Summer 2000

Notes from the Editor
President's Message
Undergraduate Moot Court
Fun Financial Facts
Happenings in the Profession

NAPLA Survey Results
APSA Workshop on Pre-Law Advising in D.C.
Suffolk University Conference centerfold

Notes from the Editor

Another academic year has ended. Thanks to the help of many colleagues, I was able to secure enough material that, I trust, readers of the Notes may have found helpful. More contributors, however, are needed. A "donation," in fact, may take the form of a lead on an article or item you have read someplace else that might be worthwhile re-printing in our newsletter. Such a donation would be the equivalent of giving appreciated stock. The real cost is very little, but it is a great assist to the editor. It might even be remembered by the editor-photographer in future centerfolds. I do have a lot of less than flattering pictures of the members in the archives!

The article on undergraduate moot courts is an example. Membership Chair Frank Homer sent me the original paper which had been presented at the Southwestern Political Science Association meeting. The authors, Professors Knerr and Sommerman, graciously accepted the task of making changes that rendered it more valuable to our membership. Eileen Crane, a NAPLA member, despite some other complications, and the Chair-elect of PLANC, has a long history at our conferences of organizing panels on financial aid. Eileen brings together this experience with other "fun financial facts" [sic] to keep us up to date with aid developments. Thanks is also owed those members who returned their questionnaires and thereby contributed to the piece in the "Happenings in the Profession" section that gives the Association a better idea of the needs and concerns of the membership.

Finally, Chaz Neal, Frank Homer, Anne Brandt, Gerald Wilson, Jerry Polinard, Carol Wright, and I look forward to seeing any pre-law advisors who are political scientists and who will be attending the annual APSA Conference. The now-annual workshop, which is facilitated by a grant from PLANC, will allow political scientists to visit the law schools of the Catholic University of America and George Mason University. Registration forms are in PS or contact Frank Homer (570-941-6399).

NAPLA Notes next issue (Fall) has a deadline of September 15. In the meantime, I am trying to lose some of the weight picked up at Suffolk (I deny having eaten as many lobsters as some unkind person has suggested) by staring intently at the Bay of Fundy.

Graham Lee
Saint Joseph's University
Philadelphia, PA 19131-1395
phone: 610-660-1753
fax: 610-660-1284
glee@sju.edu

top

President's Message

Dear NAPLA Colleagues,

During the summer all seems to be quiet on the pre-law advising front-a time for rest and regrouping. However, everyone who attended the June conference in Boston should now be invigorated and enthusiastic about the future of legal careers and the opportunities for our students. Thanks to Jane Levy for the best conference I can remember. And also thanks to the folks at Suffolk for their assistance and wonderful hospitality. The message from the conference in both the plenary sessions and the workshops was the great diversity of opportunities that awaits law school graduates. Richard Hermann, stressed the new and expanding fields for the utilization of a legal education both in the practice of law and in a multitude of other disciplines. In our closing session Jim Durham really got us thinking about the opportunities for innovation in the practice of law. While he discussed the potential for multidisciplinary practices, it is now interesting to note the reluctance of the ABA to go in this direction. As with most NAPLA conferences, we were left with a feeling that we had discussed issues that are at the forefront of legal education and the law.

I wsih you all a good summer and new academic year. Do not forget to check our website, (www.NAPLA.org) for upcoming news, particularly about next June's Williamsburg conference. I also look forward to seeing those of you attending the National Conference in San Diego in November. Look for the NAPLA suite.

Pauline M. Harrington, JD
Political Science Department
Bridgewater College
180 Summer Street
Bridgewater, MA 02325
508-531-2418
fax: 508-531-6186

top

Undergraduate Moot Court
Charles R. Knerr and Andrew B. Sommerman, University of Texas at Arlington

A more extensive version of this essay (with acknowledgements and footnotes) was prepared for delivery at the Southwestern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Galveston, Texas, March 16-18, 2000 and will be forwarded electronically upon request. The more extensive version is currently under review by a legal education journal.

Appellate simulation "moot court"-is extensively used as an educational tool in America-and in England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. According to various legal scholars, moot court has been featured in legal education for upwards of one thousand years.

