<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I&#8217;ll Have What They&#8217;re Having</title>
	<atom:link href="http://madisonian.net/2008/08/21/ill-have-what-theyre-having/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://madisonian.net/2008/08/21/ill-have-what-theyre-having/</link>
	<description>a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:59:42 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Madison</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2008/08/21/ill-have-what-theyre-having/comment-page-1/#comment-258006</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Madison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:33:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/?p=1477#comment-258006</guid>
		<description>Well said, and a la Bainbridge, I would extend the point through the rest of legal education, and have done.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said, and a la Bainbridge, I would extend the point through the rest of legal education, and have done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: C.E. Petit</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2008/08/21/ill-have-what-theyre-having/comment-page-1/#comment-258000</link>
		<dc:creator>C.E. Petit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/?p=1477#comment-258000</guid>
		<description>You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it does.

In this case, the word is not &quot;inconceivable,&quot; but &quot;teach.&quot; Perhaps putting it into a formalized Aristotelian form will help.

P1:  Much, and perhaps most, of first-year law &quot;instruction&quot; concerns learning the language of the law and methods of reasoning, not substance.

P2:  Substantial research demonstrates that, among many well-accepted methodologies, neither strong nor weak Socratic methods produces optimal, or even acceptable, results in teaching either languages (&lt;i&gt;cf., e.g.&lt;/i&gt;, &quot;Dartmouth Method&quot;) or methods of reasoning (&lt;i&gt;compare with&lt;/i&gt; more other teaching systems than I can count).

C:  Therefore, the Socratic method, whether in strong or weak form, is an inappropriate model for providing first-year legal instruction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it does.</p>
<p>In this case, the word is not &#8220;inconceivable,&#8221; but &#8220;teach.&#8221; Perhaps putting it into a formalized Aristotelian form will help.</p>
<p>P1:  Much, and perhaps most, of first-year law &#8220;instruction&#8221; concerns learning the language of the law and methods of reasoning, not substance.</p>
<p>P2:  Substantial research demonstrates that, among many well-accepted methodologies, neither strong nor weak Socratic methods produces optimal, or even acceptable, results in teaching either languages (<i>cf., e.g.</i>, &#8220;Dartmouth Method&#8221;) or methods of reasoning (<i>compare with</i> more other teaching systems than I can count).</p>
<p>C:  Therefore, the Socratic method, whether in strong or weak form, is an inappropriate model for providing first-year legal instruction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

