Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Last week was the 30th Anniversary Celebration of Seattle University School of Law’s Access Admission Program, the Academic Resource Center, and Professor Emerita Paula Lustbader. I am an alumna of Seattle University and the few times I return to Seattle typically have something to do with Professor Lustbader. My cultural background dictates that I remember and honor those individuals who have paved the way for me. I look to them for guidance, wisdom, support, and history. For me, Professor Lustbader is one of these special individuals.
I started writing this entry prior to the celebration and surprisingly, the themes I identified aligned with the remarks and conversations at the celebration. The themes I had identified and those that emerged at the celebration included legacy, family/community, and paying it forward. I was excited to realize that I had it right but recognized that I could not include all of my observations.
In my opinion, Professor Lustbader is a pioneer of the Academic Support Movement. I imagine that very few formal academic support programs existed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As a student at the University of Puget Sound School of Law (now Seattle University School of Law), Paula Lustbader had a desire to promote diversity at the law school and in the legal profession. She was recruited by Professor Emeritus David Boerner and together, Professor Boerner and student Lustbader designed and began to implement the various components of their program. Today, Seattle University School of Law boasts of one of the few true “Access Admissions Programs” in the country which is not only a testament of the institution’s commitment to social justice and diversity but also a reflection of the commitment of Professors Boerner and Lustbader to this program. I can assure you that the story is more amazing and exciting than this but you had to have been at the celebration to capture the full story. Please follow this link for Professor Lustbader’s 2010 article about this program: here.
Professors can have a profound impact on the lives of their students particularly if they take the time to listen and pay attention to their students. Professors can sometimes perceive a student’s potential before the student can even conceive of her/his ability. This particularly happens when the learning environment lends itself for students to be their authentic selves which would indicate that trust has been established.
The presence of numerous former students and individuals who gathered to celebrate Professor Lustbader and the program is a testament to the positive impact the Access Admission Program and the Academic Resource Center have had on these students. In attendance were both students from the early years of the program and current students who just started their 1L year. Individuals flew in from as far as Hawaii, Texas, Michigan, and Florida just to list a few. Former teaching assistants, faculty, and staff who contributed in some way to the program were present. It was a joyous occasion that brought together individuals unified by the impact of two key individuals (Professors Boerner and Lustbader) and a shared experience with this program.
I feel very privileged to have gotten to know Professor Paula Lustbader as a professor, supervisor, mentor, and friend. She discovered my potential early on and challenged and supported me even when I resisted. I credit her for seeing the “Academic Support Educator” within me long before I thought of this as a career option. I look forward to the many amazing things she accomplishes in this next phase of her life.
The Anniversary Celebration has reenergized me, helped redefine my purpose, and led me to reassess my passion for the professional work I do. I am contemplating a number of things: What is our legacy as academic support professionals and educators? Do we constantly reinvent the wheel simply because we want to put our imprint on something or do we recognize when something works? Do we learn from those who came before us who fought and won the battles we now find ourselves trying to fight? Are some of us young and so too proud to ask for help and too "all knowing"? Are we truly an inclusive community that practices what we preach and embodies the ideals at the foundation of Academic Support Programs? Is it at the very least helpful to assess our own hang-ups and challenges? These are all pertinent questions I am asking myself and hope to connect with like-minded individuals to explore them. (Goldie Pritchard)
Thursday, September 1, 2016
"A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes of Minority Students" Say Researchers Walton and Cohen
Big hat tip to Professor Rodney Fong at the University of San Francisco School of Law for his alert to this research article!
It's not too late to make a difference…a real difference…a measurable difference…to improve academic performance and health outcomes for minority students, as demonstrated by the published research findings of Dr. Gregory M. Walton and Dr. Geoffrey L. Cohen at Stanford University in their article "A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes of Minority Students."
