THE POWER OF SKILLS TRAINING: A STUDY OF LAWYERING SKILLS GRADES AS
THE STRONGEST PREDICTOR OF LAW SCHOOL SUCCESS (Or In Other Words, It’s
Time For Legal Education to Get Serious About Skills Training If We Care About How Our
Students Learn)
*By Leah M. Christensen
INTRODUCTION
I have long believed in the power of skills training in legal education.1 Before
beginning my teaching career, I practiced law for several years. As a result of my practice
experience, I have seen the value of skills training from an external perspective—I know that to
practice law competently, a lawyer needs to know more than simply how to “think like a lawyer”
in the abstract. I also appreciate the value of skills training from the “inside” of the law school
classroom. In my Lawyering Skills courses, I am able to place doctrine and skills in a practical
context. I believe that my students learn more doctrine when it is placed within a skills or realworld context.2 The Carnegie Foundation appears to agree with this assessment. In March of
2007, the Carnegie Foundation released its findings after a two year study of legal education.3
The study called for substantial reform within legal education, including more skills instruction
and better teaching overall.4 "The dramatic results of the first year of law school's emphasis on
well-honed skills of legal analysis should be matched by similar skill in serving clients and a
solid ethical grounding," the authors note. "If legal education were serious about such a goal, it
would require a bolder, more integrated approach."5
It is time for legal education to get serious about integrating skills into the law school
curriculum. For far too long in legal education, skills instruction has been relegated to secondary
* Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law. B.A., University of Chicago. J.D., University of
Iowa. I would like to thank my dedicated research assistant, Darryn Beckstrom, for her work in capturing and
analyzing the data. This study would not have been possible without her skillful assistance.
1
I use the term “skills” broadly to encompass a wide variety of first year programs, including legal writing,
lawyering skills, legal methods and/or legal skills courses. These classes undertake to teach first year law students a
variety of skills, including legal analysis, legal research, and effective written communication. In the Lawyering
Skills class upon which I base this article, my course also integrated client counseling and advocacy skills into the
first year curriculum. There is some controversy about whether first year programs should be limited to “legal
writing,” or whether we should (or can) incorporate other lawyering skills into the first year curriculum. See, e.g.,
Stefano Moscato, Teaching Foundational Clinical Lawyering Skills to First Year Students, 13 LEGAL WRITING: J.
LEGAL WRITING INST. 207, 217-218 (discussing that one drawback to integrating more skills into a first year class is
less time on actual legal writing).
2
I am fortunate to teach both doctrine and skills, and my teaching of both types of courses informs each of them
separately. I believe I teach my larger “doctrinal” classes better because I have taught smaller “skills” courses that
allow me to emphasize a context and practical application of the law. I strive to combine skills, theory and a
practical application for both in all my courses.
3
William M. Sullivan, Anne Colby, Judith Welch Wegner, Lloyd Bond, Lee S. Shulman, EDUCATING LAWYERS:
PRACTICING LAWYERS: PREPARATION FOR THE PROFESSION OF LAW 5-6 (Jossey-Bass)(2007).
4
Id. See also, Summary: Educating Lawyers: Preparing for the Professor of Law 5-6,
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/files/elibrary/EducatingLawyers_summary.pdf (2007)(last visited July 20,
2008).
5 Id.
1
status within the traditional legal curriculum. All too often, skills classes are taught by adjunct
instructors.6 In most law schools, skills instruction is handled by highly competent but horribly
underpaid skills and legal writing professors who may or may not have tenure status.7 Even in
the more progressive full-time “faculty” positions, law schools pay professors who specialize in
skills a fraction of the salaries that professors who teach non-skills or purely-theoretical classes
receive.8 Why is a theoretical subject more revered than a practical one that simply includes
applied substance and theory? Indeed, there is a rich history about why this has occurred within
the legal academy,9 but I am interested more in the “here and now” of legal education reform. I
believe that law students learn most effectively when doctrine and skills are combined.10 This
essay will provide further evidence of the power of skills classes generally, and more
specifically, the ability of skills instruction to impact and predict law school success.
This article describes a study in which I asked 157 law students to respond to a survey
about their learning goals in law school. The student responses were correlated to different
academic variables, including class rank, LSAT score, Undergraduate GPA (UGPA) and
Lawyering Skills Grade.11 The results were significant: Lawyering Skills Grade was the
strongest predictor of law student success.12 In contrast, the LSAT was the weakest predictor of
law school success.13 The study also found that law students who did well in their Lawyering
Skills classes tended to be mastery-oriented learners, and that law students who were mastery
oriented learners were more successful in law school overall.14
This article explores the results of the study as they relate to the impact of skills classes on
legal education.15 Part I of this article describes the study, its background and design, and the
data calculation and analysis. Part II describes the results of the study. Part III explores the
6
See Jan M. Levine, Leveling the Hill of Sisyphus: Becoming a Professor of Legal Writing, 26 Fla. St. U. L. Rev.
1067, 1089 (1999) (describing that the legal academy often uses adjunct professors to teach legal writing).
7
See, e.g., Kathryn M. Stanchi & Jan M. Levine, Gender and Legal Writing: Law Schools’ Dirty Little Secrets, 16
Berkeley Women's L.J. 3, 4 (2001); See Jo Anne Durako, Stop the Presses: Gender-Based Differences Discovered
in the Legal-Writing Profession, 7 SCRIBES J. LEGAL WRITING 87, 87 (1998-2000); Jan M. Levine, Legal Research
and Writing: What Schools Are Doing, and Who Is Doing the Teaching, 7 SCRIBES J. LEGAL WRITING 51, 55-57
(1998-2000); Pamela Edwards, Teaching Legal Writing as Women's Work: Life on the Fringes of the Academy, 4
CARDOZO WOMEN'S L.J. 75 (1997).
8
Kathryn M. Stanchi, Who Next, the Janitors? A Socio-Feminist Critique of the Status Hierarchy of Law
Professors, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 467, 477 (2004).
