Law School Academic Support Blog

1L of a Blog Series: Learning from Last Semester

Welcome to law school! This is a biweekly series with tips and tricks for success in law school. We’ll cover things like time management, outlining, preparing for exams, and more! Although this series covers skills and tricks that might be new to 1Ls, I hope that every member of the law school community can find something helpful here.

Welcome back! You’ve probably already started or are about to start the spring semester. I hope you’re finding it easier to get into a rhythm and stay on top of your assignments since you have a few months of law school under your belt. Of course, there’s always areas to improve! Even though it’s time to focus on your new subjects, you should take a few moments over the next few weeks to reflect on last semester and set goals for this semester. The goal of this blog is to get you started on the process.

1. Identify the Key Components of Law School Learning

The first step of reflecting is figuring out what you need to reflect upon. Since we’re focusing on your law school learning, we need to identify key steps to the learning process and then reflect upon those. Your key components include:

• Time Management
• Reading
• Case Briefing
• Classroom Discussion
• Note Taking
• Post-class Debriefing
• Outlining
• Seeking Clarification/Verification (TAs, Professors, etc.)
• Practicing
• Exam Performance

You may have additional things on your list, but hopefully this captures all of the puzzle pieces to learning in law school. For each of these topics, think critically about how you handled them. First, did you actually do each step? If yes, did your process seem effective? Are there ways you could have been more efficient?

2. What did you do well?

It’s easy to automatically move towards what didn’t go well last semester, but let’s start your self-reflection on a positive note. What did you do well last semester? Did you always have your reading done for class? Are you particularly proud of your note taking system? Were you a multiple-choice expert? It’s important to identify areas of your learning that went well and worked for you. You don’t want to fundamentally change the things that you’re already doing well! Take detailed notes for yourself on what went well and why so you can continue those practices into the spring semester.

3. What needs improvement?

Now it’s time for the harder part – what didn’t go well? Were there things that you neglected to do until the last minute? Did you often feel lost in class discussions? Were your notes helpful when you went to update your outlines? The beginning of the semester is the perfect time to identify areas of improvement so that you can reap the greatest benefits of making changes. Note everything that you think can be improved and some ideas of how you might improve them.

4. Set Semester Goals

Once you have a few areas of improvement in mind, it’s time to set goals for the semester. Remember, goals should be specific, measurable, and attainable. For instance, if you’re someone who wants to work on seeking clarification, perhaps your goal is to attend office hours twice a month. Think carefully about how you will go about making adjustments to meet your goals.

Reflecting on last semester and setting measurable goals is a key component of growing as a law student and as a lawyer in training. It’s often difficult to self-assess, identify how to improve, and set goals, so if you need guidance, reach out to your academic support professionals.

(Dayna Smith)

Intentional Indifference

I was a social psychology major as an undergraduate[1]and one of the things I learned about was “social dominance theory” which is defined as, "…a general theory of intergroup relations that focuses on the maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies. These hierarchies consist of dominant groups, which enjoy a disproportionate share of positive social value, and subordinate groups, which bear a disproportionate share of negative social value.[2]" Further, "[g]roup-based hierarchies are sustained through the coordinated operation of legitimizing myths, institutional discrimination, and individual discrimination, which together perpetuate systems of dominance.[3]"

More recently, I read an article about another workplace dynamic theory called “weaponized incompetence.” This is defined as, “..the deliberate exaggeration or feigned inability to perform a task, often to avoid responsibility or shift the burden onto someone else.[4]” And yes, there are further studies that discuss how this is a gendered phenomenon[5]. Does any of this sound familiar to you as Academic Support and/or Bar Prep professionals?

I’ve been thinking about this lately because I am on a Committee[6] where we are working “together” to revise our academic warning and guided curriculum requirements to be more in sync with the NextGen bar exam in terms of content and skills. The point of these classifications is really to make sure students are taking bar tested courses beyond the first year like criminal procedure, evidence, and business organizations. Since NextGen will change some things and is already changing the current iterations of the UBE (like the family law “now you see it, now you don’t, and later you will see it again” thing), we need to pivot. I also think that gobbling up too many credits with (now) unnecessary requirements puts our students (who are already in academic difficulty) in a place where they cannot climb out of the academic ditch they find themselves in and, more importantly, cannot build the confidence they need in school, on the bar, and as attorneys. I’ve said this easily five million times in our meetings.[7] It is frustrating.

What is more frustrating though is the members of the Committee who are tenured doctrinal faculty who seem to be actively resisting learning about what we do to help students in academic difficulty[8]. After many, many meetings where I (and my ASP and Bar Prep colleagues) have explained the tiers of guided curriculum, academic warning, and academic probation, as well as the specific courses we teach only for these students, they just don’t get it or, since I am pretty certain they are intelligent, they just refuse to learn what we do.

