Harvard Law’s Curricular Reform: 3 Years In

Posted on December 8, 2011 by Howard Katz

This was recently posted on PrawfsBlog by Glen Cohen.

Several years ago, under the stewardship of then-dean Kagan and then-professor-now-dean Minow, Harvard Law School made a significant change to its first year curriculum. Different portions were phased in at different times, but this will be the third full year of it all being in place, so I thought it would be a good opportunity to discuss the reforms. Unlike the Langdellian Socratic method that was also started at Harvard, I have seen less copying of our reforms. That may be that others do not think it a good idea, but I suspect it is more to do with the fact that this was a resource intensive change (adding an additional 21 professors needed to teach 1Ls) that was implemented at a moment where most schools are facing economic woes.

Here is the reform in a nutshell:

The typical Harvard 1st year courses (Civ Pro, Contracts, Torts, Property, Criminal Law) were all dropped from 5 credit hours a week to 4 credit hours.  An additional 4-credit class entitled “Legislation and Regulation,” which largely combines a course in legislation/statutory interpretation with parts of administrative law was added.  In addition, a 4-credit international/comparative law elective was required and added to the first year curriculum. Students choose from a menu of seven classes for 1Ls with foci such as private international, public international law, international humanitarian law, an comparative law (China, for example).  Last, and most recently, we moved our finals into the fall and now give the 1Ls a winter (or J-) term class called “Problem Solving Workshop,” which is taught intensively over 13 week days. Each day the students are given a problem, and in small groups have a day or two to solve it and submit work product as a group. While some of the problems are focused on litigation, others are things like dealing with public relations and media, negotiating, and other skills. The next day the students re-assemble, debrief and consider how different groups dealt with the problem, and start a new problem. The course is pass/fail. Once in the middle of the class and once at the end the students meet with practicing lawyers to test their proposed solutions against the practical realities as the lawyers see it.

Students also take a regular elective in the spring.

Here is my internal sense of how these have been received, but one reason why I want to post about it is to get feedback from those of you in the world out there who have seen our students under the new curriculum and their performance.

Click here for the rest of the article.

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques, First Year Law School Innovations, Related Blogs | Comments Off on Harvard Law’s Curricular Reform: 3 Years In

Occupy Law School

Posted on November 20, 2011 by vmerton

What Law Schools Don’t Teach Law Students: Lawyering

Nothing new.  Simple truths:

““The fundamental issue is that law schools are producing people who are not capable of being counselors,” . . .  “They are lawyers in the sense that they have law degrees, but they aren’t ready to be a provider of services.” ”

“Law schools . . . have added or expanded programs that provide practical training through legal clinics.  But almost all the cachet in legal academia goes to professors who produce law review articles, which gobble up huge amounts of time and tuition money.  The essential how-tos of daily practice are a subject that many in the faculty know nothing about — by design.  One 2010 study of hiring at top-tier law schools since 2000 found that the median amount of practical experience was one year, and that nearly half of faculty members had never practiced law for a single day.  If medical schools took the same approach, they’d be filled with professors who had never set foot in a hospital.”

” . . . there are few incentives for law professors to excel at teaching.  It might earn them the admiration of students, but it won’t win them any professional goodies, like tenure, a higher salary, prestige or competing offers from better schools.  For those, a professor must publish law review articles, the ticket to punch for any upwardly mobile scholar. ”

And of course not only is there a lack of incentives, there are numerous disincentives, for law faculty to engage in the more theoretical forms of teaching, such as curricular design and developing effective means of assessment that measure actual learning of professional competences.

So.  The emperors stand arrayed in all their naked glory on the front page of the New York Times, in what seems to have become almost a regular ritual of rather harsh exposure of their, ahem, shortcomings.

Will a single hiring decision, of the hundreds about to unfurl at this very moment in law schools across the country, change in the slightest?

Will a single prospective student in the process of deciding where to apply, modify his or her list of law schools one iota?

Will a single accreditation or government funding decision be even faintly affected ?

