Law School Academic Support Blog

Invisibility

Many of you probably received an email from AALS last week with a link (and “unique PIN”) to a “Faculty Survey.”  The email said,

“The Association of American Law Schools is interested in your experiences as a law school faculty member. AALS wants to know more about you, your career trajectory, current workload, time allocation across your various responsibilities, and perceptions of tenure. We are asking you to take part in the American Law School Faculty Study…

The survey itself, being conducted by an outside vendor, (NORC) has the following preamble (again, the bold is in the original):

“This survey focuses on the experiences of individuals who currently serve in the position of law school tenured, tenure-track, long-term contract, clinical, or legal writing faculty.”

It is a well-established canon of construction that, “the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).”[1] So, the preamble alone should have made it clear to me that ASP and Bar Prep faculty members were not their intended audience-and yet, it was sent to all of us. If I had not checked off “long term contract,” my survey would have ended right there. Luckily, a colleague alerted me to this before I started, and I was able to voice my displeasure at being intentionally excluded as part of my response. Otherwise, I would have remained invisible.

As we know from the AASE Survey last year, not all of us could click on long term contract and avoid being entirely canceled from being considered faculty by an organization that our institutions are likely members of and actually has an Academic Support Section[2]. In fact, only 26% of AASE respondents are on multiyear contracts and 17% have presumptively renewable contracts. 47% of respondents are at-will employees and another 11% have year to year contracts.[3] This means that less than half of our ASP colleagues would be eligible to participate in this survey. Surely, our experiences are as relevant as other traditionally non-tenured faculty such as clinical and legal writing. While there has been progress in tenure for these other groups, ASP tenure (or tenure track) is currently unavailable to 92% of professionals who responded to our survey.[4]

My esteemed colleague, Matt Carluzzo, who is Assistant Dean of Students and Academic Success at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law responded to NORC with an email where he expressed his disappointment and went on to say, “[M]any law schools still see and accordingly treat ASP as an afterthought - something necessary, but still very ‘other’ … I was initially disappointed (though not surprised) when there was no "academic success/support" option listed on the opening page.  I was genuinely shocked, however, when upon selecting "Other," I was instantly directed to the curt, "Thank you for your time today" completion screen.  Apparently this survey is not for ASP professionals.  This is hard to interpret as anything other than yet another example of ASP being either unintentionally overlooked, or intentionally excluded…Your website says that AALS ‘hired NORC to learn more about law school faculty hiring, voting rights, tenure policies, and other key issues[5].’  In my opinion, this is a key issue that is blatantly overlooked and/or ignored.  Any doubt, disbelief, or resistance to this idea is contradicted by the old cliche: the proof is in the pudding.” I could not have said it better. We await a response from AALS, NORC, and perhaps even the AccessLex Institute (who was another sponsor of the survey).

In the meantime, I am convinced that when clicking “other” brings you to a dead end, it is not a good look for an organization that claims that their “...mission is to uphold and advance excellence in legal education. In support of this mission, AALS promotes the core values of excellence in teaching and scholarship, academic freedom, and diversity, including diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints, while seeking to improve the legal profession, to foster justice, and to serve our many communities–local, national, and international.[6]” I would also add that the introduction to the survey expresses AALS’s interest “in examining the work-life balance and career trajectories of law faculty.”[7] 

If the opinions of legal writing and clinical faculty merit consideration, ASP faculty opinions should not be overlooked and disregarded. While the doctrinal faculty that seem to be the target of this survey do not always know all that we do in ASP, they no doubt are glad it is done.  Their students certainly are. We should be seen and heard. We deserve-—no, wait—we have earned better.

If AALS truly wants to know more about the “career trajectories of law faculty,” why not study the folks who have nowhere to go but up?

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/a-dozen-canons-of-statutory-and-constitutional-text-construction/

[2] However, there were some issues about ASP’s inclusion at the AALS conference this past January as well, see, https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/academic_support/2023/01/academic-support-programs-should-be-included-in-us-news-rankingsmaybe.html

[3] Please feel free to contact any of us who serve on the AASE Assessment Committee for the full survey report: https://associationofacademicsupporteducators.org/committees/assessment/

[4] See, note 3.

