While we are on the topic, am I the only one who does not view the Socratic method as anegative experience? Why would it be negative to be expected to present the material you are supposed to be reading? My professors probe you yes, asking you more specific questions, forcing you to really think critically about the issues and the law, but it is not in a negative manner. It simply forces you to do the reading and more importantly, analyze and actually learn the law.
i don't know that it's "negative". i mean, if you get called on, deal with it or leave law school. what i do know, however, is that some people in and around legal academia have questioned its usefulness, but that legal academia has remained fairly hostile to any changes, even in classes taught by those who think there are better methods.
to me it's not about "liking" the socratic method or not. but if it is true that academics continue the cycle of socratic method simply because that's how they succeeded and want others to succeed- instead of it actually being good for the students- to me that's a problem.
but again, if the socratic method is really best, then so be it. i wouldn't support an overthrow of the law school establishment just for the sake of doing so, as some on this board seem to have suggested.