A Socratic Seminar on Socratic Seminars

The desks are arranged in two overly compact, slightly lopsided circles, one nested within the other. Students click through their notes in anticipation, hoping the articles they read will match the questions of those around them. An ominous timer is projected on the board. 

“Okay, everyone,” the teacher says, pencil and clipboard in hand. “Your time starts…now.” 

Socratic Seminars – a group of students coming together to discuss preformulated thoughts, ideas, and questions, with no teacher interference. To some, they’re a nice reprieve from the usual end-of-unit MEAL paragraphs, but to others, they’re a surefire guarantee of no straight A’s that quarter. So, why does each side feel so strongly about these discussions, and, for those who dislike them, what could make it better?

Personally, I don’t like Socratic Seminars. They’re a good idea in theory but incredibly unpredictable. One could do hours of research digging into two of three assigned articles, only to have everyone else care about the one they didn’t read, rendering all of their discussion points useless. 

Additionally, beyond reading the assigned text and writing down questions, there’s not much of a way to prepare, which, for something that’s worth as much as an essay in our gradebooks, is insanely stressful. When everyone knows one discussion could make or break their report cards, they will constantly try to insert themselves into the conversation, jumping at the three points they have written in their notes before anyone else has a chance to say them. As one student said, “It’s [hard] to talk, and everyone is fighting for a space to talk.” For me, and others I know, this makes it nearly impossible to make one’s points heard.

On the other hand, some people thrive in the fast-paced world of flexibility and quick retorts. As one student said, “They are a fantastic way to further your understanding… and are also a way for you to participate more in class.” Others added that “it can be really interesting to hear other people’s opinions,” and “they’re a really cool experience.”

For many, it’s entirely based on the situation. “I feel like it depends on the people,” one student mentioned. “If I don’t like the people, I won’t like the discussion.”

The most obvious solution is to make them worth less of our grade. “I like them,” one student remarked, “but I think it would be a lot better if it was less structured, because that would make it less awkward.” Others voiced that discussions could be improved if there was “less prep,” or “if there wasn’t a ‘rubric’ or anything… and they weren’t graded super strictly.” This less stressful format could encourage quieter students to participate and could make more vocal students feel less of a need to keep talking, knowing the seminar wouldn’t hurt their grades. While this is a good idea, and one I support, it could also be detrimental to those who receive absolutely stellar discussion grades, and who love getting such boosts. 

Overall, Socratic Seminars could teach students important skills such as thinking on the spot or respecting differences in opinion. For people who love to talk, it limits their ability to converse. For people who hate public speaking, it pushes them far out of their comfort zone. While these could be good things, these discussions’ strictness and impact on our grades make them a hugely unnecessary cause of stress in students’ lives. As someone who loathes public speaking, I’ve found Socratic Seminars haven’t helped my fear at all–in fact, they’ve pushed me in the opposite direction, talking less in class than ever before. Maybe without the rubric or the speaking requirements, they have potential, but in their current state, Socratic Seminars are a counterproductive concept that hurts not only our grades but our development into well-balanced people.