9
Id. Professor Stanchi provides a rich and well-supported critique of the history of the divide between the teaching
of legal doctrine and skills (legal writing).
10
See Steven I. Friedland, How We Teach: A Survey of Teaching Techniques in American Law Schools, 20 SEATTLE
U. L. REV.1, 24 (1996) (discussing how law professors, particularly in upper level classes, use a practice-oriented
methodology and place theory within a more practical context to enhance learning).
11
Final Data Summary, 1-9 (dated June 30, 2008) (on file with the author) (hereinafter “Data Summary”).
12
Id. at 1.
13
Id.
14
Id. at 1-2.
15
This article is a companion piece to a different article that explores achievement goal theory in more detail and
discusses the results of the study in detail as it relates to law students achievement goals. See Leah M. Christensen,
Enhancing Law School Success: A Study of Goal Orientations, Academic Achievemenet and the Declining SelfEfficacy of Our Law Students (forthcoming).
2
conclusions we might draw from the data, including several suggestions for legal education
reform---particularly as it relates to skills training in the law school curriculum.
I.
STUDY DESIGN
A. Study Background: Mastery versus Performance Goal Orientation
One of the purposes of this study was to explore the relationship between law students’
achievement goals and their success in law school. During the last two decades, psychologists
have been using achievement goal theory as a framework with which to examine the relationship
between achievement goals and student success.16 Achievement goal theory examines the goals
that students pursue in an academic setting.17 The current psychological research suggests that
there is a correlation between achievement goal motivation, i.e., why a student wants to learn,
and their overall success.18 Dr. Carol Dweck, an expert in achievement goal theory, describes
the differences in goal orientations as follows:
“. . . [I]ndividuals may strive for high grades for different reasons. They may seek high
grades in order to prove that they are intelligent or as an index of learning or mastery of
the material. In this approach, these two aims—seeking to prove one’s competence
versus seeking to improve one’s competence—represent two qualitatively different
classes of goals (performance goals vs. learning goals, respectively) and, as such, would
be expected to have different patterns of behavior-cognition-affect attending their
pursuit.”19
Dweck’s research suggests that the most successful individuals “love learning;”
successful individuals look for challenges, they use effort and they “persist in the face of
obstacles.”20 Dweck believes that the key to success is not ability so much as it is whether you
look at ability as something inherent that needs to be demonstrated or as something that can be
developed.21 Much of Dweck’s research has explored why some students display these masteryoriented qualities and others do not.22 Mastery-oriented learners are focused on learning as
something valuable and meaningful in itself.23 They view learning tasks as ongoing processes,
are more concerned with charting their own progress than comparing their progress to that of
others.24 In contrast, students with performance-oriented goals want to look smart even if it
16
Carol Midgley, ed., Goals, Goal Structures, and Patterns of Adaptive Learning, xi (2002).
Id.
18
See Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development, Essays in Social
Psychology, 1-9 (2000). Although this theory has been tested in elementary and secondary schools across the
country, it has not been tested in law schools.
19
Carol S. Dweck, The Study of Goals in Psychology, 3 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 165, 165 (1992).
20
Dweck, Self-Theories, supra note 3, at 1.
21
Id. at 2-3.
22
Id. at 1.
23
Marina Krakovsky, The Effort Effect, Stanford Magazine (March/April 2007) at
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.html (last visited August 7, 2008). See
also Carol S. Dweck & Ellen L. Leggett, A Social-Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality,
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW 256, 259 (1988).
24
Dweck & Leggett, supra note 23 at 259.
17
3
means not learning as much in the process.25 For performance-oriented learners, “each task is a
challenge to their self-image, and each setback becomes a personal threat.”26 So students
motivated by performance goals pursue only activities at which they are more likely to shine—
and avoid the sorts of experiences necessary to grow and flourish in any endeavor.27
I have noticed these different goal orientations in my own students. While some law
students seem driven to learn almost exclusively because of grades and exam scores, others
appear more interested in developing their overall competence to practice law. Law school is
perhaps the most performance-based academic curriculum of all graduate schools. Critics of the
traditional law school curriculum argue that law schools rely too much on grading systems (as
opposed to evaluation systems); that requiring norm-referenced grading undermines an effective
learning environment; and that ranking is wholly counterproductive in a program designed to
prepare individuals to serve justice.28 What types of students succeed in a performance-oriented
curriculum? Is there a correlation between student success in a Lawyering Skills classroom and
overall success in law school? The current study sought to explore these questions in more
detail.
B. Survey Design:
The survey used as the basis for this research was adapted from the Patterns of Adaptive
Learning Scales or PALS—a questionnaire developed by researchers at the University of
Michigan in order to conduct large-scale research on goal achievement theory as applied to
elementary school and secondary schools.29 The main purpose of the PALS research was to
determine how goal orientation theory could promote reform within public schools.30 As a
result of their research, the PALS team developed and published scales (comprehensive survey
questions) to assess various constructs associated with achievement goals.31 For consistency and
reliability, I adopted the PALS survey with slight revisions to make the questions appropriate to
the law school context. The survey questions were designed to examine the relationship between
students’ personal achievement goals in law school (mastery or performance-based achievement
goals) and correlate those achievement goals with academic success (class rank).32 We also
asked students to provide their LSAT scores, Undergraduate Grade Point Average (UGPA), and
Lawyering Skills Grade, as well as their class rank.
25
Krakovosky, supra note 23 at *1.
Id.
27
Id.
28
Barbara Glesner Fines, Competition and the Curve, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 879, 879 (1997).
29
Midgley, Goals, supra note 16, at xii.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id. at 2. I do not believe that class rank is the sole measure of “success” of any law student in law school. I
believe that law students succeed in law school by branching out and engaging in numerous other activities.
However, for the purpose of this study, I used class rank as one measure of success because it is one relatively
objective measure with which to work.
