Notes from the Editor
President's Message
LSAT Preparation and the Pre-Law Advisor
The Big 5: Trying to Keep up with Law Firm Pay
Happenings in the Profession
APSA in San Francisco
Nominations for 2001 Business Meeting
CLEO Application
Moot Court
MAPLA Profiles Appendix (not included online)
Recently, a former student called up to talk about his career
plans. Calls from grads are one of the rewards of our profession, but this one
was a little special. After thirty years at Saint Joseph's, I am not surprised,
much less shocked, to hear that a former student has a child attending Saint
Joseph's. OK, I admit it is a little disconcerting to know that this is the
youngest of his three students to attend college; the other two have already
graduated! What resonated, however, about this call was that the person on the
other end of the line was the cause of my becoming a pre-law advisor in 1971.
Phil was clearly the outstanding politics graduate of that year.
He had or would win all the honors that year, but he had received little in
the way of useful advice about law school. There was a pre-law advisor, a lawyer
who taught business law. The latter had confidently assured Phil that the application
process was a snap and that with Phil's credentials there was not a law school
in the country that would not want him in the first year class. the advice probably
was correct even into the 1960s, but by the early 1970s things had changed dramatically.
Law school was the way to go, and Phil, despite an almost 4.0 average and comparable
LSAT scores found himself out in the cold, having been told that the LSAT score
was unimportant so that it was just fine to wait to take the test in February!
My star student in constitutional law was not going to law school. Luckily,
Georgetown Law School came to the rescue and Phil has been a successful partner
in two major law firms. He made partner and I became a pre-law advisor. A fair
trade? Maybe. The call arose from his wonder as to whether it was too late to
become a political scientist. Does this mean that I will become the pre-political
science advisor at Saint Joseph's? Did I give the wrong advice in 1971?
This issue of the Notes brings into focus two matters that were
not much in the news when I started out in 1971: LSAT preparation and the escalating
salaries offered to first year associates. Jim Yoho of Wilkes University was
one of the stellar participants in the recent PLANC Conference in San Diego.
As much as I was thankful to enjoy the blue skies and sea breezes of Southern
California in mid-November, I was grateful to receive Jim's extremely thoughtful
and tightly argued paper on the subject of why those of you who continue to
be pre-law advisors need to address and act on the subject of LSAT preparation.
I would be also very grateful to any of you, dear readers, who
would follow Jim Yoho's lead and make a contribution to these pages. The deadline
for submissions for the winter issue is January 15; spring issue: March 15:
summer issue: June 15.
The second article by National Law Journal Contributing Editor
Geanne Rosenberg tracks one of the unintended consequences of the surge in starting
associate salaries and its impact on the hiring and staffing practices of the
Big 5 accounting firms.
An early holiday present is enclosed: the invaluable MAPLA Profiles. Edited by Ava Preacher, they reflect the glow of the golden dome, perfect for seasonal reading.
Graham Lee
Saint Joseph's University
Philadelphia, PA 19131-1395
phone: 610-660-1753
fax: 610-660-1284
glee@sju.edu
Dear NAPLA Colleagues,
The law school admission rush is now on for most of us as we finish talking
to our students, writing letters of recommendation and offering final advice
on how, when and where to apply. For those who attended the national conference
in San Diego there was good news and again some disturbing information. Interest
in law school is rising, and there seemed to be general optimism on behalf of
prelaw advisors on the acceptance of their students. The disturbing news continued
to be focused on two issues: the finances of graduating law school students
and the quality of life for practicing attorneys. More students are entering
the legal market with debts resembling a mortgage that few can afford unless
they obtain one of the scarce positions where there is money but which continue
to diminish the quality and even time for a fulfilling private life. Last week
the Boston Globe featured an article on the disproportionate number of women
who were leaving law firms for the less stressful and more flexible environments
of government or corporate offices. Some are making the transition to life outside
the law. All of this points to the need of prelaw advisors to be aware of much
more than the law school admissions process. It is essential to understand the
future which awaits our graduates in the "real" world. The NALP (National
Association of Law Placement) web site is one that should be given to all students
before they apply to law school and is essential reading for prelaw advisors.
On a happier note, a good way to be informed about the future of law will be to attend the NAPLA/SAPLA conference in Williamsburg on June 13-16, 2001. The theme, "Keeping Faith with a Noble Profession" will have a strong focus on the practice of law. In February you will be receiving registration material. This looks like a best-ever conference. See you in June.
