Although law school academic support programs (ASPs) originated as a response to the burgeoning affirmative action initiatives of the 1980s, their scope has evolved far beyond the goal of furthering racial diversity in law schools.1 Though they vary greatly in design and placement within their parent institutions,2 ASPs collectively face escalating and expanding demands. One such challenge arises from the rapidly increasing population of “nontraditional” law students. This label is no longer limited to students with lower than average LSAT scores or undergraduate GPAs, but also may refer to students with physical or learning disabilities or related disorders, as well as to students with unusual undergraduate majors, advanced degrees in fields unrelated to law, or diverse professional and life experiences. Additionally, the first systematic attempts are being made to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of law school ASPs,3 measuring their success not only in student retention and graduation rates but also in employment statistics and bar exam passage rates.4 Furthermore, at some law schools ASPs are pioneering the adoption of new instructional techniques to accommodate differing student learning styles, with the goal of creating a “more inclusive learning environment.”5 All these factors are influencing ASPs - and their home institutions - as they strive to meet the challenges of accommodating the law students of the 21st century.
Many commentators have noted that the number of undergraduate and postgraduate students with physical6 and learning disabilities is rapidly increasing.7 Law schools are obligated pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 19908 and the Rehabilitation Act of 19739 to accommodate the needs of law students with learning disabilities.10 The situation is complicated by the lack of specificity of the label “learning disabled”11 and the variety of conditions encompassed thereunder. Some scholars have also postulated that while some law students who matriculate are already identified as learning disabled, others may be unaware of their disability until they encounter the demanding academic atmosphere of law school.12 A subcategory of these students are those with some form of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), whose numbers are steadily on the rise.13 However, there is also growing evidence of students who had difficulty adjusting to traditional classroom techniques, particularly the rigid requirements of traditional law school instruction, nevertheless having great success as legal professionals.14 Some of these same scholars posit that law schools have an ethical obligation to realistically prepare disabled students, regardless of the accommodations they may be offered in the law school setting, for the realities of law practice and to counsel them appropriately to enter a practice area that suits their often considerable abilities.15
Several scholars have noted that a reassessment and tailoring of teaching methods to accommodate “disabled” law students can foster greater awareness among law faculty of the diverse learning styles among the broader law student population, to the benefit of all.16 Socratic methods, although still relied upon by many law professors as their “primary teaching tool,”17 have been attacked as overly passive and useful only to students with verbal learning styles, ignoring those who are visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners - thus “ineffective for most types of learners.”18 It has also been noted that while law school can be an isolating environment in which students do much of their studying alone and feel overly competitive and/or hostile toward their peers,19 success in any type of law practice involves extensive cooperation and collaboration, with other attorneys as well as with internal support staff or external persons such as judges or court clerks.20 Recognition of these factors has led some to explore methods of systematically assessing student learning styles21 and of applying “active learning strategies” in the classroom.22 Further, it is being increasingly opined that law school methods of assessment (i.e., grading) need to be comprehensively re-examined - not just to “accommodate” individual students, but in order to both promote fairness and to provide more meaningful preparation for the practice of law.23
Another less frequently studied area pertinent to ASPs is the correlation between law students’ undergraduate majors and their ability to develop legal reasoning skills, as well as their eventual success in law school and in the job market. While law schools may point proudly to the “diversity” of the backgrounds of students in their entering classes, enthusiastically welcoming students from fields perhaps rarely thought of as a path to law school, little has been written about the ultimate success of those students. A recent study concluded that undergraduate major does have an impact on a law student’s ability to learn legal reasoning skills,24 and its authors contend that law school ASPs should use undergraduate majors to help assess students’ academic support needs and to design appropriate instructional methods.25
Despite the institutional obstacles to classroom and curricular reforms, it is apparent that the original concept of “academic support” is being pushed far past a purely “remedial” focus on a small group of students. Visionaries in this area see ASPs as conduits of much-needed changes in legal education, fostering an evolution of traditional law school teaching and learning into “a learning environment that embodies principles of justice,”26 as well as a redefinition of the goals of legal education to incorporate a greater emphasis on ethics and professionalism.27
1 Ollivette E. Mencer, New Directions in Academic Support and Legal Training: Looking Back, Forging Ahead, 31 S.U. L. Rev. 47-48 (2003).
