Popular in Law

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Law

Surrey’s Silence: Subpart F and the Swiss Subsidiary Tax that Never Was

Boston University Steven Dean

Criminal Law

Prosecuting Misdemeanors

American University Jenny Roberts

Human Rights Law

Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture

Tufts University Tom Dannenbaum

Corporate Law

Data Valuation and Law

University of Southern California Jordan Barry

Thinking critically about law

View more insights in Professional - Legal Education

View more figures from University of York

View the page of Amy Codling

Read the Study

Amy Codling explores what it means to think critically and offers practical tips and advice for students to develop the process, skill and ability of thinking critically while studying law.

Image courtesy of interviewee. September 5, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video discusses critical thinking, its importance in law education, and various legal perspectives presented in a complementary textbook aimed at helping busy students. The author outlines three main parts of the book: thinking critically in theory, practice, and the future.

Key points include:
1. **Critical Thinking Importance**: The author emphasizes that critical thinking leads to better academic performance, enhances legal degrees, and is crucial for informed citizenship in democratic societies. It helps individuals navigate and combat misinformation, groupthink, and propaganda.

2. **Legal Perspectives**: The book analyzes six legal perspectives:
- **Doctrinal Law**: Combining natural law and legal positivism, highlighting the connection (or lack thereof) between law and morality.
- **Marxist Perspective**: Viewing law as serving bourgeois interests.
- **Feminist Perspectives**: Discussing various feminist waves, from liberal to radical to postmodern feminist theories.
- **Critical Race Theory**: Examining the role of race in law and the impact of systemic racism.
- **Intersectionality**: Addressing how various identities intersect to affect experiences within the legal system.
- **Legal Pluralism**: Suggesting that multiple legal systems coexist and influence societal norms.

3. **Methodology of Critical Thinking**: The author provides guidance on thinking critically about law, including problematizing questions, analyzing historical contexts, evaluating pros and cons, suggesting reforms, and emphasizing the need for reflection.

4. **Practical Application**: There is a focus on the relevance of critical thinking in both academic settings and professional environments, particularly in preparing students for the legal workforce.

5. **Assessment and Writing**: This video covers effective argumentation and writing strategies in law, stressing the importance of logical reasoning, evidence-backed assertions, and awareness of audience in legal writing.

Overall, the text advocates for a holistic approach to critical thinking in law that incorporates various perspectives, practical skills, and a commitment to reflective practice.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Critical Thinking and Education**: The speaker emphasizes the importance of critical thinking for students, especially in law. They argue that developing critical thinking skills can lead to better academic performance, such as obtaining a first-class law degree, and subsequently improve career opportunities.

2. **Legal Perspectives**: The video discusses six different legal perspectives, including doctrinal law (natural law and legal positivism), Marxist theory, feminism, critical race theory, and critical legal studies. Each perspective offers unique insights into understanding law and its social implications.

3. **Role of Intersectionality**: Intersectional thinking is highlighted as essential in understanding the complexities of individuals’ experiences with law, particularly focusing on gender, race, and socio-economic status. The speaker mentions Kimberly Crenshaw’s work to illustrate the importance of considering multiple identities in legal discourse.

4. **Legal Pluralism**: The concept of legal pluralism is introduced as a framework for understanding the coexistence of multiple legal systems or norms within a society. The speaker advocates for a nuanced approach to law that acknowledges cultural and religious influences, particularly through examples such as Sharia councils in the UK.

5. **Practical Application of Critical Thinking**: The video outlines a methodology for applying critical thinking in legal assessments and workplace convideos. It discusses the necessity of problematizing issues, analyzing them against relevant legal frameworks, crafting solutions, and maintaining a reflective approach to one's own conclusions about law and its application.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes from the video you , which appear to focus on critical thinking, law, and educational perspectives:

1. **On the importance of critical thinking:**
- "Critical thinking is an important skill for students to develop and demonstrate in their work because it leads to better grades, a first-class law degree, which leads, of course, to better career opportunities."

2. **On groupthink and critical thinking:**
- "So critical thinking rather than about group thinking is about team thinking."

3. **On the definition of law:**
- "When thinking critically about law, the complimentary question must be asked, well, what's law?"

4. **On the evolution of legal theories:**
- "Law became more manmade... the legal status quo has remained so for a long time."

5. **On perspectives of law:**
- "The first one being doctrinal law, which is made up of natural law theory and legal positivism."

6. **On feminism's role in law:**
- "What Marxism and CLS doesn’t do so well is think about the position of women in law."

7. **On critical race theory (CRT):**
- "Unlike positivists who say that law is created for men, and feminists who say it's created by men for men, CRT theorists would be saying... we are looking at the rights of white men particularly."

8. **On the need for an intersectional approach:**
- "We need to be in conversation and dialogue with each other."

9. **On legal pluralism:**
- "Legal pluralism is a good perspective... there’s a plurality of different legal pluralistic perspectives."

10. **On the practice of critical thinking:**
- "Critical thinking is the art of thinking about your thinking whilst you are thinking in order to make it better."

11. **On the connection between law and love:**
- "Connecting love with law is utterly subversive."

12. **On developing critical thinking:**
- "Thinking critically about law entails us weighing up the pros and the cons, strengths and weaknesses of something dependent on your values."

These quotes encapsulate the central themes of the video, including the importance of critical thinking for students, various schools of legal thought, and the need for inclusive and diverse perspectives in understanding the law.

Export as PDF
Here are some articles and resources that are thematically similar to the video, which focuses on critical thinking, law, and educational methodologies:

1. **"Critical Thinking in Law: A Theoretical Framework"** - This article explores various definitions and frameworks of critical thinking in the convideo of legal education, emphasizing its importance for law students.

2. **"The Importance of Critical Thinking in Higher Education"** - A comprehensive discussion about how critical thinking skills are essential for students in higher education, including various pedagogical approaches to enhance these skills.

3. **"Law and Philosophy: The Integration of Critical Thinking"** - This piece analyzes the intersection of law and philosophy, discussing how critical thinking shapes the understanding and application of legal concepts.

4. **"Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Law Students"** - Focused on practical strategies for educators, this article outlines methods for cultivating critical thinking in legal education, including curriculum design and instructional practices.

5. **"The Role of Pedagogy in Legal Education"** - An examination of how different teaching methodologies affect the development of critical thinking skills among law students, including discussions on interactive and collaborative learning.

6. **"Critical Legal Studies: A Movement for Change"** - This article talks about the critical legal studies movement, which challenges traditional legal thought and encourages critical examination of law and its societal implications.

7. **"Critical Race Theory and Its Impact on Legal Education"** - An exploration of how critical race theory intersects with legal education and promotes critical thinking about race and the law.

8. **"Feminist Legal Theory and Its Implications for Legal Education"** - Discusses how feminist perspectives foster critical thinking within legal convideos and contribute to a more inclusive understanding of the law.

9. **"Critical Thinking and Decolonizing the Curriculum"** - Analyzes the need for critical thinking in the convideo of decolonizing education, including legal education, and integrating diverse perspectives.

10. **"Legal Pluralism and Critical Thinking in Legal Studies"** - This article delves into legal pluralism and the critical thinking required to navigate diverse legal systems and perspectives within a multicultural society.

Each of these articles contributes to the broader conversation about critical thinking, law, and education, aligning with the themes presented in your video.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.035 --> 00:02.085
Tackles a complimentary textbook

00:02.085 --> 00:03.565
that puts together readings

00:03.565 --> 00:07.045
and exercises from a range of different materials so

00:07.045 --> 00:09.165
that today's busy students doesn't have to,

00:09.475 --> 00:11.965
it's all put together in one accessible textbook.

00:12.315 --> 00:13.805
There's three parts to the book,

00:13.805 --> 00:15.205
thinking critically in theory,

00:15.625 --> 00:17.285
in practice, and in the future.

00:18.465 --> 00:21.525
And I think that critical thinking is an important skill

00:21.585 --> 00:24.805
for students to develop and demonstrate in their work

00:24.805 --> 00:27.965
because it leads to better grades, a first class,

00:28.185 --> 00:30.125
law degree, which leads of course

00:30.125 --> 00:31.485
to better career opportunities.

00:31.945 --> 00:33.445
But more than that, it's important

00:33.465 --> 00:36.565
for citizens in democratic societies for a number

00:36.585 --> 00:38.565
of reasons, such as assessing

00:38.565 --> 00:42.165
and electing leaders, overthrowing the power of propaganda

00:42.265 --> 00:45.645
and the rise of fake news stories, as well as ri

00:45.645 --> 00:48.365
working against groupthink, which is a phrase

00:48.395 --> 00:50.765
that Irvine Janice coined in the seventies,

00:51.175 --> 00:52.525
which is against more brawl.

00:52.525 --> 00:54.565
And I think Darren Brown did really well

00:54.625 --> 00:56.765
to epitomize the idea

00:57.185 --> 01:00.205
of a group thinking in his experiment series

01:00.205 --> 01:02.325
where he got the audience to take charge

01:02.745 --> 01:04.605
and decide what happened to a stranger.

01:05.065 --> 01:07.525
And generally, the people in the audience,

01:07.625 --> 01:10.045
as it was anonymous, chose the most nastiest things

01:10.065 --> 01:12.045
to happen to the poor, stranger.

01:12.545 --> 01:15.485
So critical thinking rather than about group thinking is

01:15.485 --> 01:16.725
about team thinking.

01:17.155 --> 01:18.925
It's an important skill which affirms

01:18.925 --> 01:20.445
that questions should be raised

01:20.745 --> 01:23.125
and the reasons behind the answers given

01:23.235 --> 01:24.805
serious contemplation.

