"Evidence, Truth, & the Internet" is a somewhat misleading course title. I think it only partially describes what you are trying to teach us. Yes, we discussed the rules of evidence, we looked at different perceptions of truth, and we used the internet in our group projects. But that is only part of what we learned.

Practically speaking, three weeks is not enough time to teach a subject as detailed as the Federal Rules of Evidence. I think you were trying to use what little time you were given in order to make the maximum impression possible upon us. I think you see this class as a way for you to counter the rest of our time at HLS. I saw the class as an antidote both to what we get in every other class and to what we’ve done all our lives. More than any other class I have taken at HLS, I think this class tries to get students back in touch with their love of learning. You tried not only to make us look at things differently but also to remember how to learn for the sake of learning, thinking, and growing as a person. As we’ve moved through the educational system, we’ve been conditioned to think less about learning and more about getting a (good) grade. In class one day you talked about how we’ve passed through to the top of the educational system by being compressed at every level. I think of this class as a break from the big squeeze, if only for a few weeks.

Several things stand out to me about this class. One is that it reminded me that storytelling is actually a method of argument and that our perceptions change based on the way a story/narrative is presented. I was also reminded of how different people perceive the same events differently, depending upon a variety of factors. Our personalities and assumptions color our perception of the facts. For example, in the Solomon story, we assume that the real mother would rather her baby be raised by a kidnapper than be killed, but perhaps this ideal of a "true mother" is just a byproduct of Western, Judeo-Christian society. This is something we learned as one-L’s, but I think as time goes by we forget that the most basic role of the lawyer is storyteller. We get too bogged down by cases and code and worrying about grades and other tangible measures of success. We forget that can never really know the truth, we can only do our best. I think you tried to remind us of this.

Another component of the class was personal growth. I think you wanted us to regain self-awareness through self-reflection. If we don’t sit down and think about what we want out of life and why we have taken the path we are on, will we ever really be satisfied with where our lives end up? I think this is what the "When did you stop liking math?" question was intended to do (and helped to do.) I stopped liking math when I took Calculus. I studied harder for that class than I had ever studied for any previous class, but I still found it totally incomprehensible. Clearly, then, if I am going to put in a lot of time into something, it is important to me to do it well. When that stopped happening with math, I stopped liking it, and I gave up on it. I think the self-reflection gave me insight into my personality that I was aware of but had never bothered to explore.

Another important lesson for me was breaking down the learning experience into a Five Level Process that leads to Connoisseurship. As students, I think we rarely get past the third level—where we can apply headings and categorize things, but we have lost touch with our original emotional response to the subject matter. By breaking the learning process down into discrete, recognizable steps, I see where I am in the learning process. I can now strive for the "artist’s level" of total integration of skill, emotion, and creativity.

I think that with this class you hoped to get us back to learning for learning’s sake, not for the gold star that has motivated us for so long. I loved this class. I loved the chance to think freely and look at things in a new and different way. Thank you.

WORD COUNT 742