Pauline M. Harrington, JD
Bridgewater State College
Political Science Department
Bridgewater, MA 02325
508-531-2418
pharrington@bridgew.edu
LSAT Preparation and the
Pre-Law Advisor1
By James Yoho, J.D., Ph.D., Pre-Law Advisor, Wilkes University
This paper was presented to the Third National Conference for Pre-Law Advisors
in San Diego on November 17, 2000.
However we may regard the validity of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT),
there is no question that it is a significant factor in law school admissions.
It is argued here that of the various options available to pre-law advisors
who would assist advisees to prepare for the LSAT, a sound in-house preparation
program is best. That, of course, raises the question of how to go about instituting
in-house preparation.
The Options Available to Pre-Law Advisors
Pre-law advisors rise-or, sometimes, regrettably do not rise- in different
ways to the challenges presented by the LSAT. On a continuum, the least ambitious
response is basically to ignore the entire matter. Chosen by more pre-law advisors
than you might suppose, this particular option typically is accompanied by one
or both of a couple of homilies, one of which is "The LSAT really is an
intelligence/skill test, so apart from taking a practice test or two, there's
no way effectively to coach anyone for it." This "coaching-is-to-be-shunned"
view is reinforced-and perhaps even inspired-by virtue of being, in effect,
the company line of the test-maker, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC),
and its basic constituency, the law schools of America. They take real comfort-or
at least refuge-in the considerable difficulties that would be involved with
gathering competent empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a particular
type of preparation. A cynic could not help but notice that the validity claimed
for the LSAT by its maker-i.e., as a test of the intellectual skills that are
vital to success in law school-would be undermined by an admission that the
test can be effectively coached, as this would suggest that the LSAT measures,
at least in part, nothing more than one's ability to cope with the test itself.
The other homily that accompanies this least-ambitious approach is the more
subtle "Our students seem to do just fine on the test without my help."
If one really is happy with the scores of advisees, then there is a certain
logic to this approach. Of course, it never will be known just how much higher
advisees' scores might have been if their school's pre-law program took seriously
their preparation for the LSAT. It also seems likely that this rationale focuses
on the higher achievers at the expense of the lower, if not also the middle:
i.e., how many students who got a 140, 156, or 163 might have scored 144, 165,
or 168, respectively, with better preparation?
Ideally, competent social scientists would conduct scientifically sound experiments
to study the effectiveness of particular LSAT preparation techniques. However,
this would be both somewhat tricky and perhaps also expensive-and who would
care to fund research of this sort? Not the LSAC or individual law schools,
which presumably would not want to seem to dignify test preparation with such
serious consideration. Not the big test preparation firms, which only want to
advocate the effectiveness of their own course. And not colleges and universities,
which have too many other claims on their resources and face similar issues
concerning their own use of other standardized "skill" tests such
as the SAT I: Reasoning Test, the Graduate Record Examination General Test,
and the Graduate Management Admission Test. And can you imagine what would come
next if particular preparation techniques were shown to be effective? That particular
sort of assistance would have to be made available to all test-takers or whatever
remains of the credibility of the whole standardized testing empire that has
arisen in the last half-century would crumble!
In short, the controversy over whether there are effective LSAT preparation
techniques is not likely to be satisfactorily resolved before the next appearance
of Halley's Comet. Until and unless adequate studies are done, it will be necessary
to evaluate LSAT preparation in an essentially qualitative manner-and here,
too, part of the difficulty is what particular LSAT preparation techniques to
study.
The next least ambitious option on the continuum for pre-law advisors is to
supply advisees with a list of test preparation providers while declining to
make a recommendation. However, there is an inherent contradiction to this approach
that is only rarely recognized: if a pre-law advisor has an adequate basis for
recommending test preparation in general, then it might be supposed that there
also is a basis for choosing among the various preparation providers. Is it
that pre-law advisors who take this approach are not necessarily convinced that
test preparation is generally effective, but may nonetheless furnish provider
information because it seems better-e.g., more defensible-than doing nothing?
Even if the pre-law advisor believes that at least one test preparation course
is effective, a specific recommendation may not be made lest it seem that one
competitor is being given an advantage over another-which, of course, would
be true (although not done arbitrarily).