01:25.675 --> 01:27.285
When thinking critically about law,

01:27.905 --> 01:30.765
the complimentary question must be asked, well, what's law?

01:31.395 --> 01:32.605
Lots of different scholars

01:32.605 --> 01:34.965
and philosophers have been contemplating this question,

01:35.385 --> 01:38.685
not just me, trying to sleep at night over decades.

01:39.225 --> 01:41.925
And in the first edition of the book,

01:42.205 --> 01:45.725
I looked at seven legal perspectives, which I've written,

01:45.755 --> 01:48.885
written down in the second edition, with caveats

01:48.905 --> 01:51.205
to be six different legal perspectives.

01:51.625 --> 01:55.325
Um, and the first one being doctrinal law,

01:55.935 --> 01:59.685
which is made up of natural law theory and legal positivism.

01:59.785 --> 02:02.645
So natural law theory is saying that there is a connection

02:02.645 --> 02:04.965
between law and religion, law and morality.

02:05.505 --> 02:08.165
Um, for example, historically, people,

02:08.165 --> 02:11.565
obviously when they were educated, were generally done so,

02:11.865 --> 02:14.525
through religious purposes in order

02:14.525 --> 02:19.205
to understand the scriptures and, ev v the word of God.

02:19.625 --> 02:21.765
Um, in which case, you know, a lot

02:21.765 --> 02:23.405
of people were thinking about divinity

02:23.465 --> 02:26.405
and the connection between the laws of nature

02:26.865 --> 02:29.405
and the laws of the sovereign.

02:29.665 --> 02:33.685
Um, whether that be, God or do a monarch on the state.

02:34.105 --> 02:37.765
Um, obviously over time law became more manmade

02:37.765 --> 02:41.645
and we get obviously the, HLA heart

02:41.785 --> 02:46.565
who was an absolutely, amazing, theorist

02:46.625 --> 02:49.365
who said that there must be a separation between laws

02:49.425 --> 02:50.485
and, morals.

02:50.485 --> 02:52.725
And so therefore, law is manmade

02:52.725 --> 02:54.205
and this is a legal status quo

02:54.205 --> 02:55.725
and has remained so for a long time.

02:55.785 --> 02:58.485
So we can't, undermine the importance

02:58.485 --> 03:01.845
and significance of a positivist idea of law.

03:02.025 --> 03:05.805
So that's doctrinal law now made up of natural law theory

03:06.105 --> 03:08.645
and legal positivism, thanks to the resurgence

03:08.865 --> 03:11.365
of natural law ideas following the atrocities

03:11.365 --> 03:13.845
of the Second World War, the setup of the United Nations

03:13.985 --> 03:16.845
and the rise of human rights, bringing back a bit

03:16.845 --> 03:21.005
of a moralistic idea, a humane, notion into the law.

03:21.225 --> 03:23.045
Um, and this makes up doctrinal law.

03:23.045 --> 03:24.085
That's the first perspective.

03:24.885 --> 03:29.065
The second perspective is, one that's, Marxist.

03:29.485 --> 03:32.945
Um, and that is always a student favorite,

03:32.965 --> 03:35.145
to think about things in economic terms.

03:35.685 --> 03:37.905
Um, to think about the Communist Manifesto,

03:37.905 --> 03:40.465
which was published in 1848 by Karl Marx

03:40.465 --> 03:41.585
and Frederick Engels.

03:42.005 --> 03:44.505
Um, and basically a Marxist perspective

03:44.505 --> 03:47.985
of law would be saying that law is a bourgeois, right?

03:48.095 --> 03:49.225
It's a middle class, right?

03:49.405 --> 03:52.545
Um, there's people who are in the elite position are able

03:52.545 --> 03:56.625
to state and aow what the law is for economic purposes,

03:56.645 --> 03:59.065
and for the advancement of the middle classes.

04:00.305 --> 04:04.105
CLS has been, critical legal studies influenced

04:04.285 --> 04:06.705
and comes out of Marxism thinking.

04:07.165 --> 04:10.865
Um, thanks to quite a lot of people coming away from,

04:11.135 --> 04:13.705
continental Europe in the Second World War.

04:13.735 --> 04:17.065
There's a group of thinkers called the Frank Fe School,

04:17.065 --> 04:19.265
people like Adorno who come to America

04:19.605 --> 04:22.385
and infiltrate the ideas of say, Duncan, Ken Kennedy

04:22.645 --> 04:24.785
and, Roberto unga.

04:25.165 --> 04:28.625
And they would say that, law is a paternal, right?

04:29.045 --> 04:31.185
Uh, again, this kind of elitist bias,

04:31.615 --> 04:34.385
very political driven idea about law.

04:35.325 --> 04:38.025
The fourth idea then is that of feminisms,

04:38.405 --> 04:39.785
and something that Marxism

04:39.805 --> 04:42.505
and CLS doesn't do so well is think about the position

04:42.505 --> 04:43.745
of women in law.

04:44.005 --> 04:46.065
And we can think about the different waves

04:46.065 --> 04:48.345
that there have been of feminisms over time.

04:48.765 --> 04:51.225
The first being, a liberal movement.

04:51.275 --> 04:52.745
We've got, war

04:52.765 --> 04:56.425
and craft in 1792 writes about the vindication of women,

04:56.425 --> 04:58.305
that women should be able to be treated the same

04:58.305 --> 04:59.625
as men and be given a vote.

04:59.985 --> 05:01.985
Suffrage is a very important point here.

05:02.525 --> 05:06.065
Um, the second aspect then is radical feminism coming from,

05:06.125 --> 05:09.105
say, Simone, the Bois in France, going

05:09.105 --> 05:10.785
to Catherine McKinnon in America.

05:11.405 --> 05:13.745
Um, and it's radical in the sense of getting

05:13.805 --> 05:14.945
to the root of the problem.

05:15.055 --> 05:16.825
It's saying it is a systemic idea.

05:16.845 --> 05:18.305
We can't just patch things up

05:18.305 --> 05:20.505
and have women be treated equally to men.

05:20.575 --> 05:23.025
There's systemic issues with patriarchy,

05:23.025 --> 05:24.265
which we must have a look at.

05:24.965 --> 05:28.345
The third wave of feminism is kind of a postmodern feminism,

05:28.345 --> 05:31.625
trying to make more spaces for different voices of women.

05:32.125 --> 05:36.665
Um, so we get a rise of de-colonial feminisms,

05:36.885 --> 05:41.665
and, the idea of maybe eco feminisms queer theories,

05:41.735 --> 05:43.745
transgender perspectives, which are very,

05:43.745 --> 05:46.585
very key at this point, in our time as well.

05:47.825 --> 05:49.125
And, they say

05:49.125 --> 05:51.045
that now we might even be entering a fourth wave

05:51.045 --> 05:54.725
of feminism, which I call subjective feminisms,

05:54.725 --> 05:59.005
because with the endorsement of the hashtag me too movement,

05:59.425 --> 06:02.725
it seems these days that almost every woman has a story

06:02.725 --> 06:04.085
of injustice to tell.

06:04.585 --> 06:06.645
Um, so we've all got a different perspective,

06:06.745 --> 06:10.325
and I would say that, you know, men as well have stories

06:10.345 --> 06:11.645
to tell about patriarchy.

06:11.645 --> 06:14.285
And what we need to really be talking about now is gen

06:14.285 --> 06:17.845
gender normativity for conversations of all people

06:18.065 --> 06:19.885
and how those ideas affect us.

06:20.665 --> 06:23.845
So that is then the fourth, legal perspective

06:23.905 --> 06:26.525
and some very exciting conversations to be had there.

06:27.105 --> 06:29.045
The fifth illegal perspective is that

06:29.045 --> 06:30.125
of critical race theory,

06:30.145 --> 06:32.045
and again, with the Black Lives Matter movement

06:32.105 --> 06:35.645
and did a de colonizing of the curriculum

06:35.645 --> 06:37.405
that we're seeing at universities at the moment,

06:37.865 --> 06:40.205
is a very important perspective

06:40.235 --> 06:43.005
that needs a lot more research, to be done,

06:43.005 --> 06:44.645
especially in the uk.

06:45.225 --> 06:48.525
Um, and what CRT theorists would be saying is,

06:48.905 --> 06:52.605
unlike positivists who say that law is created for men

06:52.825 --> 06:56.765
and feminists who say it's created by men for men,

06:57.365 --> 06:59.365
CRT theorists would be saying, well,

06:59.705 --> 07:02.485
we are looking at the rights of white men particularly.

07:02.585 --> 07:04.045
And it's very much influenced

07:04.065 --> 07:07.365
by the Civil Rights Movement in America coming out

07:07.365 --> 07:10.645
of the CLS, the critical legal studies movement.

07:11.225 --> 07:13.525
Um, and again, I think a lot more needs

07:13.525 --> 07:16.645
to be done in the UK about the critical race theory.

07:17.105 --> 07:20.765
Um, so you are looking at the work of say, Tarrick, ma

07:21.425 --> 07:22.485
I'm not very good at,

07:22.515 --> 07:24.525
getting his name right 'cause I've got dyslexia.

07:24.745 --> 07:26.805
Um, but he's, a great person

07:26.805 --> 07:27.885
to be having a look at here.

07:28.145 --> 07:29.925
And then in the caveat is we've got

07:29.925 --> 07:32.325
to be looking really intersectional thought now,

07:32.325 --> 07:35.925
which is you should be placed really, in between

07:36.795 --> 07:38.045
feminisms and CRTs,

07:38.045 --> 07:40.085
but in the book, I've had to speak about it afterwards.