26
4
The participants in this study were law students from a private, Midwestern law school
and included first through third year students.33 We received 157 responses (81 females; 76
males) and sent out approximately 230 survey requests.34
After the surveys were completed, all of the responses were downloaded and a large
database was created. We developed lists of abbreviations, file names, and variable numbers to
be used in processing each question within the data set. 35 All processing of data was done with a
STATA statistical package. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and
percentages were generated, as well as Pearson correlations.36
II.
STUDY RESULTS
Overall, I found that Lawyering Skills Grade was the strongest predictor of law school
success followed by UGPA and LSAT score.37 The LSAT had a very weak correlation to class
rank in this study.38 I also found a strong correlation between mastery goal orientation and law
school success (as measured by class rank).39 In other words, those students who were masterygoal oriented were more likely to have higher class ranks than those students who were
performance-goal oriented. In addition, I found that law students with higher Lawyering Skills
Grades were more likely to have a mastery-goal orientation.40 The results of this study suggest
there is an important connection between mastery-goal orientation, Lawyering Skills and law
school success. The following section will discuss the study results in more detail.
A. Lawyering Skills Grade Was the Strongest Predictor of Law School Success
33
The survey was conducted using an online survey site (Survey Monkey.com) and e-mails were sent to the student
body through their university e-mail accounts notifying them of the opportunity to participate in a voluntary and
anonymous survey. Within this e-mail, students were asked if they would like to participate in a survey which
“examines law students and their learning environment.” If students agreed to participate in the survey, they clicked
on a link which would take them to the survey. Between February 25, 2008 and March 8, 2008, 157 responses were
collected (81 females and 76 males). (Data on file with the author).
34 Fifty-two responses were from first-year students, 60 responses from second-year students, and 45 responses from
third-year students. Sixty percent of the respondents were 22-25 years of age, while 29 percent were between 26-30
years of age, 7 percent were between 31-40 years of age, and nearly 5 percent were above 40 years of age. Further,
87 percent of respondents were non-Hispanic white while 13 percent were minorities. Sixty-seven percent of
respondents were single while 33 percent were married. Finally, most respondents were either humanities or social
science majors in college, with about 80 percent of respondents reporting that they had majored in one of these
majors. All the participants volunteered for the study. (Data on file with the author).
35
I say “we” in this section because the statistical calculations were run by my research assistant who is completing
her Ph.D. in Political Science, as well as her law degree.
36
Analysis of the summary statistics included examining the mean, minimum value, maximum value, and standard
deviation for all of the variables employed in this study. Further, the data was also examined to determine whether
or not there were any missing values in the data. See Data Summary, at 1-6 and statistical calculations (on file with
the author).
37
Data Summary, p. 1.
38
Id.
39
Id. at 1-2.
40
Id. at 2.
5
One of the questions this study explored was the relationship between class rank and three
academic variables: Undergraduate Grade Point Average (UGPA), LSAT score and Lawyering
Skills Grade.41 The purpose of this calculation was to determine whether there was a statistically
relevant correlation between law student success (class rank) and these different academic
variables (UGPA, LSAT score, and Lawyering Skills Grade).42
In this study, Laywering Skills Grade was the strongest predictor of law school success.
Lawyering Skills Grade had a positive statistical correlation to class rank at a level of 0.57.43
There was a moderate positive correlation between UGPA and class rank at 0.46.44 And, there
was a weak correlation between LSAT score and class rank at 0.23.45
Table 1: Relationship between academic success variables and law school class rank:46
LS Grade
UGPA
LSAT
Correlation to Class Rank
0.57 (fairly strong correlation)
0.46 (moderate correlation)
0.23 (weak correlation)
According to the results of this study, Lawyering Skills Grade was a better predictor of
class rank than either UGPA or LSAT score.47
41 Id. at 1. See also Jeff Kinsler, The LSAT Myth, 20 ST. LOUIS. U PUB. L. REV. 393, 393 (2001). The Law School
Admission Test (LSAT), a standardized, 101-question multiple-choice examination. Over the past couple of
decades, the LSAT has become “the single most important factor in the entire law school application process.” Id. It
is more important than the undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), the reputation of the undergraduate
institution, or the rigor of the undergraduate major. Id.
42
In statistics, a correlation is a measure of the strength of the relationship between two variables---in this case, the
academic variables (LSAT, UGPA, Lawyering Skills) and class rank. A Pearson correlation is used to predict the
value of one variable given the value of the other. See, e.g., http://medicaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pearson's+correlation+coefficient. Correlations are expressed on a scale from -1.0
to +1.0, the strongest correlations are at both extremes and provide the best predictions. The best known is the
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, which is obtained by dividing the covariance of the two variables
by the product of their standard deviations. However, a correlation is not the same as causation---it suggests a
relationship between two variables but not the cause of that relationship. For a general discussion of Pearson
Correlations, see the Stats Plus website at
http://www.analystsoft.com/en/products/statplus/content/help/src/analysis_basic_statistics_linear_correlation_pearso
n.html (last visited August 18, 2008).
43
Data Summary, p. 1 (on file with the author). There is some debate in the social sciences as to how to determine
the relative strength of correlations. Often, it depends on the variables being studied. In this case, the literature
suggests that a 0.56 correlation is fairly strong (i.e., the closer to +1, the stronger the correlation), and that 0.23 is
weak.
44
Data Summary, p. 1 (on file with the author).
45
Id.
46
Id. In this study, the correlations were all statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level.