Here's the scoop:
The researchers surmised that a brief intervention in the first week of undergraduate studies - to directly tackle the issue of belonging in college - might make a measurable impact with respect to academic performance and health outcomes for African-American students. As background, previous research had suggested that a lack of a sense of belonging was particularly detrimental for success in collegiate studies. In its most basic form, the intervention was threefold.
First, the university shared survey results with research participating students, substanting that most college students "had worried about whether they belonged in college during the difficult first year but [they] grew confident in their belonging with time."
Second, the participating students were encouraged to internalize the survey messages by writing an essay to describe "how their own experiences in college [in the first week] echoed the experiences summarized in the survey."
Third, the participating students created videos of their written essays for the express purpose of sharing their feelings with future generations of incoming students, so that participating students would not feel like they were stigmatized by the intervention (but rather that they were beneficially involved in making the collegiate world better for future generations of incoming students).
According to the researchers, surveys in the week following the intervention suggested that participating students sensed that the intervention buttressed their abilities to overcome adversities and enhanced their achievement of a sense of belonging. And, the impact was long-lasting, even when participating students couldn't recall much at all about the intervention.
The researches then used the statistical method of multiple regression to control for various other possible influences and to test for the impact of race. As revealed in the research article, the intervention was particularly beneficial for African-American students in terms of both improvements in GPA and improvements in well-being. In short, a brief intervention led to demonstrable benefits.
That brings us back to us ASPers!
With the start of the school year for ASPers, we have a wonderful opportunity to engage in meaningful interventions...by sharing the great news about social belonging. But, there's more involved than just sharing the news. Based on the research findings, to make a real difference for our students, our students must not see themselves - in the words of the Stanford researchers - as just "beneficiaries" of the intervention...but rather as "benefactors" of the intervention.
In short, our entering students must be empowered with tools to share with future generations what they learned about adversity, belonging, and overcoming…and how to thrive in law school.
Wow! What a spectacular opportunity…and a challenge…for all of us! (Scott Johns).
P.S. Here's the abstract to provide you with a precise overview of the research findings: "A brief intervention aimed at buttressing college freshmen’s sense of social belonging in school was tested in a randomized controlled trial (N = 92), and its academic and health-related consequences over 3 years are reported. The intervention aimed to lessen psychological perceptions of threat on campus by framing social adversity as common and transient. It used subtle attitude-change strategies to lead participants to self-generate the intervention message. The intervention was expected to be particularly beneficial to African-American students (N = 49), a stereotyped and socially marginalized group in academics, and less so to European-American students (N = 43). Consistent with these expectations, over the 3-year observation period the intervention raised African Americans’ grade-point average (GPA) relative to multiple control groups and halved the minority achievement gap. This performance boost was mediated by the effect of the intervention on subjective construal: It prevented students from seeing adversity on campus as an indictment of their belonging. Additionally, the intervention improved African Americans’ self-reported health and well-being and reduced their reported number of doctor visits 3 years postintervention. Senior-year surveys indicated no awareness among participants of the intervention’s impact. The results suggest that social belonging is a psychological lever where targeted intervention can have broad consequences that lessen inequalities in achievement and health." Gregory M. Walton, et al, Science Magazine, 18 Mar 2011: Vol. 331, Issue 6023, pp. 1447-1451
Sunday, August 28, 2016
As an ASP educator, it is very important for me to work with other entities in the law school building and across campus to fully address student needs. For students to operate at an optimal level, many of their non-academic concerns need to be addressed as well. I often collaborate with our Diversity Services Office and our Office of Student Engagement on these matters. Recently, I had a very rich conversation with my colleague Mary Ferguson, Esq., Director of our Diversity Services Office. She asked me: “What about the gold medal student, what do we do for them?” I was not quite sure what to say and wondered if this was a specific reference to the Olympics that I completely missed or simply an analogy.
Given the puzzled look on my face, she explained that the “gold medal student” is the student of color who has excelled academically, the star student in every sense of the word whose academic achievement provided easy access to law school. This individual likely participated in every pipeline and support program since they were a child. This student excelled academically with the support services made available to them as a first generation, low income, and/or member of an underrepresented group. Many of these programs identify students early and include tutoring, structured programming, academic advising, activities, and access to employment and experiential learning opportunities. The “gold medal student” was sought out by the various programs but once they get to law school, they encounter new challenges.
