Two weeks ago, for example, the topic was legal precedent: does it dictate later rulings, or can it be manipulated? The question "is right at the head of the traditional view of law, but you never talk about it," says Chayes.

Thus far the coordinated two weeks and the Friday sessions are the extent of the experiment. On Monday begins the second phase, "bridge periods," which are scheduled to occur monthly.

In these one-week bridge periods, the four professors will lead an intensive study of one area of the law. None of the four normal classes will meet, and the week will end with the students splitting into groups of six or seven.

These small sections will work out an exercise planned by Michelman, who teaches Property: the students will pretend to be the managing partners of a civil rights law firm, deciding whether to use an economic argument in a particular case.

Students and the professors say that the first bridge period, covering economics and the law, will make or break the experiment, since it is the most radical element. "We can't really judge the experiment until after the first bridge session," says one student, who requested anonymity.

The 140 law students assigned to Section One found out in August that they were involved in an experiment. A letter from Chayes in the registration packet filled them in on the situation.

The level of apprehension was fairly low; no one went to the dean of students or the registrar and pleaded to be transferred. In fact, if anything, the original reaction was positive, since all five professors in the section have good reputations. "Anyone who has had them says they are great teachers," says Section One student Joseph A. Brandolino.

Because the teachers are all liberal and popular, some students wonder if it is their personalities instead of the content which are responsible for the early success of the section. "If there were no experiment, and we had the professors, we could still have a good section," says one student, who asked not to-be identified.

But not all students in the section are similarly delighted. "The professors--they're all Jewish, they're all slightly liberal, some more than others, and some people object to the liberal bent," says one student in the section. Chayes is sympathetic. "We're not a balanced ticket," he says. "If we'd been teaching regular courses we would have been scattered among the four sections."

"People like to complain about the section," adds another student. "They say, 'If this grand experiment doesn't really work, we are still responsible for all the material on the final exam.'"

In addition, there have been some grumblings about the extra work. "We have extra classes every Friday, we have extra reading, we have bridge periods," says Justin Johnson, a first-year student in Section One. "We're not getting off easy," adds Brandolino.

Nevertheless, the cooperation among the professors is a balancing factor. "Because it's integrated, they realize what is going on" with the workload, one Section One student explains.

It is this integration which is most appealing to the students. "I don't understand why the subjects we are taught are so separate," says one first-year student not in Section One, adding, "I wish they would integrate it."

"They relate the different things in the courses," says Brandolino. "It makes it easier to understand the material."

This integration also allows the students to see the interplay among the professors--the academic and personal differences that are often hidden from public view.