I had one member of this Committee ask to see me with some questions and they came to my office and basically said, “I have no idea what you teach in these courses.” Did they want a syllabus? Yes, but the real task was for me to write up a description of each class. I guess I should have known that this was going to be a meeting where I ended up with an assignment when they came in with questions but no paper or pen to take any notes. How would they feel about a student who didn’t even purport to engage in notetaking in their VERY IMPORTANT doctrinal class?

I find this insulting on many levels. One, you asked for a meeting to understand things better, but what you really want is for me to explain myself while you have no intention of actually even trying to grasp what I am saying. Two, you could have assigned me the task through an email and not wasted my time over a break that I assure you I really needed. But the true insult here is the outright power play of not having to know what we do. I felt that a pat on the head and a “good girl” might have been an appropriate end to this meeting[9].

While this may not have risen to the level of weaponized incompetence (my colleagues are not malevolent people), I think I will call it intentional indifference[10].  And while I am upset that I was treated this way, I am even more angry with myself for not setting and maintaining a boundary in this situation.

As we go into the next semester, let’s be on the lookout for institutional social dominance as a method of burdening us with more work. People who do not know what (and how much!) we do may (often innocently) ask us for more than we can or should give. We need to be very clear that we aren’t the frosting on the cake they made in doctrinal courses, we are the oven that took the batter they sent us and gave it the structure it needed to be a cake at all. And then we are also the frosting, the sprinkles, and the packaging.

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] Some of you are probably thinking, “oh, that explains a lot.”

[2] Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press.

[3] Id.

[4] Popescu, A. (2021). Weaponized Incompetence Is Ruining Relationships—Here’s How to Stop It. Well+Good.

[5] McNulty, E. (2022). Weaponized Incompetence: The Tactic That Hurts Relationships. The Atlantic.

[6] Lucky me? I’m actually on two committees that are working on this!?

[7] I would say I’ve exaggerated, but since these meetings go on for at least 10 years at a time I think not.

[8] Ironic, since they have often put students in that category, but I am obviously quite salty about this.

[9] Again, I’m pretty salty about this. And I really love the term salty. But I know it isn’t good for my blood pressure…

[10] Maybe I should trademark the term?

 

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."

 

Words Matter

When I was in law school, I took a criminal trial practice class where the "final" was a trial. The case I had to try (as a prosecutor) for that assessment was a rape case (it was a different time) and the issue was whether there was consent (maybe not that different....). I made my opening argument, prepped, examined, and cross-examined witnesses, had evidence admitted, and then did my closing argument. After all the work that went into the trial, the jury (composed of undergraduates) decided in my favor and convicted the defendant. Was it the evidence or the skillful examination of witnesses that persuaded them? Nope. It was one line in my closing argument where I speculated that no one would chose a romantic moment in a car with the engine off on a cold February night. I hadn't even practiced that bit, it was impromptu, but the jury agreed that consent didn't seem likely under those circumstances. And that is when I learned that, in law, words really matter. An unscripted sentence could have changed things against me just as easily. 

Late last week I got an email from a frantic 1L. At their first TA "law school bootcamp" session, the teaching assistant had told an entire section of property about the "real reason behind the grading curve" and how it is requires that professors fail some students. They also explained the academic standards that lead to being put on probation.  I suppose if any of what the TA had said had been truthful, I would have been frightened too. Telling students that the curve is intended to prevent them from being able to transfer to another school because of a perceived low GPA was creative-- but entirely made up. Further admonishing them that the curve required professors to issue unsatisfactory and even failing grades was utterly false. And advising students that if their GPA was below a 3.0, they would be put on academic probation was just fake news. 

I cannot imagine why a TA would do this. Were they engaging in the ultimate flex by trying to make 1Ls impressed that they, the TA, had not fallen into any of these traps? Were they gatekeeping by making it seem as if 2L was only available to a chosen few? Were they trying to emulate a 'scared straight' session for 1Ls? Again, I will never know. But I do know that there are over 100 students in that class and certainly more than the four or five I heard from attended that session. If more students were frightened by this misinformation, I hope they are friends with the students I spoke to and were able to hear the truth. I did report this to our TA coordinator who in turn also gave our Dean of Students a heads up in case frightened students went there. 

It made me really look back at what I have said in orientation lectures and other classes. If you know me, you know I talk a mile a minute and attempt to be funny, but you never know what will actually come out of my mouth. I tend to avoid scripting my lectures and sometimes go rogue with improvisation. What if I inadvertently started a group scare? I hope I didn't and haven't heard that I did-but I am comforted to know that the students certainly received the message that I was someone who could speak truth to flexing in a pinch. 

In ASP, we sometimes deal with the most vulnerable students in law school. And while a glib turn of phrase can make all the difference in a mock trial, it won't always hit right.

Words matter.