Typical components of moot court include teams of student-contestants, a fictitious client "burdened" by a fictitious legal problem, an appeal from either a trial or an appellate court, the submission of briefs and preparation of oral arguments, and the judging of performances. Worldwide, the overwhelming majority of participants are undergraduate students, because legal training outside the United States takes place at the baccalaureate level. In contrast, American appellate simulation is principally performed by Juris Doctor (J.D.) students.

Only two empirical studies are known which examine the costs and benefits of moot court. Professor Andrew Lynch of Bond University, Australia, found that undergraduate law students gained practical preparation for the "real" world, learned from peers and developed group skills, suffered from fear and experienced elation, and learned a large amount of substantive law. Professor Mary Keyes and Michael Whincop, also of Australia, surveyed one hundred students completing a three week long "formative moot." These authors concluded the students benefited from performing legal research, learned how to apply legal principles to a factual situation, formulated written delivery, developed persuasion skills, learned how to run a case, and developed group coordination skills.

In recent years, a small group of American proponentsùmainly law professors-have praised appellate simulation, claiming students enjoy benefits similar to those found in the Australian studies. But these American law school moot court enthusiasts offer only anecdotal evidence to confirm their claims; empirical data has not been amassed to bolster these; moreover, these supporters neglect the issue of costs.

Undergraduate moot court is less known and less frequently found in America than the law school form. Little has been published on this topic; no systematic survey has been undertaken to ascertain the extent or variation of undergraduate moot court in America; no study can be identified which examines costs or benefits. However, two fundamental forms of undergraduate appellate simulation are known to be practiced in America: the scholastic and the tournament forms.

Scholastic Undergraduate Moot Court

In the scholastic form of American undergraduate appellate simulation, students of a single class-such as Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, Business Law, International Politics/Law, or a Communication/speech class, among othersùare required to participate as a condition of successfully completing the class. Student performances are evaluated by the instructor; to a certain extent, then, student performance is motivated by grades. A varying percentage of a student's final course grade is determined by moot court performance. Cases are developed by each individual faculty member, reflecting each professor's personal or professional interests. Both briefs and oral argument are often required, although some faculty demand only oral argument. In some of these scholastic moot courts, students assume roles as judges and as attorneys. In other scholastic undergraduate moot courts, other departmental faculty serve as judges, or members of the local bench, or local practicing attorneys, or various combinations thereof.

Undergraduate Moot Court Tournament

In the moot court tournament, students voluntarily compete. Performances are thus motivated by a desire for a trophy, or for the attainment of some other (typically petty) personal reward. Eight undergraduate tournaments are known to be regularly organized: one in southern California, another in central California, and another in northern California, and one each in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas. The first national undergraduate tournament is currently scheduled for January 2001, at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Considerable variation can be noted among these tournaments. In four of the tournamentsùin all three California tournaments and the event in Indiana- the competition is campus-wide; the other four tournaments are inter-collegiate, drawing students from as many as one dozen different colleges and universities. Another difference is that in three of the tournamentsùin northern California and in the tournaments in Illinois and Oklahoma-students are evaluated in regard to both written briefs and oral argument. In the othersùthe southern and central California, and the Indiana, Ohio, and Texas tournamentsùcontestants only offer oral argument.

Variation also occurs in judging: in Illinois and Oklahoma, the tournaments are part of a larger state-wide simulation of state government; students thus perform roles as governor and other executive branch officials, as state legislators, lobbyists, and justices of the state supreme court; judging of these two moot courtsùheld before each state "supreme court"-can be influenced by the political process unfolding in the larger simulation. In the other six tournamentsùthe California events and those in Indiana, Ohio, and Texas-undergraduate faculty, law students, lawyers, or perhaps members of the judiciary, serve as tournament judges; "simulation politics" in these tournaments is not part of the process.

Only two of the tournaments-Ohio and Texas-are conducted at law schools. The University of Akron School of Law hosts an annual tournament, the Seiberling Undergraduate Competition, involving students from about a dozen Ohio and Pennsylvania colleges and universities. Three Texas law schools have hosted state-wide undergraduate tournaments in recent years: the Baylor School of Law, Texas Tech University School of Law, and Texas Wesleyan University School of Law-for tournaments of the Texas Undergraduate Moot Court Association.

