I was recently asked by an ASP colleague – “Do you work with
students who are struggling or is any student eligible to take advantage of the
services you provide?” Reflecting back
on my time in the courtroom, the question seemed to be assuming facts not in
evidence. In my office, I try to do
both. On the one hand, any student can
stop by my office for help. On the other
hand, some students are strongly encouraged, or even required, to work with me
based on their academic performance.
Why do I approach ASP work in this fashion? My ego forces me to believe that I can help
any first-year students improve their academic performance. But, I am keenly aware that students do not
enter law school with the same skill set in place and that some will need
additional help in order to succeed. In
addition, to paraphrase the old joke about specialists and generalists, I’m
afraid that if I teach fewer and fewer students more and more, eventually I’ll
be teaching no one about everything. On
the other end of the spectrum, I run the risk of teaching more and more
students less and less so that eventually I’m teaching nothing to everyone!
Of course, a number of different factors dictate how we run
our programs. For example, the
administration, and sometimes the faculty, within our respective law schools
are likely to have something to say about our mission. In many instances, this means emphasizing
work with students whose pre-law school grades and test scores place them “at
risk.” For some of us, this role is
expanded to include assistance with the bar examination. This can mean working with the same “at risk”
students as they complete their third year of law school, but it can also mean
offering a bar prep course to the entire graduating class.
On top of all this, we have the issue of stigmatization to
consider. The more narrowly we define
the students with whom we work, the more likely it is that they will be
stigmatized by the experience. One may
certainly argue that the issue of stigmatization is less important than making
sure we apply our limited resources to the correct groups of students. On the other hand, stigmatization may
alienate this very same group of students, making it less likely that they will
receive the assistance they need.
Just for a moment, let’s put aside the issue of faculty or
administration expectations. Let’s
imagine that bar passage rates are not a measure of a law school’s success and
that students won’t feel stigmatized when they walk through out doors. Now, you have an opportunity to design your
“dream” Academic Support Program. What
would it look like?
Would we serve the entire student body? Remember, this is a dream Academic Support
Program, so resources aren’t limited. Even with abundant resources, would we still emphasize working with
certain segments of the student population? How about an umbrella Academic Support Program with several sub
divisions covering work with “at risk” students, students taking the bar exam,
and minority students?
I don’t know about you, but I am eager to have this sort of
conversation at one of our future conferences. As a group, I would love to design the “dream” Academic Support
Program. I may not be able to implement
such a program, but I would love to have a goal to aim for.