Because “gold medal students” were so academically successful, they are grouped with other successful students based on GPA and LSAT. They are not at academic risk so they are not a part of programs tailored to support students characterized as such. They may also miss out on services and resources available to students of underrepresented groups or simply not avail themselves of these services. “Gold medal students” might only access services available to the student body as a whole, if at all. These students might need the same guidance, support, and structure the academically at risk students benefit from but don’t receive it because they are not a part of that group. This distinction might impact the students’ ability to excel academically because had they participated in those programs, it may have propelled them to success. These students might also have difficulty acclimating because they are often one of very few persons of color at their institution. We often wonder why a “gold medal student” might underperform academically when compared to their peers with similar entry credentials and when all statistical indicators show that they should perform comparably. The “gold medal student” becomes nothing more than an honorable mention.
This conversation really got me thinking. How do we identify or seek out this student? How do we provide them with the support they need which is different from what the general population needs? As I thought more, I realized that I have worked with “gold medal students” but it was typically after they had a rough first semester or first year. They were typically the students who would do what worked for them at their undergraduate institution and not make the adjustments for law school. They were the students who needed more structure and needed more purposeful interactions which were readily available at their undergraduate institution but they now had to seek out in law school. Once a good system is in place for these students, they are students who excel academically. (Goldie Pritchard)
Friday, March 11, 2016
Two articles of interest: A summary of the dispute and recent action in The Harvard Crimson An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education regarding a committee recommendation that Harvard Law change its seal after student protest because of its connection to a slave-owning family: Harvard Law School Seal
Monday, February 29, 2016
Below is a press release from Aaron Taylor, Director of LSSE, regarding the upcoming report release:
Sunday, February 28, 2016
For those who are following the Fisher case, the following article from The Chronicle of Higher Education may be of interest: Antonin Scalia's Death Probably Won't Affect Fisher
Monday, December 14, 2015
Several more articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education follow up on the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Scalia's controversial remark, and thoughts on the case: Supreme Court Laments How Little It Really Knows About Race-Conscious Admissions; A Closer Look at a Comment by Justice Scalia; 'This Case Shouldn't Be Here' .
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this week on this race-conscious admissions case concerning Fisher's denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008. See an article from yesterday's Chronicle of Higher Education here: Chronicle Article on Fisher Case.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
On April 8th, 2015, law school students, administrators, faculty, academic support educators, and admissions officers along with members of the judiciary and leaders within the Law School Admissions Council congregated in a large hotel conference room within walking distance of the Las Vegas strip and a short bus ride from the UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law. They had a common purpose: to discuss how to work together to better meet the needs of our diverse law students. Dr. Terrell Strayhorn gave the keynote speech, an inspirational start to an energizing and thought-provoking three days. Below are my notes from his keynote speech and some of the themes that I took back to Rhode Island with me from the conference. I also have pasted some links below for those of you who wish to read more about the topics touched on in this blog. I have a lot more to learn, but this conference was a wonderful starting point for me, and a much-appreciated opportunity to deepen my understanding of my own diverse students. Much thanks to Kent Lollis, LSAC’s Executive Director of Diversity Initiatives, Rod Fong, Chair of the LSAC Diversity Retention Conference Planning Group, Professor Nancy Rappaport of UNLV, and many others for their hard work in providing this opportunity for all of us.
Dr. Terrell Strayhorn, a Professor of Higher Education at the Department of Educational Studies within Ohio State’s College of Education and Human Ecology, is also the Director of the Ohio State Center for Higher Education Enterprise (CHEE).