Internet Competitions

Transcontinental and inter-continental simulations have recently been initiated using the internet. The Teaching Rights Online Project ("THRO") includes a simulated World Court proceeding; recent competitions have involved undergraduate students from North America, Europe, and Africa. Another example of the emerging electronic form of competition is a simulation linking undergraduate students of North Carolina and California. Electronic competitions might become common during the next millennium, linking competitors across vast distances.

Texas Moot Court Tournaments

Two-person teams from a number of Texas colleges and universities compete at three annual competitions at which only oral arguments are heard-no briefs are submitted. All contestants are required to compete in two preliminary rounds on a Friday afternoon in which both sides of the case are argued. Three elimination rounds are then conducted on Saturday morning, in which the eight highest scoring teams from the preliminary rounds first compete in "quarter-final" rounds; the remaining four teams in turn compete in two "semi-final" contests, and then the top two remaining teams compete in a "final" round, after which one team is declared the tournament "winner."

All tournament rounds consume about an hour, with each two-person team permitted twenty minutes for presentation, including petitioner rebuttal and judicial questioning. After completion of all rounds judges evaluate, score, and then review performances with each contestant in a brief evaluation process.

Cases are developed by faculty from participating Texas colleges and universities, and concern a topic of current events and interest, such as "Teen Curfews," "Physician Assisted Suicide," "Affirmative Action," or "State-Religion relations." A "closed" case approach is used-only the moot case and between six and eight supporting cases may be relied upon by contestants. Cases are carefully crafted to focus upon two distinctive issues, one for each member of the team; the cases are "balanced" to assure that students might be judged on their performance, rather than upon the merits of the case.

Judges are provided by hosting law schools. Preliminary, quarter, and semi-final judging is by second and third year law students. Two-judge panels are typical in these rounds, again at the discretion of the host. The final round is often judged by a panel of law faculty, but occasionally the host invites local members of the judiciary or practicing attorneys to participate in this culminating round of the tournament, after which the tournament runner-up and finalist are announced.

A standardized judging form is used for all tournament rounds. Student performances are evaluated in four broad categories: knowledge of the subject matter, response to questioning, forensic skills, and courtroom demeanor, using a point system of 0 to 25 for each category. Judging guidelines, instructions, and detailed criteria are distributed to all judges. Consistency in judging is a goal of the tournament preparation process

Although empirical data are lacking in regard to the benefits of Texas undergraduate moot court, the authors share several sentiments expressed by law faculty, beliefs based wholly upon anecdotal evidence: participants enjoy improved oral communication skills, increased case analysis and summarization skills, enhanced legal reasoning and critical thinking, increased understanding of substantive law, increased poise and self-confidence, overall improvement in study habits. All of these, perhaps, might be related to enhanced rates of acceptance into law school. Faculty also report improved relations with those alumni who contribute time and energy in preparing students for competitions. However, many students and some faculty are burdened by selective costs: tournament preparation time, pressures placed on regular academic work, travel costs, and lowered employment income for those tournaments some distance from campus and home.

Law School vs. Undergraduate
Moot Court

Although Texas undergraduate moot court tournaments are similar in a number of important characteristics to the tournaments found in American law schools, differences can also be noted, as summarized in the table. In common, of course, are fictional clients. Critics of law school moot court have complained that law school students do not identify with or develop emotional bonds with these imaginary moot court ôclientsö as an attorney might in the real world of appellate practice. A similar complaint can be raised regarding undergraduate moot court contestants

In both law school and undergraduate moot court, the fictional case problem often involves some U.S. Constitutional issue, another point of contention with some critics, who (correctly) argue that most appeals are based upon perceived errors of the trial record. And, while some law school moot cases are unlimited in their potential legal scope, undergraduate students focus upon two carefully crafted issues. Perhaps more importantly, law school moot court contestants are required to submit briefs and present oral arguments; at the undergraduate level in Texas only oral arguments are prepared and presented. This lack of written briefs for the undergraduate form constitutes a very significant difference between the two forms.

In both forms of moot court, students argue for both petitioner and respondent, students consume every second of allotted time, and judging is based upon performance rather than the merits of the case. In real appellate hearings, critics complain, attorneys argue only one side of the merits of the case. One important difference between law school and undergraduate moot court is the background of judges. American law schools usually recruit actual members of the courts to serve as tournament judges. Undergraduates in Texas tournaments are evaluated by second or third year law students; only in the final round are law faculty involved, or perhaps local attorneys or occupants of local judgeships.

