Law School Academic Support Blog

Happy Holidays

Happy holidays to all of our readers! The Blog will be silent until after the new year begins. We hope that you have time off to relax, laugh, eat too much, and enjoy your friends and family. Best wishes for 2016!

Last Minute Gift Idea for Law Students and Faculty

Hat tip to Paul Caron, our Law Professors Blog leader, for the ideal holiday gift suggestion. Read his blog post on Tax Prof Blog here: Last Minute Christmas Gift Idea for Faculty and Students.

Report from the New England Consortium of Academic Support Professionals Conference December 7, 2015

Kudos to the Executive Board of NECASP for putting together a terrific slate of presentations for its December 2015 conference.  The morning sessions focused on “Innovative Strategies to Prepare our Changing Students for the Bar Exam”:

First, Camesha Little presented on Texas A & M Law School’s holistic bar exam program.  The program objectives include managing anxiety, maintaining study schedules, and identifying outside issues.  The program brings in folks from outside the ASP program, including alumni, faculty, the legal writing center, campus administration, and community partners. 

Next, Leah Plunkett presented on the University of New Hampshire Law School’s relatively new use of a required preliminary bar exam to assess students' substantive knowledge of selected first year courses in connection with bar readiness.  The presentation focused on how UNH is exploring the role and value of the preliminary Bar Exam.  Though required, students’ scores on the preliminary bar exam are neither made part of their transcripts nor factored into their GPA’s.   

In the last morning session, Sabrina DeFabritiis of Suffolk University School of Law presented on her pre-graduation course designed to prepare students before they prepare for the bar exam

The afternoon sessions provided a series of varied an informative presentations:

Elizabeth Bloom of New England Law School presented on designing courses that propel student learning outcomes to make learning happen.  Professor Bloom’s presentation was very timely in light of the ABA’s shift in focus from teaching to learning and from curriculum to outcomes. 

Chelsea Baldwin, of the Appalachian School of Law presented on her current work aimed at creating a framework for interacting with students and arriving at solutions to problems. Professor Baldwin’s presentation was entitled:  TREATS Affects Performance – Six Categories of Intervention for At-Risk Law Students

Antonette Barilla of Elon University School of Law, presented on “Promoting Self-Awareness in Legal Education.” Her presentation drew on the work of Michael Hunter Schwartz, Barry Zimmerman, Jason Palmer, and others.  She focused on common attributes of the millennials who inhabit our classrooms and strategies that can promote self-awareness and learning in the classroom.

James McGrath, of Texas A & M Law School spoke on “Integrating Effective Cognitive Learning Techniques into First Year Doctrinal Topics – Torts.” Professor McGrath drew on works such as Making it Stick, Peter Brown, et. al., and How We Learn, Benedict Carey.  Professor McGrath discussed his implementation of “spaced practice” in his Torts syllabus to promote long-term learning.

(Myra G. Orlen)

Meditation, Chair Yoga, and Contemplation Time at AALS

In case you missed the recent email from the AALS Section on Balance in Legal Education, there are special activities planned for the NYC annual meeting. These activities are a great idea, and kudos to the Balance Section for implementing this series. Below is the information provided by Nathalie Martin in that email:

Hello balance members!

I am excited to announce that we have a total of six meditation teachers offering their services during the group activities planned for our contemplative space at AALS. Thanks so much to all those teachers. There is also a little yoga.

The AALS brochure will tell you where the space is, and hopefully many or most of you can swing by for one of these groups sessions. The room is available for quiet individual contemplation at all other times.

The group times and classes are as follows:

Thursday Jan 7
8:00-8:30 am, Guided mindfulness meditation: Richard Rueben
9:00-10:00 am, Chair yoga: Nathalie Martin
12:00-1:00 pm, Chair yoga: Nathalie Martin
2:30 to 3:00pm, Guided mindfulness meditation: Shari Motro
5:00-5:30 pm, Guided mindfulness meditation: Rebecca Simon

Friday Jan 8
8:00-8:30 am, Guided mindfulness meditation: Charity Scott
9:00-10:00 am, Chair yoga: Nathalie Martin
12:00-1:00 pm, Chair yoga: Nathalie Martin
2:30-3:00 pm, Guided mindfulness meditation: Shari Motro
5:00-5:30 pm, Guided mindfulness meditation: Valena Beety


Saturday Jan 9
8:00-8:30 am, Guided mindfulness meditation: Charity Scott
2:30-3:00 pm, Guided mindfulness meditation: Rhonda Magee
5:00-5:30 pm, Guided mindfulness meditation: TBA

Thanks so much to all who can come and participate with us.

Nathalie Martin

Associate Director of Bar Preparation Position at Thomas Jefferson School of Law

JOB TITLE: Associate Director of Bar Preparation
DEPARTMENT: Academic Success & Bar Preparation
RPORTS TO: Director of Bar Preparation
POSITION SUPERVISES: Work Study Students
POSITION STATUS: Full-time, Exempt

GENERAL SUMMARY: Reporting to the Director of Bar Preparation the Associate Director of Bar Preparation (“Associate Director”) is responsible for helping coordinate and supervise academic success and bar support programs for students at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, with an emphasis on bar preparation. The Associate Director will provide assistance with and will monitor learning outcomes, academic performance, academic support activities to all grade levels, and will participate in all other student retention activities. The successful candidate will also help support law school students and graduates as they prepare for their bar examinations, including by teaching Academic Success and bar-related courses and by coordinating post-graduation bar support programming.

