Kirschenfeld: The Law School Crisis, Visualized

Aaron Kirschenfeld of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, has posted The Law School Crisis, Visualized.

Here is the introduction:

For the past year, I have been researching changes in the legal profession and the market it has created, but I have had trouble sorting out the story buried in the often cited numbers contained in scam blog posts, academic works, or news reports. On this site, I have gathered a wide variety of source material and data to tell a story and to present a challenge — if you are considering going to law school, will deciding to go really ruin your life? To that end, I’ve prepared several easy-to-grasp visualizations about law school applications, debt, employment after graduation, and the current crisis in the legal market. [...]

The post includes a description of Aaron’s methodology and links to the datasets.

HT @kirschsubjudice

Siems and Mac Sithigh on Mapping Legal Research

Professor Dr. Mathias M. Siems of Durham University Law School and Dr. Daithi Mac Sithigh of University of Edinburgh School of Law have published Mapping Legal Research, Cambridge Law Journal, 71(3): 651-676 (2012).

Here is the abstract:

This article aims to map the position of academic legal research, using a distinction between “law as a practical discipline”, “law as humanities” and “law as social sciences” as a conceptual framework. Having explained this framework, we address both the “macro” and “micro” level of legal research in the UK. For this purpose, we have collected information on the position of all law schools within the structure of their respective universities. We also introduce “ternary plots” as a new way of explaining individual research preferences. Our general result is that all three categories play a role within the context of UK legal academia, though the relationship between the “macro” and the “micro” level is not always straight-forward. We also provide comparisons with the US and Germany and show that in all three countries law as an academic tradition has been constantly evolving, raising questions such as whether the UK could or should move further to a social science model already dominant in the US.

The Online Supplement for this paper is available at the following URL:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2097698

Moss & Curtis on Curriculum Mapping: Bringing Evidence-Based Frameworks to Legal Education

Professor Debra Moss Curtis of Nova Southeastern University Law Center and Professor Dr. David M. Moss of the University of Connecticut School of Education have published Curriculum Mapping: Bringing Evidence-Based Frameworks to Legal Education, 34 Nova Law Review 473-514 (2010) (Issue No. 2). Here is the abstract:

This article explains the concept of curriculum mapping as used in the education profession and explains how it was applied in a mapping initiative at the NSU Law Center. Curriculum mapping is a process by which education professionals “document their own curriculum, then share and examine each other’s curriculums for gaps, overlaps, redundancies and new learning, creating a coherent, consistent, curriculum within and across areas that is ultimately aligned to standards and responsive to student data and other initiatives.” While this process has been used for many years in other areas of education, it is fairly new to legal education. This article explains the concepts, puts them into the context of other reforms currently happening in legal education, and through documenting our own experiences, gives a step-by-step primer on how to bring this useful tool to any law school to make evidence-based changes to a law school curriculum.

Legal Educational Methods & Technology: Special Issue of JILT

The new issue of JILT: Journal of Information, Law & Technology is a special issue devoted to legal educational methods & technology, and contains a number of articles that may be of interest to legal informatics/communications scholars:

• Simon Ball & Helen James, Making Law Teaching Accessible and Inclusive.
• Abstract: “Best practice in teaching suggests considering a wide range of ways in which learning can be enabled, some of which can be supported by the use of technology. Legislation requires that teaching be inclusive to students with a range of needs including disabilities. This paper introduces a variety of ways in which technology can be integrated into everyday law teaching practice to enhance accessibility and inclusion. Many of these techniques do not require law teachers to be experts in the use of technology, and some can be integrated into everyday practice with minimal effort. Suggestions for ‘reasonable adjustments’ are given in relation to a range of user needs, and case studies exemplifying some strategies adopted by particular institutions in moving towards more inclusive law teaching are described. Finally this paper suggests seven questions law teachers might ask in order to determine their approach to inclusion in relation to each piece of learning – whether they change the current medium of delivery, add to it by offering a range of routes to achieving the learning outcomes, or provide alternatives as and when required.”
• Sefton Bloxham, Fiona Boyle, & Ann Thanaraj, Using E-portfolios to Support PDP and Reflective Learning within the Law Curriculum: A Case Study.
• Abstract: “This paper describes and evaluates a project at the University of Cumbria designed to pilot the development of e-portfolios, using PebblePad software, in support of an embedded programme of personal development planning and reflective learning within the law curriculum. The paper outlines both the national and institutional context as well as the pedagogic rationale for the project, drawing on a range of literature on PDP, e-portfolios, reflective learning and assessment. It then describes in further detail how the use of e-portfolios is used to support PDP and reflective learning and how the programme is embedded within the curriculum. The paper then assesses the evaluative data obtained through student questionnaires, student focus groups and staff reflection. Finally, the paper concludes with some general observations on the success of pilot.”
• Michael Bromby, Virtual Seminars: Problem-based Learning in Healthcare Law and Ethics.
• Abstract: “A series of problem-based learning scenarios were introduced using asynchronous discussion boards as a substitute for tutor-led face-to-face classroom seminars on and undergraduate LLB ‘healthcare law and ethics’ elective module. The scenarios contained ethical dilemmas, many of which could be solved by a number of alternative means. Student responses, therefore, were not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in the traditional sense but a variety of responses could be seen as appropriate, given that a supportive ethical framework or argument was presented within an answer. Feedback suggested that the students enjoyed the experience and gained a deeper understanding of the topics through advanced preparation and the ensuing discussion. Full student evaluation was conducted to evaluate the project on completion. The aim was to encourage greater student participation and co-operation in a class where many students had been extremely reluctant to offer an opinion or to challenge each other’s views. Written communications appeared to create a more thoughtful discussion and reduce confrontations when discussing potentially controversial topics. Following the precepts set out in Kolb’s learning cycle, the students were given the opportunity to reflect on their own group’s findings in light of the other groups’ feedback and comments. By confronting all sides of the debate and examining sources which may or may not support their own reading the students have brought about a transformation in their existing knowledge; a goal of constructivist learning.”
• Caroline Coles, The Role of New Technology in Improving Engagement among Law Students in Higher Education.
• Abstract: “The aim of this article is to review the pedagogic benefits of the Web 2.0 tool, the wiki, and recorded lectures for the purpose of improving engagement among post graduate students in higher education. It reviews key educational theories, features of the modern student community and recent reports on the use of technology in education. It summarises research into student perceptions of the use of the wiki and recorded lecture. The conclusions are that students value the flexibility of these tools but their technological skill is still low, their contributions are restricted by emotive issues but where these are overcome a higher level of evaluative skill is demonstrated.”
• Catherine Easton, An Examination of Clicker Technology Use in Legal Education.
• Abstract: “Recent technological developments have led to a situation in which the employment of clicker technology in the law school lecture theatre is now a feasible possibility. Influential studies carried out in pure science disciplines (Hake, 1998; Crouch and Mazur, 2001) indicate positive results in both engagement and assessment success attributed to extensive clicker use. There is however a paucity of studies outlining the tailoring of this technology to the specific nature of legal education. This paper presents the findings of a small-scale use of clicker technology within the context of a wider study addressing issues of lecture engagement across a law course. These observations are drawn into the existing debate on clicker use by highlighting key emerging themes and commenting upon their potential impact within the field of legal education. An overview is then presented of the small body of literature on clicker use to teach law. This is then analysed to make observations on the opportunities for legal education presented by clicker technology and the factors affecting its adoption on a law school-wide basis.”

Review of: Paul Maharg, Transforming Legal Education: Learning and Teaching the Law in the Early Twenty-first Century.

• Abstract: “Transforming Legal Education … argues that bodies of interdisciplinary theory and a knowledge of the history of legal education are important to all stages of legal education, and that new learning designs such as transactional learning need to be developed to help students, educators and lawyers deal with the transitions and challenges facing them now and in the foreseeable future. Throughout, discussions of theory are spliced with case studies of academic and professional legal learning, particularly in the field of technology-enhanced learning. …”

HT Professor Ioannis Iglezakis.