07:40.385 --> 07:41.645
Um, so it makes sense.

07:41.945 --> 07:44.765
Um, and this is coined by Kimberly Crenshaw in America,

07:45.005 --> 07:49.645
thinking about really her place in law's story,

07:49.905 --> 07:53.325
as a black African American woman,

07:53.465 --> 07:56.405
and, you know, she's a privileged person being an academic,

07:56.825 --> 07:59.885
but you know, what's the story of, of these kind of,

07:59.975 --> 08:03.245
women when you've got faced with different cultural,

08:03.725 --> 08:06.165
religious, age

08:06.585 --> 08:09.725
and different backgrounds, how do we sense of all

08:09.725 --> 08:11.005
of these things within law?

08:11.625 --> 08:14.765
So for me, the final, legal perspective

08:14.765 --> 08:16.565
that makes the most sense to,

08:16.705 --> 08:18.925
to really focus on is legal pluralism.

08:19.505 --> 08:22.125
Um, and, whether I can convince students

08:22.125 --> 08:25.365
that legal pluralism is a good perspective,

08:25.665 --> 08:28.885
to follow is, is, you know, down to them having a look

08:28.885 --> 08:31.725
for themselves, in chapter three of the book.

08:32.105 --> 08:35.165
Um, but, I say, that there's a plural,

08:35.405 --> 08:37.925
a plurality of different legal pluralistic perspectives

08:37.945 --> 08:39.365
and look at four key ones

08:39.585 --> 08:42.205
and institutional perspective, which there's a different,

08:42.315 --> 08:44.245
lots of different normative orders going on,

08:44.505 --> 08:47.845
but it's still confined with the idea that law has

08:47.865 --> 08:51.775
to function with, certain parameters,

08:51.775 --> 08:53.215
institutional parameters, so

08:53.215 --> 08:56.525
that plagiarism policies at universities kind of work

08:56.525 --> 08:57.925
because you've got a rule,

08:57.985 --> 09:00.045
and if it's broken, there's consequences to it.

09:00.045 --> 09:02.925
So it's very positivistic kind of notion of law.

09:02.925 --> 09:05.325
And that's, coined by John Griffiths in 1986.

09:05.785 --> 09:08.485
And there's a culture and religious aspect of,

09:08.825 --> 09:10.045
legal pluralism.

09:10.465 --> 09:12.245
We saw this with the discussion

09:12.265 --> 09:14.285
of the former Archbishop Canterbury,

09:14.285 --> 09:16.165
Warren Williams back in 2008,

09:16.175 --> 09:18.485
about the transformative accommodation

09:18.485 --> 09:22.205
between Sharia councils in the uk,

09:22.265 --> 09:25.485
and the whole spark of discussions from Samuel Urbano

09:25.545 --> 09:28.765
and also Phar, about the place of say,

09:28.765 --> 09:32.605
British Muslim legal pluralism, in

09:32.635 --> 09:34.445
that particular normative order.

09:35.185 --> 09:37.045
Um, and then we move into sort

09:37.045 --> 09:39.965
of a critical legal pluralistic perspective coined

09:39.965 --> 09:43.645
by Kleinhans and McDonald in 1997, which is saying that

09:44.165 --> 09:46.445
actually everything is, is more about our imaginations

09:46.785 --> 09:49.845
and that only really we can be writing an autobiographical

09:49.845 --> 09:50.845
account of law.

09:51.145 --> 09:53.045
Um, and I was very inspired by this.

09:53.185 --> 09:57.445
Um, Martha Marie Klein was actually my PhD, supervisor,

09:58.345 --> 10:01.285
but where I found, it lacking slightly was, well,

10:01.285 --> 10:02.605
we can't have sort of judges

10:02.905 --> 10:05.965
and different academics writing autobiographical accounts

10:05.965 --> 10:10.205
of law, especially say about Muslim legal pluralism,

10:10.265 --> 10:12.765
in a multicultural society by white researchers,

10:12.835 --> 10:14.445
that isn't their experience.

10:14.545 --> 10:16.365
So therefore, we need to be in conversation

10:16.365 --> 10:18.285
and dialogue with, with each other.

10:18.625 --> 10:21.165
And that's where I get to of my subjective legal pluralism.

10:21.425 --> 10:22.885
But the key thing about chapter three

10:22.885 --> 10:24.765
with these six different legal perspectives

10:24.835 --> 10:26.485
that I ask students is,

10:26.935 --> 10:31.205
where do you see yourself in all these perspectives of law?

10:31.385 --> 10:34.285
And in the next chapter, chapter four, I talk about how

10:34.285 --> 10:35.925
to use these legal perspectives,

10:36.075 --> 10:38.605
methodology methodologically in their work.

10:38.705 --> 10:41.845
So there's different perspectives about what law is,

10:42.425 --> 10:46.565
but how do we think critically about that to begin with?

10:46.705 --> 10:49.445
And this is a question that I have been again,

10:49.445 --> 10:52.125
thinking about, rather than staying up night,

10:52.125 --> 10:54.125
about it though, what I have done is gone

10:54.145 --> 10:57.005
and asked quite a lot of people, like students

10:57.585 --> 11:00.125
and graduates, tutors, lecturers

11:00.125 --> 11:03.645
and professors, what they think critical thinking is.

11:04.265 --> 11:05.845
Um, and I would like to say

11:05.845 --> 11:07.845
that I have a really great answer from doing that,

11:08.345 --> 11:10.125
but I think I just ended up more confused.

11:10.425 --> 11:14.125
So I went again and looked back at some academic research

11:14.125 --> 11:16.445
that had been done on what thinking critically was.

11:16.445 --> 11:18.525
And again, this isn't necessarily law specific.

11:18.985 --> 11:20.005
Um, and I've come

11:20.505 --> 11:22.045
and found in chapter two

11:22.045 --> 11:25.165
of my book five particular definitions by academics,

11:25.385 --> 11:28.805
the first by Paul, an elder, who,

11:28.805 --> 11:30.965
Richard Paul is actually the chair

11:30.985 --> 11:32.765
of the Thinking Critically Foundation.

11:32.825 --> 11:34.685
So somebody who also has spent a lot

11:34.685 --> 11:36.405
of time thinking about this,

11:36.465 --> 11:38.325
and in, I've actually got this from a,

11:38.445 --> 11:40.485
a previous book edition of their book in 2014,

11:41.365 --> 11:43.405
critical Thinking Tools for Taking Charge

11:43.425 --> 11:44.685
of Your Learning and Your Life.

11:45.075 --> 11:47.365
They say that critical thinking is the art

11:47.505 --> 11:51.405
of thinking about your thinking whilst you are thinking in

11:51.405 --> 11:52.645
order to make it better.

11:53.065 --> 11:57.045
So they call it higher order thinking,

11:57.385 --> 12:00.845
and it requires explicitly reflective thought

12:00.845 --> 12:02.245
that is constantly fair.

12:02.545 --> 12:05.485
And they call this strong critical thinking.

12:06.895 --> 12:10.195
Stella Al, provides a second definition

12:10.195 --> 12:13.435
that I contemplated in chapter two of Hackle.

12:13.735 --> 12:17.435
Um, and that's from her book in 2011, thinking Critic,

12:17.915 --> 12:19.195
critical Thinking Skills, developing

12:19.195 --> 12:20.875
Effective Analysis and Argument.

12:20.895 --> 12:22.115
And she basically says

12:22.115 --> 12:25.195
that there is a cognitive ability associated

12:25.265 --> 12:27.595
with something in the mind, which I think helps

12:27.815 --> 12:32.595
to endorse why I found it so hard to find a vernacular,

12:33.035 --> 12:35.435
decision about what critical thinking is because each

12:35.455 --> 12:37.555
and every person's got a different idea

12:37.565 --> 12:38.915
about what it might be.

12:39.615 --> 12:42.835
Um, and therefore the best thing to do is maybe think of it

12:42.835 --> 12:45.555
as a process of thought, something that we can be developed.

12:45.555 --> 12:47.075
And that's why I've included tasks,

12:47.625 --> 12:50.315
practical tasks in tackle for students

12:50.315 --> 12:51.715
to be able to develop that skill.

12:52.455 --> 12:56.275
The third definition then is by the Open University in 2008,

12:56.455 --> 13:00.435
and they say that critical thinking's objective, is

13:00.455 --> 13:02.635
to maintain an OB objective position.

13:03.415 --> 13:05.555
Um, and again, this goes into

13:05.555 --> 13:07.435
what we were just saying about legal perspectives,

13:07.475 --> 13:11.635
that the big status quo, position about what law is

13:11.635 --> 13:13.035
as a positivist position,

13:13.215 --> 13:15.115
as I discussed in chapter three of my book.

13:15.455 --> 13:19.475
And that law's got to be objective, neutral,

13:19.855 --> 13:24.275
and rational and not, to do with our feelings

13:24.275 --> 13:25.755
or our emotions,

13:25.755 --> 13:28.835
or what we believe, which is more subjective thought.

13:29.335 --> 13:33.555
Um, however, this is where the sort of sociological stances

13:33.975 --> 13:38.715
of Marxism, C-L-S-C-R-T, feminisms, intersectionality

13:38.775 --> 13:40.235
and legal pluralism on coming,

13:40.235 --> 13:42.635
because they're all critiquing the mark,

13:42.855 --> 13:44.955
the positivist position for saying, well,

13:45.055 --> 13:46.475
why don't you make a space for us

13:46.475 --> 13:49.595
and our existence, how we experience the world?