47
Data Summary, p. 1. Consider that the LSAC rates the overall predictability of the LSAT score at .40. See Lisa
C. Anthony et al., Law Sch. Admission Council, Predictive Validity of the LSAT: A National Summary of the 19951996 Correlation Studies 1 (1997), available at http:// www.lsacnet.org/research/Predictive-Validity-of-LSATSummary-Correlation-Studies.pdf. LSAC claims that their own research supports the use of the LSAT as a major
factor in admissions, saying the median validity for LSAT alone is .41 (2001) and .40 (2002) in regards to the first
year of law school. Although the correlation varies from school to school, LSAC claims that test scores are far more
strongly correlated to first year law school performance than undergraduate GPA. LSAC claims that no more
strongly correlated single-factor measure is currently known, that GPA is difficult to use because it is influenced by
6
B. Mastery Goal Orientation: Successful Law Students Were Mastery Oriented
Learners
In this study, I also examined whether there was a statistically significant relationship
between those students who had a mastery-goal orientation and their law school class rank.48 We
found that such a relationship existed: the most successful law students were mastery-goal
oriented learners.49
Table 2
Mastery Goal Orientation and Class rank
Academic Variable
Class Rank
Mastery Goal Orientation
Yes—Positive Correlation
(strong)*
*Law students with high class
rank tended to have mastery
goal orientation
In the study, I assessed law students’ orientation toward mastery goals with five
questions. Law students were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with the following
questions:50
1. It’s important to me that I learn a lot of new concepts this year.
2. One of my goals in class is to learn as much as I can.
the school and the courses taken by the student, and that the LSAT can serve as a yardstick of student ability
because it is statistically-normed. There is a controversy over the statistical correlation between LSAT score and
first year law school grades. See, e.g., David A. Thomas, Predicting Law School Academic Performance From LSAT
Scores and Undergraduate Grade Point Averages: A Comprehensive Study, 35 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 1007 (2003); Dorothy
A. Brown, The LSAT Sweepstakes, 2 J. Gender Race & Just. 59 (1998); Richard Delgado, Official Elitism or
Institutional Self Interest? 10 Reasons Why UC-Davis Should Abandon the LSAT (And Why Other Good Law
Schools Should Follow Suit), 34 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 593 (2001); Leslie G. Espinoza, The LSAT: Narratives and
Bias, 1 Am. U. J. Gender & L. 121 (1993); Edward G. Haggerty, LSAT: Uses and Misuses, 70 N.Y. St. B.J., MayJune 1998, at 45; William C. Kidder, Does the LSAT Mirror or Magnify Racial and Ethnic Differences in
Educational Attainment?: A Study of Equally Achieving “Elite” College Students, 89 Cal. L. Rev. 1055 (2001);
William C. Kidder, The Rise of the Testocracy: An Essay on the LSAT, Conventional Wisdom, and the Dismantling
of Diversity, 9 Tex. J. Women & L. 167 (2000); William C. Kidder, Portia Denied: Unmasking Gender Bias on the
LSAT and Its Relationship to Racial Diversity in Legal Education, 12 Yale J.L. & Feminism 1 (2000); Jeffrey S.
Kinsler, The LSAT Myth, 20 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 393 (2001); Naseem Stecker, What's the Score: The LSAT
and the Blind, Mich. B.J., Jan. 2001, at 46; Dan Subotnik, Goodbye to the SAT, LSAT? Hello to Equity by Lottery?
Evaluating Lani Guinier's Plan for Ending Race Consciousness, 43 How. L.J. 141 (2000); David M. White, The
Requirement of Race-Conscious Evaluation of LSAT Score for Equitable Law School Admissions, 12 La Raza L.J.
399 (2001).
48
Although we looked for relationships between goal orientations and class rank, undergraduate GPA, and LSAT
scores, class rank was the variable that statistically correlated to mastery goal orientation. See generally, Data
Summary, p. 1-9 (on file with the author).
49
Data Summary, p. 1-2 (on file with the author).
50
We asked respondents to rate their responses to these questions on scales that were anchored at 1 = "Not at all
true,” 3 = "Somewhat true,” and 5 = "Very true."
7
3. One of my goals is to master a lot of new skills this year.
4. It’s important to me that I thoroughly understand my class work.
5. It’s important to me that I improve my skills this year.51
I used two measures to determine mastery goal orientation. First, I calculated an average
of the student responses to each of the five questions; second, I used a dichotomous measure of
mastery goal orientation.52 I then examined the relationship between mastery goal orientation
and class rank, as well as other academic variables.
The results revealed that that mastery goal orientation was highly correlated to class rank
and the correlation was both positive and statistically significant.53 Those law students with
higher averages for their mastery goal orientation score were, on average, more likely to have
higher class ranks when compared to those with lower averages for their mastery goal orientation
scores.54
C. Higher Lawyering Skills Grades Correlated to Mastery-Goal Orientation
This study also explored the question of whether law students who did particularly well
in their Lawyering Skills classes tended to be mastery-goal oriented or performance-goal
oriented students. The study results illustrated that there was a relationship between Lawyering
Skills Grade and mastery goal orientation.55 Those students with higher Lawyering Skills Grade
tended to rate themselves as mastery-goal oriented learners.56 In contrast, those students with
lower Lawyering Skills Grades tended to rate themselves as performance-oriented learners.57
There was a positive correlation between Lawyering Skills Grades and the dichotomous
variable used to measure mastery goal orientation.58 In contrast, there was a negative correlation
between Lawyering Skills Grades and performance-goal orientation (suggesting that those law
51
See Survey (on file with the author). These questions were mixed throughout the survey.
A dichotomous measure is a variable that categorizes data into two groups. See
http://www.microsiris.com/Statistical%20Decision%20Tree/Glossary.htm. In this case, we used a dichotomous
measure in which an average score of 4 or above on the five questions would be coded as 1 (more likely to be a
mastery goal oriented learner) and those with an average score below 4 would be coded as a 0 (less likely to be a
mastery goal oriented learner). This dichotomous split seemed to be adequate because the average for (Mastery Goal
Orientation (hereinafter “MGO”) on these five questions was 4.03. Nonetheless, even with these two measures of
mastery goal orientation, they seemed to be relatively similar, as there was a positive correlation of 0.82 between
them, which is extremely high. And this correlation is statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level. See
Data Summary, p. 1-2 (on file with the author).
53
Again, the mastery goal orientated learning variable was identified by taking the mean of five variables measuring
mastery goal oriented tendencies. The statistical correlation was (r = 0.25, p < 0.05). Data Summary, p. 1-2.