More or less in the middle of the continuum is the option of recommending a
particular LSAT preparation course, and here the big commercial courses do well
both because they are pervasive and pre-law advisors often succumb to the rationale
that you generally get that for which you pay. In short, the expensive courses
often are deemed best. Pre-law advisors even have been known to pooh-pooh the
difficulty of raising a cool thousand or so for a prep course. That will be
true for some advisees, but certainly not for many-and probably not for most.
There also is the rationale that a course must be effective if it is supported
by a huge advertising budget, or just has a prestigious corporate affiliation:
"After all, Kaplan is owned by The Washington Post!" Rarely is such
a recommendation based on students' course evaluations or classroom observation
by the pre-law advisor. How many pre-law advisors who recommend a particular
course even systematically ask for evaluations of the course by their advisees-or,
for that matter, get them from the course provider? Here, the mantra of outcomes
assessment appears to have been discarded.
It also usually is easy enough for a pre-law advisor to arrange the next most
active option, which is to have a commercial test prep provider offer a course
on campus. This does not necessarily have to be coupled with an endorsement
of the course, in which case the pre-law advisor usually offers a rationale
that resembles "I just want to give my advisees another option"-although
one could offer the same rationale for informing advisees about career opportunities
in stripping rather than just those that are associated with having a law degree.
And pre-law advisors should be aware that endorsement is likely to be inferred
by the pre-law advisees even when the pre-law advisor intended nothing of the
sort: after all, advisees will reason, the school brought the company onto campus
and the pre-law advisor made sure we had the course information.
If the pre-law advisor explicitly endorses a commercial course that is being
offered on the campus, it may be thought that this suggests a relatively dynamic
pre-law program: we supply the best in LSAT preparation! But at a time when
many schools feel ever more pressure to explain how their programs differ from
others, how distinguished and distinctive is it, really, to offer the same LSAT
instruction as can be found in a few hundred other places around the nation?
It is not often that we see colleges and universities deferring to external
commercial instruction that, when not being promoted by the school, also may
be found advertised on such media as beach towels and busses! Actually, what
is implied by this approach to LSAT preparation is that the pre-law advisor
believes a course should be supplied by the school but does not believe that
its "higher educators" can come up with anything better, or has a
conviction concerning what particular LSAT preparation techniques work best
but the school does not choose to teach them itself.
Not infrequently, a commercial test preparation operation is brought onto campus
without the approval, or even involvement, of the pre-law advisor. This can
serve seriously to limit the pre-law advisor's future options in arranging for
an LSAT preparation provider, as now a turf problem may well have been created:
a course that is undesirable in the eyes of the pre-law advisor is being offered
through a venue such as the continuing education office or the career services
office, but the pre-law advisor may not be able to suggest even a competing
course-much less replacing the existing one-without raising an administrator's
hackles.
Certainly there is room for honest disagreement about all of this, but it should
be considered whether the LSAT preparation options listed so far, if any one
was to be chosen by the pre-law advisor, would not represent a failure of some
combination of nerve, expertise, and initiative. It is amazing how little of
the self-confidence that usually is exuded by academics is in evidence when
it comes to LSAT preparation. For example, a professor who is teaching a course
in physics confidently proclaims what texts will be used, what ideas are important,
and how the material will be presented. This also is true in subjects that lend
themselves only to qualitative rather than quantitative study, such as philosophy
or literature. How close to that level of prescription-or even to that shown
in other aspects of their own pre-law programs-do pre-law advisors, collectively
considered, come when they advise about preparing for the LSAT?
Luckily, and as the preceding comments suggest, there is an additional option
for LSAT preparation, one that can serve pre-law advisees well and thus distinguish
a pre-law program: do it yourself. The first step is that the pre-law advisor
conclude that it at least appears that LSAT preparation can be effective and
resolve to offer a thoughtful and competent in-house preparation option. Certainly,
there are obstacles to doing so, the principal two being how to ascertain what
to teach and how to find the time to put it all together. Luckily, neither is
as tough a problem as it might seem at first blush.
How to Ascertain What to Teach
The threshold here is to appreciate that although there are certain types of
substantive knowledge that will benefit takers of the LSAT (e.g., logic) despite
its status as a "skill" rather than a "knowledge" test,
an LSAT preparation course should focus on procedure rather than substance.
