Vernellia R. Randall , The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, First Year Law Students and Performance , 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 63 - 101 (1995) 

The sensing (S) and intuitive (N) preferences index reflects the way in which people prefer to acquire information.⁽¹¹¹⁾ The index reflects how a person finds out about the world around them. A person relies either on sensing (S), which reports observable facts through one of the five senses, or on intuition (N), which reports meanings, relationships, and possibilities worked out in the subconscious. 

Sensing types appreciate the realities of a situation -- accepting and working with what is "given" in the here-and-now. Sensing types tend to be realistic and practical. Sensing types are good at remembering and working with a large number of facts. Intuitive types, on the other hand, tend to look at the big picture and try to grasp the essential patterns. Intuitive types are imaginative and inspirational -- seeing new possibilities and new ways of doing things.

Seventy-four students (48.1%) preferred sensing and eighty students (51.9%) preferred intuition.⁽¹¹²⁾ A larger percentage of male law students (55.6%) than female law students (46.9%) preferred intuition over sensing. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p=.288). A larger percentage of students of color (52.9%) than whites (51.8%) preferred intuition over sensing. Similarly, the difference was not statistically significant (p=.931). 

Students preferring sensing had a lower mean FSGPA (2.532) than students preferring intuition (2.573).⁽¹¹³⁾ However, this difference was not statistically significant (p=.6010).⁽¹¹⁴⁾ While first semester grades increased (for every group except women) as SN continuous scores increased (as preference for intuition increased), the correlation was not statistically significant (p=.377).⁽¹¹⁵⁾ 

Sensing law students learn best when they are given concrete examples that allow them to move to abstract theory in a step-by-step progression. ⁽¹¹⁶⁾Thus, sensing law students should be encouraged to work with programmed, modular, or computer-assisted activities.⁽¹¹⁷⁾ Law profe

ssors should provide sensing law students with knowledge that is practical. Furthermore, sensing law students will do better with clear directions that are concise, detailed, and precise.⁽¹¹⁸⁾ They are comfortable with, and interested in, situations where each part of the whole can be grasped.⁽¹¹⁹⁾ Sensing law students learn best when given a principle, or rule, followed by many examples of variations in applying it. They tend to enjoy practice and drill. Furthermore, because sensing law students are more exact in judging how long things take, they are more likely to work steadily at preparing for exams.⁽¹²⁰⁾ 

Sensing law students may have less of a natural aptitude for reading and writing. Consequently, because much of learning in law school relies on reading or writing, grades of sensing law students "may underestimate their true grasp of a subject."⁽¹²¹⁾ In fact, sensing law students may be particularly disadvantaged because most first year law school exams are timed, written essays tests.⁽¹²²⁾ However, sensing law students may actually be at an advantage in upper division, clinical based courses that rely on performance as a testing measure.⁽¹²³⁾ Furthermore, they may also be at an advantage in courses that rely on objective tests.⁽¹²⁴⁾ 

Intuitive law students may be at an advantage because legal analysis  requires a person to have insight and perception. Intuitive law students are likely to be able to "leap to a conceptual understanding of material."⁽¹²⁵⁾ However, while they are likely to have quick flashes of insight, they are often careless about details and facts.⁽¹²⁶⁾ Nevertheless, intuitive law students tend to do well in law school because they excel at theoretical topics and abstract theories.⁽¹²⁷⁾ Unlike sensing law students, intuitive law students get bored after they have seen what they consider the main point. This may make intuitive students inpatient in the classroom as sensing students struggle to understand. In fact, intuitive law students learn best when given a problem with the task of discovering the solution. While intuitive law students resist drill, they will pay attention to facts in order to verify the correct solution to a problem.⁽¹²⁸⁾ However, intuitive law students often underestimate how long things will take and may finish tasks in a last-minute rush when a deadline makes them interesting or important.⁽¹²⁹⁾ Furthermore, intuitive law students need to be challenged and kept interested.⁽¹³⁰⁾ "Because they are often so quick at insight, they often grasp the principle the teacher is presenting and daydream during the [class]."⁽¹³¹⁾ 

However, law faculty need to provide exercises and opportunities for intuitive law students to develop a "healthy respect for facts." Because of the rapid movement of a law class and intuitive students' flashes of insight, the intuitive student will need to be challenged not to talk "off- the-top- of-their- heads." ⁽¹³²⁾ Otherwise, intuitive law students are in danger of developing slipshod habits. They need to be challenged to find a "basis for the inspirations and insights that come to them."⁽¹³³⁾ 

One way to help both intuitive law students and sensing law students may be to have collaborative exercises in which intuitive students are paired with sensing law students. Intuitive types might gain a healthy respect for the sensing type's solid grasp of reality, while sensing types might be pushed to use their imagination, inspirations, and insights. 