ESSENTIAL DUTIES & RESPONSIBLITIES:
• Work collaboratively with faculty, the Director of Bar Preparation, the Assistant Dean of Academic Success & Bar Preparation, and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to assess and address the current needs for programming and support.
• Participate in the presentation of academic success program activities beginning with the new student orientation program.
• Work collaboratively to tailor current programming and curriculum to meet the needs of students participating in the Intensive Curriculum.
• Provide administrative, research and design support to the Assistant Dean of Academic Success & Bar Preparation and the Director of Bar Preparation.
• Provide administrative support to the Academic Success & Bar Preparation Program.
• Work collaboratively to provide support to bar candidates.
• Provide support and academic advice and counseling to recent graduates.
• Collaborate to design, develop, and implement the Continuing Bar Program and the Commercial Bar Support Program.
• Work with the Director of Bar Preparation and others in the department in the design of a comprehensive workshop series on topics related to the bar exam.
• Help to track and report information regarding bar passage and programming assessments.
• Enforce campus policies regarding commercial bar preparation access to Thomas Jefferson School of Law.
• Participate in committees as assigned by the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.
• Represent the law school at and participate in outside conferences and other events organized for and/or by bar preparation or academic support professionals.
• Teach courses that provide academic support and skill development as well as bar preparation-focused courses as needed.

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS & ABILITIES:
• Required: J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school and a proven record of academic achievement during law school.
• Required: Admission to a state bar in the United States, preferably California.

PREFERRED EXPERIENCE:
• Minimum of 3 years of experience practicing law or delivering writing or other instruction in an academic institution or law firm.
• Experience with academic support and bar preparation.
• Experience with curriculum design, including an understanding of educational learning theory, best practices in teaching pedagogy, and individual learning styles.
• Prior academic tutoring or experience in an academic success program.
• Familiarity with online technology.

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS:
• Able to sit or stand, type, read or write for extended periods of time.
• Able to handle high level of stress in a useful, constructive manner.
• Able to lift/carry materials and publications up to 20 pounds.
• Able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation.

WORK SCHEDULE:
• 40 or more hours per week, Monday through Friday, as well as on weekends and in evenings, as needed.

 

Law Practice Today Article on Law Firms and Learning

Mark Beese, President of Leadership for Lawyers, has an interesting article in the December 2015 online issue of Law Practice Today. He discusses briefly Carol Dweck's mindset theory as well as Learn or Die by Edward Hess. His article lists some ways that law firms can encourage learning. The link to the article is here: The Law Firm as a Learning Organization. (Amy Jarmon)

Guest Blogger: Outsourcing Academic Support Is a Problematic Proposition

Our guest post today is by Louis N. Schulze, Jr., Assistant Dean and Professor of Academic Support at Florida International University College of Law. He served on the faculty of Suffolk University Law School (2004-07) and New England Law | Boston (2007-14), earning tenure at the latter in 2012. He is a former Chair of the AALS Section on Academic Support.

 

Outsourcing Academic Support is a Problematic Proposition

I have been intrigued recently by the discussion occurring on the Academic Support listserv. One member of our community posted a request for information about whether, and to what extent, schools partner with and/ or outsource bar preparation and academic support to bar prep companies. Some schools have dabbled with partnering, and other schools report full-scale immersion. What I took from all of these reports (and my own discussions) was that bar prep companies seek not only to have a hand in for-credit bar prep courses but also in the area of traditional academic support. This troubles me.

I write to express my belief that the wholesale outsourcing of academic support to bar prep companies, though perhaps an attractive proposition for some deans, is a questionable one when viewed through the lens of assessing what is best for our students, our institutions, and the legal profession.

I. Some Preliminary Matters.

First, I think a dichotomy exists between bar prep companies’ role in curricular bar preparation during law school and bar prep companies’ role in academic support during law school. Unsurprisingly, bar prep companies are quite good at bar prep. For reasons explained infra, I believe that bar prep companies are less able to meet the unique goals of academic support.

Part of my thesis relies on this distinction; while I am somewhat more optimistic about partnering with bar prep companies for curricular bar preparation during law school, I am far less sanguine about the increased presence of bar preparation companies in the area of academic support. I think this dichotomy is a crucial one for deans and academic support professionals to digest, as there is a material difference between these two realms.

Second, I think a distinction exists between “partnering” with a bar prep company and the “wholesale outsourcing” of courses or programs. Unlike the bar prep/ academic support dichotomy I posit above, I see this distinction more as a spectrum than a binary choice. The lightest form of “partnering” would likely be adopting a bar prep company’s materials and questions in a course, while the opposite end of the spectrum (the “wholesale outsourcing”) would entail having a bar prep company fully teach and administer some facet of a law school’s offerings.

In my view, as a law school’s choices increase from “partnering” towards “wholesale outsourcing,” those choices become more questionable. While there are no doubt many acceptable points along the spectrum, law schools ought to think carefully about crossing the threshold between partnering and outsourcing, especially in the area of academic support.