2 Leslie Yalof Garfield & Kelly Koenig Levi, Finding Success in the “Cauldron of Competition”: The Effectiveness of Academic Support Programs, 2004 BYU Educ. & L.J. 1, 7-11 (2004).
3 Id. at 5.
4 Ellen Yankiver Suni, Academic Support at the Crossroads: From Minority Retention to Bar Prep and Beyond - Will Academic Support Change Legal Education or Itself Be Fundamentally Changed?, 73 U. Mo. K.C. L. Rev. 497, 506-07 (2004).
5 Jennifer Jolly-Ryan, Disabilities to Exceptional Abilities: Law Students with Disabilities, Nontraditional Learners, and the Law Teacher as Learner, 6 Nev. L.J. 116, 117 (2005).
6 The needs of physically disabled students are not specifically addressed in this article.
7 Lisa Eichhorn, Reasonable Accommodations and Awkward Compromises: Issues Concerning Learning Disabled Students and Professional Schools in the Law School Context, 26 J.L. & Educ. 31-32 (1997); Jolly-Ryan, 6 Nev. L.J. at 122.
8 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2000).
9 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2000).
10 These needs for accommodation extend from pre-matriculation testing and the admissions process, to classroom and course work accommodations, to exam taking, to extracurricular activities such as trial competitions and journal work. Eichhorn, 26 J.L. & Educ. at 43-60.
11 Some have questioned whether the term even has continued validity. Eichhorn, 26 J.L. & Educ. at 35 (and sources cited therein); Ruth Shalit, Defining Disability Down, The New Republic, Aug. 25, 1997, at 16-22.
12 Eichhorn, 26 J.L. & Educ. at 31; Robin A. Boyle, Law Students With Attention Deficit Disorder: How to Reach Them, How to Teach Them, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 349-50 (2006); Jolly-Ryan, 6 Nev. L.J. at 127-28.
13 Nat’l Ctr. For Educ. Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions: 1999-2000 (2002), available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002168.pdf, cited in Boyle, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. at 350.
14 Eichhorn, 26 J.L. & Educ. at 37-38; Jolly-Ryan, 6 Nev. L.J. at 135-36.
15 Eichhorn, 26 J. L. & Educ. at 59-60; Jolly-Ryan, 6 Nev. L.J. at 122-23, 130-31.
16 Boyle, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. at 366, 371; Jolly-Ryan, 6 Nev. L.J. at 116.
17 Jolly-Ryan, 6 Nev. L.J. at 124-25.
18 Id. at 124.
19 Vernellia R. Randall, Increasing Retention and Improving Performance: Practical Advice on Using Cooperative Learning in Law Schools, 16 T.M. Cooley L. Rev. 201-02, 209 (2000).
20 Robin A. Boyle, Applying Learning-Styles Theory in the Workplace: How to Maximize Learning-Styles Strengths to Improve Work Performance in Law Practice, 79 St. John’s L. Rev. 97, 99 (2005).
21 Id. at 107-08; Robin A. Boyle, Employing Active-Learning Techniques and Metacognition in Law School: Shifting Energy From Professor to Student, 81 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 1 (2003).
22 Boyle, 81 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. at 23-26; Randall, 16 T.M. Cooley L. Rev. at 260-70 (incorporating a good discussion of hurdles to incorporating these methods in law schools, including grading issues).
23 Paula Lustbader, Walk the Talk: Creating Learning Communities to Promote a Pedagogy of Justice, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 613, 621 (2006); William M. Sullivan et al., Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law 7 (2007), summary available at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/files/elibrary/EducatingLawyers_summary.pdf.
24 Mark Graham & Bryan Adamson, Law Students’ Undergraduate Major: Implications for Academic Support Programs, 69 U. Mo. K.C. L. Rev. 533, 535 (2001).
25 Id. at 535-36.
26 Lustbader, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. at 614.
27 Sullivan et al., Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law at 8.