Law School Academic Support Blog

Back to Basics - Part II

Titles are granted, positions are given, but it’s respect that earns you credibility. - Lolly Daskal

This is the second in a series of weekly blog posts addressing the basics of effective teaching. Last week, I addressed the importance of knowing your audience, whether from the podium of a classroom or on a larger stage. It is equally important to establish your credibility in the classroom in a manner that fosters learning and builds student rapport.

A teacher is viewed as the subject matter expert in the classroom, whether the audience is a class of third-graders, or third-year law students battling Secured Transactions. But, deference to one’s subject matter expertise can be extinguished with the speed of a hand raise.  How we answer questions, or if we answer them at all, matters. Authority is not credibility. While authority may be bestowed or presumed, credibility is earned - one interaction after another. True expertise is evidenced by our ability to field and answer questions, and it can be wholly undermined by our failure or refusal to do the same.

Recent experiences have, for me, sounded the call for a return to the basics of quality teaching. To ensure that our students are well-prepared to pass state bar exams, academic support professors try to develop and maintain subject matter expertise in legal licensure exams. Yet, to my great shock and frustration, the well-reasoned questions of scholars soldiering in the trenches of bar prep have been dismissed and derided by those at the helm of bar examination. When questioned about exam scaling and essay equating, I’ve heard psychometric experts say you’ll just have to trust us. Which begs my point: expertise without earned credibility hobbles the vital relationship between those who have information and those with whom the information needs to be shared.

In legal analysis and bar essay writing, we tell students to use the facts. We teach them to not assume that the grader knows the facts. Effective teachers and presenters, likewise, do not assume that the audience has the facts. Under no circumstance will good teachers be dismissive of student questions. Strong teachers are not afraid to be questioned about the factual basis for their research and conclusions. In fact, they welcome a circumstance for intellectual challenge; they are fulfilled by the opportunity to teach, explain, and enlighten.

As law professors we are shepherding the next generation into the legal profession. Just as we would never silence the earnest question of a student in our class, we must speak persistence to power and not allow our own questions to go unanswered. When laws, policies, Restatements, changes to testing protocols, and impediments to educational access are proposed, we must take audience with those empowered to enact change. We must seek clarity and reason, because we cannot effectively teach that which we do not ourselves understand.

(Marsha Griggs)

Efficiency and Convenience vs. Science

Society moves faster than ever before.  Information must be at the fingertips with a smartphone and google.  Restaurants better serve food in the fastest way possible or suffer the wrath of online reviews.  Technology continually evolves to serve our needs and make life easier.  Email, smartphones, Alexa, and even new robot lawn mowers (which I want) can allow everyone to focus time on more important tasks.  However, are we using efficiency, convenience, and the pervasiveness of technology as a default instead of using methods that best serve students?

Over the past 2 weeks, the NCBE and LSAC have fully capitulated to the online testing platform.  The Legal Skills Prof Blog copied the press release from the LSAC indicating the LSAT will now be 100% online.  The NCBE began testing the MPRE online recently, and many of my students were selected for one of the PearsonVue testing centers for the November exam.  I understand the benefits of the online test.  It is more convenient for the organizations to grade.  The scores should be ready and distributed faster.  The administration is much easier, and I assume less cheating is possible on the online tests.

The benefits of the online exam do not outweigh the detriment to students.  The effort for more ease is primarily a relief on the testing organization.  The ease doesn't inherently benefit students.  Students are still studying and taking the exam for approximately the same amount of time.  The lack of a major benefit to students then means the negatives should dictate no online standardized tests.  The biggest problem is the inability to effectively notate on the test.  The LSAC and NCBE says that students can highlight passages while reading.  Anyone in legal education knows that is a passive reading technique at best.  Students every year highlight casebooks in rainbows of colors without actually digesting the information.  Physically writing on the question matters the most.  When a student spots a possible conflict of interest issue on the MPRE, they should write Con or some shorthand in the test booklet.  They can jot down elements of an analysis.  Writing requires more than the ability to highlight.  On the LSAT, students need to be able to draw boxes or diagrams for the logic games.  The inability to write in the test booklet makes active reading more difficult.  I assume everyone who helps students prepare for standardized tests encourages active reading.  Computer based testing makes active reading more difficult.

Research confirms our intuition.  A small study in Norway found reading paper books boosts retention.  Retention may not be what students need in a standardized test.  I would hypothesize the reason for the increased retention is the more tactile and potentially active nature of reading in paper form.  In standardized testing, a few studies found participants scored better when taking the print version of a test, but a few others found similar performance.  The problem is those studies were simplistic.  When researchers began testing more complicated and nuanced questions, like reconstructing a plot sequence, reading the paper copy was best.  This is important because the LSAT and MPRE are more complicated tests.  Both of those exams require more nuanced analysis.  When more complicated, reading in print is better for students.

Cheap and efficient technology is invading our testing most likely to the detriment of our students.  I read studies over the last couple years providing this insight.  I didn't have that information ready when typing this blog, so I googled the information, yes I see the irony.  Everything I reference was on the first page of the search results.  I didn't see any studies promoting unique educational benefits of digital testing.  If digital testing's benefits only help the companies and there is a high probability it negatively effects students, why are the exams moving to digital testing?  Shouldn't testing decisions be made that are best for assessment and learning for students?  My opinion is these decisions are valuing efficiency and cost over student educational interests.

(Steven Foster)

Director, Center for Writing and Academic Excellence at University of Iowa

Director, Center for Writing and Academic Excellence

University of Iowa College of Law 

Permanent Professional and Scientific position (full-time, 10-month appointment) 

The University of Iowa College of Law seeks applicants for the position of Director, Center for Writing and Academic Excellence.

In this position, the Director’s primary responsibility will be to provide one-on-one help to law students so they can develop the skills and strategies they need to be successful in both professional and academic settings. The Director may also create workshops on a range of pertinent topics (e.g., plagiarism, grammar conventions and myths, writing with elegance and style); keep current on developments in the fields of academic and legal writing support; modify the role of the Center, as appropriate, to meet the needs of Iowa law students; and hire, train, and supervise writing tutors in the Center. 

We are seeking creative candidates with a nuanced understanding of legal writing and a vision for, and commitment to, helping all students reach their fullest potential. A successful candidate will have the flexibility and skills to help shape the scope of the work of the Center in the years to come.

Education Requirement

• J.D. degree

Experience Required

• Demonstrated success teaching law students or other adult learners, or equivalent experience
  • Relevant professional legal experience
  • Demonstrated strength in interpersonal, administrative, and communication skills
  • Strong record of academic achievement

Desired Qualifications

• Graduate degree in English or related advanced degree
  • Experience teaching writing
  • Experience working with non-native English speakers

Highly Desired Qualifications

• Demonstrated commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion

To apply, candidates should submit a letter of interest, resume, a list of five references, a sample of written work, and a law school transcript through Jobs@UIowa, https://jobs.uiowa.edu, referring to Requisition 19004026. (The posting at Jobs@UIowa includes information from University of Iowa Human Resources about staff positions at the level of Educational Support Services Coordinator/Manager, the classification for this position.)

