Talk:Christopher Columbus Langdell

Footnote 4

"However, Langdellianism failed to keep pace with rapid social change in the beginning of the century due to its insistence on timeless principles. It became less relevant as a swiftly changing polity required a new legal architecture and jurisprudential modality to develop rules more consonant with the reality of legal process. The notion that sixteenth century legal decisions would continue to govern life in the post-industrial world could simply not be sustained." That sounds like opinion. The fact that Langdell's theories became less popular should be enough, the requirements of a polity for various forms of legal architecture and jurisprudential modality is hardly so rigorously established that it qualifies as encyclopedic knowledge. If someone is quoted as saying something, that would be a fact that could be noted. TGGP (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that this is an opinion, but it is cited from a reliable secondary source. I have restored the citation, which I believe to be useful and illuminating criticism of Langdell's methodology. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source may be reliable, and the criticism may be useful and illuminating, but it is still opinion rather than encyclopedic fact. My impression is that normal practice is to add a "Criticism" section to note which people have made which criticisms. Although you have added a footnote, you do not refer directly to any critic within the body of the article.TGGP (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Something Should be Added re Case Method

When I entered law school in 1967, a professor went on and on about how horrible the case method was which he was about to "inflict" on us. I ended up in agreement with him about what an inefficient pedagogical method it was. Although I was drafted and sent to Vietnam, I later finished a J.D. in the 1970s and never changed my mind about the time wasted in trying to extract lessons from cases instead of simply articulating the state of the law and supporting that with case citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

contradictory and misleading

Dean Langdell regarded the elucidation of legal truth as a scientific enterprise. By a method of socratic enquiry, he believed that truth would emerge in the manner that succesful biological forms survive across time by a process of natural selection. In this he foreshadows Karl Popper. It is well known that Langdell's Pragmatism was influenced by Darwinian ideas. Pragmatism stands at variance with the seventeenth century idea that science is the uncovering of eternally valid mathematical truths. Pragmatism states that truths arrived at may or may not have this eternal quality but we cannot know this for sure. Science is thus a matter of conjectures and refutations - truthful propositions surviving by means of natural selection. All of this is very contrary to the Platonistic assumptions of Spinozan or Cartesian seventeenth century rationalism. Haider Ala Hamoudi's claim that Langdell's approach was 'excessively rigid and dependent on formal exercises of logic, allowing the jurist or judge comparatively little control over the development of legal rules' is the diametrical opposite of the whole character of the innovations that Langdell brought to the teaching of Law at Harvard. Langdell did away with the dogmatic character of legal education as had previously existed. He asked students to reason for themselves rather than expect to be taught The Truth. Langdell had worked for many years as a barrister in New York City before being appointed Dean of the Law school so he was very familiar with legal process as it worked in reality. He wanted students to be able to think on their feet when they became barristers and judges themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.115.153 (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction myself. Whilst Langdell's methods were a leap forward at the time, I think the criticisms are valid. However, the criticism does not in anyway diminish Langdell's achievements. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was drafted out of law school in 1968 and had to finish in the mid-1970s after returning from Vietnam. The intervening time made me realize how dubious an idea Langdell's case method was. It would be far better to state the principle and illustrate it with cases rather than hoping students would realize the concepts after reading cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Columbus Langdell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709014609/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/kimball.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/kimball.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)