For example, if an advisee has reached the point of taking the LSAT but still
has not developed much of a vocabulary, remedial education should not be undertaken.
An emphasis on procedure emphasizes the process by which answers are ascertained
rather than just why the right answer is right. For example, even the wrong
answers should be discussed so that test-takers come to see the nature of the
distraction (standardized testing jargon for "sucker bait") that it
offers. In essence, a good LSAT preparation course breaks down, into a series
of manageable steps, the various tasks that must be executed in order to correctly
answer the questions.2
That having been said, the obvious question becomes how to produce this procedural
synthesis. First, get a start on thinking procedurally by consulting the latest
annual edition of the LSAT/LSDAS Registration and Information Book. Obviously,
one starts by understanding such basics as the structure of the LSAT and the
three question types. However, the registration book also includes some basic
procedural suggestions for test-takers. (In the 2000-2001 edition, see pp. 59-85.)
Eventually this effort must produce specific suggestions that go well beyond
these basics, but every course-writer has to start somewhere.
Second, try to apply this basic procedural knowledge while taking a sample
LSAT, one of which is in the registration book (be careful never to use anything
other than real LSATs). As the results are reviewed, question by question, take
careful notes of such details as what was confusing and what procedures produced
correct answers. When a question was answered incorrectly, try to decide what
went wrong, procedurally speaking.
Third, step back from what has been done so far and make an initial attempt
to formulate procedural suggestions that would be of assistance to test-takers.
Set aside personal insecurities, which are quite natural; after all, no one
need see this first draft, or even the next five. Some of the suggestions that
eventually will emerge from this process likely will apply to all three question
types, while others will be unique to just one or two of them. Continue the
process of taking sample LSATs and reflecting upon the attendant procedural
techniques until an approach has been refined that is sophisticated enough to
be of real help to test-takers.
This is nothing more or less than what is done by other preparation course
writers. To see a few examples of the efforts of others, check out one of the
LSAT preparation books that are published by the commercial firms. Do this to
get a better sense of what needs to be done, but resist the urge to use these
other efforts as any sort of foundation: not only are they often not specific
enough procedurally, but sometimes they are wrongheaded. These companies may
be making a fortune from selling these books and the preparation courses that
employ the same techniques, but there is nothing particularly special about
what they do. Consider, for example, that one who is writing an in-house course
has the resources of a college or university at his or her disposal. Why not
consult a professor who is familiar with educational psychology about the dynamics
of standardized tests, or one who teaches English how to go about reading difficult
prose?
And, yes, the instructor will need to be able to explain, within the context
of delivering a procedural approach to the LSAT, why the right answer is right
and the wrong answers are wrong for those sample questions that are covered
in the course.
How to Find the Time to Put It All Together
There is no question that developing an LSAT preparation course is a task that
will take some time, as will teaching the course itself. Thus, it is necessary
to address how the necessary time will be freed up from other tasks. The answer
is simple: sufficient additional financial compensation to make it worthwhile.
An in-house course need not necessarily be developed and taught by the pre-law
advisor, but that certainly is a possibility-and it would be surprising, indeed,
to hear of a pre-law advisor who was doing so who was not being paid in addition
to whatever salary otherwise goes with being the pre-law advisor. Should, say,
a dean who is contemplating whether to provide such additional compensation
to a pre-law advisor want to know how other schools handle such matters (and
deans often take great comfort in following the herd), the precedents will be
easy enough to find.
If the pre-law advisor nonetheless does not want to take on this project, presumably
there is someone else around who would be attracted by some combination of the
chance to be useful, the intellectual challenge, and some extra income. In order
to make the course as closely associated as possible with the school, ideally
this would be a faculty member. However, even a preparation course taught by
someone from outside the school can be very closely associated with the host
school.3
When setting the compensation for the teacher of an in-house LSAT preparation
course, keep in mind that the course must be made worth the time of someone
who will be expected to work hard, both in and out of class, and bring considerable
intellectual and teaching talents to bear for, hopefully, several years. It
is suggested here that the compensation be $800-$1,000 a day. Consider the following:
clearly, LSAT preparation can be properly taught in two days (say, 9-5 with
an hour for lunch)-notwithstanding that some commercial courses have bloated
to about 40 contact hours. If the course registers 10 students at $250 each,
there is nothing problematic about an instructional fee of $1,600-$2,000 for
a two-day course unless the school is determined to use the course to generate
income rather than serve advisees.
