Starting in the 1990s and lasting more than a decade, I volunteered as an Associate Tutor at the Norman Manley Law School (NMLS).
Let me be clear. I didn’t “volunteer” because of an acknowledgment of debt to society although I did owe Jamaica my tertiary education. Those factors drove me to pass along the experience I’d gained thanks to Michael Manley’s brain fart that granted me free UWI tuition for five years. The “volunteer” aspect came about simply because, as a Grumpy Old Man, I wasn’t going to conform to any teaching programme or method nor was anyone allowed to tell me how or what to teach.
I opened the first tutorial of every new class with a speech kinda like this:
“Attendance at these gatherings isn’t required. Feel free to go to some other tutorial or none at all. You will not be asked to sign any attendance register. That insane requirement only means you were here for a minute or to take a nap. But there are rules. First and foremost I don’t want to hear any of you say the word ‘exam’ out loud. I don’t care whether you pass or fail what NMLS calls an ‘exam’. I plan to show you how to pass the exam that you’ll face every day for the next 30 years.
I will promise you that, if you pay attention to the lessons learned in this class, there’s no “exam” set by NMLS that can daunt you.
“Secondly you WILL be required to think. For four years you’ve been taught how to digest and regurgitate textbooks. This year, in this class, you’ll be shown how to add value and how to think for yourself. That will prepare you for the real world.”
So, at the end of each session, I gave the class a lateral logic puzzle to solve. The following week, I refused to teach any law until somebody in the class solved the puzzle. There was no Google or ChatGPT so they had to work it out. In the beginning they often needed a little help from yours truly but, as their thinking muscles developed, they would regularly find the answer without prompting. An example:
“A lady is inside, writing. Outside there’s a thunderstorm as a result of which she dies. Explain.” The solution is at the end. No peeking or googling!
I’m happy to report none of my students have failed the daily exam of life. Many have become highly successful lawyers. I walked away from NMLS about two decades ago because the system of allegedly teaching the practice of law from lecture theatres to students with law degrees was just too debilitating. The final straw was when I broke one of my most inflexible rules and attended a “staff” meeting where an Eastern Caribbean consultant was pitching his idea that NMLS should introduce multiple choice exams. According to him, “Multiple choice exams are scientifically proven to be the best way for students to show teachers their knowledge.”
To avoid barfing, I left the meeting and never returned to NMLS. You see, this consultant was wandering through the wrong jungle. NMLS is where the students supposedly learn the practice of law. Teachers (preferably experienced practitioners) should be showing their knowledge to students, not vice versa.
So it came as no surprise to me to read in the Gleaner that 57% of the latest class had failed NMLS’ ethics exam. Of course, in today’s world where politics rules every action or event, the students mounted protests through media and all of a sudden the issue is whether or not the failures or the consequences of confirmed failures were justified.
Bah. Humbug!
Legal education in Jamaica has forever been flawed and this latest contretemp is another symptom of that defective system. Most NMLS students have already studied the law’s academic intricacies for three tortuous years. At NMLS what they need to learn is PRACTICE OF LAW not more academics.
A new system is essential. Lecture theatres should only be used for the occasional guest lecture from seasoned practitioners; panel discussions; or other educational insights into real life. NMLS students should become apprentices to experienced practitioners; work at their chambers; understand the ethical rules of practice from the ground up; and experience the conduct of every aspect of legal practice from beginning to end. At the end of this exercise a report from the appointed mentors should replace exams. Interim reports supplemented with remedial caucuses would also help.
How do we get busy, disinterested senior lawyers to participate? Elementary, my dear Watson. There’s the extreme option namely to mandate it like the powers-that-be have mandated so many new responsibilities (e.g POCA; Accounts reporting etc). But my preferred route would be to offer CLPD credits to any senior lawyer agreeing to mentor one or more law students thus relieving them of attending boring continuing legal education seminars often led by lawyers who only appear to understand academics. Oh, and NMLS can contribute a stipend for the apprentice out of savings from not having to pay lecturers despite charging excessive tuition fees.
Every new system will have teething pains. But until we take our minds out of the box that contains lecturing/tutoring by academics followed by written examinations faithful to the British way as inflexible tradition, we’ll continue to produce too many academics and too few lawyers.
Why oh why are we still mimicking every “tradition” handed down to us by our former colonizers to include the system of legal education and justice culminating with our colonizers’ judges telling us what our laws mean? British “tradition” includes pledging fealty to Monarchs like Henry VIII who created his own church in order to divorce his first wife to marry his mistress, Anne Bolyn, then beheaded Anne to marry again. And so on and so sixth.
Sigh.
Peace and Love
p.s. The lateral logic puzzle solution is that the lady is a skywriter in a plane that’s struck by lightning. Words like “inside” and “writing” are used to trigger thoughts of a house and someone sitting at a desk. Avoid being trapped in that or any box. Ignore what seems obvious. Nothing in this world is as it appears.