II. My Arguments.

My thesis is that law schools should not outsource academic support, per se, to bar prep companies. I am less concerned about partnering/ outsourcing law school bar prep courses. I am even only mildly concerned about partnering with bar companies in the area of academic support. But what I fear is that bar prep companies, in the name of diversifying product lines and increasing profits, will seek to dominate not only the bar prep market and the law school bar prep course market, but also the field of academic support. In my view, such a result would do more harm than good to our students.

But why is this so?

1. First, one-on-one academic support is the most effective academic support, but it is not the most cost-efficient. Anyone who teaches law school academic support has had the experience of watching a student’s eyes light up as they have the big “ah ha!” moment. Some call this “the law school click.” It occurs when a student suddenly makes multiple connections, all at once, and realizes exactly what her professors are getting at – why we use cases to teach law; why creating outlines is important; why we test the way we do; why one must “argue both sides”; why all these methods make students better lawyers.

Usually, this moment occurs in an office with both student and ASP professor huddled over a desk, reviewing an exam, a paper, or some other work product. This moment is usually preceded by other less fruitful in-person moments, but the point is that the “ah ha” moment is one that happens over time and in a one-on-one setting. While it’s true that our ASP classes facilitate these moments, and give the framework and coursework for the moments of enlightenment, I’ve found that the “ah ha” moments happen in-person.

This is much less likely to happen if academic support is provided by bar prep companies. Why? Bar prep companies are corporations, and as such they owe fiduciary duties to their investors. They do not owe fiduciary duties to the students they are teaching. As a result, if they can cut costs by reducing costly endeavors they can and must do so. The first item on the chopping-block would be the costly method of one-on-one, individualized meetings.

2. Academic support is not one size fits all, but one size fits all is cost-efficient. Each law school’s academic support methods differ significantly from the methods of others. This has a lot to do with the differences in administrations, faculties, students, and missions of each law school. Applying the methods of one school to that of another would be ineffective because academic support must be tailored to the environment of the law school. An approach to the contrary waters down the effectiveness of the program, plain and simple.

But, one size fits all is cost-efficient. If a corporation could fashion an academic support program that could be installed as-is into multiple law schools, such a program would increase the profit margin of the endeavor. By contrast, tailoring an academic support program to the unique needs of individual schools (let alone students) would be cost-inefficient. Changing aspects of the curriculum to account for differences in faculties, students, and other stakeholders would require person-hours, and person-hours come with a price tag. As a result, because bar prep companies are corporations, and corporations have a fiduciary duty to the bottom line, academic support would likely become one size fits all.

3. There are many purposes for academic support, but bar passage is the ultimate purpose of any bar prep company. Law schools provide academic support for myriad reasons: to decrease dismissal rates; to support students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds; to humanize the law school environment; to communicate performance expectations more expressly; to increase bar passage rates; and to make students better lawyers. Each institution may emphasize these purposes differently, but at the very least each of these is likely on the table in terms of justifying expenditures for academic support.

But, the purpose of a bar prep company is solely to promote bar passage. While this purpose might coincide with some of the other purposes, it likely subordinates them to a “lesser” status. Moreover, setting bar passage as the sole or primary purpose of academic support could actually be antithetical to the other goals. For instance, one could argue that to increase bar passage rates, a law school should actually increase its dismissal rates. That way, only the strongest students “count” in terms of bar passage rate. An academic support program focused solely on bar passage, therefore, might spend little time on saving 1Ls and all of its time on those who managed to get through. Although this approach might increase a school’s bar passage rate, it would utterly fly in the face of schools’ duties to the students they admit.

4. Successful academic support relies heavily on an ASP faculty’s engagement with other faculty. If academic support is outsourced to bar prep companies, whose employees would not be embedded in the institution full-time (under the proposal with which I am familiar), the academic support program would lack the crucial element of connection to the institution’s faculty.

This point relates to “buy-in,” and a successful academic support program must have it from both faculty and students. Students buy in to an academic support program if they know that there is a regular and positive collaboration between their doctrinal faculty (who will grade their work) and their academic support faculty. Meanwhile, doctrinal faculty buy in to an academic support program when they know, among other things, that the academic support faculty will help students with more than just passing the bar and that the academic support faculty will not re-teach the doctrine or teach in a way that conflicts with their course. Because a cost-efficient bar prep company academic support provider must pop around between multiple law schools, neither students nor faculty can be assured that the support program will embody the type of multi-stakeholder synergy necessary for success.

5. Another crucial element of successful academic support is knowledge of one's students’ strengths and weaknesses and providing counseling that helps enhance the former and mitigate the latter. This happens over time and requires a great deal of relationship building. The level of trust required to develop these relationships seems unlikely to exist if the academic support provider is not imbedded within the institution.

This point relates to the murky intersection of academic support and counseling. While ASP faculty are (mostly) not trained psychological counselors, a great deal of our most effective work occurs on the personal level. An outsourced academic support program might be able to determine that a student is weak on essays, but a true academic support professional will know WHY the student developed this weakness and how to help work the student toward mastering the problem – both on the academic and personal level. An outsourced academic support program simply will not have time to work on this holistic (but critical) endeavor. In short, an outsourced program teaches students; a true academic support program teaches people.

6. Subtle conflicts of interest. ASP faculty are often called upon to be unofficial advocates for the student body. Because we know our constituency so well, we provide robust input in institutional conversations that could impact students. Because we have certain employment protections (and this is just one reason why ASP professionals should be eligible to earn tenure and long-term contracts), we can advocate for students in ways that outside contractors cannot. Because bar prep companies will likely have their own pecuniary interests in mind, they likely will not advocate for students in the same way as ASP faculty.

