Meet MIRAT Legal Reasoning Fragmented Into Learnable Chunks

The ubiquitous aim of legal education is for students to learn how “to think like lawyers”. It has often been noted that this is a frustratingly imprecise educational goal. Nevertheless, some students stumble upon, or methodically work out, an analytical style of thought, writing and speaking which...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: John H Wade
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Bond University 1991-01-01
Series:Legal Education Review
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6013
_version_ 1827312576122322944
author John H Wade
author_facet John H Wade
author_sort John H Wade
collection DOAJ
description The ubiquitous aim of legal education is for students to learn how “to think like lawyers”. It has often been noted that this is a frustratingly imprecise educational goal. Nevertheless, some students stumble upon, or methodically work out, an analytical style of thought, writing and speaking which is rewarded at law school by nods, ticks, high grades, scholarships and envy. “Thinking like a lawyer” is also a depressingly inaccurate goal as we know very little about how the many sub-cultures of lawyers think, speak or behave. In the writer’s limited experience, most lawyers think, speak and write in layers of styles and street cunning which often obscure the foundational analytical style (rightly) emphasised in foundational legal learning. What is this analytical style of expression that is a part of the behaviour of many lawyers? Certainly it is a deviant style as most lawyers tend to stand our so quickly in a meeting (and not only due to their confidence, motor vehicles and dress patterns). In colloquial terms lawyers’ contributions to any discussion tend to be exact, argumentative, insightful, reserved, balanced, evasive, obscurantist, precise and uncommitted. 4 Can the learning process at law school towards these much admired, sometimes despised qualities, be demystified? Behaviourist or task analysis approaches to education are creeping into law schools mainly via the current interest in learning “skills”.
first_indexed 2024-04-24T21:45:37Z
format Article
id doaj.art-48bdde00176a42c29a941f99d4526798
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1033-2839
1839-3713
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-24T21:45:37Z
publishDate 1991-01-01
publisher Bond University
record_format Article
series Legal Education Review
spelling doaj.art-48bdde00176a42c29a941f99d45267982024-03-20T22:14:41ZengBond UniversityLegal Education Review1033-28391839-37131991-01-0121Meet MIRAT Legal Reasoning Fragmented Into Learnable ChunksJohn H WadeThe ubiquitous aim of legal education is for students to learn how “to think like lawyers”. It has often been noted that this is a frustratingly imprecise educational goal. Nevertheless, some students stumble upon, or methodically work out, an analytical style of thought, writing and speaking which is rewarded at law school by nods, ticks, high grades, scholarships and envy. “Thinking like a lawyer” is also a depressingly inaccurate goal as we know very little about how the many sub-cultures of lawyers think, speak or behave. In the writer’s limited experience, most lawyers think, speak and write in layers of styles and street cunning which often obscure the foundational analytical style (rightly) emphasised in foundational legal learning. What is this analytical style of expression that is a part of the behaviour of many lawyers? Certainly it is a deviant style as most lawyers tend to stand our so quickly in a meeting (and not only due to their confidence, motor vehicles and dress patterns). In colloquial terms lawyers’ contributions to any discussion tend to be exact, argumentative, insightful, reserved, balanced, evasive, obscurantist, precise and uncommitted. 4 Can the learning process at law school towards these much admired, sometimes despised qualities, be demystified? Behaviourist or task analysis approaches to education are creeping into law schools mainly via the current interest in learning “skills”.https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6013
spellingShingle John H Wade
Meet MIRAT Legal Reasoning Fragmented Into Learnable Chunks
Legal Education Review
title Meet MIRAT Legal Reasoning Fragmented Into Learnable Chunks
title_full Meet MIRAT Legal Reasoning Fragmented Into Learnable Chunks
title_fullStr Meet MIRAT Legal Reasoning Fragmented Into Learnable Chunks
title_full_unstemmed Meet MIRAT Legal Reasoning Fragmented Into Learnable Chunks
title_short Meet MIRAT Legal Reasoning Fragmented Into Learnable Chunks
title_sort meet mirat legal reasoning fragmented into learnable chunks
url https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6013
work_keys_str_mv AT johnhwade meetmiratlegalreasoningfragmentedintolearnablechunks