GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

ANNUAL STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT REPORT

ACADEMIC YEAR 2004-05

Compiled by Professor Anne Emanuel, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, September 16, 2005

Degree Program: JD

Joint Degree Programs: JD/MBA; JD/MPA; JD/MA in Law and Philosophy; JD/MCRP in Law and Urban Planning; JD/MSHA; JD/MBA/MHA

Number of Graduates from JD Program:

Summer 2004: 8

Fall 2004: 18

Spring 2005: 169

Total 2004-05: 195

Number of Students enrolled in JD Program: 684

Number of Students enrolled in JD/MBA: Six

Number of Students enrolled in JD/MPA: Six

Number of Students enrolled in JD/MA: One

Number of Students enrolled in JD/MCRP: Two

Number of Graduates who earned a Joint Degree: Two - JD/MCRP

I. Introduction: College of Law Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan

In 2004, the faculty approved a new Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan. It provides for expected learning outcomes in the following areas: communication skills, legal research, analysis and critical thinking, knowledge of legal doctrine, lawyering skills, professionalism and ethics, and preparation for a legal career or a career in a non-legal area that is related to graduate law study. The Plan then outlines the assessment methods to obtain each of the above outcomes.

The Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan calls for the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to have overall responsibility for the collection of data and the dissemination of reports on the various assessment results. Although the new Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan assisted in the identification of student learning outcomes and non-academic outcomes, the college also continues to rely upon several traditional benchmarks (some of which are incorporated in the Plan) used in the past that provide valuable information on the effectiveness of instruction and the subsequent success of our students. These include student success in moot court and mock trial competitions, bar passage rates, employment statistics of graduates, placement of graduates in judicial clerkships, and the success of our graduates in obtaining employment and partnerships in prestigious regional and national law firms.

II. Internal & External Assessment Methods

1. Georgia State Bar Examination & the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam

The assessment method most significant to the program of legal education at the College of Law is the State Bar Examination given by the Office of Bar Admissions, an administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court. The Georgia Bar Examination is taken by virtually every graduate of the College of Law. It consists of three sections:

A. Essay Questions

B. A Case File/Performance & Analysis Problem

C. The Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) - a day long Multiple Choice Test

The State Board of Bar Examiners reports overall pass rates, first time taker pass rates, repeat taker pass rates, and average MBE score by College of Law for each Georgia law school. The Board does not report essay grades, or performance problem grades.

Historically, graduates of the College of Law have performed exceptionally well on the State Bar Exam. The data from the last two examinations bear witness to this. Results from the February 2005 Exam were released at the end of May. Overall, 59.9% of those who took the Bar passed; overall, 75.8% of the takers from GSU passed, and this represented the highest overall pass rate among the Georgia law schools.

Overall, 75.2% of first time takers passed; 85.7% of GSU first time takers passed, again the highest rate among the Georgia law schools. Also, the average MBE score for GSU graduates was 143.7, the highest among the Georgia law schools.

The results from the July 2004 Bar were reported in late October, 2004. Overall, 77.5% of those who took the Bar passed; overall, 92.6% of the takers from GSU passed, and this represented the highest pass rate among the Georgia law schools.

Professional Responsibility is a required upper level course. Students who wish to sit for any state Bar must also take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam [MPRE}, a nationally administered multiple choice exam that tests in the area of Professional Responsibility. Results are not reported to the College of Law, but to our knowledge, only one student in the past five years failed this test, and that student passed upon retaking it.

2. Exit Survey - Placement

Each year, our Career Services office surveys the graduates six months after graduation. CSO waits six months in order to allow the students time to sit for the Bar and obtain their results. Survey figures are reported to the ABA, the NALP, and US News & World Report. Survey participation is excellent – in 2003, 94.19% of the graduates responded; in 2004, 95.85% responded.

Complete survey results for 2003 and 2004 are attached. To summarize the overall picture, in 2003, 88.36 of the respondents reported having obtained full time legal employment; 10.27% reported full time non-legal employment; and 1.37% reported part time legal employment. In 2004 the numbers were all but identical, with a slight increase in full time legal employment – 88.65% reported having obtained full time legal employment; 10.27% reported full time non-legal employment; and .54% reported both part time legal and part time non legal employment.

