Humor has long been linked to measurable benefits in educational settings, yet many law school professors remain resistant to its use in their teaching.
“Humor has been associated with a host of positive physiological and psychological effects,” according to research cited in a recent Above the Law piece examining comedy’s role in legal pedagogy.
Studies have shown that humor can improve the learning environment while also increasing student comprehension and retention of difficult material.
“Unfortunately, some educators believe their role or their topic is too serious to engage humor or view humor as merely a disruption,” a view that persists across law schools throughout the United States.
This is especially common among professors teaching third-year law students, whose courses often carry a weighty, high-stakes atmosphere that discourages levity.
However, the picture is not entirely grim, as self-deprecating humor has been linked to indicators of happiness and stronger social adjustment among those who use it.
Advocate Delaney has called on law schools to incorporate more humor into their curricula, arguing the first year of legal study is particularly ripe for comic relief.
The proposal includes a required 1L course designed to give students a chance to laugh once a week, serving as a vehicle to highlight the absurdities that can otherwise make the first year of law school a maddening experience.
Critics of mandatory fun, however, warn that compulsory enjoyment can backfire, potentially producing more fake laughter than the backing soundtrack of a sitcom rather than genuine stress relief.
Bar prep provider Barbri has been cited as a positive example, having built a roster of educators who bring enough personality and warmth to make their lessons more memorable than the standard law school fare.
Optional social events, such as school-funded evenings at a local comedy club, have been floated as a more flexible alternative that could foster genuine social cohesion without the awkwardness of forced participation.
The article also touches on a popular legal myth, clarifying that the phrase “Rule of thumb” does not in fact derive from any law governing the acceptable width of a stick used to beat one’s wife, contrary to a widely repeated claim.
The piece has been described as likely the most entertaining law review-adjacent article many readers will encounter, acknowledging freely that the bar for fun legal reading may not be especially high.
Nonetheless, the broader argument it makes, that laughter and learning are not mutually exclusive inside law schools, is one that legal educators would do well to take seriously.