AccessLex Resource Collections (AccessLex Institute)
Not a member yet
537 research outputs found
Sort by
Research Note: Using Experiential Learning in a Pipeline to Careers in Law Program for First-Generation University Women
No full textDiversity pipeline programs are not addressing hidden obstacles to student success such as feelings of isolation and fear of success. DiMola & Lowe describe a pipeline program with three unique features; catering solely to women, examining multiple legal career pathways outside of law school, and is provided by a liberal arts school instead of a law school. The researchers asked the question ‘can pipelines to law schools programs be more effective by adapting the best practices, identified for pipeline to legal profession programs, into an experiential learning format?’ They concluded that the best practices for a pipeline included both academic skill building and mentoring, networking, and financial literacy
IILP Review 2017: The State of Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Profession
No full textThe IILP Review features the most current data about the state of diversity in the legal profession. The Review features compelling essays that explore the nuances and important subtleties at play in regard to diversity and inclusion for lawyers, along with current research from academic experts. As such, the Review brings together insights on programs and strategies to address diversity generally and in regard to the different challenges that different people face in reaching the law.
The depth and breadth of diversity and inclusion efforts makes it hard to keep abreast of the most current information about our progress or lack thereof. Furthermore, as notions of diversity and inclusion have expanded and evolved, it’s even more difficult to stay current with the latest thinking. The IILP Review: The State of Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Profession addresses that challenge by making information about diversity and inclusion more readily and easily accessible
Net Tuition Trends by LSAT Category from 2010 to 2014 with Thoughts on Variable Return on Investment
No full textThe “macro” discussion of legal education highlights that law school is expensive. This general point fails to highlight the extent to which differences exist at a “micro” level due both to geography and LSAT profile. First, some regions of the country are more expensive than others. Second, where one is on the LSAT distribution profile influences the average net tuition because of scholarship patterns associated with institutional efforts to preserve or improve ranking. As a result, law school is not equally expensive across the entire LSAT distribution. This article begins in Section I by briefly summarizing the geographic differences in tuition, which are not insignificant. Then, in Section II, this article briefly describes a dynamic net tuition model I developed for calculating net tuition trends by LSAT category and describes the results of that dynamic net tuition model. The results demonstrate that the variability of average net tuition by LSAT category increased significantly between 2010 and 2014 after accounting for inflation, with two LSAT categories seeing increases of 9.1% and 11.9% and four seeing decreases ranging from 2.8% to 13%. Section III looks at various outcome measures—specifically, bar passage rates, “bad news” employment outcomes, and imputed average first-year income—and demonstrates that, on average, the short-term return on investment varies significantly depending upon where someone is in the LSAT distribution. Section IV concludes with some thoughts on what this might mean for prospective law students and for law schools
They\u27re Digging in the Wrong Place : How Learning Outcomes Can Improve Bar Exams and Ensure Practice Ready Attorneys
No full textThere is no question that law schools should produce professional, ethical new attorneys who have the skills, knowledge and attributes to be competent and responsible members of their new profession, and pass the bar exam. However, as it currently stands, these two goals — everyday practical lawyer skills training, and bar exam passage — have become so divided, that many law schools are being pulled in a no-win tug of war between preparing students for practice or for a memorization, doctrinal heavy exam. This conflict must stop.
The title of this piece was meant to evoke a plot point from the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. At one particular point, both our hero and another group are both searching for the Ark of the Covenant. Although the other group has an extremely technically well-organized archeological site, it is determined by our hero that because they are missing a key piece of information, they are in fact “digging in the wrong place.” Although there are no heroes or bad guys in this scenario, in many states, the administration of the bar exam is experiencing the same problem. In seeking to determine minimum competency to practice law, they may be technically testing in a well-organized fashion, but they are ignoring important outside information that would have them testing differently to find out more or different information that would be a better measure of competency for new attorneys. The bar exam is simply “digging” for competency in the wrong place.