(Liz Stillman)

The Importance of Being AASE

I love Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest. I mean who doesn’t love a fast talking piece that is entirely a play on words from beginning to end? It was an oasis in an otherwise uninspired year of high school English reading for me.[1] As one would guess, it is convoluted and hard to wrap your brain around. It all seems a bit unknowable-almost the same way the breadth and depth of academic support work can get lost in translation. We all know how exhausting it is to tell people what we do over and over.

I also think most people I have met in law school academia find it “interesting” that there is a national organization of academic support educators.[2] But as we move towards more status equity, having this resource will prove imperative. We need to find a way to get to a critical mass of tenured and tenure track positions (like Legal Writing faculty have done) in order to gain better equity footing across the board. This is where having a national organization is key. As a national organization, we can collect and share voluminous data about how ASP faculty (and non-faculty!) are treated, paid, supported, unsupported, and fit into the law school community. In short, we can, if we work together, make long overdue progress. Here are some things we can do to move the needle forward:

1. Amplify each other. Tell another AASE member’s Deans or other significant administrators about our colleagues. Did you like a presentation, article, book, helpful tip from them? Great. Send an email. I know a lot of people do this, but ASP folks, let it rain!

2. Use the AASE website as a place where we:
   1. Share resources;
   2. Post jobs;
   3. Post scholarship;
   4. Post teaching resources;
   5. And (copying entirely from the Legal Writing folks) accumulate resources to further this advocacy.[3]

3. We will be doing the AASE Survey again this year. Fill. It. Out. Data is everything in this fight. If we have better participation, we can use the data for salary and status benchmarking in a much more credible way. And then we need to disseminate the data widely-so that even the fancy schmancy consultants who do salary benchmarking can find it without much effort.[4]

4. Consider advocating for a place at the rankings table. I’ve written about this before and I stand by it: if we are an asset to our school then they are going to want to put a ring on it.[5]

5. Finally, consider advocating for a place at all the tables that have not had a seat for us before. We know what we do and how well we do it, but we need to shout about that from the rooftops. We need to showcase our brand. It is not something that comes easily for us, but we really need to be a bit more braggy about our accomplishments-because they are abundant, and people ought to know.

One great quote from The Importance of Being Earnest is, “[e]ven before I met you I was far from indifferent to you.” Let’s make this the new narrative about Academic Support.

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] That kind of word choked, fast moving dialogue was something I loved about Gilmore Girls as well. 

[2] Although there are many specialized groups in law school academia that seem even more narrowly focused.

[3] Comme ça (as the French would say): https://www.lwionline.org/resources/status-related-advocacy

[4] Yes, I’m still a little salty about not having any salary benchmark when it was reviewed last year at my school despite having the AASE survey results in the freaking building.

[5] Apologies to Beyoncé.

Animal Farm (and the 11th Annual AASE Conference).

I am just now coming down from the high of attending the 11^th Annual AASE Conference last week, hosted --in the most gracious way-- by the University of Idaho College of Law in Boise. As one might expect, it was an incredibly collegial and informative academic conference. I know I have mentioned how academic support folks are by the far the kindest, most generous, and scholarly academicians. It is refreshing to be in room after room with colleagues who just get “it.”   “It” is how to get students to: attend workshops, participate in bar review, pay attention to how they learn, and create processes that are efficient and effective. But “it” also is: how to get doctrinal faculty to: attend workshops, keep an eye on students who are falling behind, keep an eye on students who may learn differently. “It” is finally the collective[1] search for information about the NextGen bar exam and whether your jurisdiction will adopt it (and if so, when).

One of the social events at the conference was a dinner and drinks at the Zoo. I mean, who doesn’t love a Zoo?[2] There were giraffes, zebras, lions, and a red panda who I think should have their own Instagram account. It was Tuesday, so there were tacos. It was a different and fun way to build community and enjoy a lovely evening in Boise.

However, I have to wonder if our monkeying[3] around trying to get a handle on a test that we do not know a lot about-including whether it will actually be a thing in many of our jurisdictions- is just caging up the academic support predator that would love to set its sights on this prey by getting to know it (and actually figuring out if knowing it is necessary).

We spent a lot of time talking about the NextGen bar exam together. There were wonderful sessions about how to get ready, or adapt, or prepare students for the NextGen bar exam. In fact, every presentation about bar readiness (and some that were not) discussed the NextGen bar exam. One example was a great presentation about how to use Professional Responsibility as a golden ticket for teaching skills for both the UBE and NextGen bar exams. Another talked about teaching IRAC from a NextGen perspective. We had amazing presentations about how to use AI to Draft Next Gen practice questions, how to prepare students for the new legal research components of the NextGen exam, creating rubrics and learning objectives based on NextGen foundational skills, and more.