[5] https://www.norc.org/research/projects/2023-american-law-school-faculty.html

[6] https://www.aals.org/about/mission/

[7] https://www.norc.org/research/projects/2023-american-law-school-faculty.html

Academic and Bar Support Scholarship Spotlight

 

1.  Cox, Prentiss (Minnesota), Kill 1L (SSRN, September 8, 2023).

From the abstract:

Law school education has been extensively studied for decades, but changes have been modest. This Article makes the case that fundamental law school reform will not occur until we abolish the central pillar on which it rests—the current conception of the first year of law school, the “1L” experience. Many studies of law school curricula and pedagogy are sharply critical of the education offered, but they pull a punch when it comes to 1L. This Article compares recent data on 1L curricula at almost every U. S. law school with ABA-required law school statements of learning outcomes. The comparison reveals two contrasts: the gap between what is promised students for their legal education and what 1L delivers; and the gap between what is promised students and the actual use of law by attorneys, judges and even law professors in the modern world. The Article proposes a new 1L curriculum that would engage students in the law used by courts and policymakers while decreasing the demands placed on law students by the repetitive, inefficient legacy 1L curriculum.

2. Simon, Diana (Arizona), Legal Education and Trigger Warnings: More Harm Than Good? (SSRN, August 8, 2023).  

From the abstract:

Should legal educators give trigger warnings and, in our zeal to protect students from potentially triggering content, are we doing them more harm than good? First, the author addresses the motivation for writing the article—to ensure that in making decisions relating to trigger warnings, instructors not only look to what educators have to say about trigger warnings but also look to what other disciplines have to say as well, including psychologists. Second, the term “trigger warning,” on the one hand, and the term “content warning,” on the other hand, will be addressed. Third, the pros and cons of warnings will be addressed from the perspective of educators in both college and law school. Fourth, the science behind the effectiveness of trigger warnings will be addressed, including their impact on student anxiety for students who do not suffer from PTSD and those that do, whether students who are given trigger warnings will avoid the material, and whether the type of warning given impacts the reaction of students. The article also discusses a survey explaining why professors do (or do not) give trigger warnings. The limitations and implications of these studies for law students will also be addressed. Finally, a proposal will be made that can help protect students while factoring in the science behind trigger warnings.

[Posted by Louis Schulze, FIU Law]

Rainy Days and Mondays

It is gray and rainy here in Boston at the beginning of week three of law school classes. This weather seems appropriate for the shift in student mood judging from the meetings I have had with students so far today. They have many questions....

So, in keeping with my success syllabus, I have compiled a week by week list of answers to frequently asked questions:

1. Week One:
   1. Yes, it is going to be a lot, but you can do it!
   2. My advice? Do your reading! Brief your cases! And don’t forget to do something fun every now and then.
2. Week Two:
   1. Yes, the reading does seem to increase exponentially.
   2. No, I am not really using that word in the math sense, this is a math free zone.
   3. Yes, I know case briefing takes a while early on, but you will winnow it down from boxers to a thong shortly…and if not, come see me.
   4. Yes, that was an underwear reference.
3. Week Three:
   1. No, the model penal code is not the law anywhere.
   2. Yes, I’ve heard of Pierson v. Post[1].
   3. Yes, you should start outlining now, oh, but you are only through half of mens rea and that is the only thing you have discussed in Crim? Hmm. Maybe wait until you finish.
   4. Yes, we have a whole website devoted to videos and other resources on how to outline, and,
   5. Yes, we are sending you about 1.3 million emails a week about that, so you should know about it, but here is the link if you haven’t seen our billboard…
4. Week Four:
   1. No, we can not set up weekly two-hour meetings. Why? Um, because I have reached an age where I cannot commit to that much time for anything!?
   2. Yes, you should be outlining.
   3. Yes, we have a whole library full of study aids (on line and in person).
   4. Yes, you can still borrow mine (I finished law school, so I am not currently using it).
   5. Yes, I know that that class only has a final and no graded midterm.
   6. No, I don’t think that is a good idea.
5. Week Five:
   1. Yes, all questions about homicide will involve someone being dead.
   2. Yes, there are many crimes under the umbrella term of homicide.
   3. No, I don’t find that dark and creepy.
   4. Yes, this is hard and I know you have more legal writing assignments due soon as well.