CLE and Social Networks

Because legal continuing professional education — usually referred to in the U.S. as “continuing legal education (CLE)” or “mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE)” (see, e.g., this map of state bar requirements from West LegalEdcenter), and in the U.K. as “continuing professional development (CPD)” (see, e.g., the Bar Standards Board regulations and the Solicitors Regulation Authority requirements) — involves many legal informatics issues and contexts — including legal publishing, legal education, legal professional development, legal ethics, legal information behavior, legal communication, legal technology, and legal social networks — this blog will occasionally comment on developments concerning CLE.

Of particular note in recent months is the use of social networks by CLE providers. Many CLE services and content creators are using social media to market their programs and connect with lawyers and other customers.

One way to gain a sense of how CLE providers and content creators are using social media is to peruse the lists — created by Tim Baran of uMCLE.com — of CLE community members who use Facebook or Twitter. Tim plans to add a LinkedIn list shortly.

Also of value would be a list of CLE providers who offer CLE programs on “closed” legal social networks — i.e., networks participation in which is restricted to particular groups of lawyers or other legal professionals — such as Legal OnRamp, Corporate Legal Exchange, and Martindale-Hubbell Connected.

Since CLE providers are both educational institutions and publishers, monitoring the CLE community’s use of social media is a useful way to gauge the role of social networks in legal education and legal publishing.

Call for Papers: ICCBR 2010

A call for papers and proposals has been issued for ICCBR 2010: the 18th International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, to be held July 19-22, 2010, in Alessandria, Italy. Here are the submission deadlines:

• Doctoral Consortium (Mentor): January 9, 2010;
• Workshops: January 11, 2010;
• Papers: February 15, 2010;
• Applications Track: February 16, 2010;
• Doctoral Consortium (Student): April 17, 2010;
• Computer Cooking Contest: April 24, 2010

Papers are invited on the following topics:

• Case and knowledge representation, acquisition, modeling, visualization, maintenance and management for CBR
• CBR system design issues (e.g., indexing, retrieval, similarity assessment and adaptation)
• System architectures and integration of CBR with other methods
• Collaborative agent architectures involving CBR
• Analogical reasoning, cognitive models, and creative reasoning approaches based on CBR
• Formal, empirical, and psychological evaluations of CBR models and systems
• Methodologies for developing CBR applications
• Lazy-learning, instance-based learning and case-based learning
• Case-based planning topics including plan adaptation, retrieval from a plan library and plan similarity
• Case-based approaches to scheduling, design and robot navigation
• CBR and knowledge discovery, data mining, text mining
• CBR software reuse and engineering redesign
• Explanations, Context, and confidence in CBR
• Peer-to-Peer Networks and CBR
• CBR in the Semantic Web
• CBR foundations
• Conversational CBR
• Textual CBR
• Distributed CBR
• CBR and uncertainty
• CBR in design, diagnosis, health, law, education
• Knowledge management in CBR, case and experience-based knowledge management
• Case-based recommender systems
• Applications of CBR (e.g., in customer support, education, electronic commerce, pattern recognition, image processing, legal reasoning, manufacturing and medicine)
• Adaptive interfaces, user modeling, customization & personalization using CBR
• Computer models of case-based argumentation
• Fielded applications of CBR

A Doctoral Consortium, at which Ph.D. students present their dissertations in progress, will be held in conjunction with the conference on July 20, 2010. Please see the deadlines above.

For more information, please see the call for papers or the conference Website.

Olszewska & Baker, An Annotated Bibliography on Law Teaching

Mary Olszewska, J.D., & Professor Thomas E. Baker of Florida International University College of Law, have published An Annotated Bibliography on Law Teaching, forthcoming in Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing. Here is the abstract:

“This annotated bibliography was prepared for the panel on Diverse Teaching Methods Designed to Improve the Education of Law Students at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools (Aug. 3, 2009). It is offered as a resource to law teachers. It self-consciously and selectively surveys books and more recent articles with an emphasis on teaching qua teaching. It does not include articles specific to particular courses or subjects. Each entry appears only once. The categories and assignments are somewhat subjective but helpful for canvassing a rich literature. The online resources themselves include still more bibliographies.”