At the same time, the chorus of voices demanding that law schools make necessary steps in the reformation of legal education has risen to a fever pitch. Much has been written about the stagnancy in legal education, and despite some recent innovations, many law school experiences remain strikingly similar to both each other and the course of study as it has existed for many years. However, it is well accepted that the legal profession has changed dramatically, both in the practice, and the level of training practicing lawyers can give their new hires. The result is that although law schools are “part of a vertically integrated system of production in which the end product is lawyers,” this system is suffering a major disconnect in the pipeline. Law schools seem poised to change, but many are hampered in their efforts by the licensing exam itself. But through change and cooperation, we can fix this disconnect.
This article argues for an alignment of the bar exam with the needs of the legal profession, using learning outcomes as a tool to include all the skills, knowledge and attributes of a professional, successful new attorney in cooperation with assessment by law schools. Part II gives an overview of the bar exam nationally. Part III discusses legal education, and why the bar exam is misaligned with it. Part IV discusses learning outcomes, and offers them as a solution to better align legal education, the bar exam, and the practice of law to allow new lawyers to be truly competent. Part V concludes the work
Bar Exam Scores and Lawyer Discipline
No full textRobert Anderson and Derek Muller have posted a provocative paper, The High Cost of Lowering the Bar, in which they argue that “bar exam score is significantly related to likelihood of State Bar discipline throughout a lawyer’s career.” Thus, they warn, “lowering the bar examination passing score,” as several California law deans have advocated, “will likely increase the amount of malpractice, misconduct, and discipline among California lawyers.”
Anderson and Muller urge the state bar to collect more detailed data on the relationship between bar scores and lawyer discipline–and then to consider the possible impact on attorney misconduct if the Supreme Court lowers the passing score. “The data we have collected,” they conclude, “should raise serious concerns about the effect on consumers of lowering the passing score.”
What type of correlation did Anderson and Muller identify? Should it affect decisions about the passing score for the bar exam? Let’s take a closer look
Bridging the Reading Gap in the Law School Classroom
No full textMany students struggle in law school, particularly in the first year, because they are weak readers. They do not know how to read text closely and have limited practice in reading complex or lengthy pieces of writing. Nor are they accustomed to reading works that demand deep thinking and reflection.
Yet legal analysis and writing depends on a careful reading and thoughtful understanding of the authority on which a lawyer relies. Without strong reading and critical thinking skills, it is no surprise that incoming law students have difficulty following a structured analysis and mastering legal writing. As the gap between what entering law students know and what legal educators expect them to know widens, it’s time to further study the sources of the problem and adjust not only teaching expectations but also the manner in which professors teach.
To that end, this article explores ways to close the gap in the reading skills of entering law students so that they can develop the competencies in legal reading, analysis, and writing required to excel in law school. The “underprepared law student”, a term commonly used to describe today’s law student, has many attributes that need attention. But this article focuses solely on the student’s reading ability because it is the foundation to building competency in all other areas. Law students need to be able to read legal text in order to understand rules, explain legal principles, identify issues, solve legal problems, and advocate persuasively. Without a strong basis in reading, a law student’s success in all of these tasks is compromised.
Though there are a unique group of forces that might contribute to the underprepared law student, this article concentrates on two sources specifically: (1) the student’s prior educational experience and (2) the student’s relationship with technology. Thus, the article first discusses how students are learning in their undergraduate studies and how technology has transformed the reading experience for many. It also describes the characteristics of a typically underprepared law student. Next, it explores the implications a student’s unpreparedness has on his or her ability to succeed in law school. Finally, it suggests ways to better prepare students so that they develop into strong readers and critical thinkers. Specifically, it proposes that professors use more guided reading exercises to ensure that students master these skills, which are so critical to not only performing in law school, but also to becoming practice-ready attorneys. Thus, by demonstrating for students how expert legal readers read, professors can help tremendously in closing the reading gap for beginning law students
Helicopter Professors
No full textHelicopter professors, like their parenting counterparts, hover over students, guiding them precisely, and swooping in to rescue them from any hint of failure or challenge. Just as helicopter parenting can be harmful to children, helicopter professoring poses similar threats to students, not the least of which is creating disengaged students dependent on professors for all aspects of their learning and development.