This is just a start.  In the next installment, we will provide answers to questions about midterms, hitting the wall, and why they are called number 2 pencils.

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] But, interestingly, have never read it. My property professor started with INS v. AP and didn’t look back….

Assistant Dean of Academic Success at Baylor

Baylor Law School seeks a motivated and experienced candidate with excellent teaching and collaborative skills to lead our Academic Success Program. The ideal candidate will be a creative, organized, and compassionate leader who is eager to engage extensively with students from matriculation through their admission into the bar. This position is a full-time faculty, non-tenure-track lecturer position. The successful candidate should be available to start ideally no later than January 1, 2024, but the start date is negotiable. More information about the position is available at the following:

https://www.baylor.edu/law/facultystaff/index.php?id=980341

Baylor Law has a small student body and a collegial faculty deeply devoted to the mission of the Law School. Our primary focus is to train students to become practice-ready upon graduation.

Director of Academic Success at Maine School of Law

THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SCHOOL OF LAW, in the thriving and increasingly diverse coastal community of Portland, Maine, invites applications for the position of Director of Academic Success/Associate Professor of Law (Director). The Director is primarily responsible for overseeing and administering the Academic Success Program, which includes bar passage, as well as for teaching courses that help students to understand learning techniques and strategies, including those necessary for succeeding on the bar exam. The position of Director is a full-time faculty position within the School of Law, with rights comparable to tenured and tenure-track faculty. The start date is negotiable. Applicants must possess a J.D. degree or its equivalent, three years of relevant experience, effective oral and written communications, and a record or promise of successful teaching and student mentoring. Members of minority groups, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others whose background would contribute to the diversity of the Law School, are encouraged to apply. Interested candidates are encouraged to submit their materials early. Application materials must be submitted through the University of Maine System’s Hire Touch portal: https://maine.hiretouch.com/job-details?jobID=82993&job=director-of-academic-success-associate-professor-of-law&collection=true. You may email any questions to [email protected]. 

Visiting Professor in Denver's Bar Success Program

A national leader in experiential legal education, the University of Denver Sturm College of Law features an outstanding student body, a community of nationally recognized scholar-teachers, an accomplished and highly professional staff, and over 15,000 alumni who have achieved careers of distinction in law, business, government, public interest, and other professional domains.
The Sturm College of Law is strongly committed to preparing its students and recent graduates to pass the bar examination. To this end, the Law School invests significantly in the quality of its incoming 1L classes; supports faculty-led programs focused on academic achievement and bar success; provides students with extensive, student-specific professional advising; and closely follows developments in licensing standards across the nation.

Position Summary

Beginning in fall 2023, catalyzed by a multiyear philanthropic investment, the Sturm College of Law plans to
(1) hire a full-time visiting faculty member at the rank of Assistant, Associate, or full Professor to serve as Assistant Director of its Bar Success Program; and (2) partner with a third-party bar preparation provider to furnish each of its roughly 750 students and recent graduates with complimentary third-party bar preparation materials designed to prepare them more effectively for the bar examination.

The Assistant Director will work with the Director of the Bar Success Program, the Director of the Academic Achievement Program, and the third-party bar preparation provider to (1) integrate internal bar-related training with third-party bar preparation materials provided to students and recent graduates; (2) collaborate with faculty members regarding the teaching of subjects and skills likely to be tested on the bar, including the forthcoming NextGen bar examination; (3) develop and teach programming designed to advance bar success; (4) analyze data related to bar passage and incorporate future refinements to the Bar Success Program based on empirical data; and (5) furnish bar-takers with individualized and effective advice about their professional licensure options.