Another measure of the effectiveness of legal instruction received as a student at Georgia State’s College of Law is the success of graduates in achieving partner in prestigious law firms, appointment or election to the bench, and service as legal counsel for major corporations. Georgia State graduates are now partners in Alston & Bird; Arnall, Golden & Gregory; Holland & Knight; Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue; Kilpatrick & Stockton; Powell, Goldstein, Frazier & Murphy; McKenna Long Aldridge; and others. A number of Georgia State College of Law graduates serve as assistant district attorneys and magistrate judges, and several hold State Court and Superior Court judgeships. Numerous corporate legal offices employ College of Law graduates including AT&T, BellSouth, Cox Enterprises, Equifax, Federal Reserve Bank, Georgia Power, and Georgia-Pacific.

3. LSSSE: Law School Survey of Student Engagement

During the 2004-05 academic year, we participated for the first time in the LSSSE. This survey allows students to record their assessment of the education they receive at the College of Law. The entire report fills a ring binder; it is too extensive to include in this report, but we would highlight a few points.

First, the mean national response rate by College of Law was 57%, with a range from 34% to 73%; our response rate was 58.8%. Second, one of the questions that concludes the Survey asks the students to evaluate their entire educational experience on a scale of 1-4, with 1 equaling Poor, 2 equaling Fair, 3 equaling Good, and 4 equaling Excellent. Our first year students ranked their educational experience at 3.29, as compared to 3.14 for responding schools of our size, 3.19 for responding public law schools, and 3.20 overall. Our second year students ranked their educational experience at 3.30, as compared to 3.00 for responding schools of our size, 3.09 for responding public law schools, and 3.08 overall. Our third year students ranked their educational experience at 3.36, as compared to 3.06 for responding schools of our size, 3.12 for responding public law schools, and 3.08 overall. Finally, our fourth year law students ranked their educational experience at 2.90, as compared to 2.97 for responding schools of our size, 3.20 for responding public law schools, and 3.15 overall.

When asked if they were starting over, would they would attend the same law school again, the answer was a resounding yes. From first year to fourth, the mean answers were 3.44, 3.39, 3.37, and 3.40, as compared to 3.20, 3.07, 3.01, and 3.12 overall.

4. Probation & Exclusion

Our registrar creates an annual report for the Dean and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs which contains relevant data about students who are on probation or excluded from the College of Law due to their inadequate grade point average [GPA]. A student must have a 70.0 at the end of the first year of studies to remain in the program, and a 73.0 to be in good standing. If a student is not excluded but has a GPA lower than 73.0, the student has two semesters in which to bring it up to 73.0. Failure to do so results in exclusion.

At the end of the spring semester 2004, eight students were on probation, and eight students were excluded. Of the eight students excluded, five had finished the first year of full time studies, one had finished the first year of part time studies, and two had finished the second year of part time studies – in other words, all were just completing the first year core curriculum.

Likewise, of the eight on probation, six had completed the first year of full time studies, and one each had completed the first year and the second year of part time studies. Again, all were just completing the first year core curriculum. No upper level students were on probation or excluded.

At the end of the spring semester 2005, six students were excluded. Four had completed the first year of full time studies, one had completed the first year of part time studies, and one had completed the third year of part time studies. Seventeen students were on probation. Sixteen had completed the first year of full time studies and one had completed the first year of part time studies; their GPAs ranged from 70.17 to 72.9.

Exclusion is far more likely at the end of the first year full time or the first year part time because we maintain mandatory means in the first year courses [77.5-79.0]. As the competitiveness of each class increases, the relatively greater academic strength of each student is offset to some extent by the greater strength of those they compete against. If a student finishes the first year core curriculum in good standing, that is, with a GPA of at least 70.0, they are very likely to be able to complete the program and graduate. The academic career of the 3L part time student who was excluded this Fall was aberrational.

On the one hand, we hold out great hope that each student who begins our program will complete it and earn a J.D. On the other hand, as a professional school qualifying students to sit for the Bar Examination, it is critical that our program be rigorous and that those who can not or do not attain sufficient mastery of the material be excluded. We believe that the small number of students who do not maintain good standing or who are excluded, and the extremely high percentage of graduates who pass the Bar on their first attempt and who attain full time legal employment within six months of graduation, support a conclusion that the program strikes the right balance – that it competently educates those who are able to handle its rigors, and identifies and excludes those who cannot.

