Professors in the section say this display is intellectually healthy. "It's not just speaking from the throne," says Chayes.

And students seem to be unanimously enthusiastic about this aspect of the section--the authority of the professor in the classroom, particularly with respect to antagonistic points of view, has been a recurring subject of student concern at the Law School.

Another positive factor is the professors' enthusiasm, students say. "Because it is an experiment, they are taking more time to make it run smoothly," says one student. "I think they make an extra effort to be accessible to the students," adds another.

Nonetheless, students add, they have never lived through first-year before, and have nothing to compare the experiment to.

After this week, Section One will have regular classes with bridge sessions one week each month.

But even the normal part of the schedule is different than regular Law School procedure. The professors discuss each other's classes and sit in on each other's sessions--concepts unheard of at the Law School.

Just how novel is this experimental section? Only one quarter of the year is actually devoted to integrated bridge period classes. "Who do you think we admit here?" Rakoff asks hypothetically. "They all got 700 on their LSATs. They can fill in 25 percent."

Despite the innovations, the year is a transitional one. Further changes are planned for the future, and professors hint that this year's experiment will seem downright conservative by comparison.

But the professors say a critical juncture is fast approaching for the program. In the next two years, a decision is going to have to be made, whether to commit the section entirely to the integrated classes. "We've taken as much time as we can [for bridge periods] and still maintain the traditional boundaries," says Horwitz. "If we're going to be integrated, we're going to have to go all the way."

Or, says Chayes, the integrated section could be put on hold while the coordinated section of the first two weeks is expanded. In either case, this year's experimental program is merely a first step.

But a first step to what? It is unclear, even to the four professors, what form their finished product will take. And it is also unclear how much of this product will be applicable to law schools around the country.

"It's much more likely that people will pick up pieces than the whole," says Chayes. In particular, the bridge sections could be easily transplanted to a foreign setting, with a complete package including reading material and lecture outlines. The bulk of the coordinated case method classes would be more difficult to copy at another school, the professors add.

The single greatest limiting factor, though, is finding four professors as compatible as Chayes. Horwitz, Michelman, and Rakoff. Cooperation is obviously essential, and the months of preparation might not pull every group of professors together as it did the Harvard four. "We were not intimate friends," says Chayes. "We were good colleagues... One of the great surprises is how much fun it's been working with each other."

The fact that the experiment is being conducted this year, and not three or four years ago, indicates the difficulties facing any development of the new system. The ideas that materialized this fall are not new, but it was only this year that four professors committed themselves to the project.

"The main roadblock was making up our minds to devote two years of our lives to this," said Chayes, adding, "Maybe if it really sings, four other people will say, 'Maybe we will try it.'"