13:50.055 --> 13:53.675
So we need to get a better kind of balance

13:53.705 --> 13:55.715
between the subjective and the objective.

13:55.735 --> 13:58.955
And for me, through my subjective legal purist,

13:59.155 --> 14:01.155
approach, although it sounds on the subjective side,

14:01.305 --> 14:04.395
it's not, it's trying to navigate away in the middle

14:04.585 --> 14:06.795
through, having a phenomenological

14:07.675 --> 14:10.275
approach in the Hegelian tradition,

14:10.345 --> 14:13.315
that basically we're not in a vat on our own.

14:13.345 --> 14:15.035
There's somebody that we're talking to

14:15.035 --> 14:16.315
that we're in dialogue with,

14:16.575 --> 14:18.315
and I have my ideas and you have your ideas.

14:18.315 --> 14:21.475
And in between we create something a bit like you mean

14:21.725 --> 14:24.795
archetypes and the collective, unconsciousness

14:25.025 --> 14:27.915
that there's only just sets of ideas that we can pull upon.

14:28.215 --> 14:29.675
Um, we can't just, it's not that each

14:29.675 --> 14:32.235
and every person at the 7 billion in the world has their own

14:32.245 --> 14:33.915
ideas about what human rights are.

14:34.085 --> 14:36.475
We've all got ideas about what they may be,

14:36.475 --> 14:37.875
whether they're good or bad, but this is

14:37.875 --> 14:39.355
what these, are.

14:40.295 --> 14:41.555
So it is getting that balance

14:41.555 --> 14:43.595
between the subjective and the objective.

14:44.255 --> 14:47.595
The fourth definition then, of that I contemplated

14:48.535 --> 14:49.755
of critical thinking is

14:49.755 --> 14:52.645
by Jennifer Moon in 2008 in her book, critical Thinking

14:52.705 --> 14:54.005
and Exploration in Theory

14:54.025 --> 14:56.245
and Practice, where she said, it's the ability

14:56.345 --> 14:57.565
to consider a range

14:57.565 --> 14:59.325
of information from many different sources.

14:59.985 --> 15:03.085
And this is what I look at in chapter four of the book,

15:03.085 --> 15:04.925
putting Critical Thinking into Practice.

15:05.105 --> 15:07.085
And we've got guidance about how you can hone

15:07.105 --> 15:09.485
and practice these skills and marshal a large amount

15:09.605 --> 15:10.925
of information, which is important

15:10.925 --> 15:12.485
for law students to be able to do.

15:13.545 --> 15:16.565
Now in the new edition of Tackle, I've added a fifth,

15:16.735 --> 15:18.965
definition put forward by an academic.

15:19.145 --> 15:20.965
And that's why Russell Sandberg,

15:20.965 --> 15:24.525
because it's actually critical thinking related to law.

15:25.105 --> 15:28.245
And this comes from his recent publication of his book,

15:28.485 --> 15:31.245
A Subversive Legal History, A Manifesto for the Future

15:31.305 --> 15:33.405
of Legal Education,

15:33.405 --> 15:37.325
where he uses subversive rather than the word critical.

15:37.785 --> 15:40.365
Um, and he says this is important for law,

15:40.425 --> 15:42.725
to create a disturbance that seeks to unsettle

15:42.745 --> 15:46.165
and critique a notion of law that is autonomous, objective,

15:46.555 --> 15:49.565
predictable and complicates account of the legal

15:49.625 --> 15:52.245
and social chains that is based upon in terms

15:52.265 --> 15:53.765
of liberal expectations.

15:53.905 --> 15:56.085
And I look at this in chapter five of my book,

15:56.315 --> 15:58.565
contemplating whether the African philosophy

15:58.565 --> 16:00.325
of Ubuntu could be used as a way

16:00.325 --> 16:03.605
of conflict managing rather than having the carism

16:03.605 --> 16:05.885
philosophy of, I think, or actually I doubt

16:05.885 --> 16:07.445
therefore I think therefore I am,

16:07.445 --> 16:08.725
which is skeptical thinking

16:08.725 --> 16:12.365
or perhaps critical thought, getting into thinking, I am

16:12.365 --> 16:15.405
and I exist because we do, we are,

16:15.415 --> 16:18.565
which is a different approach to the liberal, notion.

16:19.345 --> 16:22.165
And the final approach that I've got then in tackle about

16:22.485 --> 16:25.405
critical thinking is, the definition of the book,

16:26.055 --> 16:29.605
which I use as the working definition until students come up

16:29.605 --> 16:32.725
with their own, which is thinking critically about law is

16:32.725 --> 16:35.045
basically an intellectually disciplined process

16:35.185 --> 16:38.645
of thought whereby you develop your own informed opinions

16:38.645 --> 16:41.245
and arguments based on a particular issue.

16:41.545 --> 16:43.405
That's what I said in the first edition of the book,

16:43.405 --> 16:44.445
and I still stand by that,

16:44.625 --> 16:45.805
but I've added in the second

16:46.075 --> 16:48.285
that it requires a value judgment.

16:49.325 --> 16:52.425
So what are our values, our goals, or our ideals

16:52.765 --> 16:56.505
or virtues behaviors that demonstrate high moral standards

16:56.505 --> 16:57.545
of care or character?

16:58.495 --> 17:02.435
Um, well, the greatest of all human virtue surely is love

17:03.155 --> 17:06.155
representing human kindness, compassion, and affection.

17:06.895 --> 17:10.025
But what is love when intersectional thinker,

17:10.055 --> 17:12.305
bell Hooks actually has a really great,

17:12.445 --> 17:14.745
or endorses a really great definition in her book,

17:14.745 --> 17:17.865
all about love from 2016, that

17:17.885 --> 17:21.825
of m Scott Peck's definition that love is the will

17:21.845 --> 17:26.145
to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one's own

17:26.245 --> 17:27.905
or another's spiritual growth.

17:28.285 --> 17:31.585
It is both an intention and an action.

17:32.705 --> 17:36.885
Now, connecting love with law is utterly subversive,

17:37.025 --> 17:38.645
as Aristotle stated,

17:39.465 --> 17:42.045
law is reason free from passion.

17:42.905 --> 17:46.245
But I agree with a legal pluralist called Brian Tamanaha,

17:46.555 --> 17:48.205
that law is a folk concept.

17:49.065 --> 17:50.445
It is an art form.

17:51.265 --> 17:54.725
In Tackle two, the new edition of the book, I state

17:54.725 --> 17:57.645
that we need to think lovingly, creatively,

17:57.665 --> 17:59.485
and self reflexively about law.

18:00.015 --> 18:02.565
After all, what do the laws that we pass

18:02.625 --> 18:04.765
and follow say about our humanity?

18:05.785 --> 18:08.645
For me, critical thinking is a two stage process.

18:08.855 --> 18:11.125
First, you need to have knowledge

18:11.125 --> 18:13.645
and understanding of some legal content.

18:13.985 --> 18:17.125
For example, a relevant statute case, which applies

18:17.125 --> 18:18.125
to a certain scenario.

18:18.505 --> 18:21.845
And then second, you can demonstrate your ability

18:21.845 --> 18:25.085
to think critically about law by putting law into context,

18:25.625 --> 18:27.845
be it political, social, economic

18:28.465 --> 18:31.005
intellectualizing about it, philosophizing

18:31.265 --> 18:32.605
or theorizing about it.

18:32.605 --> 18:34.965
And this is where your legal perspectives would come in

18:35.425 --> 18:38.845
or critiquing it and suggesting how best it can be reformed

18:39.065 --> 18:40.685
and thinking lovingly, creatively

18:40.705 --> 18:43.005
and self reflectively about law.

18:43.715 --> 18:47.285
Essentially thinking critically about law entails us

18:47.485 --> 18:49.525
weighing up the pros and the cons, strengths

18:49.525 --> 18:53.765
and weaknesses of something dependent on your values.

18:54.325 --> 18:55.525
I mean, in chapter one of the book,

18:55.525 --> 18:57.725
thinking Critically about Your happiness,

18:57.885 --> 19:00.605
I state about it leading to a first class law degree,

19:00.605 --> 19:03.165
if you can demonstrate the skill,

19:03.245 --> 19:04.725
ability to think critically.

19:05.265 --> 19:06.925
So it's a life skill as well.

19:07.265 --> 19:09.245
Um, and it requires a holistic

19:09.385 --> 19:12.245
and active approach to learning, requiring students

19:12.305 --> 19:14.085
to frequently attend lectures

19:14.085 --> 19:16.365
or plenaries, be open to discussing

19:16.365 --> 19:18.045
and challenging issues in the classroom,

19:18.345 --> 19:20.925
and then effectively answering assessment questions.

19:21.475 --> 19:25.565
They need to be considering the questions why, how,

19:25.935 --> 19:27.605
where, and so what.

19:28.425 --> 19:31.565
And in chapter four of the book, I whittle down how

19:31.565 --> 19:35.085
to answer these four questions effectively in six steps.

19:35.615 --> 19:37.765
First, by problematizing a question,

19:38.225 --> 19:40.445
what's the particular issue that you are looking at?

19:40.825 --> 19:43.045
Second, describing the problem.

19:43.185 --> 19:45.965
So what's the historical background? What, what's it about?

19:45.965 --> 19:49.165
What particular law or case or issue are you looking at?

19:49.835 --> 19:52.045
Thirdly, critically and analyzing this,

19:52.065 --> 19:54.125
and I think this is where you can be bringing in your legal

19:54.125 --> 19:55.245
perspectives to be saying,

19:55.265 --> 19:56.365
I'm looking at it from this approach.

