Some years ago I gave up hoping that upper level students would actually do the reading on the first day of class. Yup, that's part of my long, slow decline in expectations. Still expect it of 1Ls--rather self-defeating, perhaps. So now on the first day of class I have a series of questions that I ask students, using scenarios we'll be talking about later in the class. I try to get them engaged in thinking about what we'll be doing over the course of the semester and try to stir some excitement for the course on the first day. Sort of makes a virtue out of a necessity--even seems to work.
So when I'm teaching wills I'll give them some scenarios of people who die intestate and ask them what they think should happen to the decedents' property (rarely match up with the Alabama intestacy statutes, by the way!) And then I'll ask some stuff about undue influence and lack of capacity and other fun stuff like that.
I also reprise those questions throughout the semester. I'm teaching remedies this spring--love that class, by the way. Students are highly motivated (it's bar exam material and they can see the relevance to what clients are going to be asking them) and they've had enough school that they can pull stuff together. So I sometimes ask them to fill out a short set of questions regarding how they would have acted if they'd been the judge in a case or a juror. Did that just the other day with a case of a dignitary tort, Levka v. City of Chicago, 748 F.2d 421 (7th Cir. 1984) . I use Douglas Laycock's Modern American Remedies (great book, by the way). And I asked the students what they would have awarded a woman who was unconstitutionally and intrusively searched following an arrest (turns out the city of Chicago has a systematic practice of this, so there are a series of lawsuits with similar facts and widely differing jury awards). There was conflicting evidence about the extent of the psychological harm, though the victim testified that the memory of the event had significantly interfered with her quality of life. The jury awarded $50,000 and the Seventh Circuit knocked it down to $25,000 on remittitur.
I ask the students three things. First, their gender; second, the amount they would have awarded if they were on the jury; third, the amount they would have reduced the verdict to on remittitur. Pretty interesting results--as always. Of course a few (but a remarkably small number this year) hadn't read the case. I always appreciate the honesty.
But unlike in past years, this year men had a higher median award than women. Men had a median award of $12,000 (range 0 to 500,000); women had a median award of $5,000 (range $500 to 50,000). (Small Ns this year, so that may explain some of the differences of results in previous years--but I'm surprised by the women's low numbers in particular. They're tough. Wouldn't want these students on my jury--unless, of course, I were a defendant!) Pretty interesting stuff and a reminder that different people can see the world in wildly different ways--an important lesson in itself for all of us.