Review of applications will begin immediately and continue until the position is filled.  For fullest consideration, submit applications before December 1, 2019.

The University of Iowa is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. All qualified applicants are encouraged to apply and will receive consideration for employment free from discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, religion, associational preference, status as a qualified individual with a disability, or status as a protected veteran.

Persons with disabilities who need assistance or accommodations with the application or interview process may contact University Human Resources/Faculty and Staff Disability Services, (319) 335-2660 or [email protected].

 

Duration: Permanent Professional and Scientific Position

Salary: $50,000 - $106,000 depending on qualifications

Students per Semester: Individual student sessions depending on demand

Submission Deadline: Sunday, 12/01/2019 – 12:00

Contact

Lorie Schweer

Professor, Legal Analysis, Writing & Research

Phone: 319-384-2812

[email protected]

https://jobs.uiowa.edu

 

Director of Academic Success at Boston College Law School

Boston College Law School has created a first-time Director of Academic Success Programs position, designed to support academic success and bar preparation.  The Director will devise and implement academic support and bar success programs for the law school and provide counseling and assistance to all law students and recent graduates in need of academic and bar support, in order to help them develop the critical skills necessary to succeed in law school, on the bar exam, and in practice. The Director may also be asked to teach as an adjunct, and support and oversee instruction for related courses. 

For a full description of the job responsibilities and requirements, please see the listing on the Boston College website.

More or Less: What's the Best Bar Exam Approach Based on the Latest Empirical Research?

Common wisdom often suggests more is better...at least when it comes to passing the bar exam.  But, just like more medicine is not always better for one's body (and even poisonous when taking too much), perhaps undertaking more bar-tested subjects as a law student is not associated with increasing bar passage results, at least for those most at-risk of not passing the bar exam.  And, perhaps avoiding experiential learning courses is not necessary for students most at-risk of not passing the bar exam.  Indeed, the latest forthcoming empirical research is all about exploring common conceptions about the relationships among experiential learning, taking bar-tested electives, and bar exam outcomes.

To evaluate these questions, we turn to two empiricist law professors - Robert Kuehn at Washington University and David Moss at Wayne State University - who have just released "must-read" research analyzing often-expressed narratives about the impacts of experiential learning and bar-tested elective courses on bar exam outcomes.  Robert Kuehn and David Moss, A Study of the Relationship Between Law School Coursework and Bar Exam Outcomes, 68 J. Legal Educ. (2019) (forthcoming). 

First, the authors evaluate the hypothesis that law students should refrain from taking too many experiential learning courses (such as clinics, field placements/internships, and simulation courses), most likely based on the belief that experiential learning crowds out doctrinal learning. 

Second, the researchers evaluate the hypothesis that law students should take more bar-tested subjects rather than fewer to boost ones' promise of bar exam success, particularly for those most at-risk of not passing bar exams.

Their research is robust, using regression analysis to evaluate such variables as LSAT scores, UGPA, first-year LGPA, graduating LGPA, experiential learning courses (clinics, field placements/internships, and simulation courses), and bar-tested elective subjects [regression analysis allows researchers to control or take into account the influence of other variables in order to observe whether experiential learning credits and/or bar-tested course work are associated with improved bar exam outcomes].

As indicated in their republished table below, their research spans an impressive 10 year time span, examining  first-time bar exam results, for 3891 law school graduates from Washington University and Wayne State University.

Given the depth and breadth of the professors' research, their findings provide food-for-thought for these two questions, at least based on their law school populations, as to whether law students most-at risk of bar failure based on LGPA should take fewer experiential learning courses and/or more bar-tested elective subjects.

As an initial observation, with respect to LSAT scores, both law schools observed relatively consistent LSAT means throughout the course of the ten-year period despite a general downward trend in bar passage rates beginning in or around 2013 and 2014. Consequently, at least based on their law school populations, bar exam declines appear to be unrelated to LSAT admission decisions since LSAT scores remained relatively flat throughout the ten-year research period.

With respect to experiential learning courses, the authors observe that both law schools have seen astounding increases in the number of experiential credits hours that their students are taking over the ten year period, which is not surprising given the American Bar Association's 2014 requirement mandating increased experiential learning requirements in order for law schools to satisfy more recent accreditation standards. 

Nevertheless, despite the occasional claim suggesting that law students are taking too many experiential courses, which might compromise bar exam results, the researchers found that there was no statistical association between increases in experiential learning credits hours and bar exam performance (to include those students most at-risk of bar exam failure).  Thus, the authors suggest that law schools should not counsel students to avoid experiential learning opportunities.

With respect to bar-tested elective subjects, the authors observed that both law schools have found that more recent bar takers are taking fewer bar-tested subjects than in the past.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, the researchers found a modest correlation between taking bar-tested subjects and bar exam outcomes but only for those students with LGPA's that placed them most at-risk of bar exam failure. 

However, critically, the authors observed that that was an apparent sweet spot in the number of bar-tested subjects taken by at-risk students such that there was no statistical benefit in at-risk students taking more than the approximate average number of bar-tested subjects at each school (just four electives out of fourteen bar-tested subjects for Washington University students and just seven electives out of nineteen bar-tested subjects for Wayne State students). 

In other words, in my reading of their research based on their populations of bar exam takers, law schools might counsel at-risk students to take a handful or so of bar-tested subjects but also advise them that they need not take the entire panoply of bar-tested elective subjects (as more than the average has no empirical benefit of improving bar exam outcomes). And, we should not at all fear encouraging at-risk students from actively participating in experiential learning courses, whether in the form of clinics, internships, and/or simulation courses. 

In short, there's much room for curricular exploration by at-risk students without compromising their bar exam outcomes...and that's good news worth thinking about as we meet with our students about their curriculum choices. 

(Scott Johns).

 

Life Hacks - Academic Success Version

Helping students achieve academic success involves working on at least three levels. The first, and most obvious, level is specific to learning the practice of law: helping students master effective outlining, case briefing, and issue spotting are two examples. The second level is learning how to learn on a more general level -- pre-reading strategies, spaced repetition, multiple choice skills, and self-regulated learning techniques come to mind. Work on the third level, however, often is the one that bears the most fruit in my experience. This is the level of trying to work through non-academic situations that affect students' academic success -- life hacks, as it were. Of course, you never know whether a life hack will be a hit or a miss, old hat or new insight. But when a student tells me, "You changed my life!" (quite a wonderful thing to hear at 9:30 on a Monday morning), it's almost always because a life hack we brainstormed together made a significant positive change that helped all the academic pieces fall into place.

Here I offer four life hacks that have generated some of the most effusive student thanks recently. Interestingly enough, all of them center on sleep. To me, that suggests that today's students recognize the importance of sleep in maintaining energy as well as academic performance.