19:56.365 --> 19:58.525
And a doctrinal approach is absolutely fine.

19:58.905 --> 20:00.645
You can have students who only ever go

20:00.645 --> 20:03.085
through a law degree looking at things from a doctrinal

20:03.085 --> 20:04.445
perspective, and that's absolutely,

20:04.445 --> 20:06.005
you can still get a first class with that.

20:06.065 --> 20:08.965
But other options are available if students would like

20:08.965 --> 20:10.005
to have a look at that.

20:10.545 --> 20:11.965
Um, evaluating the pros

20:11.965 --> 20:13.805
and cons would be the fourth part of the process.

20:14.935 --> 20:16.505
Five, creating a solution.

20:16.815 --> 20:20.025
What reforms, how could we be doing better in future?

20:20.325 --> 20:23.185
And finally then reflecting upon, I've been able

20:23.185 --> 20:24.225
to tell you this much.

20:24.565 --> 20:26.225
I'm able to say, these are the problems

20:26.225 --> 20:27.505
with this particular issue,

20:27.805 --> 20:29.585
but what we need to be now going on

20:29.585 --> 20:31.385
and doing is X, y, and Z.

20:31.885 --> 20:35.505
What's happened now, in this post covid world is

20:35.505 --> 20:39.145
that we've got a lot more emphasis based on, writing

20:39.165 --> 20:42.105
of analytical essays, in which case students need to be able

20:42.165 --> 20:44.345
to make an argument, which is known as a thesis.

20:44.845 --> 20:46.105
And I set out about how

20:46.105 --> 20:48.605
to make an effective argument in chapter five of the book.

20:49.105 --> 20:52.645
So in academia, an argument is the identification of one

20:52.645 --> 20:54.925
or more claims supported by logical reasoning

20:55.185 --> 20:56.725
and evidence, which leads

20:56.745 --> 20:58.565
to the justification of a conclusion.

20:59.305 --> 21:00.645
Um, overall arguments

21:00.645 --> 21:03.485
or the thesis is comprised of lots of little

21:04.245 --> 21:05.925
contributing arguments or reasons.

21:06.545 --> 21:09.045
The author's position, if you will,

21:09.105 --> 21:12.525
and contributing arguments are the individual reasons

21:12.755 --> 21:15.365
that build up the overall argument or thesis.

21:15.785 --> 21:18.045
So we've got to then think about the difference

21:18.045 --> 21:20.285
between descriptive statements when you're talking about

21:20.285 --> 21:22.725
something of fact and describing how we got somewhere.

21:23.105 --> 21:24.605
So the critical statements,

21:24.605 --> 21:28.085
which is when we are saying about the why, the how, the

21:28.085 --> 21:29.125
where, and the, so what,

21:29.135 --> 21:30.965
which is the more critical evaluation.

21:31.665 --> 21:34.885
Um, again, in chapter five of the book, I talk about,

21:35.185 --> 21:38.125
critically thinking about assessments,

21:38.345 --> 21:39.605
and in chapter six as well,

21:39.865 --> 21:42.045
and the most difficult stage

21:42.585 --> 21:45.925
of the writing processes, knowing where to begin.

21:46.265 --> 21:47.525
So you need good planning

21:47.665 --> 21:51.085
and preparation time is, is key to be able to do this.

21:51.505 --> 21:52.645
So first you need to be able

21:52.645 --> 21:55.285
to check the assessment criteria, the ingredients

21:55.285 --> 21:58.685
that you are needing to be, including in your work

21:58.865 --> 22:00.885
and what it is that you need to have

22:00.945 --> 22:03.365
to show a first class grade.

22:03.705 --> 22:06.485
Um, then second, you need to deconstruct the question,

22:06.795 --> 22:09.285
what key words or phrases stand out?

22:09.825 --> 22:13.045
Um, are you being asked to analyze, compare, contrast,

22:13.045 --> 22:15.805
particularly elevate, evaluate a particular issue?

22:16.025 --> 22:17.885
Is it a to, to what extent question,

22:17.885 --> 22:19.325
which is a normative question.

22:19.705 --> 22:21.125
So you need to think critically about

22:21.195 --> 22:23.125
what you are being asked to do.

22:24.025 --> 22:26.645
Um, fair. Do you need to know who your audience is?

22:26.905 --> 22:28.405
Is this something that's being as,

22:28.565 --> 22:30.965
a presentation perhaps to other fellow students?

22:31.345 --> 22:33.525
Are you trying to persuade an expert like a judge?

22:33.705 --> 22:35.685
Is it for the marker, the module leader?

22:36.105 --> 22:39.085
Um, so you need to be thinking about who you are writing

22:39.595 --> 22:42.165
your answer and your assessment for fourth.

22:42.175 --> 22:45.045
Using visual aids can be really, really good in the planning

22:45.045 --> 22:47.405
and preparation stage of your assessment.

22:47.865 --> 22:51.725
Um, doodling mind, mapping diagrams, flow charts to be able

22:51.725 --> 22:52.885
to see visually,

22:52.885 --> 22:56.645
and imagine what you are trying to argue is really helpful.

22:57.105 --> 23:00.325
But my top top tip about thinking critically about

23:00.325 --> 23:03.085
assessments is the, that the critical reading

23:03.185 --> 23:05.645
and writing process should be done at the same time.

23:06.165 --> 23:07.245
I think where students tend

23:07.245 --> 23:09.405
to fall down quite a lot is they do all this reading

23:09.505 --> 23:10.925
and they get really into a subject

23:11.065 --> 23:12.645
and then they just can't make sense of it.

23:12.765 --> 23:13.805
'cause there's so much to say.

23:13.875 --> 23:15.845
Whereas if you kind of write it

23:15.985 --> 23:17.565
and you know how much your work is,

23:17.565 --> 23:19.845
at the same time you get more of a boundary

23:19.845 --> 23:21.765
and cutoff points where, I can't look into this,

23:21.765 --> 23:23.045
but I could footnote that idea

23:23.605 --> 23:24.805
'cause I want to keep on the trajectory

23:24.825 --> 23:26.005
of my overall argument.

23:26.845 --> 23:28.045
I think there's three key elements

23:28.045 --> 23:29.565
of analytical essay essays.

23:29.565 --> 23:33.085
First, the content you need to use the,

23:33.085 --> 23:35.685
correct referencing for your institution.

23:36.025 --> 23:37.805
Um, I know at York we use ola.

23:38.305 --> 23:39.445
Um, we need

23:39.445 --> 23:42.405
to second then have a good structure of your argument.

23:42.535 --> 23:44.645
Three elements obviously is an introduction.

23:44.645 --> 23:46.965
Here's the world and everything. What am I writing about?

23:46.995 --> 23:48.765
I've been asked to write about this issue

23:49.065 --> 23:50.965
and these are the things I'm gonna be telling you about.

23:51.465 --> 23:53.845
Um, the first section being a descriptive section.

23:53.875 --> 23:55.725
This is how we got to where we got to.

23:56.145 --> 23:59.085
The second section being a critical analytical section.

23:59.155 --> 24:02.365
This is where you use your methodological perspectives.

24:02.745 --> 24:04.885
Um, and I talk about this in, in chapter four,

24:04.885 --> 24:06.965
putting your critical thinking into legal practice.

24:07.545 --> 24:10.405
Um, third section is your suggestions for reform.

24:10.745 --> 24:14.005
And this could be a creative process, whether it's a quasi

24:14.025 --> 24:16.245
or original, suggestion

24:16.245 --> 24:17.245
that you could be putting forward.

24:17.625 --> 24:19.565
And in the conclusion, you just want

24:19.565 --> 24:21.485
to be summarizing the main points

24:21.485 --> 24:25.085
that you have made in your overall, essay,

24:25.115 --> 24:27.405
perhaps using some self-reflection, which is

24:27.405 --> 24:29.845
what get you into a higher grade about this is

24:29.845 --> 24:32.245
what the holes, I wasn't able to talk to you 'cause of time

24:32.245 --> 24:33.605
and space here, but if I went on

24:33.605 --> 24:35.565
to do a dissertation on this topic,

24:35.725 --> 24:37.045
I could go there and look at it more.

24:37.505 --> 24:41.205
You need to be using appropriate language as well,

24:41.305 --> 24:43.645
and making sure it's formal English rather than

24:43.645 --> 24:45.165
colloquial language is key.

24:45.585 --> 24:47.325
And then in other assessments,

24:47.325 --> 24:50.045
we've got problem style questions that we use in law.

24:50.305 --> 24:52.965
And, I look at fin and finky legal skills.

24:52.965 --> 24:55.925
They talk about IPAC is my favorite acronym,

24:56.455 --> 24:59.485
issue principle, application and consideration.

24:59.545 --> 25:02.565
You don't need to use those, headings,

25:02.565 --> 25:06.165
but you can kind of structure your paragraphs that make sure

25:06.165 --> 25:07.845
that you're hitting on i a

25:08.145 --> 25:10.085
and other types of assessment that I talk about

25:10.085 --> 25:12.085
as well are longer essays like dissertations

25:12.105 --> 25:13.965
and thesis as well as group working,

25:13.965 --> 25:16.765
which is also becoming a big, hot way

25:16.765 --> 25:18.525
to assess students' work now,

25:18.555 --> 25:20.885
including presentations and posters.

25:21.195 --> 25:23.165
Well, in chapter seven of the book,

25:23.205 --> 25:25.525
I think about critical thinking in the workplace and beyond.

