Download Full Volume - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 21According to the AALS Survey of Law Schools on Programs and Courses Designedto Enhance Bar Examination Performance, law schools identified variousstructural components of successful programs which included the following: makingstudents more aware of bar requirements; steering students toward subjectsthat are going to be tested; raising awareness of bar exam preparation; increasingrigor in the classroom; revising the curriculum; establishing a bar exam coordinator;and heightening academic standards. 65 Typical components of these programsincluded lectures on substantive law tested on bar exams, review ofmultiple choice questions, essay writing instruction and practice, advice on stressmanagement, outlining, and test taking strategies. 66 Many of these measures wereundertaken by the BPTF at UDC-DCSL in 2004. The following year, the barpassage rates increased from 360/0 to 48%.67 It appears that the intervention of abar skills program and an increase in LSA T scores can have a substantialimpact. 68v. 2005 BAR PREPARATION PROGRAMThe BPTF at UDC-DCSL continued to assess the effectiveness of its in-housebar skills program and efforts and to experiment with commercial bar preparationproducts and courses. The BARBRI program offered UDC-DCSL studentsa videotaped lecture series focusing on several multi-state doctrinal courses, includingTorts, Evidence, Contracts, and Corporations, all taught by seasoned barlecturers. BARBRI also offered to UDC-DCSL students a Bar Essay Writingworkshop taught by Professor Warnekin from the University of Baltimore. Manyof these resources were offered at no cost to the school. Recognizing that therewere inevitable inconsistencies among faculty members in the coverage of subjectmatter and in essay testing of bar subjects, the BPTF decided to use the BARBRIBeat Program as the program for delivery of substantive overview of Multi-Statesubjects. 69 The bar skills program also maintained a separate essay writing classtaught by BPTF members. 70 The program continued to offer the PMBR workshopsfor multi-state testing. The PMBR workshops extended over three weekends,covering two multi-state sessions each week. Students who successfully65 White, supra note 40, at 457.66 White, supra note 40, at 456.67 See American Bar Association, Action Letter, Oct. 14, 2009 (on file with the author).68 See Riebe, supra note 34, at 299.69 Letter from BARBRI to Professor Derek Alphran (on file with the author). See also Memorandumto the Students Outlining the Bar Program for the 2004-2005 year, Derek Alphran, Directorof Academic Support 2005 (on file with the author).70 Adjunct Professors John Terzano and Tammy Taylor conducted the essay writing classes.Professor Terzano, a UDC-DCSL alum, had been a member of the BPTF and taught in the MasonEnhancement Program. He had conducted numerous bar workshops with Professor Laurie Morin.Professor Taylor, a member of the law school's writing faculty, has tutored students for a number ofyears in essay writing for various bar jurisdictions.
22 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRK:'T OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWcompleted the bar skills workshops and the class in Remedies were eligible for abar scholarship in the form of a six day PMBR workshop during the summermonths?1 The school also supported bar workshops sponsored by the Black LawStudents Association (BLSA) with the Richard Litvin Bar Prep Program. 72 Thelatter program consisted of a videotaped presentation of multi-state subjects andMulti-State Bar Exam (MBE) testing, live lectures, and one-on-one essay tutoring.Students who completed these workshops also received a six-day PMBR barscholarship.A. Integrating Academic Support InitiativesA study conducted at the UCLA School of Law found academic support programsthat reinforce student learning and reasoning skills and that provide opportunitiesfor written feedback and one-on-one counseling can improve astudent's performance on the bar exam. 73 The study concluded that the expansionof the academic support program correlated with a rise in the bar passagerates. 74 Also, the earlier the intervention, the more likely the improvement inacademic and bar passage performance. Teaching legal reasoning skills throughfirst year substantive law improves student learning?5Academic Support is an important component of the School of Law's bar supportprogram. The emergence of UDC-DCSL's bar preparation programs hasbeen largely grounded in the academic support structure. The School of Law'sDirector of the Academic Support Program also chairs the BPTF and therebycoordinates the School of Law's academic support initiatives with the bar preparationprogram?6 The School of Law's academic support program follows theUCLA model of a Spring term legal reasoning skills course for first year studentson academic probation. Originally, Legal Reasoning I was required for studentswhose GPA was 2.0 or below. In 2006, the faculty adopted a change based on therecommendation of the Academic Support Director to require mandatory enrollmentfor students whose GP A was 2.3 or below. This change was based on a71 The bar scholarships, which had been in place since 2001, have changed from direct cashgrants towards commercial bar courses to smaller cash grants. During the 2004 year, for example, thebar scholarships were actual dollars awarded to students.72 See Litvin Bar Review of Texas, available at http://www.litvinbarreviewoftexas.com.73 Kristine Knaplund & Richard Sander, The Art and Science of Academic Support, 45 J. LEGAL EDUC. 157 (1995).74 /d. at 201.75 [d. The UCLA study found that teaching legal reasoning skills combined with substantivematerial was more effective than teaching skills alone. The study found that higher grades were likelyto increase bar passage because bar exams test similar skills and knowledge.76 Self Study, supra note 28, at 26. The current Director is a co-author of this article.