During his keynote address, Dr. Strayhorn spoke about the need for students of color to feel that they “belong” to a community, to feel included. In his book, College Students Sense of Belonging, A Key to Educational Success for All Students, Dr. Strayhorn defines a “sense of belonging” as “a basic human need and motivation, sufficient to influence behavior. [It] refers to students’ perceived social support on campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, the experience of mattering or feeling cared about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the group (e.g., campus community) or others on campus (e.g., faculty, peers). It’s a cognitive evaluation that typically leads to an affective response or behavior.” According to Dr. Strayhorn, a “sense of belonging” is “relational” in that “members matter to one another and to the group,” and that “each member benefits from the group” and the “group benefits from the contributions of each member.”
This sense of “belonging” is an important factor in a diverse student’s potential for success, more significant than her LSAT score. A “sense of belonging” arises from both “structural” and “curricular” diversity. “Structural” diversity refers to the number of diverse students who are in a class overall & within each individual classroom. Curricular diversity refers to bringing both diverse and non-diverse students together in a meaningful way to discuss their experiences and perspectives. Cross-racial understanding comes from this curricular diversity. Simply having a number of diverse students in the classroom does not, by itself, facilitate inclusion. True inclusion involves interaction among students about their different perspectives and experiences. This “interactional diversity” is what impacts the student body. Many law faculty across the country, however, are unready to have these conversations. (See suggestions below)
If law schools do not bring students together to discuss their diverse experiences, cross-racial understanding and inclusion suffers because understanding and inclusion results from these interactions. A lack of conversations in law school classrooms about diverse perspectives among students is a missed opportunity to provide for a deeper sense of belonging for students of color. Students of color need to feel they belong to the community in which they learn. Curricular diversity engenders a sense of belonging, which, in turn, engenders self-efficacy among students of color.
For these conversations to facilitate understanding and inclusion there must be a sufficient number of students of color in the classroom for them to disagree with one another. The risk of having these conversations with too few students of color in the classroom is that these students feel they have to be the spokespersons for their entire race. In terms of structural diversity, law schools across the country still have a long way to go.
Dr. Strayhorn, and, in fact, every member of the panel on that first day, spoke about the importance of effective pipelines that reach deep into the diverse student community as early as middle school or preschool. In addition, he spoke about mentor programs for diverse students, and the need to enhance these programs by providing more oversight and training to the mentors about how to mentor a student. Mentors should not just meet a student for lunch to periodically “breathe on a student.” Rather, he spoke about three steps to being an effective mentor: 1) believe in the students and set high expectations for the students; 2) build character and invest in the students by providing specific strategies, sharing perspectives, and teaching them tools to achieve; and 3) push them to accomplish more (he called it “intrusive exposure”).
Once students of color decide to attend law school, and must choose which school to attend, they typically will view the law school’s website, but do not typically speak with staff or faculty about the law school. Instead, they choose to speak with people outside the law school, particularly family and friends. In fact, during his research, Dr. Strayhorn heard repeatedly from students of color that they chose to attend law school because they wanted to help their family by attaining a well-paying job to make money to give to their family. This family may include spouses and children, but also parents, brothers, sisters, and grandparents or others. In addition, students of color may feel responsible for financially supporting their families while in law school. They have an aversion to taking out debt.
Feelings of belonging also impacted students’ choice of law school: Meaningful connections with law staff and faculty made a critical difference to students of color. Some sentiments that Dr. Strayhorn consistently heard when he asked students why they had chosen their law school was “it was the only law school where the faculty made time to get to know me,” or the staff had an “honest conversation with me about the strengths and challenges of each law school I had applied to.” They “cared about me.” They “helped me with my application.” “Something about the school felt like a family.” Very few students spoke of the law school’s ranking in U.S. News & World Report or the law school’s reputation. Students also rarely spoke about the alumni placement data, bar passage rates, library holdings.
Dr. Strayhorn’s final comments: Minorities are severely underrepresented in the legal profession. The legal profession should better reflect our society. A diverse workforce will make better decisions. Although some great pipeline programs exist, the critical problem facing law schools and diverse students is the lack of a preschool to undergraduate pipeline.
