Socratic Seminars Do More Harm Than Good

Imagine finally pushing past your anxieties, fear of rejection, and fear of failure. This is the most stressful part of your week. You have elaborate answers to the questions, all written down in preparation for the discussion. In a split-second lull in the seminar, you speak up, “Well I belie-”

You are interrupted by someone who has already responded five times, despite not having spoken once yourself. Disheartened, you quit trying, thinking that you are the problem. In reality, the basis of the Socratic seminar was flawed from the start, but many students will continue blaming themselves for their difficulties.

The Socratic Method originated in the 5th century BCE, acclaimed for fostering critical thinking skills, group discussion, and deep thought. Socratic seminars have become a widely used style of discussion, common in most English classes today, in which students are seated in a circle and told to freely and critically discuss a particular set of topics. Unfortunately, the qualities that Socrates sought out in this style of learning are absent from the modern Socratic seminar.

Although Socratic seminars are supposed to be a bit uncomfortable by nature, this discomfort is meant to be productive. Said productivity is lost from most seminars the moment that students feel the burden of grades imposed on their performance. It’s no secret that teens are under immense pressure to do well in school. Typically, your score is dependent on speaking three times. Instead of focusing on thoughtful commentary and positive peer interaction, students are hyper focused on when their next chance to interject will be in order to score their precious points. When grades are in question, the flow of the discussion is no longer natural, degrading it in quality and value.

Additionally, with the average class size in California high schools being about 29 students per teacher, reaching these standards is impossible by design. Assuming each student talks for a minute each time they speak, it would take around 90 minutes for them all to get the opportunity for a perfect score. Our typical class is 96 minutes. Even if the Socratic seminar started immediately, it often involves several questions, transition periods, and tangents, meaning it is unlikely for everyone to even get the chance to speak.

That many people trying to coordinate a coherent conversation adds an additional challenge. When in small groups, most people can easily gauge social cues and take turns sharing their points. However, Socratic seminars are unreadable. If thirty nervous teens trying to speak at once wasn’t chaotic enough, they aren’t allowed to raise their hands for the sake of “open communication.” Since pre-school, kids are programmed to raise their hand for their turn to speak, meaning someone who has something to say is easily talked over, or interrupted by unknowing peers who are focused on themselves. The utter lack of etiquette maintained in these seminars leaves under-confident students without a voice, lost in the sea of anxious children.

Absorbed in the “perfection” of Socratic seminars, teachers often seem to ignore the reality of classroom dynamics: the confident extroverts dominate the conversation. Without fail, there are kids who speak much more than three times, meaning the already limited time is cut down, making the seemingly straightforward class activity extremely easy to fail. Rather than critical thinking skills, group discussion, and deep thought, even the most well-run Socratic seminar is full of panic, interruptions, and frustration. Open conversation occurs when students are comfortable and relaxed, not when it's forced. Socratic seminars are best kept lightly moderated, with raised hands, and minimal pressure. Otherwise, the Socratic seminar is just as bad, if not worse, than the average class discussion.