And, most important, will USNWR make any adjustment whatsoever to the solipsistic criteria that accord so much weight to the opinions of these very naked emperors of legal education?

No, no, no, and no — I’ll take whatever odds you’ll give.  Nothing is changing.  Not unless and until prospective law students finally realize how they are getting ripped off and stop showing up.  Which will not happen because each student is betting that she or he will land in the 1% who either does get a good education in law school — that is possible — or who despite an inadequate education, finds a meaningful and satisfying way to live and work after law school that justifies that student’s investment in law school — which is also possible, though rare.

Will the Occupy movement change the maldistribution of wealth and/or income disparities?

Will repeated denunciation of the self-serving structure of legal education transform — or even alter — that structure?

I’m not holding my breath.

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness | 3 Comments »

Why “Practice-Ready” Isn’t Enough

Posted on October 27, 2011 by Kevin Ramakrishna

The Chronicle of Higher Education posted an article this week on practice-readiness in the legal profession.  There’s More to the Law Than ‘Practice-Ready’, by Alfred S. Konefsky and Barry Sullivan, is a call for law schools to go beyond the ABA’s resolution for law school’s to produce “‘curricular programs intended to develop practice-ready lawyers.'”  The article is about taking steps past the debate between skills and doctrinal education to have a wider discussion about successfully integrating both.  Here is a piece of the article:

So “practice-readiness” is indeed an important goal of legal education—but we think that law schools owe students more than that. Successful careers begin with competent practice in the early years, but preparation for the long haul is also essential. At the very least that means acquiring an array of skills beyond those usually mentioned in connection with practice-readiness. When we look back at the changes we have personally seen in society and the world, as well as in the legal profession and in legal education, we can only begin to imagine the world in which today’s law students will finish their careers. The real task of legal education must be to prepare students, as best we can, for a lifetime of successful, ethical, and personally rewarding practice.

The article provides some nice examples of what the authors view as important to practice like the difference between civil and common law systems, or the impact of race and gender on the practice of law (incidentally, a recent article by Professor Laurie Shanks on that issue is posted on SSRN).

Give the article a read and let us know what you think!

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices & Setting Goals, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Catalysts For Change | Comments Off on Why “Practice-Ready” Isn’t Enough

Building on Best Practices: Call for Ideas and Authors

Posted on October 23, 2011 by dmaranville

The Clinical Legal Association, Best Practices Implementation Committee is planning a follow-up publication to Best Practices for Legal Education by Roy Stuckey and others.     The vision of the book is to build on ideas for implementing best practices, and to develop new theories and ideas on Best Practices for Legal Education.   If you would like to author a section in the book please let us know as soon as possible.   Then by December 1, 2011 send either of us a 3-5 page abstract identifying the knowledge, skills and values as well as the learning objectives and methodology of your innovative teaching idea.   The Editorial Board will meet at the AALS meeting in January to select pieces for inclusion in the book.

 

If you have any questions or thoughts about the project please feel free to contact either of us.

 

Looking forward to drawing  on the expertise of the legal academy to build on Best Practices for Legal Education!

 

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez ,Chair, Publication Committee

Deborah Maranville,  co-editor

 

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices & Externships, Best Practices & Setting Goals, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Diversity & Social Justice, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques, Catalysts For Change, First Year Law School Innovations, International Initiatives and Models, Teaching Methodology, Upcoming Events | 2 Comments »

What the ABA Could Do

Posted on July 24, 2011 by Margaret Moore Jackson

The ABA has responded to Senator Grassley’s request for information about law school scholarships and accreditation.  The escalation of tuition and enrollment has been under scrutiny, particularly in light of the dim employment outlook for new grads, many of whom were counting on six-figure salaries to pay off their student loans.  (I won’t link to examples of the blogs out there railing about the perceived bait-and-switch, but the bitterness is acute.)

The ABA’s position is that an accrediting agency must approve the schools that are properly educating students, regardless of whether adequate job prospects await those who join the profession.