Research

Research should be undertaken into the extent, scope, evolution, and variation of appellate simulations world wide. All of the known appellate simulations might then be categorized and more readily analyzed. Research should also be undertaken to determine the educational benefits of appellate simulationùand the costsùto contestants, to their faculty advisors, and perhaps to other parties. Perhaps with such data, the claims of moot court supporters might be substantiated, and the critics silenced.

Texas Undergraduate Compared With Law School Moot Court

* * law faculty, attorneys and real judges for final round

top

Fun Financial Facts to Know and Tell!!
Eileen Crane, Chair-Elect, PLANC, Brigham Young University

Each fall I attend the annual Access Group (TAG) Graduate and Professional Financial Aid Conference. This well-planned conference forms the foundation of my understanding of the financial aid world. Financial aid administrators and graduate and professional school admissions deans and directors both attend and present on the program. The goals of the conference are to educate each other on developments within the financial aid world, to generate an exciting exchange of ideas, and to provide professional support. Every time I attend a TAG conference, I learn an amazing amount of new information!

I want to summarize for you some of the most pertinent information for pre law advisors. Three topics were discussed in different sessions that I want to highlight. They are: 1) money and debt management; 2) funding for international students; 3) the future of distance learning and its impact on financial aid.

Money and Debt Management1

One of my main impressions of financial aid administrators is that they are fiscally conservative. They groan at jokes and scenarios that depict students as somewhat irresponsible about money! Although most of us would like our kids to make sound financial decisions, when at this conference I find myself wondering if I've remembered to mail the bills on time (and I don't even do the bills in my house). But, if we spent 40 hours a week suggesting to seemingly deaf ears not to borrow more than we can afford to repay or how important good credit is, perhaps we would become jaded too. With the cost of attendance (COA = tuition, fees, books, room and board, transportation, insurance, etc.) up at most schools, default rates on student loans increasing, and a median salary for the Class of 1998 at $42K, financial aid administrators seem forced into becoming the financial pulse for our students. They often feel as if they are the first person to have ever told a student, "NO, you can't afford this!"

If you are looking for a great presentation on money and debt management, TAG's Jeff Hanson has an excellent one. Jeff worked at Northwestern University for many years in financial aid and moved to TAG a couple of years ago. Jeff addresses some basic issues such as 1) educators: what is our role in helping student make informed decisions; 2) how to get students to care about debt; and 3) how students view debt. He has a presentation that he loves to give teaching students that "Debt is a Four-Letter Word!"

A second talk, called "Sense and Centsibility: Raising Student Awareness of Financial Values and Principles," was excellent. It was given by three professionals from the College of Osteopathic Medicine at Ohio University. They described in great depth a course they have put together for their students to educate them on the importance and impact that sound financial planning can have on their careers. The course is ten hours long and covers social and cultural perspectives on money, raising individual awareness of what money means to the individual, a new way of looking at money, financial planning skills, and alumni perspectives on lifestyle, money, and planning. Each session had homework assignments given and class participation in the course was required. One of the most interesting assignments was to create and keep a spending log. Most were shocked by the difference between their expectations and professional reality. Bringing in alumni who reported the difference between their expectations and the professional reality provided a very useful barometer for the students.

Although few of us, if any, are going to create a course on financial planning for pre law students, we can educate ourselves in this area. Reading "Jobs and JD's," NALP's employment and salary publication, understanding basic financial aid information, and actively suggesting to students that they do the same are a few ways to help prepare our students for the financial realities of their professional choices.

Resources that they used in the course that we æAPLA's would find useful to include in our office libraries are:

"Affluenza," a PBS-sponsored documentary on the culture of affluence in the U.S. (Bull Frog Films, 1998).
Suze Orman, The 9 Steps to Financial Freedom, (Crown Publishers, 1997).
Stanley and Danko, The Millionaire Next Door, (Pocket Books, 1996).
Morris and Siegel, Guide to Understanding Personal Finance, (Light bulb Press, 1995).
Morris and Siegel, Guide to Planning Your Financial Future, (Light bulb Press, 1995).
Shor, The Overspent American: Up scaling, Downshifting, and the New Consumer, (Basic Books, 1998).
Dominguez and Frobing, Your Money or Your Life, (Penguin Books, 1992).