A school presumably could get someone to offer a course for, say, half or a
fourth of what has been suggested here-but to what effect? In fact, the instructional
fee should go up if the total number of registrations is higher, because this
reflects that students are being attracted by the credentials of the instructor,
including the positive word-of-mouth on the course that soon should be generated.
So, for example, with the twenty-first student the instructional fee should
be a straight $80-$100 per student; thus, the fee for a course with 28 registrants
would be $2,240-$2,800. This is how a school attracts and keeps an instructor
who is committed, credentialed, and talented.
Handling the Other Details
If a qualified instructor who is prepared to develop and teach an LSAT preparation
course has been arranged, the rest is relatively easy. Here are a few additional
recommendations for resolving the rest of it.
First, it must be recognized that a failure to attract a sufficient number
of registrants will impair the economic viability of the course. Thus, it is
critical that the pre-law advisor have sufficient confidence in the course not
just to mention it to advisees, but also to recommend it to them. If the pre-law
advisor is the instructor and thus is concerned about the conflict of interest
considerations, simply mention this to advisees: "I realize that I have
an interest here because I'm paid to teach the course, but I set this up in
the first place because I believed it'd be a better option than what otherwise
would exist."4 If the instructor is someone other than the pre-law advisor,
this will not be a problem anyway. After even one offering of the course, the
word of its quality will get around rather quickly and this will assist with
future enrollments.
Registrants from outside of the school also should be sought, as this increases
not only course revenue, but, probably, also the reputation of the pre-law program
at the host school. Every community has residents who are thinking about attending
law school, as do neighboring colleges and universities; as to the latter, the
pre-law advisor may be willing to recommend the course to advisees.
All of this requires a plan for promotion of the course-and someone who will
execute it. Basically, there are two options here. For one, the pre-law advisor
can find an administrative locus for the course outside of the pre-law program,
such as the office of continuing education. At most schools, that office already
is geared up to promote courses and receive registration fees. Be forewarned,
however, that many continuing education administrators believe in paying rather
little for teaching. The other option is for the pre-law advisor to handle all
of this, the registration fees being handled according to whatever rules exist
at the school. One advantage of this option is that the "profits"
from the course can be used for the benefit of the pre-law program-e.g., scholarships
for the course.
Second, do not doubt the importance of the quality of the credentials of the
instructor and the teaching. For example, would you suppose the better instructor
of an LSAT preparation course more likely to be a local lawyer or law student,
which is typical fare for the commercial courses, or a college or university
pre-law advisor or professor? The in-house course easily can feature an instructor
with credentials that are impressive enough on their face to help draw in registrants,
if this information is used in marketing, as certainly it should be. Typically,
the credentials of instructors for the commercial courses are unknown to prospective
students and, even if disclosed, run-of-the-mill. A positive experience in the
course-which requires the reality of good teaching skills, not just the promise-will
generate good word-of-mouth.
And gauging the reality of the quality of the teaching means that each course
should be evaluated by at least students, if not also-at the inception, anyway-an
experienced educator. Here is a significant difference between in-house and
commercial courses: the host school can exercise real quality control over an
in-house course, whereas there usually is little, if any, evaluative information
available for a commercial course.5
Third, the sample LSAT that is in the annual registration bulletin is convenient
to use for course materials, as it will be necessary to review a real LSAT.
The bulletin is free; otherwise, sample tests can be purchased for $8 each.
It also is likely that the LSAC will waive its copyright for schools that would
like to hold down costs by photocopying LSATs; however, a request to LSAC should
be made before the sample tests are copied.
Finally, the test-taking techniques that are taught in the course still must
be practiced by the students after the course has ended. This practice time
could be built into the course itself, certainly, but that only would protract
its length and, presumably, also increase its cost. There also is a limited
capacity of students to attend multiple sessions, which is why two day-long
sessions, presumably on one or two weekends, work best. The students always
can arrange to practice together, perhaps with the assistance of the pre-law
advisor. For practice, registrants should be supplied with an LSAT TriplePrep,
which has three complete tests and is sold by the LSAC for $16.50. They also
should be told during the course how to practice.
Conclusion: This Can Be Done!