Perhaps.  But it does seem that the ABA could better require schools to provide accurate data about post-graduate employment of recent graduates.  This has been a problem for a long time.  While some schools may be telling the story (Dean Matasar states “we explicitly tell them that most graduates find work in small to medium firms at salaries between $35,000 and $75,000”) a more specific mandate from the central accrediting agency would provide a a more accurate snapshot for all potential students.

The ABA also could circulate data about the actual conditions of the profession, countering the engrained myth that a law degree guarantees a job and an immediately high income.  Spreading the word that the majority of lawyers earn a moderate income in small or medium firms would serve the profession by better aligning expectations with reality.  Students who knew ahead of time that their best job prospect might be self-employment would approach law school a bit differently and demand correspondingly pertinent educational opportunities.

Sadly, there is no shortage of work for lawyers.  It just isn’t well-paying work.  ABA action in this area could better attract to the profession those people who are fully aware of this challenge and prepared to meet it.

 

Filed under: Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Catalysts For Change | Comments Off on What the ABA Could Do

Matasar responds to NY Times & defends Legal Ed reform

Posted on July 20, 2011 by Mary A. Lynch

I read the NY Times article and was not impressed. Where was the analysis of what makes a good lawyer? Where was the focus on what society needs lawyers to be? Media focus on the cost and problems with current legal education has been an important part of the reform mvmnt. However, the media has been beating that drum – as has this Blog – for several years now. It’s time for a more nuanced analysis and a focus on problem solving. I also was sorry to see the Times lack of insight into it’s own elitism. It’s myopic focus on Big Law is understandable given its NYC base but unforgiveable in addressing the future of the legal profession and Legal Ed.
Although I have disagreed with Matasar on policy issues, I do believe he has a sincere devotion to law students and post his response here:

http://www.nyls.edu/news_and_events/matasars_response_to_nytimes

Filed under: Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness | Comments Off on Matasar responds to NY Times & defends Legal Ed reform

Law School Economics: Ka-Ching! from today’s Times

Posted on July 17, 2011 by vmerton

Condolences to the folks at NYLS . . .although this is more about the soon-to-depart Dean than the law school . . . nothing really new here except maybe the focus on Richard Matasar’s business interests and the incongruity of his actual policies with his frequent and fervent critiques of legal education . . . surprising this is considered newsworthy, really.

Filed under: Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Law School Economics: Ka-Ching! from today’s Times

Talk about multi-competency assessment of professional qualifications . . . medical schools way ahead of us, again

Posted on July 12, 2011 by vmerton

Worth checking out:  “New for Aspiring Doctors, the People Skills Test“.   Eight US and 13 Canadian medical schools, including Stanford and UCLA, have adopted the “multiple mini interview,” or M.M.I.  This technique seeks to “test” medical school applicants for ethical and problem-solving acumen and even more importantly, ability to collaborate.   The schools invite applicants to engage in an admissions equivalent of speed-dating: a series of nine brief interviews that require them to demonstrate whether they have the social skills to navigate a health care system in which quality communication has become critical.   The interviewers are trained health care providers and community members who meet briefly with and assess certain attributes of the applicants.

On a Saturday, candidates for admission stand opposite a number of small rooms.  When a bell sounds, the applicants read a sheet of paper taped to each door that describes an ethical problem.  Two minutes later, the bell sounds again and the applicants rush into the rooms to find waiting interviewers.  The candidates have eight minutes to discuss that room’s situation.  Then the bell rings again and they move to the next room, the next surprise issue, and the next interviewer.  Interviewers score each applicant with a number and sometimes a brief note.