Curcio on Legal Education Assessment

Professor Andrea Anne Curcio of Georgia State University College of Law has published Assessing Differently and Using Empirical Studies to See If it Makes a Difference: Can Law Schools Do it Better?, forthcoming in Quinnipiac Law Review. Here is the abstract:

“Recent scholarly literature criticizes law school assessment methods as being pedagogically unsound, an ineffective way to develop good lawyers, and as standing as an unjustifiable barrier to diversifying the profession. With the publication of Educating Lawyers, and Best Practices, the academy finally has begun to engage in the kind of scholarly scrutiny of assessment that has long been the practice in other disciplines. This essay seeks to move the discussion from a focus on law school assessment shortcomings, to a discussion of the scholarly work necessary to examine and improve assessments. It does this by providing concrete suggestions for alternative law school assessments which attempt to incorporate into large-section courses the Carnegie apprenticeships of legal analysis, practical skills, and professional identity. The essay acknowledges that whether these alternatives, or even our existing assessment methods, are valid and reliable is an undetermined question. Thus, the essay urges empirical exploration of law school assessments. It provides guidance to those seeking to design empirical assessment research studies and it suggests some empirical assessment studies that can and should be done. It concludes by arguing that given the high stakes of law school assessments, law professors should devote the same level of scrutiny to assessments as is given to other scholarly pursuits.”

HT Professor Gary Rosin at Law by the Numbers.

Susskind & Cooper on Legal Services Outsourcing at Rio Tinto

Legal Week has published a video of a very interesting discussion between Dr. Richard Susskind and Leah Cooper, Rio Tinto’s Managing Attorney, of Rio Tinto‘s June 2009 decision to outsource certain of its legal services to the outsourcing firm CPA Global.

The discussion discloses much interesting information about Rio Tinto’s motivations for outsourcing, and about the details of its outsourcing arrangement, particularly respecting quality control.

The potential implications for law firms and legal education, of this kind of outsourcing arrangement seem quite substantial. Rio Tinto’s use of outsourcing seems consistent with the trends identified by Dr. Susskind in his 2008 book, The End of Lawyers?. (See background and commentary on the book here.)

Legal services outsourcing is relevant to legal informatics because such outsourcing is a key context for legal information processing, and often involves the use or development of new legal information technologies.

HT @complexd.

Garvey & Zinkin on Making Law Students Client-Ready: A New Model in Legal Education

Professor John Burwell Garvey of Franklin Pierce Law Center & Anne F. Zinkin, permanent law clerk to Senior Associate Justice Linda S. Dalianis of the New Hampshire Supreme Court have published Making Law Students Client-Ready: A New Model in Legal Education, 1 Duke Forum for Law & Social Change 101 (2009). Here is the abstract:

“This paper examines the current state of legal education and assessment in the United States, as well as a new and innovative method of bar examination, and makes recommendations for institutional change. It first provides a brief overview of the history of legal education and assessment in the United States and discusses many of the factors that have led to our current system. It then reviews recommendations for change, including the recommendations of the1992 ABA Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession, generally known as the MacCrate Report; the 2007 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s report, Educating Lawyers, and; the 2007 Clinical Legal Education Association’s report, Best Practices. In addition to recommendations for change in legal education and assessment, the paper focuses on a licensing alternative to the traditional bar examination currently offered by the New Hampshire Supreme Court through Franklin Pierce Law Center, and known as the Daniel Webster Scholar Honors Program. The paper describes the two-year program in detail, and demonstrates that the program has already implemented most, if not all, of the major recommendations for legal education reform. In addition, the program provides an alternative method of bar examination which addresses many of the criticisms levied by critics of the traditional bar exam. The paper recommends replication of the pilot program in other states, and describes the process for implementation.”