1. "I just want ten more minutes before I get up."
The hack: sitting up and listening to your breath in the morning. 
The problem is a familiar one: you wake up on your own, or to the alarm clock, but you want just a few minutes more of feeling happy and relaxed before you go into full gear and encounter the day. Jumping straight out of bed, especially if you woke to an alarm, feels precipitous and stressful. But you also know that if you hit the snooze alarm, you're going to feel even more groggy in ten minutes, or worse, you might sleep through the alarm and be late for class. So create a gentle transition: sit up (in bed or a comfortable chair) and start off the day with five or ten minutes of stillness. It can be as simple as feeling your breath go in and out, or sending good thoughts to people in your life. You'll feel like you got precious extra minutes for yourself, and you'll start the day in a good mood. (Hint: when I share this hint, I try to be aware of my audience: some students respond well to words like meditation or mindfulness, while others immediately shy away.)

2. "I can't get to sleep because my mind keeps racing."
The hack: Count to four, or practice something similarly familiar and repetitious.
Students who voice this plaint are usually familiar with and practicing the precepts of good "sleep hygiene": they turn off the computer an hour before bedtime, have the bedroom dark and cool, and lay off the caffeine by early afternoon. Yet as soon as their head hits the pillow, the mind starts going a hundred miles an hour with the perceived failures of the past day and the dozens of things they must accomplish on the morrow. They need a gentle transition to help them let go of the cares of the day. One of the easiest is just counting slowly from 1 to 4, over and over again. Another variation is to listen to, or read, or recite, a story that is so familiar that they practically know it by heart. The repetition without judgment gives them permission to let go and unwind.

3. "I can't establish a regular schedule."
The hack: Get up at the same time each morning.
When students tell me the have trouble keeping to a schedule, the first thing I ask about is their sleep habits. Students straight out of college are especially prone to base wake-up times on class schedules. On days starting with an 8 am class, they get out of bed at 7; on days starting with an 11:30 class, they get out of bed at 10:30, and on weekends, anything goes. The result is what I call "virtual jet lag," where the body is continually trying to readjust itself. Often these students stay up late because they aren't sleepy when their brain tells them they should be going to bed: the result is a continual state of exhaustion. I suggest they get up at the same time each school day (and vary by no more than one hour on weekends) so their body and brain know what's coming day by day. Once they establish a regular wake-up routine, schedules tend to naturally follow.

4. "I'm exhausted in the afternoon, but napping is a disaster."
The hack: Nap or listen to your breath for 20 minutes, not more.
It's natural to have a "low" in the afternoon: our internal circadian biological clocks mean that most of us have a two-hour period of reduced energy sometime between one and four pm. Most people push through this low period with exercise or caffeine or sheer willpower, but a nap seems like an obvious choice for others. If you choose to nap, 15-20 minutes is ideal, because that amount of time allows you to rest in the first two stages of the sleep cycle. Go half an hour, though, and you can enter into deep sleep: at best, you'll have the groggies when you wake up and spend an hour dragging yourself back to alertness; at worst, you'll be impossible to rouse from your nap and end up throwing your nighttime sleep cycle out of whack. A lovely alternative to napping is to allow yourself a 20-minute period of rest, allowing but not expecting sleep. That rest can come in the form of listening to your breath (see #1) or doing something familiar and repetitious (see #2). Practicing any of these during an afternoon rest break can boost your energy to make your late afternoon and evening more productive.

(Nancy Luebbert)

Let Me Use Words You Can Understand

Last year, one of my international students brought to me a response she had written to a mid-tern exam question.  She was wholly perplexed, because the professor had given her a low score on this particular response, and yet, even in looking at the notes the professor had written on her paper, she could not fathom where she had gone wrong.  Bizarrely, the more the two of us discussed her essay, the more confused I became about why she had written what she had written.  Finally, and wholly by accident, I stumbled across the source of the trouble.  At one point the exam question referred to someone being "served", and my student had not recognized this usage as being connected with "service of process".  The latter term she understood, but she read the off-hand and abbreviated statement that "X was served" as some form of hospitality, not legal action. ("Have some tea!") This was partly because English was her second language, and undoubtedly also partly because she did not grow up watching movie and TV shows in which frumpy anonymous operatives walk up to the protagonists, slap envelopes against their chests, and say, "You've been served!"  For much of our discussion, it had not even occurred to me that this could be a source of confusion, and of course there was no way the student could have known it herself.  

I thought about this episode last week, when I was attending a conference hosted by the NCBE, in which some of the presenters were discussing the ongoing evolution of the development of MBE and MEE questions.  Part of that evolution includes the elimination, or at least minimization, of the use of terms whose meaning was not tied to the practice of law and might not be recognized by all of the examinees.  An example given involved a torts question involving a car that had been damaged in a collision.  In the original question, the defendant was identified as "Union Pacific", and it was apparent that the rest of the question was written with the assumption that examinees would recognize Union Pacific as a company that operated railroads, and that therefore the collision under consideration was between a car and a locomotive.  The newer, improved version of the question simply referred to the defendant as "a railroad company", thus providing the information needed for proper analysis to all examinees.

Discussion at that point livened up a bit, as presenters and participants brainstormed about other terminology that question writers should considered changing in order to make their questions more accessible.  These tended to fall into a few categories:

• References to people, businesses, locations -- generally, things that could be identified with proper nouns -- that might be recognized by some people (but not all people) as possessing some characteristic relevant to the legal analysis.  For example, a question that named Gregory Hines as a plaintiff in a case in which his feet were injured might reflect the expectation that examinees would recognize Hines was famously a dancer, and that therefore a foot injury might generate greater damages to him than to an average person.  A question that mentions "Reno" might rest on the assumption that everyone knows Reno is in Nevada and gambling is legal there.  
• References to technology, fads, or news items from two or more decades ago that most of us who were alive and adult at that time would instantly recognize, but the significance of which might be totally lost on people currently in their 20s.  A question that depends on the operation of an answering machine or the effect of a slap bracelet may only be accessible to a portion of the testing population.
• Specialized terms for everyday objects that nevertheless are not commonly used in conversation.  A question that depends on knowing the difference between a banister and a balustrade, or between a lintel and a gable, is probably going to lose a portion of the examinees.  

It can be hard, when writing exam questions or practice questions, to resist the temptation to make a clever reference or to give examinees the chance for a moment of recognition.  But our tests are not supposed to be tests of any vocabulary but legal vocabulary.  If an examinee misses the opportunity to demonstrate that he knows the appropriate rule, and can apply it skillful to relevant facts, because he did not have access to the full meaning of the fact pattern so that he could recognize the issue that leads to that rule, then the examinee has been unfairly denied a chance to shine.

[Bill MacDonald]

Back to Basics

The most important knowledge teachers need to do good work is a knowledge of how students are experiencing learning and perceiving their teacher’s actions.  ~ Steven Brookfield

I love innovative pedagogy. Tools like mind maps, retrieval practice, spaced repetition, and self-directed leaning strategies have been game changers in higher education. I am always looking for ways to enhance and improve my teaching. But innovation is an enhancement to, and not a replacement for, the most basic tenets of quality classroom teaching. In this series of weekly blog posts, I will address teaching basics that are the telltale traits of effective teachers.