25:26.105 --> 25:29.965
Um, and I think the best place to start thinking about

25:30.485 --> 25:33.125
critical thinking is by doing, work experience.

25:33.945 --> 25:36.465
And you can get a sense then of whether this role

25:36.585 --> 25:37.825
or role is, is for you.

25:38.325 --> 25:40.945
Um, and there's great services at universities now better

25:40.945 --> 25:44.385
than my day, with careers advisory that can help people.

25:45.005 --> 25:48.385
Um, certainly critical thinking is important,

25:48.405 --> 25:50.425
in the workplace for a number of reasons.

25:50.805 --> 25:55.705
Um, I asked some graduates what they sort of experience was

25:55.705 --> 25:56.745
with critical thought

25:56.805 --> 25:59.265
and actually 90% of them reported

25:59.375 --> 26:01.105
that they do think critically.

26:01.645 --> 26:04.105
Um, 50% stated that they always had to,

26:04.105 --> 26:07.585
and 30%, stated that they regularly have to,

26:07.695 --> 26:10.265
whereas the remaining 20% affirm

26:10.265 --> 26:11.745
that they sometimes have to.

26:12.045 --> 26:14.825
And then most sort of phrase

26:14.825 --> 26:18.985
that was used in the qualitative element of my s

26:19.005 --> 26:22.745
survey was that it requires thinking outside of the box,

26:23.525 --> 26:25.505
but of course first Sam, you'd need to know

26:25.505 --> 26:26.585
what the shape of the box is.

26:27.525 --> 26:28.985
Um, so going back

26:28.985 --> 26:31.305
to your question there about whether everybody has

26:31.305 --> 26:34.425
to think critically as part of their role, I I do think so

26:34.425 --> 26:37.305
because even if you've got, somebody

26:37.325 --> 26:40.825
who maybe is doing a very, generic

26:42.105 --> 26:45.085
repetitive role, there may be ways to make that better

26:45.345 --> 26:47.245
by yeah, I know how, what I need

26:47.245 --> 26:50.525
to be doing in this particular, task,

26:50.705 --> 26:52.525
but actually we could make this far more effective

26:52.525 --> 26:54.885
or efficient by doing X, y, or Z.

26:54.945 --> 26:57.885
So, you know, I I would agree read, Antonio Gram,

26:57.895 --> 27:02.405
she's point that everyone is a philosopher these days.

27:02.745 --> 27:05.205
Um, and whether or not we feel that way is one thing,

27:05.225 --> 27:06.725
but there's definitely space for it.

27:07.825 --> 27:10.805
The second reason that it's important in the workplace is

27:10.805 --> 27:14.365
something that John UD said in 1983 in an article,

27:14.365 --> 27:16.445
thinking critically about thinking like a lawyer.

27:17.025 --> 27:19.285
Um, and that's that clients expect lawyers

27:19.345 --> 27:22.085
to have an ability to take on large amount of information

27:22.085 --> 27:25.085
and summarize what's relevant on an issue and understand

27:25.085 --> 27:26.805
and appreciate the other side's perspective.

27:27.465 --> 27:29.765
Um, and GE generate, resolve an issue.

27:29.785 --> 27:31.085
And I think that plays into

27:31.235 --> 27:32.805
what Jennifer Moon was saying about

27:32.805 --> 27:34.445
marshaling lots of different information.

27:34.865 --> 27:36.765
Um, how much do I have to look at something?

27:36.825 --> 27:38.205
Do I skim read this section?

27:38.345 --> 27:40.125
Do I have to read a whole of that article?

27:40.785 --> 27:42.965
Law students are always saying, there's so much reading

27:42.965 --> 27:44.605
that I have to do on this degree,

27:44.665 --> 27:46.845
but actually you can be smart

27:46.865 --> 27:48.685
or think critically about what you need to read

27:48.685 --> 27:49.765
and how you do that.

27:50.385 --> 27:52.845
Um, another point is that there's been a growing use

27:52.845 --> 27:54.165
of critical thinking as part

27:54.165 --> 27:56.765
of the entry level application processes that,

27:56.905 --> 27:58.165
law firms have been using

27:58.865 --> 28:01.405
and to assess the cognitive abilities of professionals.

28:01.405 --> 28:03.045
Basically there's so many law graduates,

28:03.045 --> 28:05.885
how do we filter out who will be a good,

28:05.995 --> 28:07.205
candidate going forward?

28:07.305 --> 28:09.685
And this is using the Watson Glasser Critical Thinking

28:09.685 --> 28:11.885
appraisal and you can Google that or have a look

28:11.885 --> 28:13.925
and have a take a test as well to see

28:14.025 --> 28:16.085
how they assess critical thinking.

28:16.345 --> 28:18.365
And one of the biggest things if you want to go on

28:18.365 --> 28:20.205
to a law profession now is obviously

28:20.205 --> 28:22.205
that the solicitor's route has changed

28:22.395 --> 28:24.485
through the Solicitor's qualifying exam.

28:24.985 --> 28:29.405
Um, and I actually, have spoken to, somebody

28:29.545 --> 28:31.645
who has written the essential taught

28:31.665 --> 28:34.765
for the SQE one assessment, Wendy Laws.

28:35.385 --> 28:40.165
Um, and she has said, that with the multiple choice

28:40.925 --> 28:44.485
questions, the key to critical elevation, evaluation

28:44.485 --> 28:47.325
of the law is knowledge, understanding and application.

28:47.785 --> 28:50.285
If you are asked to critically evaluate the law in a given

28:50.885 --> 28:54.565
situation, you are asked about how the law ought to be.

28:54.905 --> 28:58.125
You first need to know what the law is, so you need

28:58.125 --> 29:01.485
to be clear and have concise knowledge of the relevant law,

29:01.905 --> 29:04.845
and you need to understand how the law applies to facts.

29:05.395 --> 29:08.485
Only then can you stand back from law as it is

29:08.785 --> 29:11.965
and look critically about how the law is ought to be.

29:12.585 --> 29:15.725
Um, and the multiple choice questions set out in Sqe one are

29:15.925 --> 29:18.445
designed to help you and build you test your knowledge,

29:18.445 --> 29:20.685
understanding and application of the law.

29:21.355 --> 29:23.725
It's a transferable skill, critical thinking.

29:23.755 --> 29:25.365
It's not just important for lawyers.

29:25.365 --> 29:26.405
That's what I've been looking at.

29:26.425 --> 29:28.325
I'm thinking critically about law,

29:28.745 --> 29:30.245
but it's also important

29:30.385 --> 29:33.045
for people generally in the workplace as I gave the example

29:33.065 --> 29:34.805
of how can we always make things more

29:34.805 --> 29:35.965
effective and efficient.

29:36.305 --> 29:38.605
Um, maybe a better work life balance is

29:38.605 --> 29:40.765
what I would be really considering about if you are having

29:40.805 --> 29:42.485
A loving work ethic, which is something

29:42.485 --> 29:45.045
that Bell Hooks talks about in her book all about law

29:45.425 --> 29:48.845
and also for, again, citizens and democratic societies.

29:48.905 --> 29:51.085
And I don't think that this issue has become any more

29:51.085 --> 29:54.965
pertinent than it is now, to the issues that we,

29:54.965 --> 29:55.605
are faced with.

00:00 - Tackles a complimentary textbook that puts together readings and exercises from a range of different materials so that today's busy students doesn't have to, it's all put together in one accessible textbook. There's three parts to the book,

00:13 - thinking critically in theory, in practice, and in the future. And I think that critical thinking is an important skill for students to develop and demonstrate in their work because it leads to better grades, a first class, law degree, which leads of course to better career opportunities. But more than that, it's important for citizens in democratic societies for a number of reasons, such as assessing

00:38 - and electing leaders, overthrowing the power of propaganda and the rise of fake news stories, as well as ri working against groupthink, which is a phrase that Irvine Janice coined in the seventies, which is against more brawl. And I think Darren Brown did really well to epitomize the idea of a group thinking in his experiment series where he got the audience to take charge and decide what happened to a stranger.

01:05 - And generally, the people in the audience, as it was anonymous, chose the most nastiest things to happen to the poor, stranger. So critical thinking rather than about group thinking is about team thinking. It's an important skill which affirms that questions should be raised and the reasons behind the answers given serious contemplation. When thinking critically about law,

01:27 - the complimentary question must be asked, well, what's law? Lots of different scholars and philosophers have been contemplating this question, not just me, trying to sleep at night over decades. And in the first edition of the book, I looked at seven legal perspectives, which I've written, written down in the second edition, with caveats to be six different legal perspectives. and the first one being doctrinal law, which is made up of natural law theory and legal positivism.

01:59 - So natural law theory is saying that there is a connection between law and religion, law and morality. for example, historically, people, obviously when they were educated, were generally done so, through religious purposes in order to understand the scriptures and, ev v the word of God. in which case, you know, a lot of people were thinking about divinity and the connection between the laws of nature and the laws of the sovereign.

02:29 - whether that be, God or do a monarch on the state. obviously over time law became more manmade and we get obviously the, HLA heart who was an absolutely, amazing, theorist who said that there must be a separation between laws and, morals. And so therefore, law is manmade and this is a legal status quo and has remained so for a long time. So we can't, undermine the importance

02:58 - and significance of a positivist idea of law. So that's doctrinal law now made up of natural law theory and legal positivism, thanks to the resurgence of natural law ideas following the atrocities of the Second World War, the setup of the United Nations and the rise of human rights, bringing back a bit of a moralistic idea, a humane, notion into the law. and this makes up doctrinal law. That's the first perspective. The second perspective is, one that's, Marxist.