The position is contemplated as a three-year appointment, with the possibility of conversion to a permanent position subject to successful performance and future budgetary conditions.

Essential Functions

• Collaborate with the Director of the Bar Success Program, the Director of the Academic Achievement Program, and the third-party bar preparation provider to integrate internal bar-related training with third-party bar preparation materials.
• Work with faculty members regarding the teaching of subjects and skills likely to be tested on the bar, including the forthcoming NextGen bar examination.
• Develop and teach programming designed to advance bar success.
• Analyze data related to bar passage and incorporate future refinements to the Bar Preparation Program based on empirical data.
• Furnish bar-takers with individualized and effective advice about their professional licensure options.

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities

• Excellent oral and written communication skills
• The ability to convey complex concepts in a clear and compelling fashion
• The capacity to analyze data
• Professionalism, sound judgment, and discretion
• The demonstrated ability to work independently and with limited supervision
• The ability to function in a high-paced, collaborative work environment
• The ability to prioritize workload in an efficient and effective manner
• The capacity to handle multiple tasks simultaneously under time constraints

Required Qualifications

• A J.D. degree from an ABA-accredited law school
• Membership in the bar of one or more U.S. jurisdictions
• An understanding of the current landscape of legal licensure
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
• A commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion

Preferred Qualifications

• Experience teaching law students and/or early-career lawyers
• Experience with legal pedagogy

Work Schedule
While the University's administrative offices are open Monday – Friday, 8:00 am – 4:30 pm, faculty schedules vary from term to term and are based on courses taught, service commitments, and research agendas. The University's academic calendars are posted on the registrar's website (the law school is on a semester system and has a different academic calendar).

Application Deadline
For best consideration, please submit your application materials by 4:00 p.m. (MST) September 28, 2023.

Special Instructions
Candidates must apply online through jobs.du.edu to be considered. Only applications submitted online will be accepted.

Salary Grade Number:
The salary grade for the position is UC.

Salary Range:
The salary range for this position is $120,000-$125,000.

The University of Denver has provided a compensation range that represents its good faith estimate of what the University may pay for the position at the time of posting. The University may ultimately pay more or less than the posted compensation range. The salary offered to the selected candidate will be determined based on factors such as the qualifications of the selected candidate, departmental budget availability, internal salary equity considerations, and available market information, but not based on a candidate’s sex or any other protected status.

Benefits:
The University of Denver offers excellent benefits, including medical, dental, retirement, paid time off, tuition benefit and ECO pass. The University of Denver is a private institution that empowers students who want to make a difference. Learn more about the University of Denver.

Please include the following documents with your application:
1. Curriculum Vitae
2. Cover Letter

The University of Denver is an equal opportunity employer. The University of Denver prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age (40 years and over in the employment context), religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, marital status, veterans status, and any other class of individuals protected from discrimination under federal, state, or local law, regulation, or ordinance in any of the university's educational programs and activities, and in the employment (including application for employment) and admissions (including application for admission) context, as required by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended in 2008; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; and any other federal, state, and local laws, regulations, or ordinances that prohibit discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation. For the university's complete Non-Discrimination Statement, please see non‑discrimination‑statement.

Apply Here

Academic and Bar Support Scholarship Spotlight

It has been a big week in ASP scholarship.  During this time of momentous change in the realm of attorney licensure, the following articles construct nuanced theses about systemic flaws in our method of choosing who gets to be a lawyer and who does not.  Both are must-reads for the broad array of stakeholders in the justice system.

1.  Griggs, Marsha (St. Louis), Outsourcing Self-Regulation, __ Wash. and Lee L. Rev. __ (forthcoming, 2023).   

From the abstract:

Answerable only to the courts that have the sole authority to grant or withhold the right to practice law, lawyers operate under a system of self-regulation. The self-regulated legal profession staunchly resists external interference from the legislative and administrative branches of government. Yet, with the same fervor that the legal profession defies non-judicial oversight, it has subordinated itself to the controlling influence of a private corporate interest. By outsourcing the mechanisms that control admission to the bar, the legal profession has all but surrendered the most crucial component of its gatekeeping function to an industry that profits at the expense of those seeking entry.