Some colleges and universities already have been providing successful in-house courses for many years, so obviously this can be done. It is not quite the proverbial rocket science, but real thought and effort are required. The potential benefits to advisees are not to be underestimated. As pre-law advisors, we may not be able to make the rules, but we can help our advisees learn how to better play the game!
Notes
1 This paper was presented to the Third National Conference for Pre-Law Advisors
in San Diego on November 17, 2000.
2 The reader might reasonably wonder about the author's basis for conclusions
like these concerning the techniques of LSAT preparation, the mercifully short
answer to which is that he gained extensive applied experience while working
for four years-including two as vice president-with a prestigious educational
consulting firm, Spiegelberg Associates, that has provided LSAT preparation
courses through colleges and universities in the mid-Atlantic region for the
last 20 years. The author, who also has been an adjunct faculty member at two
law schools and served as the pre-law advisor and member of the political science
faculty at Wilkes University since 1995, now has his own educational consulting
firm that provides LSAT preparation courses through colleges and universities.
3 It might be argued that a preparation course no longer is "in-house"
under such circumstances, but it still would be a course offered by the host
school. The use of the host school's own pre-law advisor or faculty as instructor
gives a course a bit more of the host school's imprimatur, certainly, but this
is not essential.
4 In this case, it also is advisable to ask a colleague, especially one who
is knowledgeable about the pre-law program, to routinely review the financial
arrangements for the course and speak up to whoever supervises the pre-law advisor
if there is an issue as to whether the best interests of the pre-law program
are being served. This will protect the program, the pre-law advisor, and even
the supervisor.
5 A school that is particularly interested in measuring a course's effectiveness
can conduct a pre-test using a real LSAT, which then can be compared to the
LSAT score. However, this is not without logistical problems: the school will
have limited control over various factors, such as whether the course-taker
follows the advice given in the course-especially an exhortation to practice
what was learned in the course-or shares their LSAT score, and it would be ideal
to also give a pre-test to a control group.
The Big 5: Trying to Keep
up with Law Firm Pay
Geanne Rosenberg, Contributing Editor, National Law Journal
Reprinted with permission of Geanne Rosenberg. This article appeared in the
October 23, 2000 issue of The National Law Journal and may not be reprinted
without the author's express permission.
Big FIve accounting firms generally have not kept up with the escalation in
starting salaries for recent law school graduates. The pay differential could
put a damper on this year's Big Five recruiting season.
While top law firms are enticing law students with salaries in the $150,000
range, starting pay at Big Five firms for law school graduates is generally
$60,000 to $100,000, according to a Big Five human resources expert, with the
high end primarily reserved for LL.M. tax graduates and some top-tier students.
Several Big Five firms have decided that $150,000 starting salaries can't be
justified unless the recent law grads work a virtually inhuman number of hours.
For example, at Ernst & Young, "We just decided not to match,"
when it came to the latest jump in starting salaries for law graduates, says
William J. Lipton, vice chairman, tax services. "I don't see how the law
firms are going to have a fair profit unless [law associates] work more hours
than the outrageous hours they're already working." He adds that E&Y
intends to compete by offering a "work/life balance."
So too does PricewaterhouseCoopers. "The way the Big Five position themselves
as opposed to the law firms is a quality-of-life perspective," says Kimberly
Fashing, national director of PwC/s campus recruitment."
There are, however, exceptions-such as Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu-Deloitte &
Touche's parent firm, which will go as high as $150,000 for top law students
at top-tier schools who are taking jobs in high-paying markets such as New York,
says Shelley Mead, global director of recruiting for tax and legal services.
But, for the most part, at Big Five firms, including Deloitte, the overwhelming
majority of incoming law graduates will make far less than $150,000.
That may be a tough sell, according to Jean French, director of career services
at Boston College Law School. Law students, she says, "assume they're going
to work hard wherever they go," and want to be sure the compensation is
there. It's with the benefit of hindsight, she notes, that later in their careers
they're more likely to appreciate quality-of-life factors. But at the law school
stage of the game, money talks.
But that hasn't stopped or slowed the Big Five's recruiting ambitions; they're
set to hire some 1,000 law school graduates this year.
Ms. Mead says Deloitte alone hopes to hire some 250 graduates from U.S. schools
for jobs in the United States, plus an additional 100 or so international students
for Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu's newly mushrooming global law network. Deloitte,
she says, is unusual in that it takes a global approach to lawyer recruiting.