But what if after all this careful planning and preparing for NextGen, we, like Columbus, do not find ourselves in the destination we had planned to reach? What if the unknowns we are so carefully trying to infer[4] have been calculated incorrectly? We may already have, or are about to welcome, students who could be taking this bar exam and we have been left with penumbras and emanations.  We have become like Academic Support Ninja Warriors[5] who are trying to get to the goal without knowing exactly what challenges lie ahead. Some of this is the NCBE not being entirely forthcoming about the exam, and another piece of it resides in jurisdictions who have not shown their hands either. Together, that leaves us no better off than the animals in the Zoo: we are at their mercy in terms of getting fed the information we need, and then we wonder if all our hard work to know more than we have been currently told is going to end up being merely entertaining -- but not freeing in any way.

A very special thank you to Karen Wellman and her amazing team at U. of Idaho and the AASE Executive and Programming teams for making this another memorable conference. We are lucky to have each other on this quest. AASE will be posting all the materials and slides from the conference-look in your emails and on the website for more information.

And finally, I am crazy excited that all these amazing people will come to me next year. We will see you in Boston for the 12^th Annual AASE Conference-Suffolk University Law School, May 2025!

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] But not universal, some jurisdictions have committed with clear timelines in place.

[2] Yes, the animals there may not love it, but bear (get it?) with me for a moment.

[3] The puns will be fast and furious-please feel free to groan-or just shoot me an email that says, “UGH!,” I deserve it.

[4] And asking ChatGPT to help us infer as well.

[5] Which will be the name of my second ASP themed band.

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. 

 

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….

AASE Registration Open

Lost and Found

Today, I will have two former members of the United States House of Representatives come and speak to my undergraduate class as part of an amazing program called Congress to Campus. I am always incredibly excited to have these gentlemen (and so far, they have only sent me white men) come and speak to the class. More importantly, I am fervently hoping my students have questions for them[1]. I have provided their biographies; we have discussed checks and balances and separation of powers, and they should know what Congress does (and cannot do) well enough to be curious about what differs between the textbook and the reality in terms of the Federal Legislature. I think I have done my job (we’ll see, of course) of piquing their curiosity.

But that leads me to a broader question in teaching: how do we nurture curiosity in all of our students? I am not sure the first year of law school, in general, does that. Where is the adventure in the Commerce Clause? The cliff-hanger in Adverse Possession?[2] What happens when students lose their sense of wonder about law? And notice, I say when and not if, because I think the vast majority of students do (at least temporarily) lose their sense of wonder about six weeks in to the first semester, and again just about now in the second.

Part of the issue is that 1L students do not get choices. They cannot choose their classes, professors, or schedules. I don’t think that changing this entirely would be a great plan since (among other things) 1L subjects are bar tested and finding doctrinal faculty to teach 1L classes is hard enough without a popularity contest built in.[3]

I once read in a parenting book that offering your toddler choices-where you, as the adult, control all the options-prevents meltdowns. For example, offering a blue cup or a red cup (you have both ready) is easier than giving a blue cup and then trying to explain that all cups are the same in the end. You still control the options, but they get to make a choice. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying our students are toddlers, but they may similarly feel that they have very little control over their education in the first year (and beyond depending on your law school’s policies and requirements).

We are currently planning to offer an optional 1 credit Pass/Fail elective to students in their 1L spring after we freed a credit when we semesterized[4] all of our 1L classes. We have discussed this at length and even had our faculty vote (in favor) of making it happen. I am thinking the classes we offer need be something interesting enough to combat the idea of just enjoying the semester without that extra credit. It needs to feed and restore curiosity. Granted, at the moment the only times available for such classes are late on Thursday evening or early Friday morning, so not primetime, therefore I am not certain our first foray will be representative of what we could do with this credit. But we shall see. One member of committee suggested we try Accounting for Lawyers. Since I wonder if that will attract any students, my curiosity is already piqued.

(Liz Stillman)

 

[1] God knows I have questions about the governance of the country recently, but this isn’t about me.

[2] Although an elemental test in 1L Property is always nice to see….

[3] And the logistics would be difficult. We have an incoming 1L class at or near 400 students, so that would be chaos for us.

[4] It turns out this is not a word-but indulge me here.

No Winners

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Last week, in summarizing our discussion of Plessy and Brown v. Board of Education, one of my undergraduate students used a word that, while not the most offensive when referring to race, was nonetheless unwelcome in my classroom community. And when she said the word, I stopped her cold and informed her that it wasn’t a word that is appropriate in reference to race. She asked which one of the words she said was offensive and I told her that I would not repeat it but would happily explain the issue after class. I encouraged her to move on with her summary, she did, and I thanked her. End of story, I thought.

Not end of story. About twenty minutes later, she threw on her jacket, her headphones, and backpack and quite dramatically left the class. Now, this is a student who has left each class this semester at least 15 minutes before it ends to get to a work shift that she assured me in January was a holdover from the Winter break and was only going to be, “this once,” but this was much earlier than her usual (far more subtle) exits.