The judicial outsourcing of the bar exam has privatized bar admission in ways that can be detrimental to the goal of public protection and damaging to those seeking licensure. The manner in which state courts have fostered privatized bar admission brings into question whether the delegation of judicial power is consistent with Constitutional prerogatives. This article applies the lenses of multiple political-economic theories to the normative framework of attorney self-regulation and bar admission. In so doing, it seeks to identify justifications for outsourcing an exclusive judicial power that is essential to the goals of self-regulation. This article ultimately questions whether the legal profession has surrendered, or will soon lose, the ability to regulate itself. The article concludes with multiple recommendations to reverse the directional flow of power in attorney licensure in a manner that will yield more transparency and public accountability.

2. Merritt, Deborah Jones (Ohio State), Curcio, Andrea Anne (Georgia State), and Kaufman, Eileen R. (Touro), Enhancing the Validity and Fairness of Lawyer Licensing: Empirical Evidence Supporting Innovative Pathways, __ Wash. U. J. L & Policy __ (forthcoming 2023).

From the abstract:

A two-day written bar exam cannot test a prospective lawyer’s ability to counsel clients, investigate facts, research novel issues, negotiate with adversaries, and perform other tasks that are essential for competent lawyering. The conventional exam has also become a test of resources, favoring candidates who can afford to buy commercial prep courses and devote 8-10 weeks to full-time study. Cognizant of these flaws, several states have begun exploring alternative approaches to licensing. Oregon has already implemented a small program that allows some law graduates to demonstrate their competence by practicing under the supervision of a licensed attorney and compiling portfolios of work product from that supervised practice. Candidates submit those portfolios, which include materials related to client counseling and negotiation, to bar examiners for independent assessment. Oregon’s Supreme Court is considering a proposal to expand this program, and other states are exploring similar approaches.

This article provides the first empirical evidence that supervised practice offers a valid, feasible, and fair context for evaluating prospective lawyers’ competence. Oregon’s current program is too small to assess empirically, but two related programs in California offer a rich dataset about the potential for assessing prospective lawyers’ competence through supervised practice. Our analyses, which draw upon qualitative and quantitative data from more than four thousand law graduates and licensed lawyers in California, demonstrate that: (1) Licensing programs rooted in supervised practice allow states to assess a broader range of lawyering skills and doctrinal knowledge than can be assessed on a two-day, written exam. (2) Candidates readily find supervisors, and both parties reap many benefits from the program. (3) Supervised practice is fully accessible to first-generation candidates, candidates of color, women, and candidates who live with disabilities. In fact, women of color, men of color, and white women were significantly more likely than white men to take advantage of California’s supervised practice options. (4) Supervised practice licensing paths can expand access to justice by increasing the number of lawyers who work for legal services providers and in rural parts of a state.

Licensing paths rooted in supervised practice, in sum, are valid, feasible, and fair pathways that can protect the public better than a two-day written exam, make our profession more inclusive, and expand access to justice.

[Posted by Louis Schulze, FIU Law]

Being Moved

I would be remiss if I did not start this entry by taking a moment to remember 9/11/2001 and everyone and everything we lost on that day. It was a day where the sky was impossibly blue. We lost so much: loved ones, security, peace, and years of reform on police profiling. We have tucked some of the new normal of the aftermath into our everyday jeans, but it changed us, and I am not sure I can even accurately remember some aspects of life before it as well as I can remember parts of that day that are as clear in my mind as the sky was that morning.

I spent some time over the last weekend on various sized boats that carried passengers and cars. On the larger ferry, we drove the car onto the boat and left it there--we put it in park, turned off the engine, locked it, and took a seat on the boat itself. It was clear to me that someone else was in charge of  moving us along and that was fine. On the smaller ferry, we just drove onto the boat and sat in the car. To be very clear, I am not a great boat person (I start feeling a bit queasy standing on a dock…), but I preferred the large ferry even though the ride was longer.