The firm consolidates recruiting efforts worldwide and then, as students sign
on, they're placed in locations around the world, including in the United States,
primarily in tax consulting, and overseas in affiliated law firms.
PwC is aiming to recruit some 220 law students. Ernst & Young, which has
halved its law student recruiting goal to 100 graduates per year during the
last several years, expects to remain at that level. Previously, the firm had
recruited law students for both tax-consulting and tax-compliance work, but
found that the law school students did not enjoy the tax-compliance role. "Rather
than continue to try to fit a square peg in a round hole," Mr. Lipton says,
the firm opted to split its tax practice into separate consulting and compliance
units and recruit law students only for the former. The 100 students Ernst &
Young recruits, Mr. Lipton says, will start off in the tax-consulting area.
When it comes to recruiting LL.M. students, says Gihan Fernanco, assistant
dean for student services at Cornell Law School, that's where the Big Five really
show their recruiting muscle. For one thing, they may try harder than law firms.
"Once an LL.M. student with the appropriate credentials" makes the
"initial contact" with a Big Five firm, he says, they're "very
strong" on the follow-up.
But overall, says one Big Five recruiter, "It's going to be an interesting year, given the salary structures."
PLANC Pre-Law Advisors Workshop
Political scientists, mark your calendars for Wednesday, August 28, 2001. PLANC's now annual workshop, run in conjunction with the meeting of the American Political Science Association, is pretty much firmed up. With the conference being held in San Francisco, the workshop coordinator has made arrangements for the program to be run at the law schools of the University of San Francisco and Golden Gate University. Unlike the late Spriro Agnew's comment that "if you've seen one, you've seen them all," law schools are as different as our students (well, maybe not that different!). For schedule information, please contact Graham Lee (glee@sju.edu). To register, touch base with Frank Homer (homerf1@scranton.edu).
Nominations for Officers and Board Positions
Suggestions or volunteers for nominations for positions to be voted on at the 2001 Williamsburg Meeting should be sent to the Chair of the NAPLA Nominating Committee, Bruce Auerbach, Department of Political Science, Albright College, P.O. Box 15234, Reading, PA, 19612-5234.
Get the CLEO Edge
The idea that "justice is blind" should not serve as
an excuse for starting law school in the dark. Over 90% of all CLEO summer institute
participants go on to successful careers in all areas of the legal profession.
Since 1968, CLEO has sponsored annual six-week pre-law institutes designed to
demystify and shed light on the law school experience. Preparation builds confidence,
and CLEO alumni enter law school confident in their ability to succeed after
having been introduced to the Socratic method of case analysis, legal writing,
IRAC (issue, rule, analysis, conclusion), briefing cases, the benefits of study
groups, time management, test taking skills, and more. Come into the light-get
the CLEO edge!
Eligibility Requirements
Applicants must be eligible to attend an ABA-accredited law school;
apply to at least one CLEO Consortium on Diversity in Legal Education Member
School or Supporting Institution ("MSSI"); be a United States citizen,
permanent resident or citizen of U.S. trust Territories; and be able to devote
six weeks to a full-time, intensive pre-law program on a law school campus away
from home.
Financial Information
All students are encouraged to apply regardless of their financial
status. As a non-profit program, CLEO attempts to locate external funding sources
to supplement the cost of the institute. Students selected for the program pay
a $2,000 fee; a few selected students are chosen from the low-income category,
and pay a fee of $200. The actual cost to CLEO of the summer institute is approximately
$3,000 per student. This includes the following: room and board ($1,700); instructional
fee ($750); books and materials ($150); teaching assistant salaries ($200);
and Institute administrative costs ($200). The appropriate fee must be received
before a student's participation can be confirmed. Transportation to the institute
is not included. Federally funded stipends are no longer available.
Application Deadline
February 1st of the year you intend to start law school is the
deadline for applying to CLEO. Applications received by November 30 will receive
"early admit" status, and successful candidates in the "early
admit" status will be notified by February 1, 2001.
Academic Criteria
The pre-law summer institute is designed to assist all students,
primarily those seeking a solid preparation for the first year of law school.
Students accepted into the CLEO program have either already been accepted into
a law school or are seeking placement assistance into a law school. Those seeking
placement assistance usually have academic criteria which are borderline (i.e.
