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

The thinking (T) and feeling (F) preference index reflects the means that individuals use to reach conclusions, make decisions, form opinions, and arrive at judgments.⁽¹³⁷⁾ Persons who prefer thinking decide impersonally on the basis of logical consequences. Individuals who prefer feeling rely on judgments that are based on personal and social values. 

Persons who rely on thinking make decisions objectively -- making decisions on the basis of cause and effect. Individuals that prefer thinking make decisions by analyzing and weighing the evidence. They seek an objective standard of truth and are frequently good at analyzing what went wrong or why something does not work. 

Persons who prefer to decide through feelings make decisions based on values or on what is important to them and to others. They do not require logical decisions, so long as the decisions are consistent with their values. While feeling persons tend to be sympathetic, appreciative, and tactful when dealing with people, their decisions are not based on emotions, but rather on values. 

One hundred and twenty students (77.9%) preferred thinking and thirty-four students (22.1%) preferred feeling.⁽¹³⁸⁾ A larger percentage of males (82.2%) than females(71.9%) preferred thinking over feeling. Even though the difference was not statistically significant (p=.1271), it is meaningful that although only one-third of all women are thinkers, nearly two- thirds of the women in law schools are thinkers.⁽¹³⁹⁾ A larger percentage of students of color (94.1%) than whites (75.9%) preferred thinking over feeling, although the difference was not statistically significant (p=.088). 

Students preferring thinking had a higher mean FSGPA (2.585) than those preferring feeling (2.440).⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ While this association was highly correlated, it was not statistically significant (p=.1174). However, the students' TF continuous scores decreased as their first semester grades increased.⁽¹⁴¹⁾ That is, the more the student preferred thinking, the better the student performed (p=.003).⁽¹⁴²⁾ 

The thinking-feeling dimension provides insights into what motivates a person to learn. Thinking law students are most motivated to learn when they are provided with a logical rationale.⁽¹⁴³⁾ Legal education seeks to help students to systematically understand the principles underlying the legal system. Thinking law students prefer topics that help them to understand systems or cause-and-effect relationships.⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ Their thought is syllogistic and analytic.⁽¹⁴⁵⁾ Consequently, if given a logical reason for doing boring, uninteresting tasks (i.e., outlining), they are less likely to complain about these tasks.⁽¹⁴⁶⁾ One might predict that thinking students would perform better in law school since law school teaches to their level. However, thinking law students are likely to undervalue factors, such as the importance of human relationships in legal problems, the human side of legal issues, the role of values in legal decision-making, and the art of communication.⁽¹⁴⁷⁾ Thinking law students need activities, like exposure to real clients, early in their legal education. That experience will help them develop their less preferred feeling.⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ It is through these experiences that thinking law students can learn to appreciate the problems of people.⁽¹⁴⁹⁾ Substantive law school courses need to develop mechanisms to constantly keep the thinking law students in touch with the role of values. Otherwise, it will be too easy for the thinking law student to objectify and dehumanize the entire process. 

In contrast, feeling law students are likely to find little motivation in the structure of legal education. Feeling law students need to know that what they are about to learn can be "put to work for people they are concerned about or in the service of personally held convictions and values."⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ Feeling law students think "to clarify their values and to establish networks of values."⁽¹⁵¹⁾ Consequently, "even when their expressions seem syllogistic, they usually evolve from some personally held belief or value."⁽¹⁵²⁾ Feeling law students need to be encouraged to keep that perspective. Without personal encouragement, feeling law students may find it difficult to be motivated, since they may find many law school activities boring and unrewarding.⁽¹⁵³⁾ Feeling law students are more likely to understand legal material if it is presented from the human angle.⁽¹⁵⁴⁾ Consequently, law faculty need to remember to interject into the discussion of cases the human aspect of the issue. This consists of something more than the cold discussion of facts, but rather of discussion of the underlying values motivating the parties. Feeling law students can master legal education and do well if they are in "pursuit of a goal that has important personal value."⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ Furthermore, because feeling law students are particularly motivated by approval, law faculty need to show appreciation for the work of feeling law students.⁽¹⁵⁶⁾ 