1. Know your audience

We cannot afford to make assumptions about the knowledge or background of the students in our classes. Recently, I attended a conference planned for academic support and bar prep professionals. The first few hours of the conference were devoted almost entirely to explaining basic components of the bar exam. I concluded that the presenters either underestimated the skill and experience of the audience or failed to tailor a previously used presentation for the present audience. My perception of audience reaction to the content and delivery was a combination of polite appreciation, genuine curiosity, and suppressed rage. As audience participants, we have both the luxury and opportunity to make critical assessments of the projected and realized learning outcomes. But a seat on the other side of the podium also yields an enlightened perspective on effective learning strategies.

Rather than disconnect myself entirely from the redundancy of the content presented, I used the time to introspectively examine whether I had made the same mistakes. To my deep chagrin, I had. Insert hand raise emoji. I teach an early bar prep course, enrollment in which is restricted to students in their final year of law school. Because I cannot cover all the bar exam subjects in the time allotted for class, I select a few subjects. Routinely included in my course coverage are Property, Torts, Evidence, and Criminal Law. Although I intentionally include required courses, and stray away from electives that not all students will have taken, I failed to thoroughly research my audience this semester. In so doing, I did not discover, until after class had begun, that two students in my class had not yet completed the required course in Evidence.

One student was concurrently enrolled in Evidence and my course, the other had decided to wait until next semester to complete their requirements. I gut-wrenched at the thought of their polite, yet passive, frustration with me as I assigned practice questions testing hearsay  - a topic with which they had no prior exposure. Of course, there are many law schools who do not require coursework in Evidence, and a corresponding number of students who learn/study the evidentiary rules for the first time during bar prep. Pedagogically, however, had I taken the time (actually a lot of time) to review the transcripts of the students enrolled in my class, I could have scheduled assignments that equally serve and challenge them all. Even though time consuming, doing my homework on my audience is just as important as being well studied in the subject matter that I teach. Suddenly my frustration with another’s seeming underestimation of my knowledge base was supplanted with embarrassment by my own overestimation of my students’.

(Marsha Griggs)

Feeling vs. Reality

Multiple golf instructors told me over the years that "feel isn't real."  The idea is what we think we are doing is not what our body is actually doing.  A common instructional tool with golf is for a student to over-emphasize or exaggerate a new move in the swing to get a better feel.  Our students are experiencing a similar phenomenon.

The Legal Skills Prof. Blog had a post last week about a new Harvard study relating to students perceptions of their learning.  Not shockingly, students felt better with passive teaching but performed worse on subsequent exams.  I encourage everyone to read the blog post here.  I plan to send it to my students as well.  As an Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice told a few of us recently, "if it isn't hard, it isn't worth doing."

(Steven Foster)

Tenure Track Professor of Law for Academic Success and Bar Prep at Stetson

POSITION: Tenure-Track Professor of Law (Academic Success and Bar Preparation)

Stetson University College of Law seeks an academic success scholar to join our full-time faculty. Applicants should have a strong academic record and a demonstrated commitment to outstanding teaching, scholarship, and service. Stetson’s beautiful campuses are located in Florida’s Tampa Bay region, the nation’s eighteenth largest metropolitan area. Stetson is Florida’s oldest law school and is internationally known for its programs in Advocacy, Legal Writing, Elder Law, Environmental Law, and Higher Education Law. We encourage interested applicants to visit our website at http://www.law.stetson.edu to learn more about Stetson, our community, and our programs. Interviews may occur at the AALS 2019 Faculty Recruitment Conference or by video/telephone conference.

The professor will be expected to teach courses in the existing curriculum that help students to understand learning techniques and that train students on exam-taking skills and strategies, including strategies for succeeding on the bar exam. The successful candidate will have the opportunity to provide input on curricular initiatives, particularly in the application of student learning science and successful learning methods to the law school curriculum.

Administrative Responsibilities:

The professor will be responsible for directing the College of Law’s Academic Success and Bar Preparation Services Program, including working closely with faculty and administration to implement a comprehensive plan to maximize student learning and achievement in law school, on the bar exam, and as professionals. The professor will interact with students individually to prepare them for success and improve exam performance, as well as supervise a team of academic success and bar preparation counselors. The professor will also organize workshops designed to help students understand the science of learning and develop techniques that lead to improved success on law school exams. The professor is expected to help identify those students likely to benefit from academic success programming and encourage their participation. The professor will be involved in new student orientation, including introducing students to the services offered by the academic success program and providing a basic introduction to legal reasoning. The professor will also supervise the bar preparation program, with the goal of accomplishing superior performance on the February and July administrations of the bar exam.

The professor is expected to work with faculty to maximize teaching effectiveness and attain specified student learning outcomes.

Minimum Qualifications:

• J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school.
• A current bar license in at least one state.
• Demonstrated ability or potential to pursue a scholarly agenda in the field of student learning and engage in professional service to meet University tenure and promotion requirements.
• Demonstrate strong written and oral communication, marketing, interpersonal, organizational, analytical, assessment, and administrative skills.
• Demonstrate a high degree of professionalism and discretion.
• Demonstrate a willingness to design and implement innovative programs and services.
• Success working closely and collaboratively with a diverse student body, faculty, staff, and alumni.

Please submit a cover letter, curriculum vitae, and contact information for your professional references to Marco Jimenez and Royal Gardner, Co-Chairs, Faculty Appointments Screening Committee. You may email your application to [email protected]. You may apply through standard mail to Shannon Edgar, Stetson University College of Law, 1401 61st Street South, Gulfport, Florida 33707.

A Federal Court Ruling on Bar Exam Accommodations in New York

With a hat tip to Prof. Chris Lasch...

This week, a federal judge issued an order, finding that the New York State Board of Law Examiners is not immune under the Eleventh Amendment in a civil action by a bar exam applicant who was twice denied testing accommodations, alleging violations of federal disability law.  T.W. v New York State Board of Law Examiners, Memorandum and Order, September 18, 2019, U.S. District Court E.D New York, Case 16-CV-3029 (J. Dearie).

According to the brief facts as stated in the court's memorandum of its order, the plaintiff failed the New York Bar Exam in her "first two tries, causing her to lose a lucrative job...and undermining her job prospects to date," although the plaintiff subsequently passed the New York bar exam when she was finally provided testing accommodations.  

The plaintiff raises two federal statutes in support of her claim that the New York bar examiners violated her rights in failing to twice provide bar exam accommodations.  First, the plaintiff asserts violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which, roughly speaking, prohibits discrimination by any program or activity that receives federal final assistance. Second, the plaintiff asserts violation of the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"), which, broadly speaking and in relevant parts, prohibits discrimination by programs and activities by any public entity.

The New York bar examiners filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over both of the plaintiff's federal statutory claims in that the State contends that the plaintiff's claims are barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, which, in general, prohibits suits in federal court against states absent an exception (two of which were raised by the plaintiff in response to the defendant's motion to dismiss).  