5. Grade Reports

Unlike much other graduate education, legal education proceeds with many classes being taught to large sections of students. The entering classes improve each year, albeit incrementally. The Average LSAT for 2003 was 158.17 and the median LSAT was 158; the Average LSAT for 2004 was 158.65 and the median LSAT was 159. The average GPA for 2003 was 3.32 and the median GPA was 3.31; the average GPA for 2004 was 3.31 and the median GAP was 3.35. Over the past several years, applications have routinely exceeded 3000, and we plan to seat a class of approximately 210. As a result, a large percentage of the class is grouped fairly closely around the mean and median LSAT and GPA.

Because of these factors, in order to ensure fairness in the assessment of students, the College of Law faculty has agreed on mandatory means in first year courses and upper level required courses. Moreover, in order to inform the faculty of their colleagues grading practices, each semester the Registrar prepares a report which groups classes by class size and provides the mean and median grade for each section. The data is provided to the full time faculty but is not otherwise distributed or available. Because of these practices, we do not expect grades to rise, and rising grades are therefore not useful to assess the effectiveness of the program.

6. Student Competition Teams: Trial and Appellate Practice

The success of our Trial Advocacy and Appellate Advocacy [Moot Court] Teams in national competition is another gauge of the success of the program in transmitting advocacy skills. Last year Trial Advocacy teams won the William Daniel National Competition and placed second in the Lone Star Classic National Competition. Moot Court teams won the John J. Gibbons National Criminal Procedure Moot Court Competition and the 2005 Georgia Intrastate Moot Court Competition. Also, a GSU team placed third in the Saul Lefkowitz Southern Regional Moot Court Trademark Competition.

7. Annual Assessment of RWA Program

Because research, writing, and advocacy skills are critical components of legal education, Research, Writing and Advocacy is a first year, two semester, required course, taught by a dedicated faculty. Last year, with only four full time instructors, we also used an adjunct. As of the academic year 2005-06, the College of Law has five full time RWA Instructors, allowing each instructor an average load of 45 students [taught in three sections]. Each instructor teaches from the same syllabus, which requires the entire group to agree on the sources and problems used. The RWA faculty meets regularly to assess the effectiveness of the program and the materials.

Each year the RWA faculty develops a problem that requires the students to address two distinct substantive or procedural issues in a series of exercises. The problem and the supporting materials that are distributed to the students are reviewed by the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. First the students write a memo, then an appellate brief, then in teams they participate in a mock appellate argument. RWA instructors, other members of the faculty, and upper level student members of Moot Court participate as judges for the mock appellate arguments; each team of students argues before a panel of three judges. This provides an opportunity for community wide assessment of the effectiveness of the program. In addition, a questionnaire that will assess how confident upper level students who hold summer clerkships are with the research and writing skills obtained in RWA is being developed.

8. Annual Assessment of Externship Program

The College of Law places students in externships at approximately 40 locations per semester. Placements include judges’ chambers, state and federal agencies, and non profit legal organizations. Two faculty members supervise the program/semester. They conduct mid-semester and end of semester interviews with each student in order to evaluate the placement.

In addition, the on-site supervisor completes a lengthy evaluation of the student which the supervising faculty member reviews with the student at the exit interview.

If a student does not report sufficient engagement with legal issues as part of their responsibilities, the faculty member contacts the on-site supervisor with a view to remedying the situation. This does occur, at a rate of perhaps one or two sites a year. The supervising faculty member sends each on-site supervisor a mid-semester e-mail asking them to confirm that the student extern’s work is satisfactory; also, each student must have the on-site supervisor sign a form confirming that the student is on track for passing the class and must bring that form to the mid-semester interview.

If an on-site director reports that a student is not fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to the student, the faculty member meets with the on-site director and with the student. If the student's performance does not improve, the student fails. This has occurred, but only once in the last 15 years.

Externship placements allow students to hone analytical and advocacy skills, to put substantive learning to practical use, and to confront professionalism issues under the guidance of an experienced mentor. The constant monitoring of the externship sites and the student externs permits ongoing assessment and adjustment with a view to ensuring a rich educational experience.