For instance, many ASP professionals serve on their law school’s Academic Review Committee or provide data to those committees when they decide whether to readmit dismissed students. Student petitions for readmission often paint the rosiest picture for the students’ readmission, while grades and LSAT scores provide only a limited picture of a student’s potential. ASP professionals who have worked closely with the dismissed students can provide information that paints a clearer and more objective picture of whether a school should take a chance on readmitting dismissed students.

Outsourced academic support programs cannot possibly provide that level of objectivity and nuance. First, it is doubtful that an Academic Review Committee would permit an outside contractor ever to serve on such a committee. But even if the committee accepted data and observations from such a source, how could the committee ever trust that the information is objective when the outside contractor has a vested interest in ensuring that no “borderline” student ever sits for the bar and possibly harm the school’s bar passage rate? Why would an outside contractor ever take such a chance when their future contractual relations rely on bar passage? As a result, law schools lose an opportunity for clearer information about their students when they outsource academic support.

III. Conclusion.

Law schools should not outsource academic support to commercial bar prep companies, a proposal that at least one company is marketing. At many schools, in-house academic support programs provide a genuine and effective source for student support. Partnering with such companies in the area of academic support and even outsourcing curricular bar prep courses might be reasonable, but the wholesale abrogation of a law school’s fiduciary duty to prepare its students for success is deeply problematic. Should law schools follow this slippery slope, they slide one step closer to outsourcing clinical, legal writing, and even doctrinal teaching.

Post-Exam Anxiety While Waiting for Grades

Many of our students have completed all of their exams. Some are relaxed, happy, laughing, and looking forward to a 5 1/2-week break from school. Others are glad the exams are over, but now are anxious about the long wait for grades.  Some are anxious because they want to be the people who get the As instead of the B+s or Bs. But more students are concerned about "the great middle" or about the low end of the grading spectrum. These students perhaps found one or more exams particularly difficult or were unable to complete an exam because of time management.

Whatever the situation, spending the entire semester break stressing about grades is counter-productive. The exams are over. No amount of anxiety is going to change the outcomes. And at most law schools, grades will not be due until after the holidays, so there is no quick remedy to the wait.

Here are some general thoughts on exams that may help our law student readers while waiting for grades to be posted:

• An exam tests the student on one set of questions, on one day, and during one testing time period. A student's grade may not reflect the depth of understanding across an entire course or how that day/time period was a bit "off" for the student.
• Avoid beating yourself up about specifics of an exam. Whether you are annoyed that you missed several issues, ran out of time, or misstated a rule, realize that you did the best you could under the time constraints and on the questions asked.
• Ignore what other students' said after the exam. Some will claim it was easy or that they aced it in order to make others nervous. Some will have written about issues that were not on the exam despite their certainty that you missed an important issue. Drama comes with the territory; do not let it increase your stress.
• Remember that law school exams are not of the undergraduate variety where 95 - 100% is an A grade. Law school exams are difficult, and it is not uncommon for the A grades to go to students who received 70 - 75% of the possible points.
• Obviously you want to manage your time well enough to finish an exam whenever possible. However, some professors write exams that take more time to complete than the time allotted. Why? Sometimes they misjudge what students can finish in the allotted time (after all, they are experts on the material). Sometimes they purposely write a longer exam than the allotted time because it makes it easier for the students who really understood the material to stand out in their application of the concepts. Remember that you may not be alone in not completing the entire exam.
• A bad grade on an exam is one event in a longer academic career in law school. Assuming your law school program is around 90 credits, you might have 20 - 30 exams over that time. One course is just a small portion of that academic career.

It is very important that you keep your perspective about your value as a law student and a person:

• You are not the sum total of your grades. Whether your grades are high, average, or low, you are so much more than those letters. You are the same bright and talented person as when you walked across the law school threshold for the first time.
• You are part of a group of very intelligent people, so your competition for grades may be different than in your past experiences. You may have to work harder or study differently to meet the challenges of being in a very bright cohort of law students. Take time to evaluate your study habits and exam-taking strategies. Note what worked and what needs improvement during the next semester.
• Do not underestimate your worth if you receive lower grades than you expected. You can improve your grades by implementing new study and exam-taking strategies. The academic support professionals at your law school can assist you in learning those strategies.
• But also do not overestimate your brilliance if you did well; students learn from their studying and exam-taking errors and often improve the next semester - especially first-year students. So do not become complacent about your success and slack off while others will be making changes to improve their grades. 
• If you decide that law school is not for you, that is okay. However, make that decision based on pursuing another career passion rather than on emotion over grades. If you love the law and realize that different strategies will improve your learning, then law school may still be for you. But if you know you really want to be an artist, get an MBA, open your own business, or attend nursing school, then go after your dream. Law school is not for everyone.
• Should your grades end up so weak that you are not allowed to continue in law school, you are not a failure. You did not do well in law school, but that does not equate with being a bad person or a failure in life. I know a number of people who left law school for academic reasons and enjoyed successful careers in other fields. They found their niches; it just was not a good match in law.

