In these two sessions we’re focusing on how things look from the (student) lawyer and SC perspectives. In the interview, our student did a superb job with a difficult scenario, which didn’t have an obviously legal solution to it, and required a bit more information to understand what seemed to be a straightforward storyline. Our SC gave her a lot of useful and detailed feedback, which was remarkable for its openness and detail. It was a good example of how useful SCs can be in giving feedback based upon the eight global criteria.
The panel was typical in its format – intros, personal statements from each – Joan Rilling (SC and SC co-ordinator Osgoode), Dana Mohr (SC and also sim patient), and our student, Alexis Cullen. Chaired by Angela, the experiences of two SCs revealed how well they prepare and think about the roles, and for Alexis, how she dealt with the experience of interviewing on her 1L JD course. We so seldom get to hear from SCs AND students on the same panel. When Angela posed the question, ‘what do you want to see in the future of SC use in law schools, I wanted to say, inter alia, more panels! More collaborative, ground-up pressure for more of this in law schools. More agitation for the fundamental pedagogies. Jen Slabodkin made very interesting points about multi-perspective feedback to professionals – which happens in professional medical education assessment – and asked the question of how much Alexis was going to take into her professional environment. Which Alexis answered in quite a profound way, about the necessity of early feedback before entering the professional context, which environment can engender defensiveness and – to put it in my own words – the professional mask of expertise.
Great panel discussions. My thanks to all three.