Cómo organizar un seminario en “docencia-tipo-bolonia” a base de debates

Este trabajo de unos profes de economía españoles y colgado en SSRN da pistas a los profes de Derecho que, a partir de muy pronto, tendremos que organizar la docencia de otra manera (seminarios). Parece sensato el sistema. Lo difícil está en encontrar temas cuya discusión pueda organizarse en forma de debates.

The debate involves two teams of students (two to three team members each) defending opposite positions in a real-world case involving competition policy. Cases are assigned at random to the groups at least one month before the debate is scheduled to be held. They are informed of the rules of the debate in advance and are warned to adhere to them strictly in preparing their cases. All members of the group must participate individually in the oral presentation of their case, but it is up to the team to program these interventions. However, individual interventions should be largely similar in terms of time, difficulty of exposition, replies, etc. The teacher acts as the judge, sometimes with the assistance of a professional guest from the field of competition policy

i) Each team has twenty minutes to present the main concepts in defense of their position. . The aim of the debate is that participants draw on the theoretical and empirical concepts, taught in the conventional classes dedicated to competition policy, and apply them to a real-world case (one that has already been decided by national competition authorities). Cases include restrictive competition practices (price fixing, non-compete clauses, abuse of dominant position, etc.) and market concentration processes. The debate itself is organized as follows (note, times are maximums and should not be exceeded):
ii) There is a break of eight minutes to allow the teams to reflect.
iii) Each team has seven minutes to rebut the arguments presented by the other party, or to reaffirm their own arguments. However, they are not permitted to introduce any new arguments.
iv) Teams have five minutes to sum up. Again, teams may not introduce any new arguments, but must limit themselves to reaffirming their earlier positions or any new positions they might have adopted in response to the presentation of the other team.

Under no circumstances can the final resolution of the Competition Authority in question be used as an argument to defend a position. Teams are only permitted to draw on information from the relevant reports. Other characteristics include:
1. The team representing the respondent (in cases of anti-competitive practices) or opposed to the concentration process initiates the debate. This order is maintained throughout the activity.
2. The teams can present theoretical and empirical arguments of all kinds. These should be carefully referenced and cited (preferably, supported in paper format).
3. Both the initial presentation and the summing up of arguments should be made using PowerPoint.
4. Teams seek to demonstrate that their arguments are valid or can be supported by economic theory, empirical evidence and/or the previous rulings of antitrust agencies.

On the day of the debate, each team has to submit a detailed report (8-11 pages) of its arguments, including references, industry-specific data, etc., adhering to a pre-determined format. Each team is evaluated as follows:
a) Clarity and technical persuasiveness of argumentation [35%].
b) Strength with which arguments are defended and rebutted. Particular importance is attached to use of technical arguments [15%].
c) Quality of report submitted [50%]. The evaluation takes into consideration the use made of the theoretical and empirical models presented during the lecture-based part of the course. The quality of the presentation is also a factor, albeit minor.

Jiménez, Juan-Luis, Perdiguero, Jordi and Suárez, Ancor, Debating as a Classroom Tool for Adapting Learning Outcomes to the European Higher Education Area (June 1, 2011). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1868934