Fill your wait time for grades productively. Spend time with family and friends. Pet a dog. Laugh with a child. Volunteer at a homeless shelter, soup kitchen, or charity event to refocus on life's values. Catch up on sleep and exercise. Enjoy some home cooking. Value what you may have missed while immersed in legal studies.  (Amy Jarmon)

More on the Fisher Case

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' .

Reminder: December 15th Deadline for Nominations for AALS Section on Academic Support Positions

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICERS AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE AALS SECTION ON ACADEMIC SUPPORT

At the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) in New York City, the Section on Academic Support will have its business meeting on Saturday, January 9 at 7:00 a.m. (Room TBA). A principal agenda item will be the election for positions on the Executive Committee.

The Nomination Committee is now accepting nominations for positions to be elected at the 2016 meeting. The four elected Board Members serve staggered two-year terms, with two members being elected in odd-numbered years, and two being elected in even-numbered years. The four Board Members, together with the Chairperson, the Chairperson-Elect, the Immediate Past Chair, the Secretary, and the Treasurer, constitute the Executive Committee of the Section. The Executive Committee is the key policy-making body of the Section, and acts on behalf of the section in the interval between annual meetings. Because some vacancies have occurred unexpectedly in the Executive Committee for next year, Lisa Young (Seattle) will continue as Chair and Corie Rosen Felder (University of Colorado) will rotate from Treasurer to Chair-Elect in order to maintain continuity within the Executive Committee.

Positions to be filled: The officer positions which are vacant for the current election include Secretary and Treasurer. Two Board Members will be elected also, and the Board terms will expire January 2018.

The Secretary and Treasurer would be asked to serve as a Chair or Co-Chair of a committee during the position. For continuity purposes, the Secretary and Treasurer positions are recommended for rotation into other officer slots in the coming years. The Secretary rotates to Chair-Elect and then to Chair. The Treasurer rotates to Secretary, then Chair-Elect, and then Chair.

Board Members would be asked to serve as members of at least one committee during their positions.

Who May Be Nominated: Persons nominated must be faculty or professional staff at AALS-member law schools (link to AALS-member-school list: http://www.aals.org/member-schools/) and also be members of the AALS Section on Academic Support. The nominated person does not have to be present at this year’s AALS Annual Meeting, but would be expected to attend AALS in the future.

Who May Submit a Nomination: You may nominate yourself or any other eligible candidate at a AALS member school.

Contents of Nomination: Nominations must be in writing and include:

1) the candidate's name;
2) the candidate's title, institutional affiliation, and business address;
3) the candidate's home/business telephone numbers and e-mail address; and
4) the candidate's professional role at his/her institution and connection with law school academic support.
5) If you nominate someone other than yourself, please indicate whether you have obtained the nominee's permission.

Deadline: Nominations must be received by midnight on Tuesday December 15, 2015.

Where to send Nominations: Send nominations to Amy Jarmon, Assistant Dean for Academic Success Programs (Texas Tech) at [email protected] (email submissions are preferred) or to Dr. Amy L. Jarmon, Assistant Dean for Academic Success Programs, Texas Tech University School of Law, 1802 Hartford Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409-0004.

The process after nominations close: After the nominations close, the Nomination Committee will ask each nominee to express his/her interest in serving on the Executive Committee, will review the nominations, and will recommend a slate of candidates at the business meeting. In addition, under the bylaws, nominations will be taken from the floor during the business meeting.

Respectfully,

Section on Academic Support Nomination Committee

Amy Jarmon (Chair), Texas Tech University
Jamie Kleppetsch, John Marshall Law School
Kris Franklin, New York Law School

 

Call for Proposals for the Summer 2016 Institute for Law Teaching and Learning Conference

CALL FOR PRESENTATION PROPOSALS

Institute for Law Teaching and Learning—Summer 2016 Conference

“Real-World Readiness”

June 10-11, 2016

Washburn University School of Law—Topeka, Kansas

The Institute for Law Teaching and Learning invites proposals for conference workshops addressing the many ways that law schools are preparing students to enter the real world of law practice. With the rising demands for “practice-ready” lawyers, this topic has taken on increased urgency in recent years. How are law schools and law professors taking on the challenge of graduating students who are ready to join the real world of practicing attorneys? Can we be doing more?

The Institute takes a broad view of educational practices that promote real-world readiness. Accordingly, we welcome proposals for workshops on incorporating such teaching techniques in doctrinal, clinical, externship, writing, seminar, hybrid, and interdisciplinary courses. Workshops can address real-world readiness in first-year courses, upper-level courses, required courses, electives, or academic support teaching. Workshops can present innovative teaching materials, course designs, curricular or program designs, etc. Each workshop should include materials that participants can use during the workshop and also when they return to their campuses. Presenters should model best practices in teaching methods by actively engaging the workshop participants.

The Institute invites proposals for 60-minute workshops consistent with a broad interpretation of the conference theme. To be considered for the conference, proposals should be one single-spaced page (maximum) and should include the following information:

* the title of the workshop;

* the name, address, telephone number, and email address of the presenter(s);

* a summary of the contents of the workshop, including its goals and methods; and

* an explanation of the interactive teaching methods the presenter(s) will use to engage the audience.

The Institute must receive proposals by February 1, 2016. Submit proposals via email to Emily Grant, Co-Director, Institute for Law Teaching and Learning, at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> .