The instinct to be a helicopter professor is understandable in light of several social and cultural circumstances of today’s legal education. First, law students today are largely Millennials who were helicoptered parented and educated in a system that often focused solely on test results. Second, law professors are at times overly focused are garnering positive student evaluation scores, which may be easier to do with a little extra spoon feeding. Professors too may themselves be helicopter parents in their non-work hours, a behavioral pattern that too easily can infiltrate the classroom. Finally, law schools today are seeing a rise in students that have a consumerist attitude and in some cases lower academic credentials; those types of students expect and perhaps need additional assistance. But satisfying that need, combined with the focus on quantifying assessment practices and on improving teaching techniques, may easily cross the line into helicopter behavior.
This Article, after detailing the factors that contribute to the helicopter professoring phenomenon, provides a theoretical framework for understanding helicoptering behavior as well as guidance for avoiding the negative manifestations of such behavior. Looking to parenting literature and advice rendered about how to not be a helicopter parent, this Article outlines a teaching style to help professors be responsive to students’ needs, maintain high expectations of their students, and yet avoid the harmful helicoptering behavior that can stunt individual learning and development. Offering practical suggestions and also ways to navigate the contemporary law school environment, this Article seeks to encourage professors to be authoritative educators who help develop internally-motivated learners who become successful, self-sufficient attorneys
Can Socioeconomic Status Substitute for Race in Affirmative Action College Admissions Policies? Evidence from a Simulation Model
No full textThis paper simulates a system of socioeconomic status (SES)−based affirmative action in college admissions and examines the extent to which it can produce racial diversity in selective colleges. Using simulation models, we investigate the potential relative effects of race- and/or SES-based affirmative action policies, alongside targeted, race-based recruitment, on the racial and socioeconomic distribution of students in colleges. These simulations suggest three important patterns: (1) neither SES-based affirmative action nor race recruiting policies on their own can reproduce levels of racial diversity achieved by race-based affirmative action; however, SES-based affirmative action in combination with targeted recruitment, although likely expensive, shows the potential to yield racial diversity levels comparable to race-based affirmative action; (b) the use of affirmative action policies by some colleges reduces the diversity of similar-quality colleges that do not have such policies; (c) overall, the combination of SES-based affirmative action and race recruiting results in slightly fewer Black and Hispanic students that are academically overmatched than under race-based affirmative action, but the schools that use the combination policy also see an overall reduction in the academic achievement of the students they enroll
Net Tuition Trends by LSAT Category from 2010 to 2014 with Thoughts on Variable Return on Investment
No full textThe “macro” discussion of legal education highlights that law school is expensive. This general point fails to highlight the extent to which differences exist at a “micro” level due both to geography and LSAT profile. First, some regions of the country are more expensive than others. Second, where one is on the LSAT distribution profile influences the average net tuition because of scholarship patterns associated with institutional efforts to preserve or improve ranking. As a result, law school is not equally expensive across the entire LSAT distribution. This article begins in Section I by briefly summarizing the geographic differences in tuition, which are not insignificant. Then, in Section II, this article briefly describes a dynamic net tuition model I developed for calculating net tuition trends by LSAT category and describes the results of that dynamic net tuition model. The results demonstrate that the variability of average net tuition by LSAT category increased significantly between 2010 and 2014 after accounting for inflation, with two LSAT categories seeing increases of 9.1% and 11.9% and four seeing decreases ranging from 2.8% to 13%. Section III looks at various outcome measures—specifically, bar passage rates, “bad news” employment outcomes, and imputed average first-year income—and demonstrates that, on average, the short-term return on investment varies significantly depending upon where someone is in the LSAT distribution. Section IV concludes with some thoughts on what this might mean for prospective law students and for law school
An Empirical Examination of the Bennett Hypothesis in Law School Prices
No full textWhether colleges increase tuition in response to increased federal student loan limits (the Bennett Hypothesis) has been a topic of debate in the higher education community for decades, yet most studies have been based on small increases to Pell Grant or undergraduate student loan limits. In this paper, I leverage a large increase in Grad PLUS loan limits that took place in 2006 to examine whether law schools responded by raising tuition or other living expenses and whether student debt levels also increased. Using data from 2001 to 2015 across public and private law schools and both interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analytical techniques, I found rather modest relationships across both public and private law schools. I conclude with some possible explanations for the lack of strong empirical support for the Bennett Hypothesis