First, with respect to the ADA statutory claim, the plaintiff asserted that Congress properly abrogated (or removed) state sovereign immunity when Congress adopted the ADA statute.  

As indicated by the Court (and as tested in law school exams and bar exams too), Congress can remove sovereign immunity provided that Congress uses unmistakably clear language and provided that Congress adopted the statute at issue pursuant to congressional power to remedy and deter constitutional violations under Congress's post-Civil War 14th Amendment Section 5 power.  

With respect to this issue, the New York bar examiners argued that Title II of the ADA was not enacted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority as the commerce clause power, in and of itself, is constitutionally insufficient for Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity.  Despite the interesting constitutional arguments over this issue, the Court did not reach the constitutional issue with respect to the ADA, explaining that the plaintiff's claim under the Rehabilitation Act was sufficient to resolve this case because the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA have the "same legal standards and remedies."  Thus, the Court focused only on whether to dismiss the plaintiff's claim under the Rehabilitation Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Second, with respect to the Rehabilitation Act claim, the plaintiff asserted that the State waived its constitutional right under the Eleventh Amendment to not be sued in federal court when the State accepted federal funding for some of its state court programs.  

As the Court stated in its decision, the Rehabilitation Act requires states to waive sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving federal funds for state programs for lawsuits brought in federal courts for violations of the Rehabilitation Act.  Consequently, the Court next focused on whether the state waived its constitutional rights when the New York court system received, in part, federal funding.  

In brief, the Court held that the New York bar examiners had waived sovereign immunity protections from lawsuit in federal court under the Rehabilitation Act because the New York bar examiners were organized as a sub-entity of the New York court system, which did receive federal funding, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of violation of the Rehabilitation Act by the New York bar examiners could proceed to the next stage of litigation as the court has federal question subject matter over the plaintiff's claim.  

With respect to this issue, the decision is a bit complicated and is fact intensive, as illustrated by the Court's citations out of Wisconsin, which indicate that the Wisconsin bar examiners are distant separate entities from the Wisconsin court system.  In such cases, the particular government entity must intentional waive its sovereign immunity rights by receiving federal funding, which, apparently, the Wisconsin bar examiners did not.  

Nevertheless, with respect to New York, the Court ruled that the New York bar examiners were a sub-compnent agency of the larger state court system such that the New York bar examiners are subject to lawsuit in federal court based on the Rehabilitation Act.  As such, the Court denied the New York bar examiners motion to dismiss. Consequently, the plaintiff can proceed with a claim against the New York bar examiners in federal court for violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

For those of us in the academic support field, that raises an interesting question because, anecdotally, even in states using the identical Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), it seems as though there are wide differences with respect to granting disability testing accommodations.  But, before you counsel students to sue state bar examiners in federal court for potential violations of the Rehabilitation Act, its important to underscore that that a case in federal court might well turn on a deep analysis of the organizational and legal structure of the bar examiners, specifically, whether they are a sub-entity of a state agency that is the recipient of federal funding.  Many or some state bar examiners might not receive any federal funding and might well be independent of a state agency that does receive federal funding such that federal litigation might be precluded against state bar examiners.

Finally, for those of you working with law students (or bar exam applicants), this is a great case to raise with them because it interweaves federal civil procedure and constitutional law.  Indeed, this is a problem ripe for a bar exam question.  And, for those law students preparing for midterms in civil procedure or constitutional law, this is a great practice problem to test one's analysis.  

(Scott Johns).

 

 

Law Dreams

Four weeks into the semester, the reports of law dreams are starting to trickle in.

For those who have never experienced this phenomenon, law dreams are the bane of the conscientious law student. (I've never had a report of a classic law dream from a devil-may-care student.) The law dream doesn't resemble your garden-variety exam dream, in which students dream they are sitting down to take a Corporate Taxation exam when they haven't even finished Contracts, let alone registered for any upper-division courses. No, the classic law dream, as I've experienced it and as students describe it, involves involuntarily wrestling with legal concepts during sleep. After a full day of conscientious studying, you lay yourself down to sleep, hoping to feel rested and refreshed in the morning. You drift off to sleep, and suddenly your unconscious brain is wrestling with the reason Palsgraf wasn't decided on the basis of duty, why it matters which ship "Peerless" the cotton from Bombay was loaded on in its passage to Liverpool, or whether to treat consent or its lack as an element of the tort or as a defense. These dreams feel like they last forever, and students wake up feeling drained by the mental struggle. 

Exhausting as law dreams may be, it may be some comfort to know they serve a useful function. Tons of research now shows how important sleep is not only for health but also for memory consolidation, with different areas of the brain consolidating long-term memory and procedural memory. Sleep after learning is essential to save the short-term memories into long-term memory, and new research also suggests that sleep is needed before new learning so the brain is receptive to new memories. But what about those law dreams? One influential paper suggests that "Type I" thought-like dreams are the result of memory replay as data is transferred from short-term working memory to long-term memory during non-REM sleep (those are the law dreams), while "Type II" dreams during REM sleep are the more familiar non-linear dreams. Remember the old jokes about sleeping with your book under your pillow to learn? Some researchers now advocate using sleep for active problem-solving by focusing on a problem before going to bed. There's even a technique called "lucid dreaming" which allows sleepers to gain control over the progression of their dreams as they practice awareness that they are actually dreaming and make choices about what will happen in the dream. Lucid dreaming, though, is only possible if you have regular healthy sleep. 

Now, go to bed.

(Nancy Luebbert)

Closing the Gap: Solutions to Educational Inequality

The University of Memphis Law Review invites manuscripts for publication in Volume 50, Number 4 and presentation at its March 2020 Symposium, “Closing the Gap: Solutions to Educational Inequality.”

Education is the bedrock of a nation’s development, yet more than sixty years after Brown v. Board of Education, America remains a country with significant barriers to equal education for all.  This is true despite the fact that, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. per-student spending is 29% higher for elementary and secondary education and 81% higher for post-secondary education than the average for thirty-five developed countries.  What are the best paths forward in achieving greater educational equality?

The Symposium welcomes a wide array of scholarly views addressing current legal and policy issues, including but not limited to, school vouchers and school choice, ongoing racial, ethnic, and class segregation, school funding and its role in promoting equity or perpetuating  inequity, the impact of school disciplinary policies, and access to public schools for immigrants and refugees. 

If interested in participating, please submit a manuscript or abstract to Symposium Editor Colin Donoghue at [email protected] with “Closing the Gap: Solutions to Educational Inequality” in the subject line.  The deadline for submission of a manuscript or abstract is October 1, 2019. 

NCBE Practice Analysis

The NCBE is close to ending phase 2 of their bar exam analysis.  While I know many are skeptical, I do encourage everyone to participate in the process.  Our best hope, and maybe only hope, of lasting change to the bar exam is in this process.