Conference Details

Schedule of Events:

Washburn University School of Law will host a welcome reception on the evening of Thursday, June 9, and the conference workshops will take place at the law school all day on Friday, June 10, and until the early afternoon on Saturday, June 11.

Travel and Lodging:

Topeka is about 75 minutes away from the Kansas City airport (MCI). You may wish to rent a car at MCI for the drive to Topeka. There are a few shuttle services available, if you’d like to explore those options (http://www.kciroadrunner.com/ and http://www.fiveguysshuttle.com/index.html).

A block of hotel rooms will be reserved for a discounted rate at the Ramada Topeka Downtown Hotel and Convention Center.

Fees:

The conference fee for participants is $450, which includes materials, meals during the conference (two breakfasts and two lunches), and a welcome reception on Thursday evening, June 9, 2016. The conference fee for presenters is $350.

For more information, please contact any one of the ILTL Co-Directors:

Professor Emily Grant

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

785-670-1677

Associate Dean Sandra Simpson

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

509-313-3809

Professor Kelly Terry

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

501-324-9946

 

Another Article on the Fisher Case

Another article appeared in The Chronicle for Higher Education on Tuesday regarding this race-conscious admissions case: Second Chronicle Article on Fisher Case.

Fisher v University of Texas at Austin Back on the Docket

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.

Congratulations to Katherine Kelly

We want to congratulate our Contributing Editor, Katherine S. Kelly, on her promotion. Katherine is at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. She has been promoted to Clinical Associate Professor of Law. Katherine is also the Director of Academic Support at Moritz. Her profile is here: Katherine S. Kelly.

4th Annual SWCASP Workshop

4th Annual Southwestern Consortium of Academic Support Professionals Workshop

ASP Through the Years: Building a Program to Reach Students Throughout Law School at University of Arkansas at Little Rock’s William H. Bowen School of Law
in Little Rock, Arkansas

The Southwestern Consortium of Academic Support Professionals will host a one day conference focused on reaching all our student populations. ASP Departments are expected to help the entire law school population, but most schools don’t have the resources for the support expected. Law Schools still evaluate on first-year retention and bar passage rates, so ASP Departments must reach as many students as possible with limited resources. Building a cohesive program for the first two years of law school is critical. This year’s workshop will include programs to help students succeed through their first two years of law school. We will also discuss methods to improve diversity attendance and performance.

Similar to previous years, we are bringing in a great slate of presenters. Dean Michael Hunter Schwartz from UALR, Jack Manhire from Texas A&M School of Law, and Steven Foster from Oklahoma City University School of Law are among those presenting during the workshop.

Bowen is located in the heart of Little Rock, Arkansas’ capital city, within a five-minute drive of state and federal courthouses, as well as some of Arkansas’ largest law firms and corporations. Little Rock’s vibrant legal community provides our students and alumni many opportunities for professional engagement and public service. With a metropolitan population of almost 700,000, Little Rock features the best in art and cuisine, right alongside the beauty of the Natural State. This will be a great place to visit in early March.

Registration is open to anyone interested in academic support. There is no registration fee. If you are interested in attending, you can register through google docs here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lIJ0E1d56gs9Rut0Kh-YgSSBqYSQgLEXxCWjfmVueEI/viewform?usp=send_form
You can also fill out the attached form and email it to Erik Malmberg at [email protected]. (attachment was provided to announcement). Registration will be accepted through February 26th.

Hotel Information:

A block of rooms has been reserved at the Holiday Inn Presidential, 600 Interstate 30, Little Rock, AR 72202. This hotel is located a couple of blocks from the law school and there is free shuttle to the airport. We negotiated a rate of $99.00 per night for King or Double. Please be advised that this block will release and the price will expire on February 11, 2016. You can book your room by phone by calling (866) 900-7625 and referencing “UALR Law School Group Rate” and the dates of the event.

Tentative Schedule:

March 3rd:
Dinner for anyone arriving early at Next Level Events at Union Station

March 4th:
9-9:50 – Expanding Your Reach by Training and Supervising Upper Division Students to Help 1Ls
10-10:50 – Using Formative Assessment to Help Doctrinal Professors and Improve ASP Programming
11-11:50 – Bridging the Gap Between 2L Year and Bar Preparation
12-12:50 – Lunch
1-1:50 – Reaching Diverse Populations to Improve Attendance at Events
2-2:50 – Creating Programs to Improve Performance of Diverse Students
2:50-3 – Closing Remarks

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact:

Steven Foster ([email protected])
Director of Academic Achievement at Oklahoma City University

Erik Malmberg ([email protected])
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs at UALR William H. Bowen School of Law

 

Dirctor of Academic Success Program/Faculty Position at Concordia

POSITION DESCRIPTION: Full-Time Law Faculty and Director of the Academic Success Program

School of Law [Boise, Idaho Campus]

University Mission: Concordia University is a Christian university preparing leaders for the transformation of society.

University Core Values:
• Servant Leadership
• Rigor
• Lutheran

Unit or Department: School of Law [Boise, Idaho Campus]

Unit/Department Mission: The Concordia University School of Law integrates civic engagement, faith, and learning in the search for truth, social justice and an informed voice of reason.

Position title: Full-Time Law Faculty and Director of the Academic Success Program

Mission of the position (overall goal): Under the direction of the Associate Dean for Academics, the Director of the Academic Success Program will maximize student learning and performance in law school courses and on the bar exam by instructing students on learning techniques, identifying external resources for student academic success, collaborating with other faculty on instruction, and assessing the success of educational programs.