54
Further, for the dichotomous measure, when the MGO was coded as an index, in which those with averages of 4
and above were coded 1 and those below 4 were coded 0, there was still a positive and statistically significant
correlation between class rank and MGO learning (p = 0.19, p < 0.05). See Data Summary, p. 1-2.
55
Data Summary, p. 2-3 (on file with the author).
56
Id.
57
Id. at 4.
58
Id. at 2.
52
8
students with lower Lawyering Skills Grades were more likely to be performance-goal
learners.)59 Table 3 summarizes these results.
Table 3
Mastery Goal Orientation and Lawyering Skills Grade
Academic Variable
Lawyering Skills Grade
Mastery Goal Orientation
Yes—Positive Relationship*
*Law students with High Lawyering Skills
Grades tended to have mastery
goal orientation.
Performance Goal Orientation
Yes—but Negative Relationship*
*Law Students with High Lawyering Skills
Grades tended not to have performance
goal orientation—or in other words,
law students with a performance-goal
orientation tended to have lower Lawyering
Skills Grades.
The correlation between Lawyering Skills Grades and mastery-goal orientation suggests
an important relationship between skills classes and mastery goals, and law students’ overall
success in law school. Those law students who were more successful in law school were
mastery-goal oriented learners.60 In addition, those students who were most successful in their
Lawyering Skills classes were more likely to have a mastery-goal orientation.61 Lawyering
Skills classes appear to emphasize mastery-goals. And Lawyering Skills Grade was the strongest
predictor of law school success.62 These results have important implications for legal education
reform generally, and for legal reform specifically as it relates to the integration of skills courses
within the law school curriculum. The next section will discuss these study results and their
implications in more detail.
III.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. The Power of Skills: Ending Legal Education’s Institutional Arrogance
Towards Skills Training
59
Id. at 4. There is a slight positive correlation between Lawyering Skills grades and the dichotomous variable used
to measure mastery goal oriented learners, suggesting that those who have higher Lawyering Skills Grades are more
likely to be mastery goal learners when compared to those who have lower Lawyering Skills Grades (r = 0.01); it is
a fairly weak correlation but it does suggest a relationship. Id.
60
Id. at 1-2.
61
Id. at 4.
62
Id. at 1.
9
The results of this study show the power of skills courses to enhance the success of law
students. In this study, Lawyering Skills Grades was the strongest predictor of law school
success.63 Further, those law students who received higher grades in Lawyering Skills were
more likely to be mastery-goal oriented; and mastery goal oriented students tended to be the
most successful students in law school.64 Based upon the results of this study, the best advice
we can give to our beginning law students is to devote the most time and energy to their skills
classes. In short, it is time for legal education to end its institutional arrogance towards skills
courses and to the legal educators that teach them.
Professor Kathryn Stanchi describes the “institutionalized status hierarchy” between
doctrinal law professors and skills professors as follows:
. . . [T]his hierarchy is gendered, with the lowest rank overwhelmingly composed of
women and the highest rank overwhelmingly composed of men. The players in this status
hierarchy are the faculties and administrations of American law schools. At the top are
the tenured “doctrinal” professors, roughly 70 percent of whom are male; at the bottom
are legal writing professors, roughly 70 percent of whom are female. This
institutionalized status system is based on elitism and gender discrimination. It reflects a
rigid and empty adherence to a set of artificial and contrived rules of prestige and rank
that are unjustifiable and enforced by power and dominance rather than reason.65
The hierarchy plays out most blatantly in the salary disparities between law professors
that teach skills---and law professors that teach doctrine. In 1996, Professor Jill Ramsfield
reported the salary disparity between law professors who teach skills and more strictly doctrinal
professors.66
. . . Directors, forty-two percent of whom are tenure track and ninety-five percent of
whom hold J.D.s, earn between $40,000 and $60,000 per year. Most instructors earn
between $25,000 and $40,000. Only two schools responded that their full-time, nontenure contract teachers make over $60,000. Schools who award tenure to legal writing
professors offer salaries that range from only $40,000 to $80,000. Only one school
reported offering over $80,000 to a full-time, tenure-track legal writing professor.67
Further, the salary gap between legal writing professors and other full-time faculty is
increasing.68 In 1992, twelve percent of schools reported that their faculty on average made over
$30,000 more than their legal writing colleagues.69 In 1994, that number was fifty-one percent.70
63
Id. at 1.
Id. at 2.
65
Kathyrine Stanchi, supra note 8, at 467-68.
66
Jill J. Ramsfield, Legal Writing in the Twenty-First Century: A Sharper Image, 2 Legal Writing: J. Legal Writing
Inst. 1, 17 (1996).
67
Id.
68
Id.
69
Id.
70
Id.
64
10
That means that nearly forty percent more law schools have increased the disparity between legal
writing professors' salaries and those of other professors.71
Even between clinicians and legal writing professors, the gap is sometimes wide. Such a
gap is hard to explain in objective terms. These relatively lower salaries are going to
professors who have more experience than professors in previous years.72
In addition to lower salaries, skills professors often have less power on law school
faculties. Non-tenure-track legal writing professors are often not allowed to vote in faculty
meetings which leaves them out of key decisions in the law school (and I would argue leaves
them on the “outside” of the faculty as well).73 In addition, although tenure-track faculty are
eligible for sabbaticals or summer research stipends, non-tenure track faculty are not.74
Further, the worst abuses appear at the highest tiered law schools—the law schools that
are revered above all others.75 Schools in the top tiers have fewer full time skills professors and
have consistently relied upon students to teach legal writing and other skills.76 Schools in the
first tier are more likely to grade writing and skills by using a pass/fail or honors/pass/fail
system.77 And perhaps the worst consequence of this institutional arrogance is that it sends our
students the message: skills classes are not important.78
Yet the results of the current study contradict this message that skills are somehow less
important than theory. In particular, this study illustrates that Lawyering Skills Grade were the
best predictor of law school success---better than either UGPA or LSAT scores.79 In addition,
those students who adopted a mastery goal orientation were more likely to be successful than
those students who adopted the pervasive performance goal orientation of legal education.80
Further, Lawyering Skills classes appeared to promote mastery goal orientation.81
I believe that law students learn more when we adopt a “skills” methodology—when we
adopt mastery learning goal structures and provide instruction about the law and rules within a
practical legal context. If law schools are concerned about bar passage, then they need to attend
to, support and fund their skills programs.82 We need to integrate skills fully within the larger
71
Id.