Kathryn Thompson, Director of Academic Success Program, Roger Williams Law School
Thursday, February 19, 2015
In a lot of respects, Legal Writers have struggled with (and sometimes overcome) the professional challenges many ASPers face. Professor Ralph Brill brings some of these to light in his response to a University's President's Frank Look at Law Schools. Professor Brill's response also briefly touches on the disparate impact to women when Legal Writing, and I submit ASP, is undervalued. Similarly, Professor Flanagan highlighted sexism in a blog post early this year. It is hard to believe that these are issues we are still grappling with in 2015.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
This semester has been eye-opening for me. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about sexism in ASP. Although I am a dyed-in-the-wool, true-blue feminist, I've been lucky that I haven't faced much individual sexism (as opposed to institutional or systemic sexism, which are think are endemic to the academy). In the past, it's been one-off incidents, nothing that made me really question whether ASP fosters sexism. ASPs are predominantly run by untenured women, teaching in second-class rolls. While more men have joined our ranks, many of the (admittedly talented, committed) men that have been in ASP for more than 5 years have moved into tenured or high-level administrative positions, while I see equally talented, committed women stuck in the same second-class positions, without promotions or recognition, year after year.
I don't think this is solely due to institutional sexism. Studies have shown that women receive lower course evaluations than men. A tiny, needs-to-be-replicated study out of North Carolina State demonstrated that students will give higher course evaluations if they believe their instructor is a man--whether to not the instructor actually is a man or a woman. (See study here)
This semester I co-taught an ASP course with a fantastic, very talented male (tenured) professor. Mid-semester, we asked students to fill out qualitative evals, asking them to tell us what we should do and how to improve. While the majority of the surveys were helpful and fair, a disconcerting minority used the evaluations to make personal, sexist comments that had nothing to do with the substance of the course. Not one evaluation made personal comments about my male co-teacher.
I spoke with several experienced female professors after I read the evaluations. Everyone had a similar story; students feel it's okay to attack a female professor's attire, posture, hair style, or tone of voice in evaluations meant to measure teaching.
These attacks on female professors are damaging careers. Students evaluations are regularly used to renew contracts and earn tenure. The best administrators know to ignore these damaging comments in evaluations. But many evaluations are on a 1-5 scale, with female professors losing valuable points for things that have nothing to do with their ability to teach. And administrators can't distinguish between someone who needs help in the classroom, and someone who is receiving low scores because "their voice hurts my ears" or "their clothes are too bright for my taste."
ASP is integral to the success of the legal academy. It is time we started looking at the reasons why we are still second-class citizens.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Leave Your Point of View at the Fact Pattern Door: Part 2 of 2 (Guest post by Seth Aiken, UMass Law)
In the first installment of this post, I suggested that for some law students, life experience and a strongly held point of view can get in the way of law school success. “Older” students, having lived and worked and experienced a little more than most of their peers can tend to let their own point of view and perceptions about the world interfere with legal reasoning. Rather than seeing the legally significant issues in a fact pattern, they focus on the implausibility of the facts and how unlikely or unfair a scenario seems in the context of their own experience or personal values.
With these students, my strategy is to have them start by adding a phrase to the beginning of the first sentence of every essay question, “On an island that you’ve never been to and where no visitors ever go…(essay question begins). I want them to remember that a fact pattern is a closed universe and that adding facts or injecting personal insights into it will only derail their best efforts.
Then I give my students five steps for looking at a fact pattern and drawing out the legally important issues:
- Call of the Question – Start at the end of the exam and read the call of the question so you understand what you are being asked to do.
- Acts – Rather than trying to spot and analyze whole issues, start instead by reading the fact pattern sentence-by-sentence and highlighting any act or failure to act by a party – anything someone in your fact pattern says, does, or chooses not to do.
- Resist Judgment – You do not have enough information yet to know whether any of these acts give rise to a legally significant issue. Resist making any judgment about whether the act is relevant, worthwhile, good, bad or otherwise because all you know right now, is that somebody said or did something.