“[A]dministrators said they created questions that assessed how well candidates think on their feet and how willing they are to work in teams.  The most important part of the interviews are often not candidates’ initial responses — there are no right or wrong answers — but how well they respond when someone disagrees with them, something that happens when working in teams.  Candidates who jump to improper conclusions, fail to listen or are overly opinionated fare poorly because such behavior undermines teams.  Those who respond appropriately to the emotional tenor of the interviewer or ask for more information do well in the new admissions process because such tendencies are helpful not only with colleagues but also with patients.  ‘We are trying to weed out the students who look great on paper but haven’t developed the people or communication skills we think are important. . . .’  A survey by the Joint Commission, a hospital accreditation group, found communication woes to be among the leading causes of medical errors, which cause as many as 98,000 deaths each year. ”

“The system grew out of research that found that interviewers rarely change their scores after the first five minutes, that using multiple interviewers removes random bias, and that situational interviews rather than personal ones are more likely to reveal character flaws,” said Dr. Harold Reiter, the professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who developed the system.  “In fact, candidate scores on multiple mini interviews have proved highly predictive of scores on medical licensing exams three to five years later that test doctors’ decision-making, patient interactions and cultural competency,” Dr. Reiter said.

Most law schools have eliminated admissions interviews, even by alums, or very rarely use them, I believe.  I’ve heard it said that law schools have no resources for such a time-consuming process.  It seems more than a little bizarre that law school  faculty refuse to devote substantial time to the recruitment and selection of their incoming students — what, exactly, is more important for and predictive of the law school’s success? — but now the medical schools appear to have made it feasible to meaningfully augment the admissions process without the participation of large numbers of faculty and staff.   We could imagine refinements of this method that would similarly ask law school applicants to show us, rather than tell us about, their approaches to communication, collaboration, and problem-solving.  In an era when some law schools like to claim that, despite the US News pressures,  the LSAT and GPA are not the sole determinants  of readiness for the legal profession, here is an opportunity to objectively and systematically incorporate other attributes into the admissions rubric.  Are any law schools already on board?

Filed under: Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques | 2 Comments »

Building on Best Practices–Call for Ideas and Authors

Posted on June 17, 2011 by Antoinette Sedillo Lopez

The Clinical Legal Association Best Practices Implementation Committee is planning a follow-up publication to Best Practices for Legal Education by Roy Stuckey and others. The vision of the book is to build on ideas for implementing best practices, and to develop new theories and ideas on Best Practices for Legal Education. We would like to call for topic suggestions and author abstracts. If you are interested in submitting a topic suggestions, please do so by August 1 by emailing Antoinette Sedillo Lopez at lopez@law.unm.edu with the topic idea and potential authors and resources relating to the idea. If you would like to author a section in the book and 3-5 page abstract identifying the knowledge, skills and values as well as the learning objectives and methodology of your innovative teaching idea. The abstract is due December 1, 2011. The Editorial Board will meet at the AALS meeting in January to select pieces for inclusion in the book.
If you have any questions or thoughts about the project please feel free to contact me or Deborah Maranville, co-editor.
Looking forward to drawing on the expertise of the legal academy to build on Best Practices for Legal Education! Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, Chair, Publication Committee

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices & Externships, Best Practices & Setting Goals, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Diversity & Social Justice, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques, Catalysts For Change, First Year Law School Innovations, International Initiatives and Models, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Building on Best Practices–Call for Ideas and Authors

Just Imagine if You Were Trying to Get a Job as a Law School Teacher . . .

Posted on December 13, 2010 by vmerton

How would you prepare: 1) for the hiring process; and 2) for performing the job if hired?

Imagine, too, that your training and professional experience was as a lawyer: a professional problem-solver who depends on comprehensive, up-to-date research to become thoroughly familiar with the doctrinal and conceptual framework of any legal question you confront.

It’s that time of year again.  A succession of brilliant, credentialed, eager and charming faculty candidates, mostly young, are making their way through the process, culminating in the full day of small group interviews and the all-important “job talk,” rich with graphic slides and witty asides.  An enormous amount of time, on the part of both faculty and candidates, and not a small amount of money, are dedicated to this exercise.  And of course, the results matter profoundly to the schools’ future students and those students’ future clients.

