Didaktische Zugänge zur Rechtslehre in Nordamerika (Law Teaching and Legal Education Discourse in the USA and Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is based on an invited presentation given at a conference on legal education in Hamburg, Germany. It attempts to explain to a German audience the importance of teaching for the self-image of an American or Canadian legal academic. The starting point is the diagnosis that in the USA and Canada, there exists a longstanding tradition of scholarly reflection on legal education and legal pedagogy, whereas the discourse on legal education in Europe in general and Germany in particular is still in its infancy. The paper explores two possible explanations for this cultural difference. First, I argue that academics in the US and Canada are socialized into an academic culture that assigns more value to teaching than its German counterpart. An academic who aspires to a tenured position, is typically not only assessed on the basis of scholarly merit, but also on the evaluation of her teaching. One might object that even under the tenure-track system, scholarly excellence will mostly outweigh teaching skills as decisive criterion; however, teaching and pedagogy undoubtedly play a far more important role in the life of a young American or Canadian academic on tenure-track than for a young German academic who is almost exclusively assessed on scholarly merits (a second doctorate, the “Habilitation”). Second, I posit that legal education is a topic more present in legal academic discourse particularly in the USA because the origins of legal scholarship as an academic discipline in the USA are inextricably intertwined with the idea that law should be taught at university, and concrete ideas as to how it should be taught. The paper concludes with an introduction to recent literature on the case dialogue method, the – in the words of the Carnegie report – “signature pedagogy” of the American law school classroom.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".