Law School Academic Support Blog

ASP Coordinator at West Virginia

WVU Law is hiring a “program coordinator” to support the work in the Academic Excellence Center.  This high-level staff position will report Kirsha Trychta. Ideally this new hire will have a law degree, although that’s not required for application. 

The College of Law at West Virginia University is currently accepting applications for a Program Coordinator for their Academic Excellence Center.  Academic Excellence Center Program Coordinator supports the work of the College of Law’s Academic Excellence Center, in the areas of academic support; bar applications and bar passage; academic advising; writing skills; and assessment. In addition, this position will collaborate with the Assistant Dean for Student Services and Engagement, the Assistant Dean of Enrollment Management, and the Director of Career Services.

Job duties include:

• Organize semesterly informational sessions to educate students on graduation requirements, including panel presentations, speed advising tables, and individual appointments
• Coordinate faculty-student pairings
• Prepare digital SAP (satisfactory academic progress) plans as a condition of students in academic difficulty retaining loan eligibility
• Advise students who have been academically dismissed about how to seek readmission
• Assist with orientation events for incoming students
• Coordinate the student academic experience, especially activities calendars, across the entire first year
• Educate students about midterm and final exam logistics
• Recruit, train, and supervise upper-level law students to work as peer tutors
• Assist students with their applications to sit for the bar examination, including the character and fitness process
• Track and report student performance throughout the summer study months
• Administer evaluations and satisfaction surveys to students and faculty
• Create reports regarding the Center’s progress
• Create Qualtrics surveys to monitor and accurately capture the Center’s activities
• Provide assistance to the Assistant Dean for admissions in administering the College of Law’s 3+3 program (i.e., undergrads receiving both an undergraduate degree and a law degree in a total of six years).
• Assist with planning and implementation of new student orientation and graduation as well as other student events as needed. The position would be a part of the orientation team and would be expected to participate and will meet with students. 

 

Qualifications

• Bachelors degree in any subject required

• Juris doctorate degree strongly preferred
• 3 or more years experience working in a higher education setting in the areas of academic assistance, academic counseling, or academic advising, or will have equivalent administrative, teaching, or practice experience.
• Ideal candidate will have direct experience in preparing students for success in law school and on the bar exam.
• Successful candidate must have excellent written and verbal communication skills, strong organizational and interpersonal skills, and the ability to work effectively with a wide range of constituents within a diverse law school community, including students, faculty members, and the administration.

 

The full job posting can be found online here: https://wvu.taleo.net/careersection/staff/jobdetail.ftl?job=23904&tz=GMT-04%3A00&tzname=America%2FNew_York

Director of Bar Success at Washington and Lee

W&L Law is hiring a Director of Bar Success. W&L is in Lexington, Virginia, nestled in the Shenandoah Valley between majestic mountain ranges and pristine rivers. Our students are motivated and sharp, our dean is awesome, and the faculty is driven in all decisions by student success. The position that is currently open is a faculty position with excellent benefits and competitive compensation. We are a smaller-than-average law school with a much larger-than-average sense of community.  The listing is here:  https://apply.interfolio.com/140520

Chronic Absenteeism in Law Schools?

Today, the NY Times published an article about chronic absenteeism in public schools post pandemic entitled, “Why School Absences Have ‘Exploded’ Almost Everywhere.” You can read the article here. Apparently, 26 percent of public-school students were considered “chronically absent” in 2023. I have been dealing with attendance issues in law schools during and after the pandemic, and this fact still surprised me. I imagine chronic absenteeism is even worse at the undergraduate level, where many large courses don’t take attendance at all.

Here at the University of Idaho, we recently adopted a new, stricter attendance policy in hopes of curbing absences and emphasizing the importance of in-class learning. What interests me is the tension I am observing between students missing classes and their strong preference for in-person learning. It seems we can all agree that learning together in the classroom is important, and that in-person classes are generally preferable to any remote option. And yet, attendance is still an issue in this post-pandemic world. What gives?

The article mentioned above explores factors leading to chronic school absences. Things like valuing flexibility, the availability of online makeup work, and people actually staying home when sick are likely at play. A rise in mental health issues (specifically anxiety and depression related issues) might also be creating greater barriers to attendance than in prior years.

I believe many law schools are trying to reinstate normal law school learning – that is the normal rigor of pre-pandemic legal education. But what is normal? I am presently recovering from the flu. I’m no longer contagious and back at work, but I’m still not totally healthy two weeks after falling ill. Where is line between accepting viruses are different these days – that sick-days might mean something different than they did in 2019, and encouraging and enforcing good attendance?

As we prepare law students for careers built on deadlines, timestamps, and getting to court on time, how do we find the sweet spot of teaching professionalism while offering empathy? How do we navigate attendance policies with a new generation of law students who may be normalized to a culture of chronic absenteeism in both high school and college? I think it will start with more time teaching quality academic behaviors and learning how to unteach absenteeism.

(Ashley Cetnar)

ASP Spotlight: Laurie Zimet

There are individuals who lay the foundation for new fields or areas of expertise, but unfortunately, the innovators don't always get credit the many years later when new fields are mainstream.  Laurie Zimet was/is one of those innovators for ASP, and UC Law San Francisco recently did a great job briefly recounting the impact she had over the past 40 years of service to law students.  If you ever saw one of her presentations, you would agree with Dean Morris Ratner's statement that "Her energy and enthusiasm for teaching and her care for students are defining features of her impactful professional life."  You can read the spotlight here. 

I learned from Laurie through many presentations over the years.  I hope schools continue to spotlight innovators in our field the same way we do other areas.  Great job Laurie!

(Steven Foster)

AASE Registration

AASE's Programming Committee is asking that everyone who plans to attend this year's AASE Annual Conference register soon because the AASE Yeti Travel Mugs are going quickly!  Yes, each attendee receives an AASE branded YETI mug to commemorate our 11th AASE Conference but it's first come, first served based upon REGISTRATION. 

 

Click here to register: https://associationofacademicsupporteducators.org/events/2024-11th-annual-aase-conference/

General Conference Program is attached as well as information about the pre-conference Scholarship Workshop. 

 

Academic and Bar Support Scholarship Spotlight

Recent scholarship by or for those interested in law school academic and bar support.

1.  Franklin, Kris (New York Law School), How and When Do We Get to Maybe? Review Essay, Getting to Maybe 2d edition (March 12, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=

From the abstract:

Getting to Maybe is an invaluable text. The first edition enabled a sea change in the ways law professors and academic success educators could talk with students about law school examinations. This long-awaited second edition continues to be an outstanding resource. But the work does have some limitations users should be thoughtful about.

[Posted by Louis Schulze, FIU Law]

Getting to No

Can we stop for a minute and discuss how much fun, “I’m Just Ken” was last night on the Oscars? It was pink, sparkly, and joyful. And, like my scholarship (as noted in a prior blog post), delightful, but insufficient for the win.[1]

I don’t know about you, but I am exhausted (and maybe, therefore, a bit cranky). I am teaching four classes this semester, have a regular load of one-on-one students, am enmeshed in both writing and presenting topics, and have other committee, university, and non-university tasks waiting. Not to mention writing for this blog.[2] This spring “break” will be full of obligations, but also some much needed downtime.

As much as I love the book, “Getting to Maybe[3],” being successful in law school is a matter of doing smart, efficient things to get others to say “yes” to you: yes to an A, yes to a clerkship, yes to a job.

I need a book that teaches me how to say no.[4]

One of the downsides of the job security status most academic support folks find themselves in is the unspoken but real subtext of not being able to say no to requests from supervisors and colleagues. This, coupled with my desire to do some of the things ordinarily not available to academic support folks (like chairing committees and participating in leadership institutes) makes us (me, at least) very busy.  It is like begging to sit at the grown-up table, but your feet can’t reach the floor in the big chairs. You are grateful to be there, so you cope and insist you do not want the chicken nuggets the kids are having.

But let’s be clear: since we are sitting at the grown-up table, we are often then asked to do things that tenured, doctrinal faculty would not be asked --or would never agree-- to do. I need a way (besides retirement) to get myself off (or pushed closer to the bottom of) the “usual suspects” list of folks who can be relied on to do various jobs.  

Yet, I have a hard time thinking of myself as someone who wouldn’t be reliable or diligent. I would argue that academic support folks are constantly proving their worth by showcasing these attributes. We are also kind and generous people (I see you!) who wouldn’t want to let someone down even if it is above and beyond our bandwidth and paygrade. I think the pandemic has also made some formerly solid boundaries much more permeable.

Therefore, I propose we start finding a “no buddy.” This can be someone we see at work, a colleague we know through our ASP community, friends, partner/spouse, or really anyone. We can text that person, “I said no!!!” and they will respond, “I am proud of you!!!”[5]

I’ll start: last Friday, a student asked me my next availability for a meeting since they were unprepared for our late Friday afternoon before spring break meeting, and I said, “after the break.” Essentially, saying I wouldn’t meet with them during the break. Y’all: I said no!!!![6]

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] Which is not to say Billie Eilish and her lovely brother did not deserve the win-they truly did.

[2] Which actually gives me great joy! Really!

[3] It really can be a game changer for students! https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781594607349/Getting-to-Maybe-Second-Edition

[4] I am not advocating for a book that teaches others how to say “no” to me. I don’t think there is a need for that text. See, Tenure, not happening.

[5] Yes, the exclamation points are required.

[6] And I am proud of myself. And I still feel a little guilty….

“The Plaintiff Must Always Win” Syndrome

In previous posts, I have discussed reasons why students underperform in law school. Sometimes underperformance arises out of outside issues, misunderstanding how law school learning works, insufficient time dedicated to law school, or a mix of these and other factors. This post introduces the “Plaintiff Must Always Win” Syndrome.

When I review underperforming students’ Fall 1L exams with them in early January, I often see essays that conclude that each of the plaintiffs’ claims is successful. Sometimes altogether ignoring facts in favor of the defendant or employing tortured logic, these essays artificially go out of their way to get the plaintiff in front of the jury.

Of course, this ends up costing students points because ignoring facts suggesting self-defense undermines the quality of the analysis of a battery claim. The professor’s grading rubric (or gestalt-ish grading feeling) no doubt allocates points towards the self-defense argument, and the failure to spot that issue puts students behind others who analyzed the issue.

Why do students do this?

As a few students have explained, they mistakenly believe that a professor would not put a claim in an exam if it was not successful. If they did, they reason, how could one possibly analyze the absence of something? This would be like asking for visual proof of a black hole.

Those of us who work with underperforming students can help them fix this problem fairly easily; by simply telling students to analyze reasonable “loser” issues as well as winners. Just explaining that professors are looking for analysis and not merely answers seems to clarify the broad scope of what should end up in an essay response.

But that all begs the question about how far they should go. What is the line between loser issues for which points are available and non-issues? This is tricky, but I suggest two broad guidelines.

First, I encourage students to ask whether the proposed issue is one that a competent lawyer might genuinely raise in litigation. Is it even marginally legitimate? Is it at least plausible, such that an opposing lawyer should be prepared to rebut it if raised?

Second, I stress the concept of the straw man logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are arguments that seem on their face to refute an idea but which are patently invalid. They occur when the opponent of a proposition refutes not the actual proposition but a watered-down, exaggerated, or wholly manufactured version of the proposition that the proponent actually made.

I use this idea to show students which arguments they should not make.  Let's say that a Criminal Law exam tests actus reus with a fact pattern where defendant lifeguard sits and watches a person drown in the pool they are guarding.  If the student analyzes actus reus by omission, whether a failure to act can be criminal, they would score points by noting that there is no general duty to render aid.  The student would score further points by noting the exception to the rule, that those with contractual duties, including lifeguards, can be criminally liable when they fail to act.  However, the student would not score points by analyzing whether the defendant's actions met the requirements of a voluntary affirmative act or were instead involuntary.  Because the fact pattern does not implicate that issue, an argument by defendant on that point would constitute a straw man logical fallacy.

These are simple examples, but they help students understand that their future clients want answers only on their cases and not fictional ones conjured up to answer questions that do not exist.

ASP Faculty Scholarships from AccessLex/AASE

AccessLex and AASE are pleased to announce that we will be awarding five ASP Faculty Scholarship Grants again this year. These grants of up to $5000 are money in your pocket to help you write a law review article. The grants are designed to support fledgling scholars and help our discipline develop a robust body of literature.

The application is reasonably short, and will ask you the following questions (along with some basic administrative stuff):

• Title of your proposed article
• Abstract or summary of the article: What will your article explain, and what will your unique argument/assertion/thesis be? Recommended length: 250-500 words
• How will your proposed project engage with the existing scholarship in this area? Recommended length: 100-250 words
• How will receipt of this grant advance your professional development or status? Recommended length: 100-250 words
• Have you published law review articles or other publications before? If so, please provide the citation(s)
• Do you receive support for research and writing at your institution in the form of research assistants, funding, reduced course load, or other forms of support? If yes, please explain

Applications are due April 22. 

AASE Registration Open