After class was over, I e-mailed her because I was pretty certain my callout was the reason for her hasty departure. I explained why the word was offensive and apologized if she felt I was both blunt and vague. I told her that as the person in front of the class, I could see something she couldn’t--and that was the reaction of her fellow classmates. I would have stopped her in any event and do not (in any way) regret stopping her, but I understand that undergraduates are young and still learning. I thought the discussion we had had as a class about Plessy and Brown had been very clear (and I had discussed these cases using critical race theory as a backdrop). Then I thought perhaps she might have been a freshman who could not have known better. It turns out that she is actually a junior majoring in something in the Political Science department, so no, that wasn’t it either.

I very quickly got a reply from the student. It wasn’t pleasant, professional, or respectful. There was no remorse, no lesson learned, or any understanding (or desire to form one) of why the word was offensive. And she told me that as a “white woman,” I had no place telling her anything. I do not know her race, nor would it matter since no one can use that word in reference to race in my class. And while there were dozens of other inconsistent and misinformed points in the unpunctuated masterpiece she sent me, that was the worst.

Because I was the right person to tell her.

Because I carry the burden of civility in my class.

Because it is not the job of BIPOC students to correct her.

Because when something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of who informs you of it.  

Because not saying something publicly would have been worse.

Because sometimes being uncomfortable and sitting in that space is learning.

I invited her to come see me about all of this I have received no response. And I don’t expect one anytime soon.

I don’t feel great about how this ended (if it has), and I hope it will go better next time. Most of all, I hope there is no next time.

(Liz Stillman)

Naked and Afraid

I’m being dramatic of course: I am fully clothed and just a bit rattled. I am writing this entry on Thursday, Feb. 1^st for publication next Monday, Feb. 5^th. Today is the day that the faculty votes on whether I will be offered an additional five year contract, or I will be out of a job on July 1^st. To be crystal clear, I am not really expecting to be shown the curb today. I feel valued at my school, and I think they would feel a loss if they let me go. I believe this. Intellectually, I know this isn’t going to be an issue, but emotionally, I must say that it doesn’t feel great to have such an important decision seem so completely out of my control.

Part of this feeling of vulnerability may stem from my first gen background. My parents worked in the garment industry and my maternal grandparents worked as a milliner and a produce buyer. I am the first woman in my immediate family who knows how to drive, went to a four year college, and then on to law school. For me, having control of how I am perceived and discussed is therefore really important. I would never say I am self-made--my family was wildly supportive-- but I also do not want to be unmade by others.

I think one of hardest parts of this process is seeing the Committee memo that essentially lays me out bare circulated not once, but twice to everyone (including me). I am glad there will be no paper copies circulated both for the trees and the possibility of it moving beyond our faculty (which I know is also very possible, if not even easier, via email, but somehow paper seems like more of a security risk, which only goes to prove my addled state). Everyone gets to know about my course evaluations, syllabi, PowerPoint slides, and scholarship. And the folks who get to vote to keep me or not include:

1. People who have known me since July 2023;
2. People who have been here for a year or two but haven’t met me at all;
3. People who are actually leaving at the end of the semester;
4. People who have been unprofessionally rude to me in Committee meetings;
5. People who have said no to a tenure track possibility for ASP; but then there are also:
6. Amazing colleagues I have known for over 20 years;
7. Amazing colleagues in my ASP department;
8. Amazing colleagues I consider friends (these past three are not mutually exclusive categories);
9. Fabulous colleagues who support changes in ASP status; and
10. Wonderful administrators I am not sure can vote but have always been quite supportive.

In short, a lot of my jury may not consider themselves my peers. And they will get together in a big room (and I am not going to be there as per tradition) and talk about me and then they get to decide if I can continue doing this job even if some of them are uncertain what it is. The fact that I need to do this every five years (although when I started it was shorter intervals) is frustrating. If my position doesn't merit tenure-which I understand is a long investment in me by my school--then why so much repeated scrutiny for something that clearly isn't considered all that important? I know this lesser status is a construct, but a process that is a reminder of this status over and over can't be the best practice. I have been through this more than seven times already.

So, when quotes from my course evaluations are circulated far and wide, I feel particularly exposed (although they were all positive quotes). When someone comments (again, positively) on the quality of my slides, I feel invaded. And when I am told that my scholarship is nice but not tenure worthy, I am livid, because tenure is not even on the table.

The only thing on the table is me.

(Liz Stillman)

**UPDATE**:  My contract was in fact renewed by the faculty on Thursday and nice things were said about me during that meeting. I am, although still slightly salty about the process, very pleased with the result.

MWCASP/SWCASP Workshop

Please join us in St. Louis, MO for the Joint One-Day Workshop of the Southwestern Consortium of Academic Support Professionals and the Midwestern Consortium of Academic Support Professionals, hosted by the Saint Louis University School of Law on Friday, March 8th, from 9:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. CST, with a welcome dinner the evening of Thursday, March 7th.

The theme of this year's Workshop is Practical and Innovative Techniques to Approach Teaching and Advising for the Next Gen Bar Exam and the Next Generation of Lawyers. We have an exciting program and selection of speakers for you (see attached) and are excited to spend the day sharing ideas with our colleagues from the Southwest and Midwest regions - and beyond!

