Saturday, September 10, 2011
This is the transcript of a panel discussion entitled "Simulations in Clinics, Contract Drafting, and Upper-Level Courses" that took place during a conference called “Transactional Education: What's Next?" hosted by Emory's Center for Transactional Law and Practice in June, 2010. The panelists included Professors David M. Epstein (New York Law School), Helen Scott (NYU), Carole Heyward (Cleveland Marshall), Daniel Bogart (Chapman). The full transcript is available at 12 Tenn. J. Bus. L. 55 (2011). From the introductory remarks:
My name is Danny Bogart. I'm from Chapman University in Orange County, California. It is my pleasure to participate here. I was very pleased that Tina Stark asked me to help with plan this program. This is one of the first panels, so I get to kind of relax a bit when this is done. Let me introduce the other panelists. Sitting to my right is Helen Scott from N.Y.U. And sitting next to her is Carole Heyward from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. And finally on my far, far right is a David Epstein from New York Law School. We are all going to be participating and discussing the same topic, which is simulations in clinics, contract drafting, and upper level courses.We have an hour and a half. We're going to have 15 minutes per person to present, and the remaining time we will allocate to questions. We'd like to have a good fruitful question period. And let me just tell you at the beginning that the panelists talked for a bit before we created our own materials. We thought there would be some questions we would each try to answer to give some consistency to this program. But we don't necessarily have to stick to script. We may focus on one thing or another as we move through. We will focus on the following questions: What is the purpose of simulation? What is the source of the simulation? What are the mechanics of the simulation? What kind of students do you get? What kind of students do you look for? What are the prerequisites of the course? Do you employ anonymous or non-anonymous grading? What is the mechanism for assessment? Is the work product anonymous or non-anonymous? What is the mechanism for assessment in grading? And how do we deal with ethical issues, if at all? And with that I'm going to turn it over to David Epstein.