Every candidate is poised and ready for the inevitable inquiry about his or her “scholarly agenda.”  All are well-versed about the “best” journals, how to entice student editors to bite, and which are the most strategically advantageous conferences and symposia to appear at.  They have assembled posses of high-profile mentors to whom they can direct the acknowledgments on their first pages.  As many have noted, it has become all but impossible for a mere lawyer, however accomplished and insightful, to be taken seriously as a faculty candidate unless s/he has already published a few major law review articles, and can convincingly describe a planned research trajectory of unremitting erudition and sophistication, emphatically not focused on problems in legal practice.  Especially in this market of shrinking firms, starving government, and defunded public interest, it is no wonder that law schools seem able to raise the bar for admission to the august ranks of academe higher, higher, and ever higher.

But exclusively, it seems, in terms of demonstrated capacity and hunger for the scholarly side of the professorial role.

How many of these candidates have significant teaching experience?  If they do, how many – unless being considered for a “special” slot — have taught anything other than a nonexperiential “podium” course or a specialized seminar as part of an LL.M.?

It’s one thing if a candidate has tried but never managed to land an opportunity to teach in any context, but does anyone on the Appointments Committee even ask whether, when, and how the candidate has decided that s/he wants to teach law students and prepare them for the effective and responsible practice of law?  Whether s/he has ever developed and submitted a course proposal or applied to work as an adjunct – and if not, why?  Ever been invited or sought to participate in a CLE program or a program for would-be pro bono lawyers?  Sure, rarely a candidate is asked to articulate his or her “teaching philosophy,” but no eyebrow is raised when the response is a vague or frankly vapid bromide about “varying the Socratic method with a few problems” or “I try to reach everyone in the class.” No specifics about the techniques to achieve these goals is proffered or expected.  The best-received answer often seems to be, “Well, I really try to involve students in my scholarship as much as I can.”

Certainly the candidates are right on top of “hot topics” in legal scholarship – many have already attended Law and Society conferences, frequent the most esoteric blogs, and can’t wait to start trading downloads and citations so they can ascend to an SSRN Top 10.  Wouldn’t you think, if you were being recruited for a position that ostensibly involves spending something like half your work-week as a teacher, that you’d also read some background material about the enterprise of legal/professional education?  Its history, its structure, its current issues?  And if you had, wouldn’t you want to demonstrate your solid grasp of these “hot topics”?  I have yet to hear a candidate express any familiarity with Best Practices for Legal Education (either the book or this blog), the Carnegie Report [Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law], The Law Teacher or its publisher the Institute for Law Teaching and Learning, the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (LSSSE), or even the MacCrate Report, let alone more esoteric subjects such as the ABA Curriculum Survey, now in the midst of update, or the proposed ABA standard on  outcomes assessment.  If a candidate is asked about some aspect of educational affairs during a group interview, faculty colleagues tend to react with dismay, casting displeased glances at the disruptive interrogator.

Yes, it’s true that the Appointments Committee will generally request the candidate’s teaching evaluations (the limitations of which deserve and have elsewhere received ample attention), syllabi, and classroom PowerPoints if available, but how often do those become the focus of discussion with the candidate or within the Committee?  Every publication of a candidate is scrutinized, but virtually never does a Committee seek arguably more illuminating embodiments of teaching prowess, such as examples of feedback on student essays and papers, grading rubrics, sample exams and “model answers”, evaluation or critique of student performance of lawyering tasks, or other assessment tools and supplemental course materials.  I have not yet had a chance to check out any of the official handbooks for candidates, such as Becoming a Law Professor: A Candidate’s Guide, by Brannon P. Denning, Marcia L. McCormick and Jeff M. Lipshaw, but I will be happily surprised if they suggest that candidates need assemble teaching portfolios of any significance.

Years ago, as an appointments committee chair, I added a step to the process: each called-back candidate not only gave a job talk, but taught a “class” the same day.  (No doubt others have made similar forays, I just don’t know of them).  To standardize, the assigned material was the same for all: a PR casebook excerpt on Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) and related items on the allocation of decision-making authority between lawyer and client.  Any member of a law faculty should be equipped to teach a class in basic, non-technical legal ethics, right?  And while it lasted, no candidate ever complained or protested and most managed to deliver a respectable class that was at least as instructive to the observing faculty (who could also watch a video) and to the student volunteers, who had prepared just as they would for any class.  The students also provided verbal and written feedback to the Committee –- and, if the candidate asked, to the candidate too.  Most impressive to me, naturally, were the candidates who not only solicited comments about their teaching from students and faculty, but wanted a copy of the video.