The conference will be hosted in person at the Saint Louis University School of Law. However, while we are excited to return to an in-person workshop this year, we also will do our best to record the workshop for those unable to travel to St. Louis.

Thanks to our generous sponsors, AccessLex, BarBri, and Themis, there is no registration fee, but we ask that you please register using this link so that we can adequately prepare: https://forms.gle/YTGyHB8zm6WdkGL78

Due to unexpected flooding at our original hotel, we are unable to provide a room block for workshop participants. However, there are a number of hotels nearby, including the following options:

Tru by Hilton St. Louis Downtown (~$123 per night, .2 miles walk)

 

The Last Hotel 4-Star Boutique Hotel (~230 per night, .4 miles walk)

 

21c Museum Hotel St Louis (~$230 per night, .4 miles walk)

 

We hope we get to "meet you in St. Louis" in March!

 

2024 SWCASP/MWCASP One-Day Workshop Planning Committee

Toni Miceli, Saint Louis University School of Law

Petina Benigno, Saint Louis University School of Law

Steven Foster, Oklahoma City University School of Law

Megan Kreminski, University of Illinois Chicago School of Law

SWCASP & MWCASP Call for Proposals

Call for Proposals: SWCASP & MWCASP Joint One-Day Workshop

The Southwestern Consortium of Academic Support Professionals and the Midwestern Consortium of Academic Support Professionals are now accepting proposals for presentations at their Joint Workshop taking place in-person at the Saint Louis University School of Law on Friday, March 8, 2024. We welcome proposals from presenters in the Southwest or Midwest regions and beyond! While we are excited to return to an in-person workshop this year, we also will try to record the workshop for those unable to travel to St. Louis.

The theme of this year's Workshop is Practical and Innovative Techniques to Approach Teaching and Advising for the Next Gen Bar Exam and the Next Generation of Lawyers. The Workshop Planning Committee seeks presentations focused on:

• What we can do to prepare the students entering our classroom that don't have the same skills as previous classes;
• How to advise students in the face of the many unknowns that accompany the adoption of the Next Gen Bar Exam; and
• How to advise and support faculty in moving forward with their own teaching in a way that embraces the changes presented by the bar exam and legal practice.

Preference will be given to presentations that are both interactive and contain Lessons or Presentations in a Box (where the presenter provides all of the information and materials necessary for attendees to leave the session prepared to deliver the lesson or presentation on their own).

Proposals will be reviewed on a rolling basis, with all acceptances going out by the week of February 12, 2024. To apply, please complete the proposal SUBMISSION FORM by January 31, 2024. The Submission Form requests the following information:

• Name and Email of Presenter(s)

• Title of proposed presentation

• Brief description of your proposed presentation (under 100 words)

• Desired length of presentation (25 minutes or 50 minutes)

• Brief description of the interactive elements of your presentation

• Brief description of the materials you will provide to participants to take home with them from your presentation

If you have any questions about your proposal, please do not hesitate to contact one of us. Information on hotel blocks and workshop registration will be forthcoming. As always, there is no fee to attend this workshop.

We look forward to receiving your proposals!

2024 One-Day Workshop Planning Committee

Toni Miceli, Saint Louis University School of Law

Steven Foster, Oklahoma City University School of Law

Megan Kreminski, University of Illinois Chicago School of Law

We Are the Champions, My Friends

Lately, a list-serv I have subscribed to has been a hotbed of political group-wide emails. It is not a political list-serv, so this volley is something of a surprise. The emails are about the war between Israel and Hamas-and they have been ugly. Am I a coward for not engaging in the group email chain but rather writing about it in a blog entry? Perhaps, but I contend that the professionals (that I suppose I can call colleagues) on this list-serv are engaging in behavior that they are absolutely free to engage in but is also demeaning and chilling. One thing some posters on the list do is launch personal attacks.  Others basically argue that if you do not agree with them, it is because you are ignorant and uneducated about the subject area, so they offer a lot of links--some from questionable sources-and one, in a total twist of fate, written by my sister-in-law (a reputable source!). The same email accusing people of being essentially unintelligent is signed, “Yours in Solidarity…” Um, I am not going to actually agree with you that I am an imbecile because I don’t see things exactly as you do, so that’s a big nope on the solidarity.

Some of these posters could learn a lot from Academic Support folks about how to be collegial. That is why I am thankful this year for the amazing community of ASP folks who are the champions:

1. We share well. ASP conferences are the best because we share everything. We share materials, techniques, statistics, joy, triumph, frustrations, and passion.
2. We care about each other. I have had more people in this community inquire about my family in Israel than I ever anticipated. It actually brought me to tears.
3. We care about our students. We always use the possessive when we talk about them-they belong to us and while we cannot help every single student, we would if we could (and they came to office hours, just saying).
4. We celebrate and uplift each other’s work. Think of the work Louis does on this blog every Tuesday to announce recent scholarship-and that is just one example of how we amplify the community.
5. We respect each other. We would never call each other names or require acquiescence to be deserving of solidarity.
6. We are family. We know each other. We welcome newcomers with offers of help and materials.
7. And even if you don’t agree with the above points, I still think the world of you and your intelligence and accomplishments.