Intuitive law students tend to do well on timed, written essay exams because of their intuitive perception and their facility with the written word.⁽¹³⁴⁾ However, as far as performance is concerned, it seems to make little statistical difference whether students are sensing (mastering "first the facts and details") or intuitive (mastering "first the theories and concepts").⁽¹³⁵⁾ This is probably because law school exams focus on both  practical facts (preferred by sensing law students) and application (preferred by intuitive law students).⁽¹³⁶⁾  TABLES OMITTED

111. FN111. Myers & McCaulley, supra note 57, at 2, 12; Peters, supra note 55, at 12 n.42. 

112. FN112. With only 25% of the general population preferring intuition, this sample of first year law students was more intuitive. See Myers & McCaulley, supra note 57, at 45. 

However, first year law students were less intuitive than previous studies of law students, less intuitive than practicing lawyers, and more intuitive than judges. Natter, supra note 87, at 56 (reporting data gathered by Paul Miller in 1965 and 1967 in which 59% of 2248 law students from five different schools were intuitive); Myers & McCaulley, supra note 57, at 248 (reporting that 60.69% of 519 lawyers and 69.37% of 271 lawyers were intuitive; and that 39.06% of 128 judges were intuitive); Richard, supra note 87, at 76 (reporting that 57% of lawyers were intuitive, with 55% of male lawyers and 47% of female lawyers as intuitive). 

As to the level of preference, both sensors and intuitives had a clear or very clear preference for their choice. However, a smaller percentage of sensors (55.4%) than intuitive (55.3%) had a clear or very clear preference (p.985). Myers & McCaulley, supra note 57, at 59 (reporting level of preference for 32,671 individuals with 53.6% sensing having a clear or very clear preference and 49.3% intuitive having a clear or very clear preference). 

113. FN113. The difference was not statistically significant (p.6010). In a study of high school students, intuitive students had higher mean scores than the sensing types on all academic measures. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 139. 

114. FN114. In a study of high school students, sensing types score significantly lower than the intuitives on almost all written measures, except everyday reading and some of the motor-skill related items. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 139. 

115. FN115. Between 33 to 99 is a preference for sensing and the lower the score the stronger the preference. Between 101 to 167 is a preference for intuition and the higher the score the stronger the preference for intuition. A score of 100 is a median score showing no preference for either sensing or intuition. On sensing-intuitive continuous score the mean score was 99.73, a slight preference for sensing; males had a mean score of 103.24 (a preference for intuition); females had a mean score of 94.78 (a preference for sensing); whites had a mean score of 100.23 (essentially no preference); and, students of color had a mean score of 95.71 (a preference for sensing). Appendix, Table C3. Female and white students continuous scores were negatively correlated, meaning that as female students became more sensing, the FSGPA grade increased. However, the correlation was not statistically significant. Appendix, Table C1. 

116. FN116. See generally Jensen, supra note 51, at 184; Lawrence, supra note 50, at 10 . 

117. FN117. Jensen, supra note 51, at 184. 

118. FN118. Id. at 184. 

119. FN119. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 154. 

120. FN120. Id. at 155. 

121. FN121. Id. 

122. FN122. Id. at 154. 

123. FN123. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 154. 

124. FN124. Id. at 154. 

125. FN125. Id. at 156. 

126. FN126. Jensen, supra note 51, at 184. 

127. FN127. Id. at 184. 

128. FN128. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 157. 

129. FN129. Id. at 157. 

130. FN130. Id. 

131. FN131. Id 

132. FN132. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 157. 

133. FN133. Id. at 157. 

134. FN134. Id. at 156. 

135. FN135. Jensen, supra note 51, at 186. 

136. FN136. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 139, 155-57.