Id. at 18.
73
Id.
74
Id.
75
Interesting that these law schools receive these rankings in large part based upon LSAT scores—which this study
shows has a weak correlation to actual success in law school. Doing away with the LSAT might be the most
significant way to effect legal education reform. See discussion infra in Part III.
76
Ramsfield, supra note 66, at 21.
77
Id. at 21.
78
Id. at 20.
79
Data Summary, p. 1 (on file with the author).
80
Id. at 1-2.
81
Id. at 2-3.
82
Ramsfield reports that very few schools have significant budgets for their legal writing program. Ramsfield,
supra note 8 at 21. In fact, many schools appropriate nothing beyond salaries for legal writing. Id. The vast
majority of schools have yearly legal writing budgets, excluding salaries, of less than $50,000. Id. If the average
law school budget is $5,000,000, a low estimate, schools are devoting less than one percent of their resources to
72
11
law school curriculum. And we need to end the institutional arrogance towards skills training.
The remaining parts within this section of the article address how we might reform legal
education—both in terms of the curriculum overall, and in terms of our own classroom teaching.
B. Lawyering Skills Promotes Mastery Goal Orientation and Law School Success
In this study, there was a relationship between Lawyering Skills Grade and mastery-goal
orientation.83 There was also a strong correlation between mastery-goal orientation and class
rank.84 This study illustrates an important connection between skills classes and mastery goal
orientation—both of which appear to promote law school success.85
The prior research in achievement goal orientation supports this connection between
mastery-goals and legal skills education.86 Mastery goal orientation has been found to enhance
adaptive patterns of learning.87 Evidence suggests that when students report that they do their
schoolwork with the purpose of learning, understanding, and improving, they are also likely to
report adaptive cognitive, behavioral, and emotional outcomes.88 Although these studies focused
on student learning in elementary and secondary education, the results appear applicable to law
school as well. For example, mastery goals have been found to be associated with feeling
academically efficacious, preferring challenging tasks, and persisting in the face of difficulties.89
Further, mastery goals have been found to be associated with the use of effective cognitive and
meta-cognitive strategies; the attribution of success to effort, interest, and strategy use, positive
attitudes toward school and schoolwork; and even with positive general well-being.90
This research can be directly applied to law students. If we want to maximize our
students’ learning, we need to emphasize the benefits of mastery-oriented learning early on in
their legal education. In addition, we need to create classrooms that support mastery goal
orientation. Even if the law school curriculum is slow to change over time, i.e., remains
performance-based, our students can still be more successful by adopting learning strategies that
promote a mastery-goal orientation.
How do mastery goals manifest themselves specifically in skills courses? Professor Ann
Enquist detailed many of these skills in her recent study examining law students who excelled in
their Lawyering Skills II class.91 She noticed that the more successful students approached the
legal writing. Id. Even with salaries added in, the percentage jumps to only about four or five percent. In this,
there has been little change since 1990. Id. Of all of the statistics, this is the most telling. Historically, schools
have promoted teaching legal writing on the cheap, and many law schools have yet to discover the newer theme:
investment. Id.
83
Data Summary, p. 2-3 (on file with the author).
84
85
Data Summary, p. 1-4 (on file with the author).
See, e.g., Dweck, Self-Theories, supra note 3, at 10 (describing that in her research, most students in a masteryoriented group performed better in challenging situations); Carol S. Dweck and Ellen L. Leggett, A Social Cognitive
Approach, supra note 23 at 257 (describing how mastery goals are associated with higher achievement).
87
Midgley, et. al., Achievement Goals, supra note 16, at 26.
88
Id.
89
Id.
90
Id.
91
Id.
86
12
class differently. For example, Enquist found that the most successful students took notes and
referred back to their notes when they were writing their briefs.92 They spent more time
“writing” and revising.93 They were also more efficient with their use of time.94 Enquist also
pointed out that the more successful students had different reading strategies “that included a
number of strategies for making the material their own.”95 These students went beyond
highlighting what they read and made notes on the side about different arguments that each side
might make and questions that they had about the case.96 Enquist reported that: “There was an
obvious connection between their critical reading and critical thinking skills. As they read a rule,
they thought through why it exists; as they read arguments in the cases, they thought through the
arguments that would give them the desired result in their case.”97 Students are taught to ask
these types of questions in their skills classes.
In my own empirical research, I found that the most successful law students read legal
cases very differently than the less successful students.98 The more successful law students read
with a purpose.99 The successful students asked questions, hypothesized and evaluated the cases
as they read---they were actively engaged with the text.100 This way of reading correlated to
their success in law school (as measured by class rank).101 Personally, I strive to teach these
important reading strategies in my Lawyering Skills classes.
As legal educators, we have the opportunity to teach these skills—these mastery oriented
skills—in our classrooms. In addition to legal reading, we can teach our students reasoning
skills “such as issue spotting, fact identification, fact analysis, rule identification and application
of rules to facts . . . .”102 We may also we introduce the concepts of advocacy, negotiation and
client counseling. It is precisely these skills—and their acquisition—that promotes mastery-goal
orientation and leads to law school success. If we care about our students’ success, we need to
continue to emphasize these skills in our classrooms. Further, if legal education is serious about
needed reform, it needs to integrate skills training more equally within the law school
curriculum.
Yet the reality in legal education is that skills courses typically have secondary status in
the curriculum; they are often taught by adjunct professors or non-tenure track faculty.103 This
92
Ann M. Enquist, Unlocking the Secrets of Highly Successful Legal Writing Students, 82 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 609,
668, 669 (2008).