LSAT score and GPA which meet a law school's admissions but are in the lower
percentile) but have other indicators of a strong likelihood for success. Although
CLEO is extremely liberal with respect to academic eligibility, it is unlikely
that a student with a LSAT score and GPA below 140 and 2.5 will be selected
without a strong recommendation from a CLEO MISSI.
Admissions Policy
Admission decisions are the responsibility of the CLEO Admissions
Director, the Institute Director, and the Admissions Directors of the MSSI.
If you apply for the "early admit" status, your application will be
reviewed once your file is complete, and if accepted you will be notified by
February 1. For those applicants who are not successful during this process,
CLEO will notify the MSSIs listed on the front of your application that you
would like to be nominated to participate in the summer program. The MSSIs then
review their files to determine which of their applicants would most benefit
by participating in CLEO and make nominations accordingly. Nominees are then
forwarded to the CLEO national office. Applications are reviewed, and decisions
are made on a continuing basis. A student's participation in the program is
not confirmed until the fee has been received in the national office. In an
effort to increase diversity in the legal profession, especially for members
of under represented groups, CLEO considers such factors as age, economic, educational,
ethnic, and geographic backgrounds.
Application Procedure
All portions of your application must be submitted together by
the deadline. Additionally:
o The application must be completed, signed, and include a $20 application fee
(MONEY ORDER ONLY). No fee waivers will be granted.
o You must register with the Law School Data Assembly Service
(LSDAS) and order enough reports so that CLEO may request one from LSAC. The
CLEO LSDAS Code is 5096.
o The LSAT must be taken by December of the year before you intend to enter
law school.
o Your personal statement must be typed or printed and discuss aspects of your
background, experience, and aspirations.
o Include four self-addressed, stamped envelopes so that we may notify you of
the status of your application
o All students who apply for low-income fee participation must submit the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to the U.S. Department of Education
at www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/express.html. The government will verify all financial
information, produce a Student Aid Report (SAR), and forward it to the applicant.
It is the applicant's responsibility to send a copy of their SAR to CLEO to
complete their application. A SAR is required for all low-income fee category
applicants.
o Letters of recommendation are optional.
Institute Locations
The CLEO Pre-law Summer Institute locations vary from year to
year. Most recently, they have been held at the University of Pittsburgh, Suffolk
University, DePaul University, the University of Missouri at Kansas City, University
of Missouri at Columbia, Dickinson, University of Richmond, Valparaiso, Howard,
Southern South Texas, and Northern Illinois. The six-week program begins in
early June. Students are generally assigned to the institute closest to their
place of permanent residency or the region of their nominating school. All students
accepted into the CLEO program reside in the school dormitory.
Non-Discrimination Policy
CLEO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability regarding admission, access to, treatment, or employment in its programs and activities.
American Collegiate Moot Court Association National Tournament
The annual tournament of the Moot Court Association will be held January 19-29, 2001 at the University of Texas at Arlington. Although this notice is probably too late for NAPLA members who would like to participate, the program should interest many of our members and, perhaps, they will make a note on their future calendars so that they might participate in 2002. This year's hypothetical is one that pits the interests of free exercise and free speech against non-establishment clause concerns. For future information, members should contact the tournament director:
Prof. Charles R. Knerr
P.O. Box 19539
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, Texas, 76019
Of related interest is a panel scheduled for the Western Political Science Association meeting in Las Vegas for March 15-17, 2001. Papers to be presented include those on subjects such as "Variation in the Conduct of Undergraduate Appellate Simulation," "Mock U.S. Supreme Court," "In-class and Cyber Simulations in the Undergraduate Constitutional Law Classroom," "Teaching Appellate Simulation as an Independent Course," and "The Berkeley/Cal Pre-Law Association Moot Court."
NAPLA Handbook for Pre-Law Advisors, Third Edition
Handbook Editor Jeanne Dillon has completed a third edition of our very useful
guide for pre-law advisors, both new and experienced. Almost all of the chapters
have been revised. The section on internet resources was re-worked by Dom DeLeo.
A new section on advising gay and lesbian applicants has been contributed to
the volume by Gail Dyer.
The cost for members is ten dollars a copy. This includes handling and postage.
The non-member cost is fifteen dollars per copy.
To order, contact:
Dr. Frank X. Homer
University of Scranton
Department of History
Scranton, PA, 18510
(570) 941-6399
homerfl@scranton.edu
Top