Page 2: University of the District of Colum
Page 6 and 7: University of the District of Colum
Page 8 and 9: 2 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRWr OF COL
Page 10 and 11: 4 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 12 and 13: 6 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTIUcr OF CO
Page 14 and 15: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. UNIVERSIT
Page 16 and 17: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 11In resp
Page 18 and 19: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 13uated f
Page 20 and 21: YES WE CAN. PASS THE BAR.The Univer
Page 22 and 23: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 17C. Iden
Page 24 and 25: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 19The Pro
Page 28 and 29: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 23calcula
Page 30 and 31: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 25The Ame
Page 32 and 33: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.ing the su
Page 34 and 35: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 29writing
Page 36 and 37: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 31tion, s
Page 38 and 39: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 33activit
Page 40 and 41: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.35Table 2B
Page 42 and 43: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.37Table 5B
Page 44 and 45: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 39(X 2 =4
Page 46 and 47: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.41ApPENDIX
Page 48 and 49: 44 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF C
Page 50 and 51: 46 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF C
Page 52 and 53: 48 UNIVEI~SITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 54 and 55: 50 UNIVm~SITY OF TilE DISTRICr (W C
Page 56 and 57: 52 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTIUCr OF CO
Page 58 and 59: 54 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICI' OF
Page 60 and 61: 56 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF C
Page 62 and 63: 58 UNIVEI~SITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF
Page 68 and 69: 64 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 70 and 71: 66 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICI' OF
Page 72 and 73: 68 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF C
Page 74 and 75: 70 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 76 and 77:
72 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 78 and 79:
74 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF C
Page 80 and 81:
76 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF C
Page 82 and 83:
78 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICI" OF
Page 84 and 85:
80 UNIVERSUY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 86 and 87:
82 UNIVERsrrv OF TilE DISTRICT OF C
Page 88 and 89:
84 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF C
Page 90 and 91:
86 UNIVEHSITY OF TIlE DISTHICr OF C
Page 92 and 93:
88 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE Disnucl' OF C
Page 94 and 95:
90 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF C
Page 96 and 97:
92 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DIS"IlUcr OF
Page 98 and 99:
94 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF C
Page 100 and 101:
96 UNIVERSITY OF TI IE DISTRICr OF
Page 102 and 103:
98 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF C
Page 104 and 105:
100 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
104 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF
Page 110 and 111:
106 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTIUCr OF C
Page 112 and 113:
108 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF C
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
112 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF C
Page 118 and 119:
A DISCUSSION ON THE DISTRICT OF COL
Page 120 and 121:
IGNORING THE LAW FOR EXPEDIENCY'S S
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
134 UNIVEI{SITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 138 and 139:
136 UNIVEI~SITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF
Page 140 and 141:
138 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 142 and 143:
140 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRIC(, OF
Page 144 and 145:
142 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICf OF
Page 146 and 147:
144 UNIVEHSITY OF TI IE DISTRICT OF
Page 148 and 149:
146 UNIVEI~SITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
152 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF
Page 156 and 157:
154 UNIVEI~SITY OF THE DlsTRlcr OF
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
158 UNIVEH.srrv OF THE DISTRICr OF
Page 162 and 163:
160 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTIUcr OF
Page 164 and 165:
162 UNIVERSITY OF TilE Dls'nucr OF
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
166 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF C
Page 170 and 171:
168 UNIVERSfrY OF HIE DISTRICr OF C
Page 172 and 173:
170 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICt' OF
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
174 UNIVEI{SITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
178 UNIVEltSl'l'V OF THE DISTIUCI'
Page 182 and 183:
180 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT (W
Page 184 and 185:
182 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
188 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICt' OF
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
JURISPRUDENCE FOR A DIGITAL AGE: FR
Page 196 and 197:
JURISPRUDENCE FOR A DIGITAL AGE 195
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
THE CHILD ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
THE CHILD ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECfION
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS:A CASE A
Page 228 and 229:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 227under
Page 230 and 231:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 229ual,
Page 232 and 233:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 231Day c
Page 234 and 235:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 233who,
Page 236 and 237:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 235sions
Page 238 and 239:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 237Omars
Page 240 and 241:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 239ment.
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
244 UNIVERSfl"Y OF TIlE DISTRICT OF
Page 246 and 247:
246 UNIVI ~ I(SITY 01 ' TI l E DIST
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
256 UNIVERSITY OF nlE DIS'IlUCT OF
Page 258 and 259:
258 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTIUcr OF
Page 260:
show all

Download Full Volume - UDC Law Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?