Hi, all,
 
You recall five or six weeks ago we had some discussion about the problems
students have distinquishing law from fact.  There were a number of good
suggestions floated about dealing with it, and I can report on my
experience.
 
What I did was simply spend about 20 minutes one day explaining the
distinction and its importance.  Then when the students are called on to
"take" a case, I specifically ask them to give me the controlling rule of
law.  I told them that what I wanted was the rule of law as if it were
written on a 3 x 5 card applicable to *any* case (so it does not make use of
the specific facts of the instant case)--kind of like a dictionary or
encyclopedia entry.  Then I asked them on  one weekly quiz (open book) to
give me the rule of law from 5 of the cases we had studied; they had a hard
time with that, still wanting, too often, to give me the facts.  But I
marked up their papers (and gave them answers, of course)  and continued to
emphasize the distinction in class.  The next quiz I gave them the usual
fact problem, but told them I wanted the law that controlled their answer.
  And, slowly, the distinction is coming clearer to them.
 
If I start out next term with this emphasis in mind, I'm sure it will be
easier.  Thanks to all for the ideas and suggestions.
 
I'm not going to the Milwaukee meeting, partly for scheduling problems and
partly for funding problems.  But I told my Chairman to expect a request
from me for the '96 meeting.  Am I correct in understanding that it is in
Quebec City?  Cool.   The Pacific NW regional meeting in  Seattle a month
ago was great; many thanks to Dave Arnesen (among others), for a
well-organized fun time.
 
Lawyer joke (was on NPR): why did the lawyer cross the road?  To see if the
chicken had whiplash. :-).