- Elements – Assuming you studied and know all the elements of every issue you might be tested on, go to each act and consider if it could be one element of an issue. Remember, don’t skip or overlook an act just because it seems like a little thing. The seriousness or severity of the action doesn’t matter. Whether you think the action would lead to a legal action in real life doesn’t matter. What matters is whether that act in the fact pattern, taken at face value could satisfy one element of something you are being tested on. On the other hand, you don’t want to force an issue that simply isn’t relevant. Some facts ARE there to tempt you into a time-wasting, grade-crushing wild goose chase. In order to stay on target, ask:
a) Is the issue you’re thinking about within the testable universe? (i.e. DO NOT analyze a Criminal Law issue in a Torts exam.)
b) Is this issue relevant to the call of the question? (i.e. DO NOT discuss the rights of B vs. C when the question is asking only about the rights of A vs. B.)
c) Are there other facts that satisfy each of the other necessary elements to make out this issue? DO NOT speculate about other elements based on your common sense or some past experience.
Success vs. Relevance – This is the fifth and final step I ask my students to think about because I want the word “success” to trigger a few different cautionary flags.
The success of the issue: Just because a complaining party has a weak case (weak elements) and is likely to lose doesn’t mean the issue isn’t worth raising. If you can make a good faith, “straight-faced” argument that each of your elements is supported by some fact or facts, it is probably a relevant issue, win or lose. In fact if you can make a good faith argument that MOST of your elements are supported by facts, you should raise the issue. Weak facts or a missing element bear on the success of an issue, but are never a reason to not raise it. Being able to explain to your professor why an issue fails is just as important as being able to show why an issue succeeds.
The successes a student brings into the exam: You are walking into the exam with a point of view based in your life experience. Your successes and accomplishments have equipped you to identify and solve many challenging problems, to relate to people and empathize with their circumstances. HOWEVER – here in this exam, you must leave those successes and accomplishments behind. Relating to the people in your fact pattern and empathizing with their circumstances will distract you from seeing what is relevant and keep you from engaging in effective legal analysis.
Seth-Thomas Aitken, UMass School of Law - Dartmouth
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
ASP'ers know from their daily discussions with law students that there is a great deal of diversity within a student body. Law schools as entities, however, sometimes ignore that law students are unique from one another more than they have ever been before in legal education.
- Some law students come to us straight out of undergraduate school. Some law students worked for years before undergraduate school. Some law students worked for years after undergraduate school. Some law students have graduate/professional degrees already.
- Some law students are single parents. Some law students are married. Some law students are married with children. Spouses may be working or stay-at-home. Some law students are responsible for the care of parents, grandparents, or siblings.
- Some law students are 20-something. Some are 30-something. Some are 40-something. And some are much older.
- Law students are visual learners, verbal learners, aural learners, oral learners, kinesthetic learners, tactile learners, or any combination of these styles.
- Law students are global thinkers, intuitive thinkers, sequential thinkers, sensing thinkers, and pairs of these processing styles.
- Some law students have learning disabilities, ADHD, visual impairments, mobility impairments, or other characteristics that result in their having accommodations.
- Some law students are battling chronic illness, financial problems, family problems, or personal problems.
- Some law students want to practice. Some want to be law librarians. Some want to go into business. Some have no idea what type of law career they want.
- Some law students have English as a second language. Some law students have weak writing backgrounds. Some law students are deficient in math skills.
In short there is NO one size fits all for law students. Yet, so many types of decisions track what has been done in the past rather than consciously considering today's student body characteristics. Diversity in students can affect a myriad of areas including:
- orientation schedules
- class schedules
- tutoring times
- make-up class schedules
- review sessions for exams
- teaching methods
- testing methods
- support services
- emergency loan programs
- school-sponsored insurance
- curricular options.