What I didn’t like about the small ferry, despite it being a much shorter journey, was the sense that everything about controlling the car was right there-the steering wheel, gas pedal, brakes-but I had no choice but to sit there while it seemed that the roadway was moving without any input from me. It freaked me out a bit to be in a car that was being moved when I had all the indicia of power to move it but could not engage them. Driving off the boat was also a strange feeling: now I did have control, but I wasn’t sure I knew the route once we hit land.

I wonder if our 1Ls feel this way.  I remember in my first year of law school often feeling like classes were moving forward but that I was not in charge of where they went, or how fast they’d go, and even when they would stop. And yet, at the end of the class, I’d have to immediately know where to go next or I’d cause a back-up.

First year classes seem to start so abruptly that even what is intended to be a gradual entry can seem like a full immersion that occurs before students are even aware that it is happening. As ASP faculty, we need to remember to tell students that this weird feeling of both being in and out of control is normal. Yes, they have done the reading and come to class ready to take great notes, but sometimes it is going to feel like you are just sitting there being moved along until you reach the shore and then, before you know it, you have to know where to go next with what you learned along the way. We need to acknowledge and reassure students that it (justifiably!) feels strange at the beginning--because it is.

We also need to assure students that they are not alone in feeling this way—and that after a few trips, they will feel like regular commuters. They will see the rhythm of classes and have a muscle memory of getting ready to enter and then leave the vessel. But, most importantly, we also need to tell students that if this unsettled feeling lingers for too long, ASP is a lifeline and that we will help them try to catch up rather than be left in the wake of a boat that is going to continue its set journey.

And yes, they may feel queasy for a bit, but that too will pass.

(Liz Stillman)

Statement from AASE Concerning the NextGen Bar Exam

STATEMENT FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF ACADEMIC SUPPORT EDUCATORS

CONCERNING THE NEXTGEN BAR EXAM

The Association of Academic Support Educators (AASE) has serious concerns about the prototype questions released by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) for the NextGen bar exam scheduled to be administered in July 2026.

The NCBE’s Testing Task Force, in their final report released in April 2021, recommended less emphasis on memorized material and greater focus on lawyering skills to more reflect the practice of law. NextGen purportedly tests applicants on skills they actually need to be successful attorneys.  Unfortunately, the recently released exam structure and fourteen (14) questions do not fulfill that promise. 

Significant memorization will be required on the NextGen bar exam.  The NCBE outline displays some topics in each subject with a star and some without a star. The legend explaining the meaning of the star versus no star topics clearly shows that everything will need to be memorized.  “Topics without a star symbol – Topics without a star symbol may be tested with or without provision of legal resources. When these topics are tested without legal resources, the examinee is expected to rely on recalled knowledge and understanding that will enable the examinee to demonstrate recognition that the topic is at issue in the fact scenario.”  Since the language indicates non-starred areas may require memorized knowledge, applicants must memorize everything.

The July 11, 2023, and August 18, 2023, releases create additional uncertainty regarding the exam.  In the July release, the multiple-choice section of NextGen Bar was described as “Initially, many of these questions will closely resemble Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) questions; this will ensure stability between scores for the current and NextGen bar exams. In future administrations, the variety of multiple-choice question types will increase.”

The statement raises a significant concern.  Graduates will be preparing for an exam that is quite literally a moving target.  The NCBE provided no information about how the “variety of multiple-choice question types will increase.”  They only provided 14 questions to represent countless rules and skills.  Graduates and law schools do not know what that variety looks like, how significant is the increase in variety, and how it will impact studying.  In the August press release, the exam structure once again changed from previous announcements clearly illustrating the moving target.  For a high-stakes licensure exam, a moving target with so few examples released in advance is inappropriate.  Graduates have the right to know the exact make-up and nature of the exam they will take and have access to ample practice questions produced by the licensing authority.

AASE appreciates the NCBE attempting to modernize the bar exam to reflect the actual practice of law and decrease the disparate impact on certain populations.  While their goal is virtuous, the current prototypes fall short of satisfying the Testing Task Force’s recommendations.  AASE respectfully encourages all licensing agencies to fully analyze this assessment and consider whether alternative methods of licensure are more appropriate.

Issued: September 6, 2023

Direct inquiries concerning this statement to: Ashley M. London, President, or Steven Foster, Bar Advocacy Committee Chair.

Another Low National MBE Mean

The NCBE released the national MBE mean on Thursday.  The press release is here.  The release highlights the improvement of .2 over last year, which is in a positive direction.  However, I fear too many state bar examiners continue to accept deflated MBE scores without questions.  From 2007-2015, 1 year had below a 142 national MBE mean on a July exam.  Since 2015, 1 year has a 142 or above, and that was 2020 when the NCBE contends the number of takers skewed the statistics.  As someone who taught bar preparation since 2008, I don't believe students now are significantly different than students pre-2015.  Even many of the "get off my lawn" aged professors think students are similar now to pre-2015.  What happened in 2015?  The NCBE added Civil Procedure to the MBE and scores haven't been the same.  With 8 years of deflated scores (with most schools increasing bar prep resources), the NCBE should probably start answering questions.  Bar examiners should step-up and ask questions when individuals' careers are impacted.  Here are a few questions I have (I tried to limit the list):

1.  How did the NCBE take cognitive load into account (ie - adding more material to study) when scaling the MBE in 2015?  (Their stock answer of students studied Civ Pro for essays is unacceptable because not all states tested Fed Civ Pro on essays and level of detail is different for MBE than essays).

2.  When more retakers took the July 2023 bar exam (press release indicates higher percentage), did that artificially decrease the scale for everyone?  

3.  How did the first-time takers compare to previous first-time takers (especially 2018 and 2019) on the anchor questions? 

4.  Is it possible this group of first-time takers performed as well as previous years but the NCBE's lack of accounting for a global pandemic continues to have residual effects on pass rates?

5.  Does the NCBE separate first-time takers and repeater takers performance on anchor questions to create the scale?

My questions may prove unhelpful or even misguided, but the NCBE's lack of transparency raises doubts about scoring.  I could be wrong that students now are just as qualified as previous years.  However, we don't have information to evaluate my questions.  State bar examiners also don't have information or aren't asking these questions.  Alumni lose tens of thousands of dollars in career earnings when not passing the first time.  With that much power over peoples' lives comes even greater responsibility to prove the process works.  We also  shouldn't be complacent waiting for NextGen.  Lets continually ask questions to protect our students and their dreams.

(Steven Foster)

 

Assistant Dean for Academic Success at Elon

Elon is seeking an Assistant Dean of Academic Success.  The posting is here.  The Assistant Dean for Academic Success is responsible for the Law School’s academic success program including creating an environment for academic success, preparing students for success in law school and on the bar exam, and working with various constituencies contributing to the academic success of students at the law school.

Duties:

• Leads a team that supports the mission of the Law School in its goal of academic excellence for all students.

• Develops and implements academic support and bar preparation programs that enhance each student’s level of achievement and that will result in improved academic performance and greater success on the bar exam.

• Works with many constituencies within and outside of the law school, including students, faculty, staff, and alumni, to create and implement a comprehensive academic and bar support program that is consistent with the needs of students and goals of the university and law school to create an environment for academic success.

• Thinks creatively and critically to identify factors that will contribute to enhancing success in areas of responsibility. This necessarily will require consideration of trends in academic support and bar preparation programs nationally as well as the use of data to identify and understand Elon Law specific factors that may influence and affect student academic performance and bar success.

• Communicates and works effectively with students, faculty, staff, alumni, advisory board members and any other internal or external constituency that may be of assistance in achieving improvements in student achievement as contemplated by the program.

• Teaches appropriate courses in the academic success program that contribute to developing useful and helpful skills and knowledge to enhance academic performance and bar success.