The practice analysis survey will be live through the end of September.  We should pass this along to our recent alumni.  They may be the best people to provide feedback on whether the bar examines what first-year attorneys do daily.  Here is the link:  https://www.testingtaskforce.org/2019pasurvey/

The NCBE posted on the testing task force blog earlier this week.  The recent post explains the completion of phase 2 and what to expect in phase 3.  You can read it here:  https://www.testingtaskforce.org/2019/09/10/from-practice-analysis-to-test-redesign-looking-ahead-to-phase-three/

We may be at a turning point on the bar exam.  Let's do our best to provide the most information possible to help fundamentally change the admission process.

(Steven Foster)

NECASP Call for Proposals

Request for Proposals: Presentation and Scholarly “Works in Progress”

New England Consortium of Academic Support Professionals (NECASP) Conference

Friday December 13, 2019

Vermont Law School

South Royalton, VT

NECASP will be holding its annual one-day conference and has designated time for presentations. Our

topic this year is “Admission to Admission: Getting students the tools they need to build the bridge

from day 1 to swearing-in.” We will gather in Vermont to share and explore ideas with ASP colleagues

on how to prepare students for admission to the bar and all that entails (academics, bar passage,

character and fitness, and professionalism) beginning from their admission to law school. We welcome

a broad range of proposals – from presenters in the New England Region and beyond – and at various

stages of completion – from idea to fruition. If you wish to present, the proposal process is as follows:

1. Submit your proposal by October 14, 2019 , via email to Joe Brennan at [email protected]
2. Proposals may be submitted as a Word document or as a PDF
3. Proposals must include the following:
   1. Name and title of presenter
   2. Law School
   3. Address, email address, and telephone number for presenter
   4. Title
   5. If a scholarly work in progress, an abstract no more than 500 words
   6. Media or computer presentation needs
4. As noted above, proposals are due on Monday, October 14, 2019.

The NECASP Board will review the proposals and reply to each by Monday, November 4, 2019.

 

2019-2020 NECASP Board members:

Chair: Joe Brennan

Director of Academic Success and Professor of Law

Vermont Law School

[email protected]

 

Vice Chair: Liz Stillman

Associate Professor of Academic Support

Suffolk University Law School

[email protected]

 

Secretary: Amy Vaughan-Thomas

Director of Academic Success

University of Massachusetts School of Law

[email protected]

Assistant Director of Academic Achievement at California Western

California Western School of Law (CWSL) in San Diego seeks applicants for a full-time Assistant Director of Academic Achievement. Under the general direction of the Assistant Dean for Academic Achievement, the Assistant Director of Academic Achievement provides academic and bar support to help students develop the analytical and study skills necessary to succeed in law school and on the bar exam. We are seeking an experienced team member to administer our integrated and robust academic support and bar preparation program for current students and graduates. Duties include: administering the teaching fellows tutoring program, in coordination with assigned faculty; collaborating to design, coordinate and deliver bar support programming; providing one-on-one and small group tutoring; developing and teaching legal analysis and skills workshops; providing support and guidance to the student teaching fellows; and completing other tasks as assigned. Teaching responsibilities include first year and upper division academic support, legal skills, and/or bar preparation course(s). The successful candidate will be invited to start as soon as January 2020, but no later than June 2020.

The primary responsibilities (include but are not limited to):

• Supervise teaching fellows in the CWSL tutoring programs in coordination with assigned faculty.

• Present legal analysis and skills workshops.

• Work with first-year and upper division students facing academic difficulty, including course planning.

• Teach the Academic Skills and Analysis Program (ASAP) for first-year students and other skills courses as assigned.

• Assist alumni who are studying for the California bar exam.

Qualifications: 

• Juris Doctor from an ABA accredited law school required.

• Successful passage of the California Bar Exam required.

• At least one year of law teaching experience in an academic support or bar preparation program required; two or more years preferred.

• Experience in learning theories and effective pedagogy, including formative and summative assessment required.

• Experience in course planning, classroom presentations, and one-on-one tutoring preferred.

• Two years of supervisory experience preferred.

• Knowledge of California Civil Procedures and California bar exam topics preferred.

• An equivalent combination of education and experience may be substituted.

 

More Information at https://www.cwsl.edu/community/current-job-openings

A Himalayan Court's Perspective on Case Briefing, Preparation, and Legal Analysis

I have to make a confession.  Last week, I admitted that - as a law student - I was a proverbial "deer-in-the-headlights" when  it came my time to face an ambush of socratic questioning.  Confessions of a Socratic Deer (Sep 5, 2019).  In retrospect, I think that some of that was due to my method of class preparation, namely, I tried to memorize as much of the case materials as I could so that I could regurgitate the cases when called upon (an impossible task, mind you!).  

Now, looking back, I think I should have focused, as indicated in the final point of last week's blog, on preparing for classes by preparing my own questions about the cases assigned as reading, writing:

"As you read cases, puzzle over them, asking questions, evaluating arguments, voicing your own concerns, dialoguing and debating with the courts.  In other words, don't read to memorize the cases.  Instead, read to learn to have conversations with courts, to voice your own opinions and insights, in short, to prepare for a life in the law as a creative thoughtful attorney." Id. 

That's when I got super-excited about the super-short case preparation checklist from the Royal Court of Justice for the Kingdom of Bhutan. Royal Bhutan Case Preparation Checklist (2018).   

It's just two pages long but jam-packed with informative tips and questions that, in retrospect, would have made a mountain of difference in my law school learning, not to mention my confidence in the face of potential socratic questioning.  

As the Royal Court explains in its document entitled "Briefing a Case," case briefing in preparation for court [and classes of course] is critically important for lawyers [and law students] because the process of case briefing "...organizes ones thinking and forces one, point by point, to consider all the important elements of the decision.  Id.  

To paraphrase, the Royal Court's checklist focuses one's mind on 8 steps:

1. State the parties of the case and what they want.
2. Provide a brief synopsis of essential facts.
3. Briefly describe the procedural history of what happened.
4. Find out the issue or issues.
5. Figure out the holding/decisions of the judges.
6. Explain the court's chain of reasoning using IRAC analysis.
7. State the ultimate order of the court in disposition of the case.
8. Voice your analysis.  Id.

In my opinion, the first 7 steps are the means to an end with the end lying in step 8 - voicing your analysis. 

As the Royal Court indicates its checklist, in the last step about voicing your analysis, explore the significance of the case, figure out how the case relates to others that you have read, identify the case's place in history, ponder what the case shows you about judges, courts, and society in general (to include its impact on litigants, both now and in the future), unpack both the explicit and implicit assumptions of the court, and engage in a thoughtful debate the "rightness" of the decision to include its persuasiveness and logic.  Id.  

I know that that sounds like a lot to take in.  But, learning the law requires learning legal analysis and learning legal analysis requires digging in deeply into the cases assigned for each of your classes.  Unfortunately, I spent way too much time in law school re-reading cases, trying to memorize them, rather than trying to see the patterns in legal thought and persuasion and, best yet, voicing my own analysis of them.  

In short, as I reflect on my own law school experience, the key to case briefing and class preparation, it seems to me, is to take on the role of Socrates yourself, prior to class, in which you probe and ponder the cases assigned.  As a bonus I can promise you, you'll learn to think like a lawyer and, more importantly, you'll be the sort of attorney to which your clients will be mighty grateful because you honed your skills and sharpened your analysis in law school (rather than with them).  