Summary of the position (how the overall goal is reached): The Director of the Academic Success Program will have lead responsibility in instructing students in learning skills and academic success during orientation and in a non-credit course aimed at all first-semester students; teach a course targeted at students who would benefit from support in legal analysis; identify and evaluate external resources to assist students; support students seeking assistance in learning and the faculty in teaching and program assessment. Responsible for developing and implementing a strategy for bar exam passage.

Concordia University School of Law: The School of Law is a branch campus of Concordia University Portland, which is part of the Concordia University System affiliated with the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod. Concordia is a Christian University preparing leaders for the transformation of society. Based in Boise, Idaho Concordia University School of Law is only the second law school in the state of Idaho and is located in close proximity to the largest concentration of the state’s law firms, attorneys and legal institutions. We offer students a range of internship, externship, mentorship and community outreach opportunities for an urban real-world experience to back up a curriculum of foundational and core concepts.
Concordia provides a challenging, yet supportive learning environment where spirited intellectual inquiry strengthens our commitment to justice, compassion and moral integrity. Concordia University School of Law emphasizes academic rigor, community engagement and ethical decision-making in a Christian context to prepare our graduates for legal, professional and leadership roles of the local, national and global frontier.

Staff relationships:
Reports to: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Supervises: None
Hired/appointed by: The Dean of the School of Law

Exempt/non-exempt? Exempt
Salary Level:

ESSENTIAL RESPONSIBILITIES:
1. Academic Support
• Teach a non-credit course for first-semester students on learning skills.
• Teach a for-credit course for students, primarily in their second-semester, who would benefit from a further chance to develop legal analysis skills.
• Provide at orientation initial instruction and appropriate information on academic support, in coordination with other faculty and Student Affairs.
• Provide advising on academic success to all students.
• Identify and evaluate external resources for academic support.
• Coordinate and collaborate in the development of a program for training faculty advisor based on our curriculum and academic success model. Work with Student Affairs in the assignment of students to a faculty advisor.
• Assist faculty to develop strategies for student academic success, particularly for students in academic difficulty and those for whom English is a second language.
• Coordinate and collaborate in the development of institutional strategies for promoting student learning.
• Assist in assessing the success of academic support activities and serve as a resource for faculty institutional research in courses.
• In collaboration with the faculty and administration, create reports on statistical data regarding students’ academic performance, using entrance data and bar passage results.
2. Bar Exam Support
• Develop and implement strategy for successful first-time and ultimate bar exam passage
• Direct the instruction and curriculum of the bar exam planning course(s)
• Coordinate any bar review course contract(s), establishing/maintaining the relationship, evaluating the product, and tracking/reviewing student performance within the product
• Work with Student Affairs to ensure students interested in sitting for the bar understand the application process, apply, and invest in a bar review course
3. Other Duties
• Work with students with learning or physical disabilities and direct any students that may qualify for reasonable accommodations, according to the ADA, to Student Affairs.
• Engage in other duties as assigned by the Associate Dean of Academics.

SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS:

 Three to five years of experience working in academic support positions with law students preferred.
 MA in Education or related field or teaching experience preferred.
 JD and bar passage and admission required.
 Excellent communication skills and ability to effectively teach in workshop and individual settings.
 Flexibility to work irregular hours and weekends.
 Excellent computer and technology skills. Prefer experience with data management, Microsoft Excel, and report development.
 Consistently support the University and Law School mission statements.

Critical skills and qualities for this position:

• Training and expertise in student success programming and implementation.
• Strong communication skills.
• Familiarity with bar exam preparation.
• Self-directed, creative, and self-motivated problem solver. Able to take initiative and conceive new ideas that will streamline and make processes more effective for students.
• The ability to work with students in crisis and make well-reasoned determinations of next steps.
• Congenial and supportive work style. Strong interpersonal skills.
• Ability to quickly adapt and gain expertise in university computer systems.
• Effective task and time management abilities. Ability to manage multiple projects while also attending to daily/weekly/monthly and annual tasks.
• Must possess integrity, judgment and positive outlook. Must present with maturity and professionalism.

Physical demands of the position:

____ Repetitive motions sitting at keyboard
_X__ Rising and sitting repeatedly
_X__ Ability to lift, pull, grasp, stoop and reach within an office environment
_X__ Ability to sit for extended periods of time
_X__ Ability to speak and hear

Assessment schedule: Position assessed after the initial 90 days, and then annually.

Attitude and demeanor of all Concordia University employees:
As part of a work environment that highly values Christian education, educational excellence and service to students, all members of the community will:

1. Support the mission of Concordia University.
2. Communicate effectively with warmth, sensitivity, and understanding as s/he deals with administrative colleagues, teachers, students, parents, faculty, college personnel and program associates.
3. Work as a team member in a professional environment.
4. Possess a “service attitude“ (willingness to be flexible to meet the needs of the department).
5. Have a professional physical appearance (appropriate clothing, personal hygiene, etc.).

To Apply: POSITION OPEN UNTIL FILLED. The preferred start date is January 15, 2016. If the position does not fill at that time, the preferred start date is July, 2016. Please submit a resume, letter of interest, teaching philosophy, contact information for three professional references and a Concordia Employment Application Form http://www.cu-portland.edu/aboutcu/documents/cu_faculty_employment_application.pdf to: Penny Wilcox, Assistant to the Faculty, [email protected].