93
Id.
94
Id. at 670.
95
Id.
96
Id.
97
Id at 670.
98
Leah M. Christensen, Legal Reading and Law School Success, 30 Seattle L. Rev. 603, 604 (2007).
99
Id. at 628, 634.
100
Id. at 628.
101
Id. at 626-27.
102
Deborah Zalesne, Integrating Academic Skills Into First Year Curricula: Using Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon to
Teach the Role of Facts in Legal Reasoning, 8 PACE L. REV. 271, 272-73 (2008). See also David Nadvorney's 2002
article, Teaching Legal Reasoning Skills in Substantive Courses: A Practical View, 5 N.Y. CITY L. REV. 109 (2002).
103
Zalesne, supra note 102 at 272-73. I am not suggesting that either adjunct professors or non-tenure track faculty
are teaching the classes ineffectively; instead, I am focusing on how the status issues are perceived by students.
13
sends a message to students “that such skills work is of secondary importance.”104 This
secondary status of skills within legal education is a continuing and significant problem.105 Law
students need to learn these skills explicitly, and these skills should be taught across the law
school curriculum and incorporated directly into doctrinal classes (as well as skills classes).106
The more legal education can embrace the teaching of Lawyering Skills—and enhance mastery
goals over performance goals, the better we can prepare our students for the practice of law.
C. The Power of the Professor: Creating Mastery Oriented Classrooms
Law professors can create mastery-oriented classrooms that will significantly enhance their
students’ learning. Although all law professors can (and should) strive to create masteryoriented classrooms, skills professor are uniquely situated to enhance their students’ learning
using mastery-goal classroom structures.107
Research in achievement goal theory suggests that when students perceive that their
classrooms or schools emphasize understanding, improvement, and mastery of knowledge and
skills, they are more likely to use effective learning strategies and feel better about themselves
than if performance is the only thing that counts.108
One study found that mastery or performance oriented classrooms can emerge “from the
ways that teachers use time in their classrooms; distribute authority; recognize, group and
evaluate students; and design classroom tasks.”109 Further, the study found that a teacher’s
overall classroom structure impacted students’ motivation to learn.110 For example, a
performance orientation emerged when teachers implicitly or explicitly promoted the idea to
students that proving their abilities relative to classmates is what is valued, expected and
rewarded.111 Some examples of performance goal structures within a classroom were ability
grouping within a class, rewards for superior achievement, public evaluative feedback and onedimensional tasks in which student-to-student comparisons were easy to make.112 When one
considers the typical law school classroom, it fits directly within a performance goal structure.
104
Id.
Id.
106
Id. at 274.
107
See, e.g., Julie A. Oseid, It Happened to Me: Sharing Personal Value Dilemmas to Teach Professionalism and
Ethics, 12 LEGAL WRITING: J. LEGAL WRITING INST. 105, 114-15 (2006) (discussing three unique things about a
lawyering skills classroom: (1) small class size; (2) diverse teaching methodologies; and (3) use of professors’
personal experience). Id. In my opinion, the small class size of most skills classes is clearly beneficial to students.
See also, Christian C. Day, Law Schools Can Solve the “Bar Pass Problem”-“Do the Work!” 40 Cal. W. L. Rev.
321, 349 (2004) (asserting that students and faculty thrive in small sections); Christopher G. Courchesne, Student
Author, “A Suggestion of a Fundamental Nature”: Imagining a Legal Education of Solely Electives Taught as
Discussions, 29 RUTGERS L. REC. 21 (2005) (proposes small class sizes of 12 students and a complete curricular
choice by the students); Jennifer S. Holifield, Student Author, Taking Law School One Course at a Time: Making
Better Lawyers by Using a Focused Curriculum in Law School, 30 J. LEG. PROF. 129 (2006) (proposes reducing class
size).
108
Midgley, supra note 1, at 34.
109
Id. at 208.
110
Id.
111
Id.
112
Id.
105
14
The Socratic dialogue is an example of “public evaluative feedback” (the professor/student
dialogue in front of the classroom), and student-to-student comparisons are made all the time
with published class rankings. Law schools promote competition between students---in the form
of the scarcity of interviews, clerkships and jobs---students are inundated with messages that
they must “prov[e]. . . their abilities relative to classmates.”113
A mastery-oriented classroom is quite different. In a mastery-oriented classroom, the teacher
promotes the idea that students progressively master content and improve skills through hard
work.114 Research has shown that professors can accomplish this by providing meaningful tasks,
acknowledging student effort and improvement, using nonpublic formative and summative
feedback, and providing opportunities for revision of work.115 Applying these examples to the
law school classroom, legal educators might consider holding small group conferences,
providing feedback several times throughout the semester, utilizing practice exams, and allowing
for collaborative learning activities. Many of these examples are likely utilized in skills classes
and/or clinical experiences but they can be used effectively in larger classrooms as well. This
section will end with three examples that can help legal educators work toward building more
mastery-oriented classrooms.
1. Have Your Students Provide Feedback About the Effectiveness of the Class.116 I have
personally done this in my classes and have been surprised at how helpful it has been. I
give the students a sheet of paper with 2 or 3 specific questions about the course
content—and room for comments. In a few minutes at the beginning of a class,
students can comment upon confusion, ask for clarity, or provide creative suggestions.
The students feel they have some “say” in the class content and they see that I
genuinely care about whether they are learning.
2. Use the Students as Teachers. Consider having your students provide class
introductions that link past content with present content. Professor Michael Hunter
Schwartz, an expert on law school teaching, states that “[e]xcellent teachers facilitate
student learning by getting the students to make connections between what they are
learning and what they already know.”117 He describes a strategy of devoting a few
minutes at the beginning of a class session to have a student to provide a summary of
what the class covered during its last session.118 Schwartz notes that both professor and
student gain from this experience; this simple exercise “not only accomplish[es] the
goal of providing the necessary review, but can also do so while providing autonomy
support and supporting students' sense of competence119
113
Id.