Limited in scope as it was, there is much one could say about the value of incorporating such an element into the appointments process: the message it conveyed to our students, who felt they were contributing a unique and useful perspective and having a meaningful say; the message conveyed to candidates about the importance attached to quality teaching at this institution, which helped establish whether there was a “good fit”; the substantive discussions about what constitutes good, better or best teaching practices that were precipitated among our faculty as we debated candidates; and the fact that many a candidate became entranced with our students, candidly confessing that they were far more impressive than anticipated -– a strong selling point for the Law School.  (No, the students were not randomly chosen).

But, this experiment, which I guess is what it was, did not long survive changes in committee membership, the faculty, dean, president, and zeitgeist. I mention it, I guess, only to say: it is possible.

Clearly, this post will be labeled the lament of a malcontent.  I am not deluded that it will spark changes in the operation of either side of the meat market.  Candidates, like all evolutionarily successful species, whatever their private predilections, will continue to display aggressively the characteristics most attractive to their quarry, law school appointments committees — up to and including bound feet and peacock tails.  Those committees, in turn, will continue to do the bidding of faculty and administrators starved for the validation and other benefits associated with scrambling even a step or two up the almighty USNWR ranking.  Law school faculties will include ever fewer members expert in and enthusiastic about the professional art, science, and literature of teaching.

In related news, Stanford Law School has jubilantly announced that it has secured something under a million dollars to spend on a massive, long-term, multifaceted research study “to describe and understand the state of the profession, including trends and emerging developments.” “The study will seek to develop policy recommendations to help law firms adapt their business models to better meet the needs of their clients and of a rapidly changing legal market.  It will also consider the implications of these changes for legal education.”

The press release insists that the profession is undergoing transformative change. “On the surface, things look relatively unchanged . . . but firms employ thousands rather than hundreds of lawyers, with offices around the world and dramatically different partner/associate ratios. Hourly rates have soared, while clients are less willing to underwrite the training of new associates.  Legal work has become increasingly specialized because clients have more sophisticated needs and expectations, and technology and globalization have only exacerbated these trends. The demand for profitability at firms has increased the need to bill hours and this pressure-cooker environment has caused associates to hopscotch among firms.”

Conspicuously absent in the entire long project description is any mention of: the frighteningly pervasive and growing lack of lawyers for the poor, the working-class, the middle-class, and almost anyone else but the very comfortable, with concomitant deep discouragement of law graduates who wish to undertake this work; the widespread incompetence and ignorance of lawyers about basic legal tasks, including decent legal research and problem-solving, and basic responsibilities to clients; the failures of the fundamental licensing, assessment, malpractice, and disciplinary institutions of the profession; or any of the myriad other problematic aspects of our profession that are not the concern of the wealthy and the powerful.

California is a house burning down, or maybe a fireworks factory exploding, in terms of the paucity of services, assistance, and enforcement of civil and legal rights for its poor and middle-class.  It is hard not to think about what close to a million dollars in the hands of its estimable and frugal legal services organizations –- CRLA (California Rural Legal Assistance), the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, etc. — would have meant in terms of, say, halting unlawful foreclosures that rob people of their property, their retirement security, their children’s inheritances and education funding, in a very real sense, their lives. That need is immense, and it is now.

I daresay copious articles will be the fruit of this generous grant, perhaps a book or two.

I don’t know what else to say. Except that working for genuine change in legal education bears painful resemblance to being an Obama supporter.  Which leads  (in my mind, anyway) full circle to: Obama’s Treasury Secretary won’t authorize allocation of a small fraction of TARP funds intended to help the “hardest hit” communities to legal services organizations representing homeowners fighting foreclosure.  Billions to bail out monster banks who can spend it on whatever — not a penny for legal aid. See “Treasury Blocks Legal Aid for Homeowners Facing Foreclosure,” by Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation.  Priorities.  Priorities, most of all your priorities in choosing who will execute your mission, tell you everything there really is to know about the nature of your enterprise.