03:29 - and that is always a student favorite, to think about things in economic terms. to think about the Communist Manifesto, which was published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. and basically a Marxist perspective of law would be saying that law is a bourgeois, right? It's a middle class, right? there's people who are in the elite position are able to state and aow what the law is for economic purposes,

03:56 - and for the advancement of the middle classes. CLS has been, critical legal studies influenced and comes out of Marxism thinking. thanks to quite a lot of people coming away from, continental Europe in the Second World War. There's a group of thinkers called the Frank Fe School, people like Adorno who come to America and infiltrate the ideas of say, Duncan, Ken Kennedy and, Roberto unga. And they would say that, law is a paternal, right?

04:29 - again, this kind of elitist bias, very political driven idea about law. The fourth idea then is that of feminisms, and something that Marxism and CLS doesn't do so well is think about the position of women in law. And we can think about the different waves that there have been of feminisms over time. The first being, a liberal movement. We've got, war

04:52 - and craft in 1792 writes about the vindication of women, that women should be able to be treated the same as men and be given a vote. Suffrage is a very important point here. the second aspect then is radical feminism coming from, say, Simone, the Bois in France, going to Catherine McKinnon in America. and it's radical in the sense of getting to the root of the problem. It's saying it is a systemic idea.

05:16 - We can't just patch things up and have women be treated equally to men. There's systemic issues with patriarchy, which we must have a look at. The third wave of feminism is kind of a postmodern feminism, trying to make more spaces for different voices of women. so we get a rise of de-colonial feminisms, and, the idea of maybe eco feminisms queer theories, transgender perspectives, which are very, very key at this point, in our time as well.

05:47 - And, they say that now we might even be entering a fourth wave of feminism, which I call subjective feminisms, because with the endorsement of the hashtag me too movement, it seems these days that almost every woman has a story of injustice to tell. so we've all got a different perspective, and I would say that, you know, men as well have stories to tell about patriarchy. And what we need to really be talking about now is gen

06:14 - gender normativity for conversations of all people and how those ideas affect us. So that is then the fourth, legal perspective and some very exciting conversations to be had there. The fifth illegal perspective is that of critical race theory, and again, with the Black Lives Matter movement and did a de colonizing of the curriculum that we're seeing at universities at the moment, is a very important perspective

06:40 - that needs a lot more research, to be done, especially in the uk. and what CRT theorists would be saying is, unlike positivists who say that law is created for men and feminists who say it's created by men for men, CRT theorists would be saying, well, we are looking at the rights of white men particularly. And it's very much influenced by the Civil Rights Movement in America coming out of the CLS, the critical legal studies movement.

07:11 - and again, I think a lot more needs to be done in the UK about the critical race theory. so you are looking at the work of say, Tarrick, ma I'm not very good at, getting his name right 'cause I've got dyslexia. but he's, a great person to be having a look at here. And then in the caveat is we've got to be looking really intersectional thought now, which is you should be placed really, in between

07:36 - feminisms and CRTs, but in the book, I've had to speak about it afterwards. so it makes sense. and this is coined by Kimberly Crenshaw in America, thinking about really her place in law's story, as a black African American woman, and, you know, she's a privileged person being an academic, but you know, what's the story of, of these kind of, women when you've got faced with different cultural, religious, age

08:06 - and different backgrounds, how do we sense of all of these things within law? So for me, the final, legal perspective that makes the most sense to, to really focus on is legal pluralism. and, whether I can convince students that legal pluralism is a good perspective, to follow is, is, you know, down to them having a look for themselves, in chapter three of the book. but, I say, that there's a plural,

08:35 - a plurality of different legal pluralistic perspectives and look at four key ones and institutional perspective, which there's a different, lots of different normative orders going on, but it's still confined with the idea that law has to function with, certain parameters, institutional parameters, so that plagiarism policies at universities kind of work because you've got a rule, and if it's broken, there's consequences to it.

09:00 - So it's very positivistic kind of notion of law. And that's, coined by John Griffiths in 1986. And there's a culture and religious aspect of, legal pluralism. We saw this with the discussion of the former Archbishop Canterbury, Warren Williams back in 2008, about the transformative accommodation between Sharia councils in the uk, and the whole spark of discussions from Samuel Urbano

09:25 - and also Phar, about the place of say, British Muslim legal pluralism, in that particular normative order. and then we move into sort of a critical legal pluralistic perspective coined by Kleinhans and McDonald in 1997, which is saying that actually everything is, is more about our imaginations and that only really we can be writing an autobiographical account of law. and I was very inspired by this.

09:53 - Martha Marie Klein was actually my PhD, supervisor, but where I found, it lacking slightly was, well, we can't have sort of judges and different academics writing autobiographical accounts of law, especially say about Muslim legal pluralism, in a multicultural society by white researchers, that isn't their experience. So therefore, we need to be in conversation and dialogue with, with each other. And that's where I get to of my subjective legal pluralism.

10:21 - But the key thing about chapter three with these six different legal perspectives that I ask students is, where do you see yourself in all these perspectives of law? And in the next chapter, chapter four, I talk about how to use these legal perspectives, methodology methodologically in their work. So there's different perspectives about what law is, but how do we think critically about that to begin with? And this is a question that I have been again,

10:49 - thinking about, rather than staying up night, about it though, what I have done is gone and asked quite a lot of people, like students and graduates, tutors, lecturers and professors, what they think critical thinking is. and I would like to say that I have a really great answer from doing that, but I think I just ended up more confused. So I went again and looked back at some academic research that had been done on what thinking critically was.

11:16 - And again, this isn't necessarily law specific. and I've come and found in chapter two of my book five particular definitions by academics, the first by Paul, an elder, who, Richard Paul is actually the chair of the Thinking Critically Foundation. So somebody who also has spent a lot of time thinking about this, and in, I've actually got this from a,

11:38 - a previous book edition of their book in 2014, critical Thinking Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. They say that critical thinking is the art of thinking about your thinking whilst you are thinking in order to make it better. So they call it higher order thinking, and it requires explicitly reflective thought that is constantly fair. And they call this strong critical thinking.

12:06 - Stella Al, provides a second definition that I contemplated in chapter two of Hackle. and that's from her book in 2011, thinking Critic, critical Thinking Skills, developing Effective Analysis and Argument. And she basically says that there is a cognitive ability associated with something in the mind, which I think helps to endorse why I found it so hard to find a vernacular, decision about what critical thinking is because each

12:35 - and every person's got a different idea about what it might be. and therefore the best thing to do is maybe think of it as a process of thought, something that we can be developed. And that's why I've included tasks, practical tasks in tackle for students to be able to develop that skill. The third definition then is by the Open University in 2008, and they say that critical thinking's objective, is to maintain an OB objective position.

13:03 - and again, this goes into what we were just saying about legal perspectives, that the big status quo, position about what law is as a positivist position, as I discussed in chapter three of my book. And that law's got to be objective, neutral, and rational and not, to do with our feelings or our emotions, or what we believe, which is more subjective thought. however, this is where the sort of sociological stances

13:33 - of Marxism, C-L-S-C-R-T, feminisms, intersectionality and legal pluralism on coming, because they're all critiquing the mark, the positivist position for saying, well, why don't you make a space for us and our existence, how we experience the world? So we need to get a better kind of balance between the subjective and the objective. And for me, through my subjective legal purist, approach, although it sounds on the subjective side,

14:01 - it's not, it's trying to navigate away in the middle through, having a phenomenological approach in the Hegelian tradition, that basically we're not in a vat on our own. There's somebody that we're talking to that we're in dialogue with, and I have my ideas and you have your ideas. And in between we create something a bit like you mean archetypes and the collective, unconsciousness that there's only just sets of ideas that we can pull upon.

14:28 - we can't just, it's not that each and every person at the 7 billion in the world has their own ideas about what human rights are. We've all got ideas about what they may be, whether they're good or bad, but this is what these, are. So it is getting that balance between the subjective and the objective. The fourth definition then, of that I contemplated of critical thinking is

14:49 - by Jennifer Moon in 2008 in her book, critical Thinking and Exploration in Theory and Practice, where she said, it's the ability to consider a range of information from many different sources. And this is what I look at in chapter four of the book, putting Critical Thinking into Practice. And we've got guidance about how you can hone and practice these skills and marshal a large amount of information, which is important

15:10 - for law students to be able to do. Now in the new edition of Tackle, I've added a fifth, definition put forward by an academic. And that's why Russell Sandberg, because it's actually critical thinking related to law. And this comes from his recent publication of his book, A Subversive Legal History, A Manifesto for the Future of Legal Education, where he uses subversive rather than the word critical. and he says this is important for law,

15:40 - to create a disturbance that seeks to unsettle and critique a notion of law that is autonomous, objective, predictable and complicates account of the legal and social chains that is based upon in terms of liberal expectations. And I look at this in chapter five of my book, contemplating whether the African philosophy of Ubuntu could be used as a way of conflict managing rather than having the carism philosophy of, I think, or actually I doubt

16:05 - therefore I think therefore I am, which is skeptical thinking or perhaps critical thought, getting into thinking, I am and I exist because we do, we are, which is a different approach to the liberal, notion. And the final approach that I've got then in tackle about critical thinking is, the definition of the book, which I use as the working definition until students come up with their own, which is thinking critically about law is basically an intellectually disciplined process

16:35 - of thought whereby you develop your own informed opinions and arguments based on a particular issue. That's what I said in the first edition of the book, and I still stand by that, but I've added in the second that it requires a value judgment. So what are our values, our goals, or our ideals or virtues behaviors that demonstrate high moral standards of care or character? well, the greatest of all human virtue surely is love

17:03 - representing human kindness, compassion, and affection. But what is love when intersectional thinker, bell Hooks actually has a really great, or endorses a really great definition in her book, all about love from 2016, that of m Scott Peck's definition that love is the will to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth. It is both an intention and an action. Now, connecting love with law is utterly subversive,

17:37 - as Aristotle stated, law is reason free from passion. But I agree with a legal pluralist called Brian Tamanaha, that law is a folk concept. It is an art form. In Tackle two, the new edition of the book, I state that we need to think lovingly, creatively, and self reflexively about law. After all, what do the laws that we pass and follow say about our humanity?