 

Call for Nominations for Officers and Board Members of AALS Section on Academic Support

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICERS AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE AALS SECTION ON ACADEMIC SUPPORT

At the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) in New York City, the Section on Academic Support will have its business meeting on Saturday, January 9 at 7:00 a.m. (Room TBA). A principal agenda item will be the election for positions on the Executive Committee.

The Nomination Committee is now accepting nominations for positions to be elected at the 2016 meeting. The four elected Board Members serve staggered two-year terms, with two members being elected in odd-numbered years, and two being elected in even-numbered years. The four Board Members, together with the Chairperson, the Chairperson-Elect, the Immediate Past Chair, the Secretary, and the Treasurer, constitute the Executive Committee of the Section. The Executive Committee is the key policy-making body of the Section, and acts on behalf of the section in the interval between annual meetings. Because some vacancies have occurred unexpectedly in the Executive Committee for next year, Lisa Young (Seattle) will continue as Chair and Corie Rosen Felder (University of Colorado) will rotate from Treasurer to Chair-Elect in order to maintain continuity within the Executive Committee.

Positions to be filled: The officer positions which are vacant for the current election include Secretary and Treasurer. Two Board Members will be elected also, and the Board terms will expire January 2018.

The Secretary and Treasurer would be asked to serve as a Chair or Co-Chair of a committee during the position. For continuity purposes, the Secretary and Treasurer positions are recommended for rotation into other officer slots in the coming years. The Secretary rotates to Chair-Elect and then to Chair. The Treasurer rotates to Secretary, then Chair-Elect, and then Chair.

Board Members would be asked to serve as members of at least one committee during their positions.

Who May Be Nominated: Persons nominated must be faculty or professional staff at AALS-member law schools (link to AALS-member-school list: http://www.aals.org/member-schools/) and also be members of the AALS Section on Academic Support. The nominated person does not have to be present at this year’s AALS Annual Meeting, but would be expected to attend AALS in the future.

Who May Submit a Nomination: You may nominate yourself or any other eligible candidate at a AALS member school.

Contents of Nomination: Nominations must be in writing and include:

1)the candidate's name;

2) the candidate's title, institutional affiliation, and business address;

3) the candidate's home/business telephone numbers and e-mail address; and

4) the candidate's professional role at his/her institution and connection with law school academic support.

5)If you nominate someone other than yourself, please indicate whether you have obtained the nominee's permission.

Deadline: Nominations must be received by midnight on Tuesday December 15, 2015.

Where to send Nominations: Send nominations to Amy Jarmon, Assistant Dean for Academic Success Programs (Texas Tech) at [email protected] (email submissions are preferred) or to Dr. Amy L. Jarmon, Assistant Dean for Academic Success Programs, Texas Tech University School of Law, 1802 Hartford Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409-0004.

The process after nominations close: After the nominations close, the Nomination Committee will ask each nominee to express his/her interest in serving on the Executive Committee, will review the nominations, and will recommend a slate of candidates at the business meeting. In addition, under the bylaws, nominations will be taken from the floor during the business meeting.

Respectfully,

Section on Academic Support Programs Nomination Committee

Amy Jarmon (Chair), Texas Tech University
Jamie Kleppetsch, John Marshall Law School
Kris Franklin, New York Law School

 

More Productive Exam Study

Many law students are in their exams. During the exam period, students need to use their time wisely (efficiency) and get the most results from that time (effectiveness). Here are some thoughts to help students be more productive in their work:

• Spend time studying the topics that you need work on. It is human nature to study what we already know/enjoy and to avoid what we do not know/dislike.
• Let your brain do the “heavy lifting” for more intense review or difficult subjects when it is most alert and focused.
• Save the more active tasks like flashcards, practice questions, or discussion with a study partner for times when you need more activity to give your brain a respite from the heavy work.
• Remember that organizing your desk, papers, folders, books, pencils, etc. to study is not the same as studying. Get down to work rather than pretending to work.
• Learn the material before an open-book exam. You will not have time to look everything up. You want to organize the materials you will have available, but learning is more important than 200 tabs.
• At the end of a study day, plan your study for the next day. Make a specific to-do-list of what you need to accomplish during the blocks of time you plan to study. You will waste less time the next day wondering what to do.
• Avoid multitasking. Multitasking is a myth. You cannot answer emails, text, watch TV, or do other tasks that require attention at the same time that you study. Your brain does not work effectively that way. Focus your full attention on your studying.
• If you have coasted too much during the semester and are now realizing you are in trouble, get to work. Do not waste time with “wish I had,” “should have,” and “could have.” At the beginning of next semester, get your act together to avoid a repeat performance.
• Listen to your brain and body. If you cannot regain your focus or become hungry, your brain and body are telling you that they need a break. Get up and walk around. Grab a quick snack. Then go back to work. You will be more productive after a break.
• Get 7-8 hours of sleep each night. If you skimp on sleep, your brain will not function well. You absorb more information, retain more information, and are more productive with sufficient sleep. You also recall information, organize more efficiently, and write with more clarity if you are rested when you go into an exam.

By making wise choices about time and results, students can prioritize their work rather than be overwhelmed by exam studying. (Amy Jarmon)