Heather Wilson, the former Congresswoman from New Mexico, had an interesting op-ed last week in the Washington Post. She tells the story of a series of Rhodes Scholar interviews that left her underwhelmed by the state of education in America:
An outstanding biochemistry major wants to be a doctor and supports the president's health-care bill but doesn't really know why. A student who started a chapter of Global Zero at his university hasn't really thought about whether a world in which great powers have divested themselves of nuclear weapons would be more stable or less so, or whether nuclear deterrence can ever be moral. A young service academy cadet who is likely to be serving in a war zone within the year believes there are things worth dying for but doesn't seem to have thought much about what is worth killing for. A student who wants to study comparative government doesn't seem to know much about the important features and limitations of America's Constitution....
Our great universities seem to have redefined what it means to be an exceptional student. They are producing top students who have given very little thought to matters beyond their impressive grasp of an intense area of study. This narrowing has resulted in a curiously unprepared and superficial pre-professionalism. Perhaps our universities have yielded to the pressure of parents who pay high tuition and expect students, above all else, to be prepared for the jobs they will try to secure after graduation.
I believe that one of the most valuable skills we can teach in law school is critical thinking. We know that, even with a rich diet of practice-oriented doctrinal law courses, most law graduates won't be ready to practice at a high level immediately after graduation. Rather, the doctrinal courses give students a sense of what issues might be relevant in a given area of law.
The crucial lawyering skills involve critical thinking: understanding what issues might be implicated by a life problem; seeing what questions a client has avoided or left unanswered during an interview; recognizing the discovery issues that aren't covered by the form interrogatories; negotiating around a judge's blind spots; detecting invisible family dynamics while drafting a will; and seeing far enough ahead in a transaction to understand what risks must be addressed in the contract. Critical thinking isn't just a theoretical exercise. Whether or not most lawyers notice it, it's the core of effective legal practice.
To quote Wilson, once again:
Our universities fail them and the nation if they continue to graduate students with expertise in biochemistry, mathematics or history without teaching them to think about what problems are important and why.
Dan, I have to admit I'm a little surprised to find former Rep. Heather Wilson triggering this discussion, but I appreciate and agree with your comments about critical thinking as an essential skill, not only for practing lawyers but for anyone who engages in the far-reaching aspects of law. I plan to share your comments with my students and ask how they would define "critical thinking." Good winter's day inspiration. Thx!
Posted by: Katherine Pearson | February 05, 2011 at 04:34 PM
I believe that we give life its meaning.
Posted by: Coach outlet | February 15, 2011 at 03:43 AM