This 1973 film presents the experiences of several first-year Harvard Law School students as they struggle to survive academically in a highly stressful and competitive environment. The instructional approach is far different from the one these students have been used to. Class sessions are marked not by lecture but by the penetrating and often embarrassing questioning of individual students by an esteemed professor. During the second class, Professor Kingsfield explains that he will not be lecturing, that they must teach themselves the law. Rather, his task will be to train them in how to think, something he will accomplish by questions.

Kingsfield’s approach is based on the Socratic method of using questions to cause students to arrive at conclusions and realizations through externally guided thinking. His method is far removed from a direct instruction model, in which an instructor would present material in an efficient, clear manner. The classroom scenes you will observe provide a distinct illustration of one of the classical alternatives to direct instruction.

They will also raise issues about class climate and constructive criticism. Kingsfield’s treatment of his students may well be viewed as cold, uncaring, and impersonal. Students are under pressure to respond quickly and correctly, or risk open ridicule. As Roger Ebert put it, "Everything centers around his absolute dictatorship in the classroom and his icy reserve at all other times. He’s the kind of teacher who inspires total dread in his students, and at the same time a measure of hero worship; he doesn’t just know contract law, he wrote the book."

Key Roles

Kingsfield         Harvard Professor of contract law
Hart                    Main student whose experiences the film chronicles
Bell                    Arrogant, abusive student (hornrims, overweight)
Anderson         Overly analytical, impersonal student
Ford                   Leader of the study group
Brooks              Student who struggles the most, good memory but poor analytical
                            skills
Susan                Kingsfield’s daughter and Hart’s love interest

Links to Comprehensive Units

Law school has always epitomized the case study approach to instruction. You will recall that this method always commences with a consideration of the facts and then proceeds to inferences and reasoned conclusions, often involving comparisons with other cases. The film is laden with examples of this process although none is presented in its entirety. As you watch, form a judgment as to whether this method is suitable as a mainstay of day-to-day instruction. Would a blend of case study and direct instruction (the approach taken by medical schools, for example) be more productive? Would a case study approach to your own teaching area be desirable? Kingsfield himself defends his approach in the second classroom scene:

The Paper Chase is also notable for the harshness with which Kingsfield responds to poor responses. Instructional components most germane to these interchanges are constructive criticism and negative consequences. Some salient examples to look for include:

• on one occasion, Bell gives an off-target response, to which Kingsfield replies, "I think I shall have to dispense with the privilege of ringing you further";
• once, after refusing to answer a question, Hart is asked to come down to the lectern; "Here is a dime," Kingsfield tells him, "Call you mother and tell her there is serious doubt about your becoming a lawyer."

Sometimes Kingsfield’s directness has the effect a negative consequence, serving to extinguish undesirable behaviors. Examples include:

• telling one student that "personal comments are unnecessary" when he attempts to relate a case to his own experiences;
• telling Brooks, who mentions his photographic memory, that such a trait is of "absolutely no use."

Evaluation

A provocative issue in The Paper Chase is the manner in which Kingsfield evaluates his students. His is a method typical of law school: the entire grade is based on a single examination. Note the pressure this causes among students and its visible signs as finals week nears. Is this policy of basing summative evaluation on one measure defensible? Would Kingsfield’s grades have been more valid reflections of student achievement if they had been based on a variety of measures, some of them performance based?

As you watch, note also any evidence of formative evaluation. You will observe twomethods of formative assessment used by Kingsfield. One is the optional practice exam. The other is the daily questioning that is conducted in class. However, while his questions do provide a means of monitoring how well students are progressing, the usual purpose of monitoring is to alert a teacher to the need to adjust instruction to better meet the needs of students. Does Kingsfield use the results of questioning for this purpose? Can you find any actual evidence of adjustment on his part? If not, do the questions serve any true evaluative purpose? How might Kingsfield himself have responded to these questions?

An abiding issue in this film is that of learning for its own sake and learning for grades (the paper chase). How does Hart seem to resolve this issue by his action in the final scene, when his grades arrive in the mail?