International Student Financial Aid2

Finding funding for international graduate students is a new and complex challenge for financial aid administrators. The number of international students studying in American universities has more that doubled since 1979; it has increased almost 20 times since 1954. There are 1.7 million graduate students in the U.S; 11% of those students are international students. Twelve percent of the Master's candidates (398,000) in the U.S are international; 23% of the Ph.D. candidates (43,000) are international. With 207,510 foreign students studying here (1997-1998), higher education is now the fifth largest U.S service export. Approximately $82M is spent annually in education for foreign students.

The top ten countries students are coming from are China, India, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Canada, Japan, Turkey, Germany, and Mexico. The top ten schools students are going to are NYU, USC, Illinois Champaign-Urbana, Harvard, Michigan, Columbia, Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Texas A&M. The leading fields of study are engineering, business and management, physical and life sciences, math and computer sciences, and social sciences.

Funding for most international graduate students comes from the U.S. college or university and from personal and family sources. Most private financial aid companies will lend money to international students, if they have either an American co-signer or good credit.

Because the backbone of financial aid graduate programs is the Stafford Loan program, which is available only to United States citizens, those international students without personal resources need guidance as to where to find adequate funding to continue their education. This is an undeveloped area of financial aid, but because of burgeoning need will be expanding soon.

In addition to the challenge of finding sources, international situations sometimes add to a student's financial dilemma. Personal, economic, and political crises or natural disasters in their home country sometimes limit or end a student's source of funding and ability to continue their studies. When this happens, the hosting university is often put in a position of finding funding for the student. As pre-law advisors, we should encourage our students to find multiple sources of funding for their graduate education.

Places to which you can direct your international students are:

International/Foreign Student Office on your campus
International organizations, such as Soros Foundation, World Council of Churches, International Telecommunications Union, Rotary International, League of Red Cross Societies
Professional associations, such as ASME, AAUW, DKG

Some loan programs that may serve your students' needs are:

Canadian Higher Education Loan Program
GATE student loan program
Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority
TERI Professional Education Plan

Some external loans and grant programs which require students to be nominated by their colleges are:

ASAAP: grants for student from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand
ASIA-HELP: interest-free loans for students from Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.
BALKAN-HELP: grants for student from Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia
KSAAP: grants for Korean students

Web sites that will be of help your students are:

www.cice.org/index.htm Council on International Exchange: study-abroad and internships
www.edupass.com comprehensive site of information for international students
www.jefa.org International Education Financial Aid site
www.iie.org. Institute of International Education
www.nasfa.org Association of International Educators
www.namss.org.uk/ National Association for Managers of Student Services: EC students wanting to study abroad and non-EC students wanting to study in the UK or another EC country.

Publications that you will find helpful in your library are:

Chandler, Alice. Paying the Bill for International Education: Programs, Partners and Possibilities at the Millennium (Washington, D.C: NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 1999).
Davis, Todd M. Open Doors: 1997-98 Report on International Educational Exchange (New York: Institute of International Education, 1998).
Weeg, Carol et al. Funding for US Study: A Guide for International Students and Professionals (New York: Institute for International Education, 1996).

Distance Learning and Financial Aid3

It is amazing how fast the world has changed in the last twenty years! Who ever expected "schools without walls" would become an important part of education in the 21st century? If your school is experimenting with distance learning technologies (DLT's), then you know how complicated this new world can be. The complexity of delivering the services is enormous; the implications for financial aid are overwhelming!!

There are many problems and solutions being explored by members of the financial aid world. By regulation, administrators must verify student attendance and good standing. A major question as to how to accomplish that occurs when a student is never in residence on a college campus. Another issue is will DLT students maintain the same academic calendar as traditional programs which must conform to a 30-week academic year. The very attractiveness of distance learning is often the flexible timetable students have to accomplish their tasks. How do we define"full-time" attendance when students may be enrolled in multiple modes of instruction, and maybe in more than one school? Should necessary telecommunications equipment and "connect" charges become part of the student budget? If so, what happens if a student doesn't complete the course? Look for the answers to these and many more questions in the future. Their resolution presents a host of difficult issues that need to be explored.