Vanessa Merton

Filed under: Best Practices & Setting Goals, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Catalysts For Change | 1 Comment »

Integrating Internet-Based and Teleconferencing Resources into On-Line Teaching

Posted on February 8, 2010 by Patricia Salkin

Note: This is a continuing weblog describing my experiences teaching an on-line course in government ethics.

The on-line government ethics course this semester has already benefitted from a number of internet-based resources as well as teleconferencing.  With one of my early organizing goals to keep the “virtual class” as interactive as possible through the use of discussion boards and wikis available on TWEN, I also looked to see what other resources might be available on the Internet. To my surprise, there were a number of opportunities to integrate interactive ethics training into the course. 

For example, most state ethics agencies now offer on-line training for covered employees.  I contacted the NYS Commission on Public Integrity and they were agreeable to providing each of the students in the course with a user ID and password to enable students to take the Commission’s on-line training based on the ethics laws in New York.  This training was a wonderful introduction for the students to the types of issues typically covered in an ethics regulatory regime.  Another aspect of this on-line training was that at the end of each topical interval there was a quiz for participants to complete.  The entire training could take anywhere from 45 minutes to two hours to complete, depending upon whether users go straight through the course, or take the opportunity to click on links to actual statutes, regulations and opinions that go into further detail on the particular subject matter being discussed.  I asked the students to evaluate this training experience when they concluded the program. Their reactions were interesting.  Almost everyone commented that the training was beneficial and a good introduction for government employees about the law.  Many students commented that they thought this on-line training was too basic, yet, a number of these students also admitted that they were surprised to have gotten a lot of the quiz questions wrong.  From this, several students observed how nuanced government ethics laws really are, and that the appropriate course of action when it comes to ethics is not always so obvious. This was an excellent teaching opportunity to point out how even people who are “trained” in the law can make mistakes, how individuals may not fully understand the application of the law to their actions, and why it is important to carefully read the statutes and regulations and to critically analyze the facts and the law. 

Early in the semester we studied the difficulties surrounding the question of attorney-client privilege in the government context.  As luck would have it, ALI-ABA was promoting a one-hour practitioner-oriented teleconference on the attorney-client privilege.  Although this was not focused exclusively on government law practice, I thought it would be a good opportunity for the students to get a fuller understanding of the practical issues involved in application of the privilege.  Perhaps because I frequently volunteer to teach ALI-ABA courses, I asked and was given permission for my students to participate in the course at no charge.  ALI-ABA sent each student a password to access the lunch-time program.  While many students commented that they wished the program had focused on the privilege in the government context, a lot of students wrote in their program evaluation to me that the course was interesting and they reflected on how it related to both what we studied in government ethics and what they discussed in their professional responsibility and evidence classes.  This proved to be another good experience and opportunity to weave together ethics and professionalism and evidence along the continuum of the overall law school educational experience. It was practice oriented and it also covered doctrinal subject matter tested on the bar exam.

Lastly, for fun, the federal Office of Government Ethics (OGE) offers interactive games to reinforce serious ethics subject matter.  I provided students a link in the weekly course materials folders to two of OGE’s interactive crossword puzzles where users can test their knowledge of federal ethics laws. While I didn’t specifically require the students to complete the crossword puzzles, I used it as an optional and alternative on-line teaching tool.

The above are just some of the examples of the various tools available to supplement a virtual classroom learning experience.  Although I have not used them yet, there are government ethics training videos available on You-Tube and other web-based sources, and a number of states post on-line the oral arguments before their high court, providing yet another great resource for many different subject areas.

Patty Salkin, Albany Law School

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Technology | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

How Far Will California-Irvine Go?

Posted on December 14, 2009 by Roy Stuckey

An article in the August, 2009, ABA Journal profiled the new law school at the University of California at Irvine which  was entering its first year.  The article reported some interesting things, including a claim that “it is designed to be among the most innovative law schools in the nation.”  Dean Erwin Chemerinsky was quoted as saying, “We have  the wonderful benefit of a blank slate and the chance to create the ideal law school for the 21st century.”  The article, however, was thin on details about plans for the curriculum.