Happy end of classes!

(Liz Stillman)

NECASP Conference Call for Proposals Extended to November 3!

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

Northeast Consortium of Academic Support Professionals (NECASP) Conference

Friday, December 15, 2023, 11am-3pm ET, in-person and via Zoom

Hosted by the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University

 

NECASP will be holding its annual one-day conference this December. We are excited to return to an in-person conference this year, although we will still be including a remote option to accommodate those participants and presenters unable to travel to New York. Our topic this year is ASP Expanding our Reach: Are We Reaching Out and Are We Reachable?

 

Description: In order to adjust to the ever-changing needs of our students, it’s imperative we do a yearly audit of our messaging and our services to our students. So, this year, let’s get together (in person!!!) to discuss ways we can ensure we are reaching out to all of our students consistently and make sure we are accessible to them.

 

We welcome a broad range of proposals –from presenters in the Northeast region and beyond –and at various stages of completion –from idea to fruition. Please note that we may ask you to co-present with other ASP colleagues depending on the number of proposals selected. Our conference will be in-person on the Pace Law campus in White Plains, NY; however, we will have a Zoom option and will consider proposals from both in-person and remote attendees. If you wish to present, the proposal process is as follows:

 

1. Submit your proposal by NOVEMBER 3, 2023, via email to Danielle Kocal at [email protected]
2. Proposals may be submitted as a Word document or as a PDF
3. Proposals must include the following:
4. Name and title of presenter
   b. Law School
   c. Address, email address, and telephone number for presenter
   d. Title
   e. If a scholarly work in progress, an abstract no more than 500 words
5. Whether you will be attending in-person or remotely
   g. Media or computer presentation needs
6. As noted above, proposals are due on October 27, 2023. The NECASP Board will review the proposals and reply to each by November 17, 2023.
   
   
   

If you have any questions about your proposal, please do not hesitate to contact one of us, and we look forward to seeing you at our conference!

 

Information such as hotel blocks and zoom links will be forthcoming. As always, there is no fee to attend this conference.

 

 

 

 

 

2023-24 NECASP Board Members

 

Chair:   Danielle Kocal, Director of Academic Success The Elizabeth Haub School of Law / Pace University, [email protected]

Vice Chair:   Erica Sylvia, Assistant Director of Bar Success & Adjunct Professor of LawUniversity of Massachusetts School of Law, [email protected]

Treasurer:   Stephen Iannacone, Director of Academic Success, Cardozo Law, [email protected]

Secretary:   Elizabeth Stillman, Associate Professor of Academic Support, Suffolk University, [email protected] 

 

Annual North East Academic Support Professionals (NECASP) Conference-Call for Proposals

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

Northeast Consortium of Academic Support Professionals (NECASP) Conference

Friday, December 15, 2023, 11am-3pm ET, in-person and via Zoom

Hosted by the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University

 

NECASP will be holding its annual one-day conference this December. We are excited to return to an in-person conference this year, although we will still be including a remote option to accommodate those participants and presenters unable to travel to New York. Our topic this year is ASP Expanding our Reach: Are We Reaching Out and Are We Reachable?

 

Description: In order to adjust to the ever-changing needs of our students, it’s imperative we do a yearly audit of our messaging and our services to our students. So, this year, let’s get together (in person!!!) to discuss ways we can ensure we are reaching out to all of our students consistently and make sure we are accessible to them.

 

We welcome a broad range of proposals –from presenters in the Northeast region and beyond –and at various stages of completion –from idea to fruition. Please note that we may ask you to co-present with other ASP colleagues depending on the number of proposals selected. Our conference will be in-person on the Pace Law campus in White Plains, NY; however, we will have a Zoom option and will consider proposals from both in-person and remote attendees. If you wish to present, the proposal process is as follows:

 

1. Submit your proposal by October 27, 2023, via email to Danielle Kocal at [email protected]
2. Proposals may be submitted as a Word document or as a PDF
3. Proposals must include the following:
4. Name and title of presenter
   b. Law School
   c. Address, email address, and telephone number for presenter
   d. Title
   e. If a scholarly work in progress, an abstract no more than 500 words
5. Whether you will be attending in-person or remotely
   g. Media or computer presentation needs
6. As noted above, proposals are due on October 27, 2023. The NECASP Board will review the proposals and reply to each by November 17, 2023.
   
   
   

If you have any questions about your proposal, please do not hesitate to contact one of us, and we look forward to seeing you at our conference!

 

Information such as hotel blocks and zoom links will be forthcoming. As always, there is no fee to attend this conference.