(By the way, do not assume that one type of law school automatically does a better job on these decisions than another type. All law schools could do better on decision-making with diversity in mind - some may be farther ahead in this type of input, but none is perfect.)
So, why is it that well-meaning law schools sometimes make decisions that ignore the differences? In this day and age, I doubt that it is because of a lack of knowledge regarding all the different aspects of diversity. Instead, I think the decisions occur because of:
- budget cuts ("if it is across the board, everyone suffers equally" or "we never provided that support service before"),
- lack of planning ("we need to move now on this idea" or "we can worry about that later"),
- insensitivity ("it has always been that way" or "there are not a lot of students with that problem"), or
- lack of information from students telling us when there is a procedure or policy adversely affecting students ("five of us had child-care problems and couldn't attend that make-up class" or "international students run into extreme health care cost problems because the school insurance plan is not required").
Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that law schools need to change everything just because some students desire things to be different. I am saying that we need to consider whether there are characteristics of our students that we are missing when we make decisions. We can then at least weigh possible implications for learning and success and determine whether there is an appropriate modification that would work better than the way we had planned/always done it.
After-the-fact information from several students, for example, has made me re-think how I will schedule make-up classes next year. I want to try some new delivery methods to reach more students with scheduling conflicts. Several expertise areas are ones that I need to investigate to be more helpful to my students with disabilities. And I want to find ways to integrate my students' prior experiences in Europe into my EU course. (Amy Jarmon)
Thursday, January 11, 2007
At last week's meeting of the AALS Section on Academic Support, the audience was asked to share with one another ways in which doctrinal professors could inject diversity considerations into their classes. One fairly simple assignment I have used in my course, Legal Aspects of Higher Education, has received a very positive reception from students, so I thought I would share it with you.
As one would expect, part of the course is taken up with covering affirmative action at the college and university level. To introduce the material, I give the following assignment three or four weeks in advance, timing the due date to coincide with the beginning of our discussion of affirmative action.
Assignment: Choose three persons, all of the same race or ethnicity as one another, but of a race or ethnicity different from your own. Consider choosing across age ranges as well. Interview each separately regarding that person’s views and personal anecdotes regarding affirmative action and race. Summarize each interview briefly and write a two- to three-page essay summarizing your own reactions or new insights based on all three interviews.
Students are generally surprised at the diversity of thought among just three people chosen at random from an ethnic group other than their own (they shouldn't be, but they are), and they gain new and more rounded perspectives on the controversies, complexities, and passions associated with affirmative action.
The approach could be used with a variety of topics in a variety of courses, so you might consider incorporating it into one of your classes. The depth of insight the students bring to the table after this exercise makes it well worth their effort, and they seem to really enjoy it. (dbw)
Friday, June 30, 2006
One of the problems that often plagues ASP programs is the stigma that can attend students' participation in academic support efforts. Because academic support at the undergraduate level is usually directed at those students who are struggling in their studies, law students often perceive ASP programs as remedial in nature, reserved for those who cannot perform adequately in law school without special help.
As a result, those students who participate in the programs, often at the urging of the school, find it tough to shake the perception that they are not as smart or as qualified as their peers. That perception does double damage: it lowers the ASP participants' confidence in their own abilities, and it leads to the fear that others will regard them as less capable than typical law students. The effect is magnified for minority students who must already face the mentality among some students and faculty that most minorities ride into school on the backs of affirmative action programs rather than their own abilities.
One way to lessen the stigma so often associated with ASP programs is to widen the target group from "at-risk students" to the entire student body. In other words, the program can be based on the proposition that all students can use help transferring their existing academic skills into the peculiar demands of law school.
Few students arrive at law school knowing how to read and brief cases effectively, create useful outlines and flowcharts, etc. Most are forced to develop those skills through a kind of "accidental curriculum" made up of unpredictable relationships. A few are fortunate enough to have family and friends who have been through law school to help them uncover the best approaches. A few others arrive having had the good fortune to have been trained through earlier pursuits in the art of text-based analysis and reasoning.