The article reported that there will be a two semester “professionalism” course in the first year in which practictioners from many areas of practice will help students “gain a sense of the different kinds of work the profession does.”  First year students will also be required to conduct intake interviews for legal aid clients.  Two years from now, the school will require students to spend a semester in one of the eight planned in-house clinics.

So far, so good, but it is not clear how committed the school really is to innovative teaching or experiential learning.  There was no mention in the article or on the school’s website as to whether the school has clearly articulated its educational objectives or whether the program of instruction will progressively develop knowledge, skill, and values or integrate the teaching of theory, doctrine, and practice.

The Associate Dean of Clinical Education and Service Learning Programs, Carrie Hempel (formerly at Southern California) was quoted as saying that she gets the “chance to recruit a group of the finest clinicians in the country to come here and build their own dream clinical courses.”  Allowing people to come in and build their own courses does not sound like there will be a program of progressive learning into which these courses will fit.  Most unfortunately, the article makes it sound like there will be a group of people identified as “clinicians” rather than members of the faculty who happen to teach clinical courses.  I hope I am wrong.

It is not apparent that classroom instruction will be any more innovative or skilled than at traditional law schools.  The first members of the faculty were largely recruited from elite law schools, including Berkeley and Duke.  As a group, the faculty ranks 10th in the nation in ”scholarly impact,” and UC-Irvine intends to be considered an elite law school from the beginning.  All members of the faculty may be excellent teachers who are devoted to preparing students for practice, but there is no mention of this in the article or on the school’s website.

Will UC-Irvine’s law school really be an innovative place that can legitimately claim to be the ideal school for the 21st century?  I hope so, but it is too early to tell.  Meanwhile, if anyone has more details about the curriculum, please share it with us.

Roy

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Catalysts For Change, First Year Law School Innovations | 5 Comments »

THE ROLE OF CRITICAL THEORY SCHOLARSHIP IN BEST PRACTICES

Posted on May 7, 2009 by Mary A. Lynch

As law schools and law faculty engage in legal education reform, the question arises: What is the role of critical theory or theory-critique?    Some of our friends and colleagues in the critical race, feminist, post-feminist and other theory-critique schools may feel left out of the dialogue/teaching initiatives when,  in fact, such “theory-critique” skills are an important part of effective lawyering.  Continue reading →

Filed under: Best Practices & Setting Goals, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Diversity & Social Justice, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques, Who is Using the Best Practices Book? | 2 Comments »

AALS Annual Meeting- Focus on Evaluation

Posted on January 18, 2009 by Peter Joy

The Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Section on Clinical Legal Education joined with the Section on Professional Responsibility to sponsor a program at the 2009 AALS Annual Meeting.  The first panel focused on  the development of legal ethics in law schools and the effects of clinical legal education on graduates.  I will post something about that panel in the next few days, but this post will focus on the second panel- which was entitled ” Innovative Curricular Developments:  Implementing Best Practices for Educating Lawyers.”  This panel demonstrated methods for providing criteria-referenced evaluations in real-client clinical courses as well as for use in simulations.   Continue reading →

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices & Setting Goals, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques | Comments Off on AALS Annual Meeting- Focus on Evaluation

Be Careful What You Wish For

Posted on December 1, 2008 by vmerton

So I’m probably the only one who missed this interesting development in the ongoing saga of reform of the ABA Standards for the Approval of Law Schools. There has been much hoo-ha and concern about the Special Committee Reports on Security of Position and Outcome Measures, but did you know: in August 2008, the Standards Review Committee of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar circulated for notice and comment two proposed changes to the Standards, one of which is to delete Interpretations 402-1 and 402-2 relating to student-faculty ratio. (The proposed changes are published on the Section’s website, www.abanet.org/legaled.) Continue reading →

Filed under: Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques | 3 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »