicating the picture further, we find that the most egalitarian classes
in the study in terms of gender, and also the two classes in which women pre-
dominated slightly, were taught by women professors at nonelite schools using
relatively informal discourse style structured around shorter exchanges. How-
ever, there is a slight difference between the two classes: one falls at the lowest
end of the informality continuum (with the highest percentages of times and turns
spent in shorter exchanges in the study), but the other had significantly fewer
shorter exchanges.^97 Thus, categories such as “modified Socratic” and “short
exchange” themselves need to be supplemented by examination of other aspects
of discourse style and structure. Similarly, the class in which male students pre-
dominated to the greatest extent was also taught by a woman professor using a
relatively interactive, informal discourse style. So we see that although a less
Socratic style may in some circumstances encourage more female participation,
this is highly circumscribed by other aspects of the classroom setting. In one case,
informality may encourage less aggressive speakers; in another, it may give ag-
gressive speakers freer rein. It seems likely that this might vary in part depend-
ing on subtle aspects of professorial control.
These complexities, however, do not obscure an overall pattern in which male
students predominate in law school classroom discussions. Although the contours
of the patterning differ from those found when we examined race, in both cases
we find some indications that, in combination with findings from other studies,
point to continued differential effects of gender and race on inclusion in law school
classrooms.
Student Perspectives
In our group interviews with students, a number of interesting themes emerged.^98
In one sense, they point to differences in position and perspective between profes-
sors and students, differences that are reflective of the distinct enterprises in which
they are engaged. But in many respects, some clear continuities of perspective are
already emerging between students and teachers regarding a shared enterprise in
the classroom. Here we examine some of these differences and similarities, with
an eye to comparing across the different kinds of schools and teachers in the study.
One obvious difference is the degree to which students are concerned with strat-
egies for succeeding and surviving, at both the intellectual and the emotional level.
Thus, although they also talk about the content of what they are learning—at times
with considerable enthusiasm—they are clearly focused on strategic considerations.
They speak of strategies for handling class, homework, and overall balance: