Law School Academic Support Blog

AASE National Conference Call for Proposals is now live!

We are so looking forward to seeing you all in Boston this May! Here are some of the particulars (you should have also received this information in an email from AASE yesterday as well):

The Annual Conference will be held in person at Suffolk University Law School in Boston May 20– 22, 2025. The Annual Conference will bring together colleagues from around the country as we seek to elevate each other and thrive in legal education and in the legal profession. We will meet in a collegial and collaborative environment and have the opportunity to connect and share ideas about professional growth, research, scholarship, and all things ASP.

The theme for this year’s annual AASE Conference is “Elevate and Thrive: Cultivating Success in ASP Professionals.” As we face the exciting opportunities presented by the imminent changes to the bar exam, the dynamic nature of our students, and the profession as a whole, the academic support community finds itself in a unique position. Our important roles will touch all aspects of student life and our educational institutions which will have an impact on the profession. This opportunity highlights the need to continue to develop as professionals as we bolster and enhance our craft, our expertise, and importantly, our voices within the academy. The Conference theme encourages presenters and participants to reflect and think about ways to skillfully navigate the opportunities and challenges that we face and to embrace them with innovation and creativity as we support ourselves, our students, our institutions, and the profession.

The AASE Planning Committee welcomes proposals on topics that address how you approach developing as a professional in your role as an academic support educator. The Committee seeks various presentations and topics, including but not limited to presentations that address:

• Amplification of our voices and reach within our institutions;
• The driving force behind - and the impact of - professionally developing ASP/BP individuals and departments;
• Self-care in the ASP/BP role so we can care for ourselves and support others;
• Developments within legal education and pedagogy that help us better prepare our students to be successful legal professionals; and
• Ideas about ways to collaborate within and across institutions to professionally develop as ASP/BP departments and professionals.

The Committee may also consider proposals on other topics including, but not limited to: bar examination and licensure, legal pedagogy and assessment, online teaching and learning, and academic success initiatives. In particular, we encourage you to consider how these topics promote the professional development of our peers and community

To present at the AASE conference, you must be a current AASE member and current with your annual dues at the time of your submission. If you are not an AASE member, you must submit an application to verify membership eligibility and pay your annual dues before submitting your proposal.

Any commercial vendor interested in promoting their materials may do so as a sponsor of the conference. Please email Planning Chair Kirsha Trychta at [email protected] to request information on becoming a sponsor.

Should an AASE member wish to include a non-AASE member in their presentation, they will need to include a written explanation in their proposal of how the non-AASE member adds unique information to the presentation such that they are necessary to the presentation team.

Please craft your proposal carefully using the required online form link below.

The Planning Committee will only consider proposals submitted through this online form. If a question on the online form does not apply to you, you may leave the field blank or type N/A. Please click on the link and follow the instructions to submit a proposal:

https://wvu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_74fxexFzkfCLzqm

Please note that all presentations, including panels, are limited to a maximum of four presenters.

Proposals must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. on February 2, 2025. Late submissions will not be accepted.

All individuals submitting a proposal will be notified about the status of their proposal on or before February 21, 2025.

Finally, the Planning Committee will also host an FAQs sessions for individuals interested in receiving guidance on the proposal submission process.  Join us on Thursday, January 23 at 2:00 p.m ET at Zoom ID 342.817.6654.  You do not have to attend the FAQs session before submitting a proposals; rather this is an optional tutorial geared toward first time presenters.   The session will be recorded for those who cannot attend. 

If you have any questions, please email the Planning Committee Chair: Kirsha Trychta, [email protected].

 

(Liz Stillman)

Warning Signs

 

 

A few of my neighbors (not dog owners) have signs like this one in front of their houses. To be fair, I live on a street where the houses are right up against the curb (and each other), so people do go all out on the three feet of yard that surround their houses. But these signs just crack me up. First, my dog (yes, that is my amazing old man Leo) cannot read[1]. And second, if I am bent over far enough to read a sign that protrudes a maximum three inches from the ground, then despite your passively-aggressively polite request, it is probably too late to do your bidding. I am most likely reading your sign with a colorful baggie over my hand.

This week our 1Ls will start to get back midterms (some graded, some with feedback only). They were not happy about having midterm exams, but I have told them over and over that a midterm is a blessing…even though it might just be one more pressure point at the time in the semester where they feel they like a pin cushion for pressure.  They think I am nuts.[2]

But here is the rub, if you only have a final exam in your 1L classes, then by the time you realize you don’t actually grasp the material or expectations, someone has a baggie over their hand.

The ABA is going through the process of revising Standard 314 on assessments, and the red-line language looks like this:

“Standard 314. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING (a) A law school shall utilize both formative and summative assessment methods in throughout its curriculum to measure student achievement of course learning outcomes, and improve student learning, and provide meaningful feedback to students. (b) All courses in the first one-third of the credit hours earned by students in the JD program shall include at least one formative assessment. The formative assessment shall include feedback that allows students to evaluate their performance relative to the learning outcomes in the course. The law school shall make available academic support for students who fail to attain a satisfactory level of achievement on the formative assessment.[3]” 

For those of us working on commission, this is a windfall, but since that is (hopefully) nobody, this is a windfall for our students. This means that we can engage in meaningful intervention before it is too late. This allows students to receive and read the warning signs before they have done irrevocable damage to their academic careers. This is mindful and humane.

I know that there are doctrinal professors with very large sections of 1Ls (sometimes over 100), and this is a large amount of added work. I am sure they were the commenters the ABA speaks of in their memo. Yet shedding light on potential missteps before the mighty leap of finals is valuable for everyone. It is a win-win. Dare I say (out loud) that formative assessments of students sometimes can show an area where the teaching has not reached its mark? In an ever changing world of what is tested on the bar exam, it is good to know where a little back and fill is needed.

Personally, I’m just hoping my neighbors with the signs don’t have ring cameras that catch me laughing as I knot up a baggie full of rebellion.

(Liz Stillman).

 

[1] If your dog can read, then honestly I am not sure why you are reading this blog. Seriously, go out and profit from this crazy good fortune!

[2] For many reasons, but for some this may have cemented the deal.

[3]https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/aug24/24-aug-final-approval-learning-outcomes-memo.pdf

What Are We Made For?

I know you all saw the Barbie movie, but if you haven’t, please go do that now. I’ll wait. For those of you who did not follow my directions,[1] there are spoilers ahead.

The Barbie movie is about a lot of things, some aspirational (like a completely matriarchal society), and others just simple human quests to understand the point of being alive.[2] Generally speaking, our protagonist is a standard Barbie who suddenly becomes aware that she is living in a fictional world and isn’t quite sure why she is there or her purpose. She goes on a journey to try to find answers and (your interpretation may vary) figures out that the journey to seek answers is the key to being human and while being human has its downfalls (emotions, aging, pain, the patriarchy, etc.), it is what she needs to be.

Those of us in ASP are similarly on a journey to figure out our purpose and place in law school academia.  The status of ASP folks is a little all over the place. Some of us are Deans; some are faculty; some are staff; some are at-will employees. But extremely few of us are tenured or even are afforded tenure-like job security. I have written about this many times. But there was a brief glimmer of hope over this past summer when the ABA proposed the following amendments to Standard 405 (as well as Definition 9 which defines "full time faculty" under 404 and 405):

“(c) To attract and retain a competent faculty, and to secure academic freedom as outlined in Standard 208, a law school shall:

(1) Afford all full-time faculty members, other than visiting faculty members or fellows on short-term contracts, tenure or a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure.

    (i) “A form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure” means such security of position as is sufficient to attract and retain a competent faculty and to ensure academic freedom. Providing such security of position requires that, following an appropriate probationary period, a full-time faculty member may be terminated or suffer an adverse material modification to their contract only for good cause. Such good cause determination shall be made only after the full-time faculty member has been afforded due process.

    (ii) Full-time faculty members need not all be subject to the same rules regarding tenure and security of position.[3]”

Cue up Etta James’  “At Last”[4]

The ABA goes on to say that a change in ASP status is needed because (among other reasons), "When faculty members lack security of position, it undermines the quality of legal education and harms law students. Non-tenure track faculty members in the areas of academic support/success and bar readiness report being afraid to help students who have substantive questions about doctrinal areas of law because they fear that a tenured faculty member will complain to the dean that the academic support faculty member is trying to teach Torts, Contracts, or some other substantive doctrinal area of law. This fear has led many faculty members without security of position to limit their assistance of students to the “skills” aspect of teaching which frustrates the efforts of students who seek out academic support to ensure their own academic success through full understanding of the substance of legal doctrine as well as the skill of applying legal doctrine."[5]

I would also add that people who have an entire faculty (or just one Dean) determine their employment also lack a voice and cannot freely engage in political speech or other aspects of academic freedom enjoyed by those who need not fear offending anyone in order to keep their job. This proposal might be the end of that boxed in feeling.

But let's wait a moment before rejoicing.

In ASP, we are not all considered faculty (although by other ABA current and proposed metrics, we should be based on our roles and responsibilities). For ASP professionals who are still considered staff by their institutions, the ABA then goes on to take away any cause for celebration by including an explanation of the parameters of the proposed change to Standard 405 that says,

“A significant addition to Standard 405(c) is the requirement that the director or supervisor of the academic success, bar preparation, field placement, and legal writing programs have tenure or a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure. This requirement does not necessitate transforming a staff position into a faculty position: the requirement can be satisfied by having a faculty member with tenure or security of position reasonably similar to tenure overseeing these programs. For example, if a law school’s academic success/support unit is comprised of staff members and these staff members are supervised and overseen by an associate dean – or other faculty member who has tenure or security of position reasonably similar to tenure – the law school can satisfy Standard 405(c).”[6]

In other words, under this proposed “change”  law schools don’t have to convert ASP staff to faculty members to follow this standard. It is sufficient if you appoint an anointed adult to supervise them and that this person alone has tenure. This seems like relegating ASP to be the help rather than family.

Again.

And here’s the thing: we should be family. We are the folks that bolster rankings by improving bar pass rates (Standard 316), and lowering attrition, and closing gaps before the bar is ever undertaken (Standard 308). Law schools cannot meet other ABA Standards without us. We often are the faculty who teach Professional Identity Formation (Standard 303), and we are absolutely required under Standard 309 in order for a school to be ABA Accredited,

“Standard 309. ACADEMIC ADVISING AND SUPPORT

(a) A law school shall provide academic advising for students that communicates effectively the school’s academic standards and graduation requirements, and that provides guidance on course selection.

(b) A law school shall provide academic support designed to afford students a reasonable opportunity to complete the program of legal education, graduate, and become members of the legal profession.”[7]

So, if we are not fundamental to the essence of a law school, what are we made for?

Billie Eilish (and her talented brother) wrote the multiple award winning “What was I made for?” song for the Barbie movie, and in it, they ask,

“…

Takin' a drive, I was an ideal

Looked so alive, turns out I'm not real

Just something you paid for

What was I made for?

…

Something I'm not, but something I can be

Something I wait for

Something I'm made for

Something I'm made for.[8]”

Please feel free to send your comment (right now because comment closes today) to the ABA.[9] Add your voice to the AASE/AALS comment filed earlier.

Tell the ABA to stop relegating ASP to second class status.

We do more.

We impact more.

We were made for more.

(Liz Stillman)

[1] Feel free to get on the non-follower line behind my kids, husband, and pets….

[2] I agree that was a fast switch, but again, I am not asking for almost 2 hours of your attention here.

[3]https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/aug24/24-aug-notice-comment-standard-405.pdf

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qJU8G7gR_g

[5] https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/aug24/24-aug-notice-comment-standard-405.pdf

[6] Id.

[7] Id. 

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Was_I_Made_For%3F

[9] Per the ABA, "We solicit and encourage written comments on all the proposals listed above. Please note the changes to the submission instructions as follows: All written comments should be addressed to David A. Brennen, Council Chair, and sent electronically as a .pdf attachment to [email protected] by October 14, 2024."

 

The Call Came from Inside the Building

**I will issue the disclaimer (and warning?) here that this post has very little to with Academic Support and does talk about violent world circumstances. I have tried (feebly, I admit) to tie this into status issues, student self-advocacy, and the importance of belonging to student success, but again, it is extremely tangential. I promise that next week’s entry will be about exams and how you should register for the AASE Conference.**

About a week ago, I returned from Israel. I had been there to celebrate my nephew’s wedding[1].  It was surreal to be sitting in a lively European-style square next to a stunning sea having coffee[2] while also knowing that the white wispy looking lines over the water were patrol drone trails. It was similarly implausible to be at a wedding where we engaged in most of the usual marriage rituals[3] but also noting that one of the photographers had what appeared to be a semi-automatic handgun somewhat cavalierly tucked into the back waistband of his pants. There was no holster or covering; it was just positioned there for a right handed person to draw quickly. Sun, sea, joy, family, and yet an undercurrent that this was only a façade.

My brother-in-law is a faculty member at a law school in Israel. He told me how their semesters are completely off schedule due to the war. Students, faculty members, and administrators have all been called into military service and returned at times that are not in sync with the usual academic calendar. Even COVID didn’t do this. And yet, I would be entirely remiss if I did not also say that schools in Gaza are completely shut down due to the war and continued violence. Inconvenience is not the same as rubble. The destruction of schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure that assists civilians to live their lives is repugnant.

So, we went to the Saturday night anti-war protests in Tel Aviv. There were thousands and thousands of people there.[4] We were at least four teeming city streets away from the speakers, but we could see and hear everything on screens set up along the way. We stood in the shadow of IDF headquarters and loudly told them that they were doing terrible things. It was by far the most comfortable place I have sat with my feelings about this entire conflict. I could say what I thought about the egregious behavior of the Israeli government without ever having to engage my (now 24/7) filter to determine where and when some of the protests cross the line into abject anti-Semitism.  It was oddly freeing.

For context, about a  week before making this trip, I had been approached by a fellow faculty member to join a group of “like-minded” colleagues in a Faculty for Justice in Palestine group at my law school. This was not a public invitation to all the faculty; it was more of a recruiting whisper network, and I was invited because I had expressed my dismay to one colleague who fully knew about my family in Israel as well as my internal conflict. I had shared this with someone I respect and trusted. Part of me thought, “wow, they think I am cool enough to do this!,” and part of me said, “nope, I will not be their token Jewish person.”  A third part of me thought I would get listed on Canary Mission and get turned away at the border unable to attend the wedding. I am still not sure how I feel about the invitation or the people who sent it, but nonetheless, I politely declined. I can say that I felt almost completely comfortable in the space of my workplace until then and now that security has been frayed. I’m not saying that I was threatened in any way, I was not, nor am I now.  I just feel less like I belong there and, honestly, really sad about that. The folks who invited me vote on my contract.[5] The folks who did accept the invitation to attend their information session also vote on my contract.

Even as someone who always encourages students to advocate for themselves, I am at a loss as to how to repair this set of circumstances for myself. If I had tenure, I would have forwarded the email I received to everyone on the faculty and administration or asked to put it on the agenda at the next faculty meeting, but I do not feel that I can or should do that. And here’s another truth: I really do not want to know which of my colleagues did accept the invitation because I want to continue walking the halls feeling like I belong. We know, as ASP professionals, that belonging  begets community which in turn begets success.

This past Saturday night, far from the protests, we celebrated my mother-in-law’s birthday in Rhode Island while drone strikes from Iran targeted Israel. Luckily very few hit anything before being intercepted. And even luckier, my family is fine-not that anyone who asked me to join them weeks ago inquired.

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] And really, does anything make you feel older than that--short of grandchildren?

[2] And the most amazing pistachio croissants I have ever eaten-seriously, ask me about them at the AASE Conference and bring a paper towel for the drool.

[3] It was different than American style weddings, but most of the usual components were there: the aisle, the vows, the officiant, the dancing….

[4] Real thousands, not Trump thousands.

[5] Which luckily isn’t scheduled to happen again for another five years.

Hoop Skirts

Last night I had a dream that while I sat in a committee meeting, an airplane flew into the building next door. I could see the tail of the plane from the giant window as well as a second smaller plane coming up behind it to do the same. For the record, the building in my dream isn’t next door and in fact there are no giant buildings adjacent to the law school. I woke up thinking two things: 1. I attend way too many meetings, and 2. the scariness of the world is triggering some 9/11 memories for me. These are fraught times.

I am Jewish, possibly the only female Jewish faculty member at my law school and certainly one of very few if there are any others. I have family and friends in Israel. I have friends and students who have family in Gaza. I am of two hearts in this and since I am trained as a lawyer, I will try to explain it in an analogy.

I think my big feelings about the initial attack and response attacks is analogous to wearing a giant hoop skirt of emotion. It hinders my movement and makes it hard to get around things and other people who are wearing their own crinolines of thoughts. It also makes it easier to bump into and step on others as well. And that means that I am also oversensing things that bump into or step on mine. I spend a lot of intellectual capital on parsing out what is and what is not antisemitism-in other words, has someone actually stepped on my skirt or just bumped into it inadvertently? Similarly, I don’t want my apparel to hinder students, or make them uncomfortable in class, or in the halls, or really anywhere in our school. I see their silhouettes in my office, on line, and in class.

I finally took some action to trim my attire. I called in the best expert I could find: our University Chaplain[1]. Our Chaplain is neither Jewish nor Muslim, but like the character Mother Ginger in the Nutcracker,[2] she has room under her giant skirt for all of us and offered me some good talking points for hard conversations. Most of all, she reminded me that it is very easy to take offense to postings on line, but very difficult to not see the humanity in everyone when in person. I need to trim myself back to my personhood and not my membership in any particular group. I think I may still have a bit of a train drifting behind me, but it is much more manageable.

It is hard to be academically successful while wearing the hoop skirt. It is distracting at best, and a hinderance at worst. Academic Support should be a safe place for students to be welcomed for who they are and not what they are perceived as. Last Thursday I met with one of my students who is anxious about their family in Gaza. I’d love to say we laughed, we cried, we hugged, but we didn’t. We hung up our protective attire for more than a few minutes and talked about law school after acknowledging that the awkwardness we felt wasn’t going to stop us from doing the work that needed to be done. I told them that I was concerned for my family, I was concerned for their family, but most importantly, I was concerned for them. What else is there?

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] I am not a particularly religious person, but I felt alone, and I thought she would be a neutral and kind person to chat with-and she was indeed that.

[2] Yes, I may have taken the hoop skirt too far, but here is a cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nutcracker#Roles

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)

What Goes Around, Comes Around

 

In the past week, the United States Supreme Court has solidified and endorsed institutional racism and the exclusion of LGBTQIA+ people from places of public accommodation. The 14^th Amendment that the majority cited to end Affirmative Action is the same one that they failed to use in allowing a web designer to not only refuse to serve same sex couples, but to literally put up a sign telling them that are not welcome and why. We have seen these signs before. I actually googled some to post with this blog entry, but I could not bring myself to add one here. You know the ones I mean.

These two decisions are the like the Wonder Twins of exclusion and privilege (remember when they would unite on Saturday morning TV?) If united, these decisions basically say you cannot consider race (or I suppose any protected class) in making decisions about admitting students to colleges and universities but you can consider sexual orientation (or I suppose any protected class) in determining if they can enter your business (if you claim you are in the business of “speech”).  So, the 14^th Amendment requires absolute neutrality…except when it doesn’t!? So currently, equal protection offers neither equality nor protection. Sigh. The dissents were personal, angry, and bleak.

When I was a teenager and my most difficult moments were when friends would suddenly exile me from the friend group (much more innocuous before social media, thankfully), my mother would comfort me by saying that what goes around comes around. I found this to be little comfort at the time -- most likely because it required patience, which I lacked (and still do).

And it does not solve the problems created last week by the Court either-but there is a little to it here: if we are all spending so much time and intellectual effort figuring out how to work around the Court’s decisions, then the result could be that the Court’s decisions will be less meaningful over time. Perhaps the six member majority has essentially (but not immediately) rendered the Court’s opinions superfluous. Have they relegated themselves to mere consultants about the law rather than the arbiter of what is essentially Constitutional--a power they claimed in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)? Will this impotence be what comes around?

I’m unwilling to be patient and just sit back and wait. I don’t need friends like the ones who signed on or concurred in those decisions.

(Liz Stillman)

Midterms and Midterms

After last week’s onslaught of students with legal writing questions (and some tears), I was hoping to be less busy this week. Yet, this morning I received several requests for appointments from students who just got back their first midterms as 1Ls, so a calmer week is not in the cards here. I have to admit that I spent some quality time this morning trying to decipher why a doctrinal professor wrote question marks on some parts of an exam answer, but check marks on others. I did this without a grading rubric to look at-and to be honest, it was, at best, purely speculative. So here are some things you can do with students when discussing their midterms that does not involve the use of a crystal ball or calling your psychic friends (you can save these resources for determining what might be on the final…):

1. Send the student from whence they came: not to their parents, but to the professor who placed the check and question marks on the exam. They might know what they meant-and most likely have a better idea than you do. Or even the TA, who most likely speaks the professor’s language fluently. Tell them to ask for the rubric-or even to just see it.
2. Remind students about IRAC. Sometimes the reason a student got a B- on an exam that the rest of study group got an A on is (hypothetically) because they didn’t outline any rules upfront but rather let them accumulate throughout the answer.
3. Remind students that we are not mind readers. Yes, your professor knows the rules they are testing, but no, they don’t know what you know unless you tell them. So, tell them, even it is seems obvious, or they think it should “go without saying.” Nothing should go without saying.
4. A corollary of the prior rule is do not leave any analysis in your head. Yes, the answer is clear sometimes, but again, explaining why it is clear is where the points come from. The journey > destination.
5. Be sure to tell students that midterm exams are a gift. A midterm means that the stakes are lower than just having a final for the entire assessment of the course and understanding what your professor is looking for is a huge amount of helpful information. This also makes the doctrinal professors who give them (and grade them!) incentive to continue this important practice.
6. Be sure to remind students where they can find practice essay and multiple-choice questions. Law School exam success is like getting to Carnegie Hall: practice, practice, practice! A reminder of where the exam helpful resources are is always helpful. We have a hidden place on our law library website that is honestly full of great resources, but finding it is a little like looking for the room of requirement in Harry Potter. Since everyone needs these resources, be sure to share the links you know about with students!

As to the other midterms, please go vote. Or be proud that you already have.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Martin Luther King, Jr

(Liz Stillman)

Lack of Independence Day

I am not celebrating today. I am not grilling, having a party, arranging fruit to make a flag, or planning to watch the fireworks (even on TV). I am just not doing it. And unlike other things, the government actually cannot make me....

As of last week though, I could be forced to carry a pregnancy to term over my objections and regardless of the fetus’ or my health.[1] I could also be forced to send my kids to school knowing that someday[2] a person with a concealed weapon could walk in and join them. When they opened the beautiful new STEM wing of our local high school, I went on a tour and saw that the classrooms are composed of two or three walls of glass-and all I could think of then (and this was during relatively safer times) was where would the children hide if an armed person was intent on shooting them? I hated to be the person whose mind immediately went there, but I was. And now this is not an irrational fear.

This week, the swearing-in of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made me so incredibly happy. It was a spot of intense light on a dark horizon. As attorneys, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court should be our celebrities. The Justices I’ve met or even watched on the bench turned me into a babbling fangirl at the time[3]. I once almost got escorted out of the U.S. Supreme Court building for standing on a marble bench under the portrait of Justice Brennan (I was too short to get me and the painting in the same shot without the extra foot and half boost). For all I know, the U.S. Marshals have that picture in the backroom captioned, “trouble!!!” Yet, now when I think of the U.S. Supreme Court, I just sigh--not the dreamy fangirl sigh, more the elderly “things used to be better back in the day” sigh. I bet you just sighed too. The current majority on the court does not seem to have any respect for the rule of law or stare decisis—unless it suits their purposes. A court that is arbitrary and capricious in this way should not have the power to determine the constitutionality of anything.

These Justices have not, as intended by the folks who created the Court, remained independent, “[t]his independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.”[4]

I know there are arguments that would take this particular quote and use it to say the Court should not have made some decisions to begin with—but Hamilton went on to say, “[t]o avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.”[5] 

So, with thanks to the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus[6], today could be considered: Dependence Day, or Subjugation Day, or even Unfreedom Day. But I am not celebrating these either.

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] I do live in Massachusetts where I am safe from that fear, and I am happy to help anyone who needs to come visit to go “camping” here in the Bay State.

[2] Not today, luckily, because Massachusetts will wait until the litigation is over to change anything.

[3] I’ve met Justice Souter (briefly) and seen Justice Marshall on the bench.

[4] Hamilton, Federalist Papers no. 78.

[5] Id.

[6] https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/independence

Roe is Me

Did you see the headlines yesterday? In these ongoing unprecedented times, the fact that a draft of a Supreme Court opinion was leaked ahead of the decision is mind-blowing and surprising. The fact that the current U.S. Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade[1] given the opportunity is not. It is exactly like a tornado or tsunami warning: we can see it coming, and although we cannot be certain about where and when it will hit, it is going to hit. So here we are, huddled and waiting for the storm.

I’ve spent years telling my students that the belief in the rule of law is akin to a collective leap of faith, an almost spiritual way of looking at it. I have explained how the last administration made that leap a riskier venture. Today, the chasm we now need to navigate is wider and may even have sharks swimming in the murky area below. Sigh.

I will admit to thinking that the Roe decision was unnecessarily convoluted when I read it in Con. Law. The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t usually give such numerically bright line rules (the fertile octogenarian, anyone?). I thought such an important case should be clearly written and easily understood, but I loved what it stood for-I loved its place in the timeline of Griswold v. Connecticut,[2] Eisenstadt v. Baird[3], Planned Parenthood v. Casey[4]and on to Lawrence v. Texas[5]. But, in all honesty, the right to abortion was barely holding on after Casey, and here we are today.

My first reaction was to ask Amy Coney Barrett to turn in her uterus. I thought she should be banished from the sisterhood for her role in this-and then I stopped. Why am I blaming the only woman who signed on to this? Don’t get me wrong, she is not going to be invited to my birthday party this year (or any year, ever), but my hope that she was one of our own on the inside just because she is a woman wasn’t fair either. Assuming anything-- about anyone-- just because of their gender isn’t right. So, I will despise her actions exactly as much as I despise the actions of the four other justices who have purportedly signed onto this abomination.

I distinctly remember my eldest daughter asking me about abortion when she was about eight (she routinely asked me about really deep things at very inopportune times, usually while I was driving-which as you may know is already a fraught venture in Massachusetts). And I distinctly remember sitting on the edge of her bed, explaining what it was, and telling her that she would never need to worry about it because her body belonged to her.

And now I am a liar.

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[2] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

[3] Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

[4] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833 (1992). This was the beginning of pulling the teeth of Roe out.

[5]  Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

The Kids' Table

Remember Thanksgiving when you were a kid? The adults sat at one table with endless access to the stuffing and gravy while you sat with your cousins wondering why the potatoes never got to you. The kids’ table was a fixture, but when I was middle school age, I was certain I should be allowed to join the adults and enjoy the power of the serving spoon. Perhaps Academic Support has entered that part of our growth as well.

The 2023 Best Law Schools list was recently published by U.S. News & World Report.[1] In determining these rankings, U.S. News looks at numerous factors in determining how and where schools are listed. According to U.S. News, they, “evaluate institutions on their successful placement of graduates, faculty resources, academic achievements of entering students, and opinions by law schools, lawyers and judges on overall program quality.”[2] From time to time the importance and proportional value of the various criteria are tweaked. This year, for example, the value of Bar Passage was increased, with U.S. News noting that, “[a] key change for the 2023 edition involved U.S. News more comprehensively assessing the bar passage rates of first-time test takers. “[3] The actual overall value this year was 0.03 as opposed to previous years when it was 0.0225. This doesn’t seem like a big change in the scheme of math but consider that bar passage is valued more than the acceptance rate, student-faculty ratio, and debt at graduation.[4]

The U.S. News rankings also include programs within law schools in the areas of (among others): Business/Corporate Law, Clinical training, Constitutional Law, Contracts/Commercial law, Dispute Resolution, Legal Writing, and Trial Advocacy.[5]  Academic support is neither considered in the overall rankings nor ranked independently as a program.

Just to be clear, I don’t like rankings: I even volunteered to be on a subcommittee that is examining our internal student ranking system. Yet, I understand that without a very complicated mathematical algorithm based on a long list of both objective and subjective criteria, law schools cannot brag, fundraise, um, see how we are doing overall. I get it: law schools need a way to be assessed.

But here’s the rub: I am a parent of a child with learning issues who had an IEP all the way from kindergarten through to college.[6] They were “othered” by going to the learning center, they were sometimes bullied, and they came home feeling that they were intellectually inadequate often especially in the middle school years. I spent a lot of time explaining to her how school only measured certain types of intelligence while overlooking many others. Howard Gardner’s work on multiple intelligences was something we could both cite over the years to remind ourselves that school assessment isn’t the sum of who we are.[7]

In the same way that schools tend to only assess a very limited number of student intelligences, I would argue that ignoring Academic Support Programs in ranking law schools similarly overlooks something important. Even worse, by assessing the consequential outcomes of good Academic Support programs--like employment rates and most obviously first-time bar passage rates--without looking at ASP itself means that ASP professionals are truly the unseen factotum[8] in law schools. We are taxed without being represented[9] because all the things ASP touches are considered or ranked, but ASP programs are not considered in any part of the formula.

There are, of course, some major downsides to having ASP ranked or considered in ranking without more job security (like tenure!). I wouldn’t want to outsource my yearly work evaluations to U.S. News especially if I had a contract that was up for renewal frequently (or worse yet, not have one at all). Nor would I want to be assessed based on criteria that I cannot control, like admissions decisions. Like all coins, this one has two sides.

And yet, wouldn’t it be nice to sit at the adult table sometimes?

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

[2] https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/law-schools-methodology

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

[6] Where she is a junior who is regularly on the Dean’s List (my bragging).

[7] https://sysdesc.info/Content/Person/Gardner1989.pdf

[8] This is a real word. And so much fun! https://www.dictionary.com/browse/factotum

[9] Since my law school is located in Boston, this is a required complaint.

Baseball is a Rules Based System

Have I mentioned that I live in walking distance of Boston's Fenway Park? I live in the town just slightly west of Boston. Last night there was a baseball game at Fenway. It was an important one to Red Sox fans. Have I mentioned that I am not, proximity aside, a member of Red Sox nation? However, the Red Sox beat my team to get to this game, so since I am an adult, I decided that I am now a fan…of the team the Red Sox are playing (there are no adults in baseball, or was that crying? Either way). Yet, I live with Red Sox fans, so we were watching the game. For a very, very long time. Because it ended in the 13^th inning. I guess folks with tickets got their money worth, but they do close the beer stands after the 7^th inning which means that when this game finally became interesting to me most people down the street were either happily sober or wishing they weren’t.

You are wondering, what is the legal teaching connection? Glad you asked. Here is our fact pattern: it was the top of the 13^th inning and the Tampa Bay (not devil anymore) Rays were batting. There was a player on first base and one out, when Kevin Kiermayer came to bat and Kiermayer hit a “rocket” to the wall. Then, “[t]he ball hit the wall, struck Red Sox outfielder Hunter Renfroe in the right thigh and hopped into the Boston bullpen.”[1]The runner on first ran; Kiermayer ran. The runner on first crossed homeplate and the Red Sox fans in attendance, now long cut off from beer, were despondent. For a moment. The umpires conferred and ruled it was a double, so the runner on first could only get to third base and the run the Rays had “scored” was erased. This is the run that would have broken the 4-4 tie in the 13^th inning. Red Sox nation rejoiced. I glowered a bit.

This is where the rules of baseball come in-as they do in every game-but since there are fewer playoff games occurring than on usual nights -we were paying attention. The rule and its application were explained by Major League Baseball umpires this way: “It's item 20 in the manual, which is, balls deflected out of play, which is in reference to official baseball Rule 5.06(b)(4)(H) [which] says, ‘If a fair ball not in flight is deflected by a fielder and goes out of play, the award is two bases from the time of the pitch. Once that ball hit the wall, it was no longer in flight. Now the ball bounces off the wall and is deflected out of play off of a fielder. That’s just a ground-rule double.”[2]

The legal education angle here is that this seems to be a strict liability rule-it doesn’t matter if the ball accidentally or intentionally got put out of play. The way I plan to use this in class this week is to ask students to go through all the possible intents: willful, reckless, negligent, etc. and ask how each could have been proven in that moment. I'll poke at the idea of whether Renfroe had intentionally pushed the ball out of play to save the game knowing that his intent didn’t actually matter and wouldn’t be examined. Would he be a hero or a scofflaw for engaging the rules that way? I’ll tap the professional responsibility issue of whether the rules act as a shield or a weapon when you are player. I’ll ask why Major League Baseball tends to use strict liability rules. You can’t stop the game to have a trial, but they do have so many camera angles at every position on the field that they send off multiple videos to a third party for confirmation. I’ll also show the video of the 2013 World Series where a call by an umpire awarded the St. Louis Cardinals a run, and therefore the game, and ultimately the series, against the Red Sox for contrast…and laugh.[3]

Go Yankees!

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] https://www.mlb.com/news/rays-ground-rule-double-in-13th-inning-explained

[2] Id.

[3] https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1826398-was-obstruction-the-right-call-to-make-on-wild-last-play-of-game-3

ASP Exciting Works in Progress

This weekend, I attended the Central States Law Schools Association Scholarship Conference and ASP was well-represented. each speaker gave a talk highlighting their current works and sought feedback from the audience of faculty members. Here is just a sampling of the ASP presentations:

Cassie Christopher, Texas Tech School of Law
A Modern Diploma Privilege: A Path Rather Than a Gate

Michele Cooley, IU McKinney School of Law
But I’m Paying for This!: Student Consumerism and Its Impact on
Academic and Bar Support

Danielle Kocal, Pace Law School
A Professor's Guide to Teaching Gen Z

Blake Klinkner, Washburn School of Law
Is Discovery Becoming More Proportional? A Quantitative Assessment of
Discovery Orders Following the 2015 Proportionality Amendment to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

Leila Lawlor, Georgia State College of Law
Comparative Analysis of Graduation and Retention Rates

Chris Payne-Tsoupros
Curricular Tracking as a Denial of the “Free Appropriate Public Education”
Guaranteed to Students with Disabilities under the IDEA

I was delighted to see so many ASPers presenting Works in Progress, and I cannot wait to read and cite your published works! 

(Marsha Griggs)

Academic and Bar Support Scholarship Spotlight

M. Griggs (Washburn) & D. Rubenstein (Washburn), It’s Time to Re-Set the Bar for Online Proctoring (Bloomberg Law, March 24, 2021).  

ASP's own Professor Marsha Griggs and her colleague ask crucial questions here.  Everyone in ASP should be aware of these troubling issues.  

From the intro:

Online bar exams administered during the pandemic were marked by controversy around the use of proctoring using artificial intelligence and allegations of cheating that mostly were proved false.  Washburn University School of Law professors David Rubenstein and Marsha Griggs say regulation and best practices are needed, since online exams appear to be here to stay.

(Louis Schulze, FIU Law)

 

 

 

Best Practices for Online Bar Exam Administration

This week the Association for Academic Support Educators ("AASE") published Best Practices for Online Bar Exam Administration. AASE President, DeShun Harris, says that the best practices advocate for "procedures that ensure a fairer test for online test takers." The organization, established in 2014, urges state high courts and bar examiners to adopt these procedures.  The AASE Bar Advocacy Chair, Marsha Griggs, says "many of the best practices that we identified are things that bar examiners are already doing." Yolonda Sewell, Vice President for Diversity, adds that in addition to the great strides that bar examiners have made in deploying an online exam, we seek to make sure that the online administration does not unfairly disadvantage any bar applicant on the basis of skin tone, race, gender orientation, biophysical conditions, disability, need for test accommodations, or socio-economic resources. The Best Practices are aimed to level the playing field, both among applicants of varied backgrounds, and between the online and in-person versions of the exam."

One of several effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, was that bar examiners and bar applicants questioned the wisdom and feasibility of administering in-person exams in the traditional large group format. In response to COVID-19 limitations, the first online bar examinations in the United States were administered between July and October 2020. 

With but a few exceptions, the online exams were remotely proctored using artificial intelligence technology provided by a commercial vendor. As the exam dates approached many issues surfaced surrounding the use of facial recognition software and remote proctoring. One prominent issue was the number of complaints voiced from students who are people of color, asserting that the software did not recognize them. During and after the exam, other complaints sounded, ranging from data breaches, and poor technical support, to "flagging" hundreds or thousands of applicants for alleged cheating or "testing irregularities." At the extreme, some applicants reported having to sit in their own waste—as the exam instructions warned applicants about being out of view of the camera except during scheduled breaks—for fear of failing the exam. Additionally, there were reported issues with the technical delivery, submission, and scoring of the Multistate Performance Test,  and jurisdictional scoring errors that wrongly identified applicants who earned passing scores as exam failures, and falsely notifying others who failed the exam that they had passed.

AASE lauds the efforts of bar examiners at the local and national levels for their flexibility and willingness to provide options for remote administration. While we defer to the proven expertise of the test-makers in determining matters related to exam content, scoring, accommodations and character and fitness eligibility, we add our collective expertise in assessment delivery, performance application, and enhancement pedagogies for non-traditional test takers. We recognize that online bar exam delivery will outlive the pandemic and current circumstances. We also believe all who play roles in the process of creating and delivering a bar exam, want the exam to be fair and effective. In light of those dual goals, we think the time is ripe for adoption of additional policies that are more than performative gestures toward a more diverse legal profession.

(Association of Academic Support Educators)

Online & Hybrid Learning: Toward Defining Best Practices in Legal Education (Sept. 30-Oct. 2, 2021)

Building on the overwhelming success of the 2019 conference, the biannual Online & Hybrid Learning Conference returns in 2021. The COVID-19 crisis proved a powerful accelerant of the trends that were identified at the 2019 conference, and much has been learned in the process. This conference seeks to bring together research derived from the Emergency Remote Teaching phase (Mid-March to June, 2020) and the more measured and planned Academic Year 2020-21, and use the data to identify emerging best practices.

Distance education and other modern learning tools are at work in legal education and have now been applied across a broad sampling of schools. Outcomes-oriented design, integrated formative and summative assessment, online simulations, asynchronous learning, and other hallmarks of distance education have demonstrated efficacy in law teaching for 20 years (though a robust empirical research agenda has yet to develop). The interesting questions continue to center around how and where these modern learning tools and disciplines can be used to best advantage in the law school curriculum. Expertise now abounds among the academy, and this conference aims to collect and share it.

Suggested topics include (but are not limited to):

• Evidence-Based Pedagogy in Online or Hybrid Teaching Environments
• Pedagogy in Practice
• Instructional Design – What We’ve Learned by Working with ID
• Achieving Professional Identity Formation Outcomes via Online and Hybrid Teaching
• Using Assessment Data in Evolving Online and Hybrid Teaching Environments
• Making our Hybrid and Online learning Environments Inclusive and Supportive of all Students
• Which Parts Go Where: Design Thinking Applied to Hybrid Legal Education
• Micro-credentials and Stacking of Credentials - Developing Program Outcomes
• Permeability of the Bricks and Mortar Building; Beyond Traditional Thinking
• What Student Can Tell Us -- Now

If you’re interested in presenting, please send a one-to-two-page proposal to David Thomson, John C. Dwan Professor for Online Learning, University of Denver, 2255 E. Evans Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80208 ([email protected]) in Microsoft Word (or the equivalent). The deadline for proposals is Monday, March 22, 2021.

New: Academic and Bar Support Scholarship Spotlight

Good morning, everyone, and a big thanks to Steven and the ASP Blog crew for inviting me here again.  Every other Tuesday, I will be posting what will be called the "Academic and Bar Support Scholarship Spotlight."  In each post, I will highlight a publication from the academic and/ or bar exam support field. 

There will be two categories:  "ASP Foundational Scholarship" and "New Scholarship."  The first category will reintroduce the seminal pieces that developed the generally agreed upon "best practices" in the academic and bar support field.  

The second category of "New Scholarship" is self-explanatory but requires a quick note.  Traditionally, academic and bar support faculty have been reluctant to self-promote their scholarship.  Perhaps arising out of the "ASPish" moniker, this norm demonstrates the humility that sits at the epicenter of who we are as a community.  But, it has also left too much ASP/ Bar scholarship out of the spotlight.  I am hoping that this series can help solve that conundrum.    

Therefore, if you publish some form of scholarship on law school academic/ bar exam support, please send me a link.  I will also promote new scholarship referred or found independently, so if you read a new piece and find it helpful, please let me know.  

The format of the piece is not important.  Books, law review articles, online law review essays, shorter pieces ... all are welcome.  I also welcome suggestions for the ASP Foundational Scholarship category.  If a publication positively contributed to your understanding of our field, such that you think others should be aware of it, please let me know and send a link.  

Later today, I will post the first installment of the ASP Foundational Scholarship series.  No spoilers here, though; you'll have to wait for it.  