A Distance Education Demonstration Project has been created with fifteen participants (LDS Church Educations System, University of Texas, Cappella University, MN, Colorado Community Colleges and Occupational Educations System, Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium, Florida State University, Franklin University, Ohio, Master's Institute, California, New York University, North Dakota University System, Quest Education Corp., Iowa, Southern Christian University, Alabama, Southwest Consortium for Advancement of Technology in Education, Texas, University of Maryland University College, Washington State University and Community and Technical College Online Consortium, and Western Governors University, Colorado. From this list, you can see that people all over the country are grappling with the same issues. The Project will report to the US Department of Education, which will report to Congress annually. In a second phase, 35 more institutions will begin participating. The project will be looking for useful data to determine appropriate ways to administer financial aid to DLT students. In the future new regulations will come out of the individual schoolsÆ resourcefulness.

It isn't likely that we, as pre-law advisors, will become proficient in answering these questions, but knowing that we may be asked them by our students gives us a chance to find out, if it is applicable to our setting.

1. Ann W. Brieck, Dr. Patricia A. Burnett, and Jeffrey Dale Chaddock (Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine), "Sense and Centsibility: Raising Student Awareness of Financial Values and Principles" and Jeffrey E. Hanson (The Access Group) "Show Me the Money!"-Getting Students to Care About Debt Management," The Access Group Graduate and professional Financial Aid Conference, The Greenbrier, West Virginia, November, 1999.

2. Julie L. Disa (New School University Graduate Programs) and Linda A Tobash (Institute of International Education), "Finding Financing for International Students," The Access Group 1999 Graduate and Professional Financial Aid Conference, The Greenbrier, West Virginia, November 1999.

3. Michael B. Goldstein (Dow, Lohnes & Albertson) and D. Sherwing Hibbets (Regent University), "A One-World Schoolhouse: Distance & Technology-Mediated Education," The Access Group Graduate and Professional Financial Aid Conference, The Greebrier, West Virginia, November, 1999.

top

Happenings in the Profession

NAPLA Survey Results

Almost a quarter of the membership returned the NAPLA Questionnaire. Of the 109 respondents, 34 were law school admissions officers. The remaining 75 pre-law advisors can be broken down into three categories: faculty (35), career services (18), and deanÆs offices/academic advisors (22).

Not surprisingly, law school admissions officers reported the highest levels of conference-going.

Length of membership also varies among the four categories. If we accept membership of ten years of more as constituting the "hard-core" of the membership, the percentages falling into this category, as well as newer members (less than 5 years) for each group are as follows:

One factor that sets NAPLA apart from the other APLAS is that we have always based the conference in a dormitory. Our counterparts, in contrast, go to hotels. Two questions surveyed membership preferences on this matter. The first asked where the person had stayed in the past. the second queried what their preference was for the conference.

Where did you stay?

Which would you prefer as conference locus?

Another series of questions was concerned with how members funded the conference and dues. This was not asked of law school admissions officers.

Does institution pay dues?

*A long-term issue for faculty who do pre-law advising is the matter of compensation. The era when advising might help in terms of tenure or a promotion decision is probably long gone. Indeed, some might argue it never existed. The "good old days" never were!

Those faculty who reported receiving compensation, either in terms of a reduced load or a stipend, dominated the ranks of faculty who responded that they had a separate pre-law budget. 20 of the faculty respondents replied that they had a budget. 15 did not. 50% of those with budgets said that the budget was at least $1,000. About 24% reported a budget of less than $250 and another 24% said that their budget was between $250 and $500.

Compensated

top

APSA Workshop

Once again, as a result of support from the Pre-Law Advisors National Council (PLANC) and the American Political Science Association and the law schools of George Mason and Catholic Universities, there will be a one-day workshop on pre-law advising on the day before the formal beginning of the APSA Conference in Washington. The workshop will be held on Wednesday, August 30th. It will begin at 8:30 a.m. at Catholic University. The latterÆs law school is right across the street (John W. McCormack Road no less!) from the Brookland/CUA Metro Station. In the afternoon, we will re-convene in Arlington at George Mason University School of Law at 1:30 p.m. For members who cannot attend a NAPLA Conference, the workshop provides a way to keep up with changes in the admissions picture and pre-law advising. For regular conference-goers, it is an opportunity to see more law schools. They are not all the same!

APSA members will find a registration form in the current issue of PS. Otherwise, please contact the Registrar-Supreme, Frank Homer at 570-941-6399.

Archives