(Scott Johns)

 

The Puppy Factor

I knew what I was getting into when I decided to get a puppy.  Or so I thought.  

It took two years from deciding I wanted a dog until I got my puppy. I had done my homework. I reread the classic works on raising, socializing, and training dogs, searched for updated information about my breed, carefully researched breeders in a three-state area, reviewed the genetic tests they conducted and the background of their dogs, asked dozens of questions and evaluated breeders by the questions they asked me, examined their reputations and their planned litters, and finally made a careful selection.

Moreover, I had appropriate experiential background. Having raised eight dogs of this rather headstrong breed over the past four decades, I was confident in my ability to excel in handling a puppy this time around.  I budgeted for the expense of visiting the breeder several times, purchasing the puppy, and paying veterinary bills. I restructured my schedule so I could feed, walk, train, and socialize the pup. And I was lucky to have a partner willing to cover during the times I couldn't be there. I was as ready as ready could be.

And then the puppy came home. While I had lots of experience with willful dogs, it had been a dozen years since I'd had a puppy, and I wasn't as prepared as I thought. Sure, I anticipated housetraining accidents and chewed furniture and midnight whining, but there was more.  Because she had been the alpha in her litter, my pup was far more dominant, aggressive, and demanding than any dog I'd previously had. She didn't respond to the gentle but firm corrections I had successfully used on four previous generations. At 12 weeks old, she developed a condition I'd never seen or heard of, urinating every minute for hours on end: the emergency visits to the vet hospital weren't in my budget, let alone my schedule. Feeding and walking her at lunchtime took more time than I'd planned.  My vision of long bonding walks and romps in the dog park fell victim to the reality of a local threat of parvovirus. Bringing this puppy into my life disrupted everything. I fell behind at work, missed meals, and grew cranky because I couldn't go out for a movie or jump on the treadmill for a good workout. A dozen years ago, interrupted sleep didn't bother me much -- now it did. I'd thought of myself as a competent dog parent, but now I was just exhausted and teary. I wondered if I'd made the right choice in getting a puppy at this time in my life.

About this time of year, 1Ls who thought they'd done everything right start wondering if they made the right choice in coming to law school. For those facing this self-doubt, coming to law school wasn't a last-minute whim. Most put a year or more into the decision to pursue the study of law, researching and visiting schools, evaluating programs, comparing costs of tuition and fees and housing, enlisting the support of family and allies, and often working at law firms to get an idea of their future. They faithfully did the assigned summer reading and participated actively in orientation activities. They anticipated the disruption of the first few weeks and the stress of public speaking and the Socratic method. They knew what they were getting into. 

And yet -- even given their careful preparation, the reality of even the most supportive law school throws a wrench into their lives. Persons who always considered themselves competent students are shocked to find how long it takes to read only a few pages and how difficult it can be to plumb the complexities of what seems to be a straightforward case. Students who as undergraduates reveled in reading Supreme Court decisions can be unnerved by the complexities of personal jurisdiction or the seemingly arbitrary nature of what is the offer and what is the acceptance in a contract. Minor writing or hearing or vision issues, heretofore largely ignored, suddenly become consequential. Heretofore strong relationships can be strained as students put long hours and most of their energy into a new way of perceiving the world. All this disruption can make 1Ls doubt the wisdom of choosing law school.

The good news for students who doubt the wisdom of their decision to attend law school is that they almost certainly made the right choice. In my experience, those for whom law school is wrong know it immediately. That's not to say that personal, financial, medical, and family circumstances don't sometimes require students to set new priorities and leave law school. But when students bring up existential doubt about their ability to do the work of a law student, it usually means they care deeply, that they are doing all they can to be good at something that is meaningful and precious to them. It can be a struggle, a time of huge disruption and occasional sleepless nights. The Honorable Michael Oths, president of our state bar commission, has said "Struggle should be embraced in recognition of the reality that navigating law school is difficult. The same is true for the practice of law." But it's worthwhile. Just like helping your puppy become a wonderful companion for years, after a few months of struggle.

(Nancy Luebbert) 

 

To Serve Law Students

I was in my office, polishing that day's lecture for my 1L class, when the alien appeared soundlessly outside my door, as tall and dazzling as the ones I had seen on the news.  They had been on Earth for two weeks now, appearing one by one or in small groups -- at the United Nations, in research laboratories, in churches and legislatures and boardrooms and newsrooms -- each time sharing a book, or a piece of art, or a technological contraption, describing briefly the gift they were giving, and then disappearing has suddenly as they had come.  The world's armies and scientists had confirmed that a huge spacecraft was parked at the L4 point in the moon's orbit, and it was presumed that was the aliens' home base.  But no one knew how they were coming down to the planet.  Or why, precisely.

My alien was huge -- as he stepped into my office, he had to bend forward stiffly to fit through the door frame, and even then his broad shoulders brushed the door jambs on each side.  It was like watching a rockslide.  But once inside, he lifted his craggy head and smiled.  With his chalky skin, and an enormous row of teeth that shimmered like the effervescent material of his robes, he looked like a James Bond villain who had repented and joined a Las Vegas monastery.

"You teach," he said, in a deep stony voice that seemed to simultaneously ask and answer the question.  I nodded dumbly.  He then pulled from a fold of his robes what looked like a dark packet of some kind, and held it out to me.  As I took it, I realized it was a book, hand bound in rich Corinthian leather, with words embossed in silver across the front: TO SERVE LAW STUDENTS.

"What is this?" I said aloud, not to the alien but to myself.  I looked up at him, and with a nod he let me know that it was permissible to open the book.  I ran my hand over the cover -- I had never felt a volume so warm, so soothing, like a puppy's belly -- and I lifted the book to look at the words inside.  Then I felt the strangest sensation.  The characters on the page made no sense at all to me; they might have been Cyrillic or katakana or Ge'ez jumbled together for all I knew.  But somehow, touching that warm cover, I knew what the text meant.  I knew what I was meant to do -- that afternoon, in class, with the entire 1L class before me. I would --

A sudden high-pitched gasp interrupted my reverie, and I reflexively slammed the book shut.  In the hallway, eyes agape, stood my student assistant, Patty.  She looked from my alien to  me and back again, not sure what she should do next.  Before I could say either "Run!" or "Come in!", the alien resolved the situation.  He growled, "Teach, you," and then vanished.  It was like a light bulb burning out -- a brief flare, and then instantly the room seemed darkened by his absence.  But he left the book.

Patty ran in.  "Professor MacDonald, was that an alien?  What did it leave you?"  She came around to my side of the desk, like a referee repositioning herself, so she could read the cover.

"It says, 'TO SERVE LAW STUDENTS,'" I pointed out.  "That's what I do.  I think it's a gift to help me do more for my students."  I flipped open the book, turning the pages without touching the cover.  "The language -- well, it all looks like gibberish to me.  But the book . . . spoke to me somehow.  I'm taking it with me to class this afternoon."

Patty's brow wrinkled.  "I can't read any of this, but it looks like it might be some kind of code."  She pulled out her phone.  "Can I scan the pages?  Maybe I can figure out what it says."

I nodded, and Patty snapped images of the two visible pages.  I turned the rest of the pages slowly, giving her time to capture the entire text.  It didn't take long.  The pages were large and the font small, so there were only about forty pages total.  Patty never touched the cover, so I don't think she "felt" the meaning of the book the way I did.  But I thought that might be better -- perhaps, uninfluenced by that perception, she might be able to come up with a more precise, more literal translation of the text.  I told her of my intention to bring the text to my 1L class that afternoon, and Patty, who enjoyed British crossword puzzles, happily left to try to crack the code.

Two hours later, I was standing at the podium at the front of our largest classroom, getting ready to teach the entire class of first-year law students.  Since the start of the school year, I had been introducing them to the particular challenges and expectations of law school, with the goal of making sure that each of them would be fully prepared by the end of the semester for the final exams that would determine their GPAs, and perhaps their fates.  Mine was the only class in which every 1L student was enrolled.  This was a boon, because it gave me the chance to introduce Academic Success and the resources available there to all of our students.  It gave me an opportunity to lay for every student the groundwork for successful performance, no matter how much familiarity they had had upon matriculation with the practice of law, law school, or even just basic sound study habits.  But it was also a challenge, because it meant holding the attention of, and delivering value to, 150+ students with different aptitudes, different levels of familiarity or experience, and different degrees of confidence in their abilities.  I would lose some of those students if I moved too quickly, and I would lose some of those students if I moved too slowly, and I wasn't sure there was a pace that would keep everyone engaged.

But today!  Today I had the book, and it was telling me how TO SERVE LAW STUDENTS, and as the second hand swept around the face of the clock at the back of the room, bringing us closer and closer to the official start of class, I began to salivate with anticipation.  I knew this would be . . . delicious.

The hand crossed the 11, and as it neared the 12, I opened my mouth and took a full breath.  Gripping the book, I prepared to begin.  But just as the red hand reached its zenith, a door at the back of the room slammed open, and Patty stumbled in, breathless and wild-eyed, clutching a batch of paper in one hand.  Every head in the room swiveled to look at her, but she looked past them all.  Her eyes found me at the podium, where I had instinctively pulled the book to my chest, and she called out.  "Professor MacDonald, put it down!  You can't use that book!  IT'S A COOKBOOK!"

There was a jittery fluttering, like the sound of 150 startled sparrows, as the students all turned their heads back to me.

"Um, not exactly," I said.  "It's more like a menu."

The sparrows rustled uneasily, as if they were about to fly.

"But look," I continued, turning to the students, "you're not on the menu.  It's a menu for you.  Look, all teachers know a bunch of recipes that we can use to help this student construct a useful case brief or to help that student learn to support her analysis with facts.  And if I'm working one-on-one with a student, or working with a small group of students who are all craving the same helping, it's great to be able to focus on a particular recipe.  But with a big group like this, I have to do more than just work through one recipe at a time.  The students who have already mastered that recipe, who've had their fill of that dish, will stop paying attention.  Sure, there are some basic recipes I have to make sure everyone knows, because maybe there are some students who thought they had learned it already, but they are actually missing some ingredients.  Or maybe they just never learned it.  But to keep everyone else in the class engaged, I have to put those recipes in the context of the wider menu.  Are there variations that people can try once they've mastered the basic recipe?  Maybe variations for particular occasions or circumstances?  Are there more advanced recipes that build on the basic recipe?  I can't teach these all in this class, but I can let you all know they exist."

The students relaxed, nestling in their seats.

"In a big class like this, it helps to move back and forth between the recipes and the menu.  To make sure everyone knows how to do certain things, but also to remind people that there are always more recipes to learn if they feel they've already mastered the basics."

"Ohhhhh." It was Patty, in the back of the room, examining the papers in her hand.  "I see where I went wrong.  A menu, not a cookbook!  And yet--"

There was a flash, and then the alien was there in the back of the room, standing next to Patty.  Over the excited murmuring of the class, I heard his gravelly voice say to Patty, "You clever.  Only human to decode Kanamit script.  Come to our ship.  We would like to toast you."  He offered her his hand.  She reached up to take it.

Before I could warn her, there was a flash, and they were both gone.

[Bill MacDonald]

Call Me Professor

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. – William Shakespeare

Academic and employment titles vary greatly by school. Recent research, according to fastcompany.com, indicates that your job title can affect everything from your identity to your level of significance within your institution and your marketability for future positions. Law school monikers are widely varied and yet almost universally understood to denote status. Instructor, lecturer, adjunct, assistant, associate, executive, coordinator, director, dean, manager, professor – regardless of the job description, the job title suggests a hierarchical significance. But what may matter much more than our varied titles, is when students (and perhaps our faculty colleagues) fail to use them.

I have seen more professors than I can count turn to social media to vent about students not referring to them by their titles. Faculty who teach in law, medicine, humanities, and social sciences have recounted stories of students who refer to them e.g. as “Ms. Clarence”, or “Mr. Stacey”, or worse yet, by first name alone. The responses to this phenomenon of first name or titleless reference are as diverse as the individuals who experience it. I am aware that some faculty members allow, insist, or prefer that their students address them by first name. I fully respect professors’ right to dictate how they wish to be addressed. But barring an express invitation to do otherwise, a student’s refusal to address a professor by title signals (conscious or subconscious) disregard.

Consider the redacted text from an actual email I received from a law student last month:

Hello Marsha,

I am [Name Withheld] a 2L. I was referred to you after speaking with Professor [Omitted] (who is copied on this message).  . . . I would like to meet with the both of you to work on my writing.

Please let me know when we can meet.

Thank you,

[Name Withheld].

To which I replied:

Hello [Name Withheld],

Thank you for reaching out to me and welcome back! I can meet with you on [date and time] in my office, which is located in the dean’s suite.

Please use my title and surname in your communications with me, just as you have with my colleague Professor [Omitted].

Thank you and I look forward to working with you.

Professor Griggs.

I did not react to this email —or the countless other messages with similar salutation— with anger or frustration. I genuinely believe that the student was unaware of the status disparity conveyed by the lines of text in the email message. The student later apologized to me and we both carried on as nothing had happened. But this email is not an isolated incident. I hear students, and sometimes other faculty, refer to professors (most often female or minority faculty members) by first name.

Unfortunately, sometimes the titleless reference is intentional and, whether overt or in passive-aggressive stance, must be addressed. It must be addressed not for the sake of title, or even for the sake of the years of education and struggle it took to acquire said title. It must be addressed because status issues resound throughout the institution of higher education. The way we are addressed by our students and our peers is a reflection of perceptions about our status and our positional significance. After all, how can we teach our students the importance of developing professionalism skills, if we cannot insist on having our own professional identities recognized and respected?

(Marsha Griggs)