Editorial

SOCRATICized
By Riezyl Reen P. Angas
I was once informed, when I was still in my freshman year, that the
teaching style employed in the College of Law is the Socratic method.
Innocent as I was, I deliberately ignored it and went to class on the first
day. On the same day, I got the chance to experience how terrifying
law school was. Yes, it was only a glimpse of what the Socratic method
was and how it instills motivation, not to mention fear, among law
students. Despite its claimed benefits for the students, would such a
style still be effective now that learning seems to be immensely
innovative? Do we use it as an instrument to instill fear among law
students instead of fostering learning among them? How familiar are
we with it in the first place?
According to history, Socrates engaged in questioning his students in
an unending search for truth. He sought to get to the foundations of his
students' views by asking continual questions until a contradiction was
exposed, thus proving the fallacy of the initial assumption. Accordingly,
this is a dialogue between teacher and students, instigated by the
continual probing questions of the teacher, in a concerted effort to
explore the underlying beliefs that shape the students views and
opinions. This became known as the Socratic method, and may be
Socrates' most enduring influence to philosophy.
Why the Socratic method? Many have claimed the benefits that it
offers. The initial and the most apparent benefit is it teaches students
to think swiftly of an answer. The questions presented by the
professors during classes are designed to demonstrate an
understanding, or lack thereof, of the issues in play in a particular
case. For students, the experience of being put on the spot is a lot like
representing a client in a courtroom. The student cannot truly prepare
for the professors questions and must respond to them as they come.
For those without experience in debate or argumentative analysis, the
Socratic method challenges the student to be quick-witted and
challenges them to carefully articulate their thoughts.
Secondly, it fosters critical thinking. Why do you think some cases
have dissenting opinions in the decision? Well, it is clear that dissents
are logically as strong, if not stronger than, the majority opinion. For
students who are used to Socratic questioning, they learn that there
are two or more sides to almost any issue and a proficient counsel is
able to persuasively communicate all of them. In order to develop into
such an attorney, students must become trained at finding the

strengths and weaknesses of various arguments and positions. The

rapid-fire questioning of the Socratic method is perfect for sharpening
this skill.
On the other side of the coin, for most of us, instead of speedily giving
exact answers to questions thrown by our professors, fear sets in.
Though it is a normal emotion such an emotion can be carried over all
throughout the length of stay in law school. It never is easy to be
fried, for lack of a better word, in front of many, especially if you are
not used to it. As to the professors, they may get mad at some point
during classes, because they are expecting students to be prepared
before coming to class. It is both the duty and the responsibility of
students to come to class equipped with the knowledge intended for
that day. But on a personal note, students should not be learning by
themselves. I always believe that for better learning, there has to be a
teacher who will guide and direct them as to what should be the right
answer. It is always the teacher, experienced through years of practice,
who should be the one to teach them and that learning should always
be hand in hand between teachers and students.
Considering the evolution of the learning process as it transcends
towards the era of innovation, I believe that the Socratic method
should be accompanied with other styles of teaching. Why not explore
teaching styles in legal education pedagogy? While a Socratic
orthodoxy may still exist in the law school teaching arena, a myriad of
basic and underlying theories also exist. Other learning methods are
also essential. If teaching is seen as what people learn, then effective
delivery is paramount. If law students do not retain the information and
cannot easily retrieve it for use later, say the Bar examination, then
the Socratic method is of little value and has failed to serve its
purpose. Being conventional is good because it means that such has
been proven to be effective as tested overtime but trying to venture to
something new will not make the icing to the cake bitter; it may in turn
be more tasteful than before. A competent law student is not a product
made out of one ingredient on a recipe; it has to be mixed with other
ingredients to come out good in the taste.
Change is an ever-present phenomenon. There is no such thing as static as
time goes by in a rapid pace. The Socratic method may be proven to be
effective for many years but everything nowadays seems dynamic and is
subject to incessant changes. Change is the law of life. Stagnation is death.