Feeling law students need to work on developing their preferred process of judgment as a reliable guide for legal decision making. They can do so by working on "values clarification, developing concern for others, weighing long against short range good, and on determining what is more important and what is less important."⁽¹⁵⁷⁾ Furthermore, feeling law students need activities that teach them to take into account the probable consequences of legal actions, especially where their own high value for the action makes it hard for them to see the probable negative outcomes.⁽¹⁵⁸⁾  TABLES OMITTE

137. FN137. Myers & McCaulley, supra note 57, at 12-13. 

138. FN138. With only 60% of males in the general population preferring thinking, this sample of first year male law students consisted of more thinkers (82.2%). Id. at 45. With only 35% of females in the general population preferring thinking, this sample of first year female law students was overwhelmingly thinkers (71.9%). Id. at 45. 

As a group, this sample of first year law students preferred thinking more than law students from previous studies, more than practicing lawyers, and more than judges. Appendix, Table F1; Natter, supra note 87, at 56 (reporting data gathered by Paul Miller in 1965 and 1967 in which 73% of 2248 law students from five different schools were thinkers); Myers & McCaulley, supra note 57, at 248-49 (reporting that 64.06% of 128 lawyers and 64.94% of 271 lawyers were thinkers); Richard, supra note 87, at 75 (reporting 78% of lawyers as thinkers, with 81% of male lawyers and 66% of female lawyers as thinkers). 

As to the level of preference, a significantly smaller percentage of feeling types (32.3%) than thinking types (62.5%) had a clear or very clear preference for their choice. The difference was statistically significant (p.0013). 

More first year law students who preferred thinking had a clear or very clear preference for their choice than the general population. Myers & McCaulley, supra note 57, at 59 (reporting level of preference for 32,671 with 39.9% thinking having a clear or very clear preference). However, first year law students who preferred feeling had a similar level of clear or very clear preference for their choice as the general population. Id. at 59 (reporting level of preference for 32,671 individuals with 32.7% feeling having a clear or very clear preference). 

139. FN139. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 158. 

140. FN140. Interestingly enough, although thinking types had higher overall grades in academic areas, they scored significantly higher only in such areas as electrical, mechanical, motor mechanical, and technical. Id. at 140. 

141. FN141. Continuous Scores are a linear transformation of preference scores. On the TF continuous scale, between 33 to 99 is a preference for thinking and the lower the score the stronger the preference. Between 101 to 167 is a preference for feeling. The higher the score the stronger the preference for feeling. A score of 100 is a median score showing no preference for either thinking or feeling. On the TF continuous score, the mean score was 79.61 (a preference for thinking); males had a mean score of 76.18 (a preference for thinking); females had a mean score of 84.44 (a preference for thinking); whites had a mean score of 79.96 (a preference for thinking); and, students of color had a mean score of 76.77 (a preference for thinking). Appendix, Table D3. 

142. FN142. This was true for males (p=.004), and whites (p.003). However, while the same association was observed for females (p=.089) and students of color (p=. 108), the association was not statistically significant. Appendix, Table D3. 

143. FN143. Jensen, supra note 51, at 185. 

144. FN144. Id. at 185. 

145. FN145. Id. 

146. FN146. Id. 

147. FN147. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 158. 

148. FN148. Id. at 159. 

149. FN149. Id. 

150. FN150. Jensen, supra note 51, at 185; McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 160. 

151. FN151. Jensen, supra note 51, at 186. 

152. FN152. Id. at 186. 

153. FN153. Id. at 185. 

154. FN154. McCaulley & Natter, supra note 63, at 160. 

155. FN155. Id. at 160. 

156. FN156. Id. at 161. 

157. FN157. Id. 

158. FN158. Id.