18:05 - For me, critical thinking is a two stage process. First, you need to have knowledge and understanding of some legal content. For example, a relevant statute case, which applies to a certain scenario. And then second, you can demonstrate your ability to think critically about law by putting law into context, be it political, social, economic intellectualizing about it, philosophizing or theorizing about it.

18:32 - And this is where your legal perspectives would come in or critiquing it and suggesting how best it can be reformed and thinking lovingly, creatively and self reflectively about law. Essentially thinking critically about law entails us weighing up the pros and the cons, strengths and weaknesses of something dependent on your values. I mean, in chapter one of the book, thinking Critically about Your happiness, I state about it leading to a first class law degree,

19:00 - if you can demonstrate the skill, ability to think critically. So it's a life skill as well. and it requires a holistic and active approach to learning, requiring students to frequently attend lectures or plenaries, be open to discussing and challenging issues in the classroom, and then effectively answering assessment questions. They need to be considering the questions why, how,

19:25 - where, and so what. And in chapter four of the book, I whittle down how to answer these four questions effectively in six steps. First, by problematizing a question, what's the particular issue that you are looking at? Second, describing the problem. So what's the historical background? What, what's it about? What particular law or case or issue are you looking at? Thirdly, critically and analyzing this, and I think this is where you can be bringing in your legal

19:54 - perspectives to be saying, I'm looking at it from this approach. And a doctrinal approach is absolutely fine. You can have students who only ever go through a law degree looking at things from a doctrinal perspective, and that's absolutely, you can still get a first class with that. But other options are available if students would like to have a look at that. evaluating the pros

20:11 - and cons would be the fourth part of the process. Five, creating a solution. What reforms, how could we be doing better in future? And finally then reflecting upon, I've been able to tell you this much. I'm able to say, these are the problems with this particular issue, but what we need to be now going on and doing is X, y, and Z. What's happened now, in this post covid world is

20:35 - that we've got a lot more emphasis based on, writing of analytical essays, in which case students need to be able to make an argument, which is known as a thesis. And I set out about how to make an effective argument in chapter five of the book. So in academia, an argument is the identification of one or more claims supported by logical reasoning and evidence, which leads to the justification of a conclusion. overall arguments

21:00 - or the thesis is comprised of lots of little contributing arguments or reasons. The author's position, if you will, and contributing arguments are the individual reasons that build up the overall argument or thesis. So we've got to then think about the difference between descriptive statements when you're talking about something of fact and describing how we got somewhere. So the critical statements, which is when we are saying about the why, the how, the

21:28 - where, and the, so what, which is the more critical evaluation. again, in chapter five of the book, I talk about, critically thinking about assessments, and in chapter six as well, and the most difficult stage of the writing processes, knowing where to begin. So you need good planning and preparation time is, is key to be able to do this. So first you need to be able

21:52 - to check the assessment criteria, the ingredients that you are needing to be, including in your work and what it is that you need to have to show a first class grade. then second, you need to deconstruct the question, what key words or phrases stand out? are you being asked to analyze, compare, contrast, particularly elevate, evaluate a particular issue? Is it a to, to what extent question, which is a normative question.

22:19 - So you need to think critically about what you are being asked to do. fair. Do you need to know who your audience is? Is this something that's being as, a presentation perhaps to other fellow students? Are you trying to persuade an expert like a judge? Is it for the marker, the module leader? so you need to be thinking about who you are writing your answer and your assessment for fourth. Using visual aids can be really, really good in the planning

22:45 - and preparation stage of your assessment. doodling mind, mapping diagrams, flow charts to be able to see visually, and imagine what you are trying to argue is really helpful. But my top top tip about thinking critically about assessments is the, that the critical reading and writing process should be done at the same time. I think where students tend to fall down quite a lot is they do all this reading and they get really into a subject

23:11 - and then they just can't make sense of it. 'cause there's so much to say. Whereas if you kind of write it and you know how much your work is, at the same time you get more of a boundary and cutoff points where, I can't look into this, but I could footnote that idea 'cause I want to keep on the trajectory of my overall argument. I think there's three key elements

23:28 - of analytical essay essays. First, the content you need to use the, correct referencing for your institution. I know at York we use ola. we need to second then have a good structure of your argument. Three elements obviously is an introduction. Here's the world and everything. What am I writing about? I've been asked to write about this issue and these are the things I'm gonna be telling you about.

23:51 - the first section being a descriptive section. This is how we got to where we got to. The second section being a critical analytical section. This is where you use your methodological perspectives. and I talk about this in, in chapter four, putting your critical thinking into legal practice. third section is your suggestions for reform. And this could be a creative process, whether it's a quasi or original, suggestion that you could be putting forward.

24:17 - And in the conclusion, you just want to be summarizing the main points that you have made in your overall, essay, perhaps using some self-reflection, which is what get you into a higher grade about this is what the holes, I wasn't able to talk to you 'cause of time and space here, but if I went on to do a dissertation on this topic, I could go there and look at it more. You need to be using appropriate language as well,

24:41 - and making sure it's formal English rather than colloquial language is key. And then in other assessments, we've got problem style questions that we use in law. And, I look at fin and finky legal skills. They talk about IPAC is my favorite acronym, issue principle, application and consideration. You don't need to use those, headings, but you can kind of structure your paragraphs that make sure that you're hitting on i a

25:08 - and other types of assessment that I talk about as well are longer essays like dissertations and thesis as well as group working, which is also becoming a big, hot way to assess students' work now, including presentations and posters. Well, in chapter seven of the book, I think about critical thinking in the workplace and beyond. and I think the best place to start thinking about critical thinking is by doing, work experience.

25:33 - And you can get a sense then of whether this role or role is, is for you. and there's great services at universities now better than my day, with careers advisory that can help people. certainly critical thinking is important, in the workplace for a number of reasons. I asked some graduates what they sort of experience was with critical thought and actually 90% of them reported that they do think critically.

26:01 - 50% stated that they always had to, and 30%, stated that they regularly have to, whereas the remaining 20% affirm that they sometimes have to. And then most sort of phrase that was used in the qualitative element of my s survey was that it requires thinking outside of the box, but of course first Sam, you'd need to know what the shape of the box is. so going back

26:28 - to your question there about whether everybody has to think critically as part of their role, I I do think so because even if you've got, somebody who maybe is doing a very, generic repetitive role, there may be ways to make that better by yeah, I know how, what I need to be doing in this particular, task, but actually we could make this far more effective or efficient by doing X, y, or Z. So, you know, I I would agree read, Antonio Gram,

26:57 - she's point that everyone is a philosopher these days. and whether or not we feel that way is one thing, but there's definitely space for it. The second reason that it's important in the workplace is something that John UD said in 1983 in an article, thinking critically about thinking like a lawyer. and that's that clients expect lawyers to have an ability to take on large amount of information and summarize what's relevant on an issue and understand and appreciate the other side's perspective.

27:27 - and GE generate, resolve an issue. And I think that plays into what Jennifer Moon was saying about marshaling lots of different information. how much do I have to look at something? Do I skim read this section? Do I have to read a whole of that article? Law students are always saying, there's so much reading that I have to do on this degree, but actually you can be smart

27:46 - or think critically about what you need to read and how you do that. another point is that there's been a growing use of critical thinking as part of the entry level application processes that, law firms have been using and to assess the cognitive abilities of professionals. Basically there's so many law graduates, how do we filter out who will be a good, candidate going forward?

28:07 - And this is using the Watson Glasser Critical Thinking appraisal and you can Google that or have a look and have a take a test as well to see how they assess critical thinking. And one of the biggest things if you want to go on to a law profession now is obviously that the solicitor's route has changed through the Solicitor's qualifying exam. and I actually, have spoken to, somebody who has written the essential taught

28:31 - for the SQE one assessment, Wendy Laws. and she has said, that with the multiple choice questions, the key to critical elevation, evaluation of the law is knowledge, understanding and application. If you are asked to critically evaluate the law in a given situation, you are asked about how the law ought to be. You first need to know what the law is, so you need to be clear and have concise knowledge of the relevant law, and you need to understand how the law applies to facts. Only then can you stand back from law as it is

29:08 - and look critically about how the law is ought to be. and the multiple choice questions set out in Sqe one are designed to help you and build you test your knowledge, understanding and application of the law. It's a transferable skill, critical thinking. It's not just important for lawyers. That's what I've been looking at. I'm thinking critically about law, but it's also important for people generally in the workplace as I gave the example

29:33 - of how can we always make things more effective and efficient. maybe a better work life balance is what I would be really considering about if you are having A loving work ethic, which is something that Bell Hooks talks about in her book all about law and also for, again, citizens and democratic societies. And I don't think that this issue has become any more pertinent than it is now, to the issues that we, are faced with.

Faculti AI can make mistakes