CELL Blog | Center for Engaged Learning in the Law

I tried a little experiment the other day in one of my favorite classes: I asked my professor her rationale behind the way in which the course topics had been ordered. She responded, “There isn’t one; I just made it up.”

Relax! She was kidding.

She openly and honestly explained why the course was ordered the way it was, acknowledging the order may seem counterintuitive, but explaining why it’s really quite logical. She also acknowledged areas that could have been ordered in some other way and told us candidly she made the call because the call needed to be made, but that didn’t mean this way was either the correct nor the only way it could have been done.

And I thought, “My God, Toto, look! A question … an answer … a rationale!!!”

In all honesty, I asked this professor such a question because I knew I would (1) get an answer; and (2) get an honest answer that actually made a modicum of sense. Also, I had a theory of my own for the rationale behind the order of the course and my ego was eager to be proven right. (Ego padded? Check.)

But I use this as an example of a larger, more important point: assuming your class understands your rationale for why you’re doing what you’re doing (or not doing) and the order in which you’re doing it is a dangerous game. Of course you, the professor, know your subject inside out and upside down, and it’s understandable to take a lot for granted. But for the other 100 or so people in the room with you at any given time, EVERYTHING is totally new. EVERYTHING. The book, the syllabus, the course, the order of the course: it’s all a total mystery. You cannot possibly over-explain your rationale; but it seems a lot of professors err on the side of not explaining it at all (which is kinda funny given the demand on the students to constantly answer the question, “Why??”).

Not using the book in the order in which it was written? WHY??

Course ordered in a counterintuitive way? WHY??

Repeating material that you’ve already covered? WHY??

Skipping material you never covered? WHY??

Chapter 8 isn’t going to be on the exam? WHY??

None of this makes any sense whatsoever? WHY??

If these questions go unanswered, the risk is that your students will start filling in the blanks themselves. “Professor X is now teaching what we’ve already learned b/c he thinks we’re all idiots.” “Professor Y is skipping chapter 8 because not even he understands it, and that is really scary considering he’s the professor.” “Professor Z has no idea what he’s doing and that’s why we’re skipping all over the place in the book.”

Acquiescing to those kinds of answers being supplied in lieu of a rationale from you usually leads to a serious disconnect between the students and the professors. Students WANT to respect your expertise and defer to your wisdom, but if those kinds of blanks remain empty, your students will more likely write you off completely and just ignore you.

And that? Is bad.

But all is not lost. Like the story I cite above, I’m happy to report that more of my professors than not supply their classes with all the needed rationales right up front to avoid the gloom and doom alternatives (or at least supply them when asked). When a shift is made mid-course (e.g. we really aren’t getting it and we need to backtrack), most of them explain why they’re going backwards, skipping around, or what have you. And when things don’t make sense but will eventually, they explain that, too (over and over again because you know we never believe you when you say that). And it’s not surprising that these professors constantly make the “Favorites” list among the students.

So if you want to make the “Favorites” list (and I know you do because, of the many things law school lacks, egoism is not one of them), then remember that your course rationales are much like the Great and Mighty Oz: short, bald and ugly though they may be, they still accomplish more good when taken out from behind the curtain.