(Louis N. Schulze, Jr., FIU Law) 

West Coast Consortium of Academic Support Professionals Conference (Virtual)

What I've Learned

One year ago this month, I wrote my first post for the ASP blog. And while it seems like only yesterday that I began my quest to bombard readers with my weekly musings, I have decided to step aside to make room for other voices to be heard through this forum. Today will be my last post as a regular contributing editor, and I will use this opportunity to reflect on the wonderful learning and growth experience that the year has brought.

I’ve learned that:

Education and advocacy are not parallel paths, but rather an important intersection at which the most effective teachers are found. I left a high stakes commercial litigation practice for a role in academic support. I naively believed that an effective teacher had to be dispassionate and objective and more focused on pedagogy than on legal advocacy or controversial topics. However, I grew to realize that the very skills that made me an effective lawyer still guided me in the classroom to teach my students and to open their minds to new perspectives. My realization was affirmed when ASP whiz, Kirsha Trychta, reminded us that the courtroom and the law school classroom are not that different.

Anger can have a productive place in legal education and scholarship. I don’t have to conceal or suppress my passion to be effective as a scholar. I am angry on behalf of every summer (or fall) 2020 bar taker. I am bothered by states that are so tethered to tradition that they refuse to consider the obstacles and challenges of preparing for a bar exam during a pandemic. It troubles me to see law schools close the doors to their libraries and study spaces, and yet expect 2020 bar takers to perform without the benefit of quiet study space and access to internet and printing. I am flat out disgusted by the notion of forcing law students to assume the risk of death to take the bar exam. And I waive my finger to shame the states that have abandoned exam repeaters and that waited or are still waiting to announce changes to the exam dates and format after the bar study period has begun. These states have essentially moved the finish line mid-race, and our future lawyers deserve better. But thanks to the vocal efforts of others who have channeled their righteous anger into productive advocacy and scholarship, I’ve seen states like Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Utah, and Washington emerge as progressive bar exam leaders in response to a crisis.

Silence is debilitating. Like so many others, I was taught to make myself smaller, to nod in agreement, and avoid topics that would make others uncomfortable. The untenured should be seen, not heard. I am the person that I am because of my collective experiences. Stifling my stories and my diverse perspective would be a disservice to my calling and to the next generation of lawyers who need to be met with a disheartening dose of racial reality. As soon as I showed the courage to speak up and step out of other people’s comfort zones, I found that I was not alone. My ASP colleagues, like Scott Johns, Louis Schulze, and Beth Kaimowitz and others, were right there speaking out too.

Glass ceilings become sunroofs once you break through them. In the last few years, I have seen more and more of my ASP colleagues earn tenure or assume tenure track roles. And while a job title or classification, will never measure one’s competence or value, our communal pushes for equity are visibly evident. ASP authors continue to make meaningful contributions to scholarship in pedagogy and beyond. Thank you to Renee Allen, Cassie Christopher, DeShun Harris, Raul Ruiz, and the many, many, many others who I can’t name but whose work I’ve read and admired. With varied voices, we are paving the way to enhanced recognition and status in the academy, and with mentorship and writing support we are forming the next wave of formidable ASP bloggers, scholars, textbook authors, and full professors.

(Marsha Griggs)

What If . . . ?

But opportunity is real, and life is free, equality is in the air we breathe. – Langston Hughes

Today I see my country, my life, my career, and my future through the convoluted lens of multiple opinions. My aspirations, both professional and private, are crowded by polarized expressions of rage, shock, and dissatisfaction. As I fight the soul soothing desire to escape the madness that for me is today, yesterday, and tomorrow, I retreat into a self-denying sense of duty that is my temporal high calling – to help others. To help others pass the bar exam and to succeed in law school is the calling of academic support. I am one of a wonderful community of academic support professionals who work tirelessly to help law students and law graduates develop the skills for academic success and bar readiness. As I ponder this special calling, I ask myself, what if countries were like ASP?

What if we had ASP-like programs and opportunities that were available to all members of society? What if coaching, and other resources were made equally available to every and any person who wanted or needed them? What if governments sought out the weakest and most vulnerable members of society to make sure that those most in need of extra help were aware of the resources available? What if national communities were organized in the most ASP-ish of manners, so that support resources could be shared freely, and various cities and states could benefit from this system of open-access without costs or competition? What if all members had the benefit of practice exams and test drives that carried no lasting consequence other than early exposure and preparation for the true tests of life?

For those unfamiliar with the term ASP, Cornell Law School provides some guidance. ASP, or “Academic Support Programs, are available to help all students develop the skills necessary to succeed in law school.” Law schools are purposely, and rightly, inclusive in the scope and description of their academic support services. CUNY School of Law is “committed to providing academic support services to all students who need them.” These descriptions are both accurate and aspirational. ASP is for everyone and anyone who wants or needs it.

Yet, those of us who lead and direct institutional academic support programs know that, although available to all, not all students take advantage of ASP. In fact, the students who we serve most commonly, or rather those who are most often targeted for inclusion in our programs, are the ones most in need of the supplemental opportunities provided by ASP. We willingly make resources available to all, but the success of our programs will be measured, inter alia, by the degree to which we mitigate the “failure-risks” presented by some students based on admissions indicators or law school performance.

As I again consider my precious and special calling and my wonderful ASP colleagues and the many students in whose lives we make real differences, I ask – what if ASP were like countries? What if we could not single out the students for whom our programs were created? What if we were not permitted to tailor the focus of our programs for those with the greatest academic need and those with socioeconomic disadvantages? What if we were forced to dilute the quality and quantity of remediation for the ones at risk of academic dismissal, to prevent the appearance of non-inclusiveness? What is ASP “for all” was interpreted to mean that ASP “for some” was exclusionary and an affront to the importance of the entire student body? The notion of academic support available to all is not cheapened or compromised by the calculated and deliberate act of making sure that the reach of our services extends to, and includes, those for whom denial of such services would make legal education far less likely. After all, ASP exists to level the playing field and make a diverse and inclusive legal profession more likely, not less.

In the end, I guess I am glad that ASP is not like the countries that I know of, and I am left to wish that countries could be more like ASP.

(Marsha Griggs)