 

 

 

 

 

2023-24 NECASP Board Members

 

Chair:   Danielle Kocal, Director of Academic Success The Elizabeth Haub School of Law / Pace University, [email protected]

Vice Chair:   Erica Sylvia, Assistant Director of Bar Success & Adjunct Professor of LawUniversity of Massachusetts School of Law, [email protected]

Treasurer:   Stephen Iannacone, Director of Academic Success, Cardozo Law, [email protected]

Secretary:   Elizabeth Stillman, Associate Professor of Academic Support, Suffolk University, [email protected] 

 

 

 

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

AASE Must Have Materials

I was extremely grateful to see everyone at AASE.  It was my first conference since 2020, and I had a blast.  I learned so much from the presenters, so if you couldn't make it, I wanted to pass along quick synopsis of presentations to go grab the materials.  Before I make my list, I will apologize to those not on the list.  There were great presentations not on my list that I didn't see (others may blog about those).

 - Bridging the Gap by Tina Benigno, Melissa Hale, and Toni Miceli - They did a great job explaining a few different ways to conduct a pre-matriculation program.  Tina and Toni have a great program.  The information on how they did it is useful.

- 10 Tools for Academic and Bar Success Educators by Erin Crist, Debbie Shapiro, and Dawn Young - I loved this presentation because they reminded me of the different ways to help students learn material.  They demonstrated 10 teaching techniques.  Many people, or at least me, tend to use techniques that work for them.  I know I use one of the techniques on their list nearly every class because I like it.  This made me think of other ways to teach similar concepts but with a different technique to reach different students.  Their handout was really good.

- Measuring Hope by Paula Manning - Watch her SSRN page for an upcoming article about hope.  She argues that many of the concepts we teach (Growth Mindset, Self-Regulated Learning, etc.) have hope as an underlying theme.  She used a specific academic definition of hope and showed how it could impact our students.  

- Consciousness Raising by Marta Baffy - Marta explained how using language learning techniques in law school classes could help our students understand new concepts.  Her exercises were great.

- NCBE Session - This will end up being a full blog post at a later time, but I didn't want to completely ignore it.

- Teaching Like NextGen Happened by Kris Franklin - She discussed a world where everything was awesome, and we taught students how to do lawyering tasks in all classes.  Programs used curriculum maps to support learning outcomes.  She talked about how to conduct classes with those skills, then encouraged participants to write a book to compete with hers.  I will probably just stick with trying to integrate her materials into my class.

- Outsourcing Self-Regulation by Marsha Griggs - Watch her SSRN page for an interesting article that argues the judiciary is outsourcing the regulation process when courts rely so heavily on an outside agency to license attorneys.

- From Mayhem to Magic by Ellen Douglas and Kristin Lasker - They demonstrated a great tool for departments to use to collaborate on projects.  Their powerpoint information will be good if you are looking for better organization and project management.

- MBE Analysis by Scott Johns and Ashley Cetnar - They did an interesting experiment with two different ways to approach MBE questions.  One side of the room only had the call of the question and answer choices, and the other side only had the facts with the call of the question without answer choices.  It seemed both sides did equally well answering the question.  

- Ludic Pedagogy by Bryce Woolley - Bryce discussed Ludic pedagogy (which is similar to games in the classroom), then he demonstrated how he used a branching program to create a choose your own adventure game for a bar exam question.  This would take significant time, but the resource looked engaging.

I could not attend everything, but I loved everything I attended.  When the materials are on the AASE website, I highly suggest going through all of them.  I can't wait until next year (with potentially more potato stress balls).

(Steven Foster)

Best Practitioners

Greetings from Santa Clara, California, and 10th Annual AASE conference! The sun is shining, and it is amazing to see everyone-the people I have missed in our pandemic years as well as people I had not met in person before today (like the amazing editor of this blog, Steven Foster!)

Here are the things I've learned so far (today was the day for "newbies" to learn the ins and outs of Academic Support):

1. There are palm trees here-but they are not indigenous to this area. But they are so pretty swaying in the wind. I know they'd not survive a New England winter, but I wouldn't mind giving a try....
2. ASP People are the best people-actually, I already knew that, but proof of this fact was undeniable today. We are the kindest, most generous, and collegial academics out there. And if you argue with me about that, I'll most likely ask you for your sources and then have you frame a counterargument because that is what we do, but I won't be thrilled about it.
3. Although I am far from a newbie, I was bolstered by listening to the most respected folks I know tell me what their process is, and even more exciting: it is my process too!!! Which is not to say I didn't learn amazing new things, but I am so happy I am engaging in best practices. Phew!
4. We are doing world class scholarship and lifting each other up with it. This is wonderful!!
5. I cannot wait to see what else (and who else!) I will encounter tomorrow.

I am looking forward to spending more time learning from, as well as hanging and laughing with the amazing community. We value each other when we aren't universally valued in other realms. we are family.

(Liz Stillman)