Most just have to wing it until they stumble across model outlines or other study helps that may be floating out there in the law school ether. Whether what they stumble across is actually helpful is mostly a matter of luck. As result, the average law student is a much less efficient and effective learner than he could be.
Given those realities, an ASP program can be promoted as relevant to all students' law school efforts and can become accepted as merely another piece of the academic life of the typical law student. I like to tell my students that law professors rightly "hide the ball" when it comes to what the law means, because learning to find what the law means is the primary skill lawyers must possess. There are no tutors out in the practice. As for how one learns to find what the law means, however, I see nothing useful in hiding the ball. While every student must learn to outline her courses for herself, she needn't develop the skill out of thin air. While every student must learn to answer law school exam questions for himself, he needn't discover the best approaches by trial and error on real exams.
So I aim my program at all students on the theory that all students could learn the law more deeply and effectively and develop their analytical skills more efficiently if they did not have to spin their wheels trying to discover effective learning techniques with no guidance. In my estimation, an ASP program should serve to deepen the legal discourse among the entire student body by moving all students as rapidly as possible down the road of effective class preparation and review. To the extent that the program causes all students to engage the material in their classes more effectively and efficiently, it shifts the focus of the entire enterprise to deeper and more meaningful discourse about the law itself.
To further that goal, I have decided to send a letter this summer to every incoming first-year student, introducing them to the school's ASP program and telling them that I expect them to come to school having already read a text I use extensively in the program. I have also told them that I will be emailing each of them early in the semester to talk about how they are implementing the techniques and principles I will be presenting in ASP lectures. By taking the attitude that participation in ASP programming is normal and expected, I hope to eliminate the perception that only some students need instruction in the skills the program presents.
My goal is that every student will take advantage of ASP instruction so that their energies can be expended more effectively and efficiently from the outset. I hope that all students will more rapidly clear the elementary hurdles of learning how to prepare for class, examine and organize what they have begun to learn, and identify their gaps in learning. In doing so, they will be freed to enter into a level of legal discourse often missing among the majority of law students not only in their first semesters but through much of their law school careers. (dbw)
Thursday, October 20, 2005
I often have students who make appointments to discuss more than just how to brief, outline, or take exams. They often want to talk about what is going on in their classrooms besides just substantive law and academic skills development. Students recognize (as should we) that Academic Support involves more than just academic skills assistance. Other things in a student's life will affect their academic performance. One of those, I think, is whether they feel welcomed by faculty and other students, and part of a community. That is, after all, one point of recognizing the importance of educational diversity in Law School. I have included a link to a piece I have written that addresses one type of diversity often not discussed: ideological diversity. What can Academic Support professionals do about promoting ideological diversity in the Law School community to make students feel more welcome and less isolated (and should they)? While I do not have a solution, recognizing this issue is an important beginning. Indeed, as my most long-time client says, "The solution to your problem often lies in its description." Please consider my observations at this link: Role Models.
Perhaps I am being churlish: it is difficult being part of a tiny ideological minority (particularly when, outside of academia, I am in the majority). However, as Academic Support professionals we can certainly track whether idelogical intimidation or just rudeness, particularly toward conservative students, is commonplace in our classrooms, and at least remind our colleagues how it can affect academic performance. (mwm)
Friday, August 5, 2005
This week I am in Milwaukee at the AHEAD (Association of Higher Education and Disability) annual summer conference.
Watch for posts in the coming days about issues we all face ... helping students with visible and invisible disabilities cope with the rigors of the law school curriculum. The conference includes presentations by attorney disability specialists from the Office of Civil Rights and private firms, as well as a plethora of presentations and workshops hosted by Disability Support Specialists (example: Dr. Jane Thierfeld Brown from University of Connecticut School of Law) bringing us up to date on the latest law, technology and trends in providing academic support for this segment of our diverse students.
In the coming posts, I will acquaint you with some of the lessons I have learned, and provide direction about where to turn when you run into a difficulty in handling situations in this area. (djt)