Id.
115
Id.
116
Michael Hunter Schwartz, Humanizing Legal Education: An Introduction to A Symposium Whose Time Came, 47
WASHBURN L.J. 235, 245 (2008) (citing Justine A. Dunlap, “I'd Just as Soon Flunk You as Look at You?” The
Evolution to Humanizing in a Large Classroom, 47 WASHBURN L.J. 389, 409-410 (2008)).
117
Schwartz, Humanizing Legal Education, supra note 116, at 245.
118
Id.
119
Id. at 245-46.
114
15
3. Utilize Collaborative Learning. Collaborative learning is a powerful pedagogical
method.120 Prior research has shown that student learning is enhanced when students
work in collaboration with others.121 Using smaller groups (3-5 students) allows more
students to participate in discussions---it also adds to the amount of personal attention
students receive because they can receive feedback and support from other students.122
In my own classes, this has worked particularly well when I can assign different
discussion questions to small groups. I have each group answer one or two main
questions—by the time each group discusses a question, the class has discussed and
applied a major part of the content for that day’s class.123
There are many ways that law professors can create mastery-oriented classrooms that are
creative and time-efficient. I would argue that most law professors teaching skills classes are
naturally inclined toward orienting their classes around mastery goals. However, we can always
do more. These teaching techniques benefit the strong students in our classes, but they may
benefit the weaker students even more---by giving students the opportunity to learn for the love
of learning---and not just to perform on an exam.
D. The LSAT May Not Be an Accurate Predictor of Success in Law School
Finally, the results of this study suggest that legal education reconsider the weight it gives
to a single test score: the LSAT. In this study, the LSAT was the weakest predictor of law
school success.124 The relatively weak correlation between the LSAT score (0.23) and class rank
as compared to the stronger correlation between Lawyering Skills Grade (0.57) and class rank
suggest that the LSAT may not be a reliable predictor of success in law school. 125 Further, even
UGPA (0.46) was a stronger predictor of success in law school than the LSAT (0.23).
120
Denise Riebe, A Bar Review For Law Schools: Getting Students on Board to Pass Their Bar Exams, 45
L.J. 269, 331 (2007).
121
Id.(citing Riebe & Schwartz, Teacher's Manual, supra note 120 at 103; Carole Buckner, Realizing Grutter v.
Bollinger's “Compelling Educational Benefits Of Diversity”: Transforming Aspirational Rhetoric Into Experience,
72 U. Mo. Kan. City L. Rev. 877 (2004)).
122
Riebe, supra note 120, at 331-332.
123
I often use collaborative learning for the second half of a class period—within a two hour block of time. In the
first hour, I lead a discussion of the main topic for the day. In the second part of the class—I try to utilize more
active learning strategies, including small group collaboration. It does take class time but I’ve found that the
students benefit a great deal from the discussion. I also walk around the classroom talking to each group as they
discuss the questions. I can guide the discussions, gauge their understanding and answer questions at the same time--which provides the added benefit of fewer email/office questions after class. For additional discussions of
teaching ideas, see Leah M. Christensen, The Psychology of Case Briefing: A Powerful Cognitive Schema, 29
Campbell L. Rev. 5, 20-26 (2006); Leah M. Christensen, Legal Reading and Law School Success, 30 Seattle L. Rev.
603 (2007)(discussing that we can teach law students the reading strategies that the most successful law students
use); Leah M. Christensen, Law Students Who Learn Differently: A Narrative Case Study of Three Law Students
With Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), 21 J. L. & Health 45, 72 (2008) (describing ideas for teaching law students
with ADD).
124
Using a Pearson correlation, there was a correlation of 0.23 between LSAT and class rank. Data Summary, p. 1.
125
In examining correlations, the closer to 1.0 of a score---the stronger the relationship between the criteria. See
discussion in Part II infra at n. 103-104.
BRANDEIS
16
The Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) rates the overall predictability of the LSAT
score at 0.40.126 LSAC claims that their own research supports the use of the LSAT as a major
factor in admissions, claiming that the median validity for LSAT alone is 0.41 (2001) and 0.40
(2002) with regard to the first year of law school.127 Although the correlation varies from school
to school, LSAC argues that test scores are far more strongly correlated to first year law school
performance than undergraduate GPA. 128 The present study seems to contradict this claim. In
this study, UGPA had a stronger correlation to class rank (0.46) than LSAT score (0.23).129
Further, Lawyering Skills Grade (0.57) had a stronger correlation than either LSAT or UGPA.
In this study, Lawyering Skills Grade was the best predictor of law school success.130
There have been many studies that have questioned the credibility of the LSAT and the
results of this study are consistent with that prior research.131 For example, Professor Lani
Guiner and others found that the LSAT was an especially weak predictor of law school success
for females at the University of Pennsylvania.132 Guinier showed that the predictive validity for
the University of Pennsylvania Law School first-year class was only 0.14.133
In a more recent study, Professor Ann Enquist examined whether LSAT scores correlated
to success in a Lawyering Skills II class.134 Enquist’s study followed six second year law
students as they wrote a pre-trial and appellate brief in their second year skills class.135 Enquist
found that with regard to these six students, there was a weak correlation between LSAT scores
and Lawyering Skills II grades.136 This finding is particularly relevant to the present study given
the strong correlation between Lawyering Skills Grade and class rank.137 Enquist explained her
results as follows:
While we may have suspected that LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs would be good
predictors of academic success in a second-year legal writing course, those scores and
undergraduate GPAs had little, if any, predictive value for the six students in the study. In
fact, the student with the lowest undergraduate GPA had the highest level of success in
126
Lisa C. Anthony et al., Law Sch. Admission Council, Predictive Validity of the LSAT: A National Summary of
the 1995-1996 Correlation Studies 1 (1997), available at http:// www.lsacnet.org/research/Predictive-Validity-ofLSAT-Summary-Correlation-Studies.pdf.
127
Id.
128
Id.
129
The LSAT score had a weak correlation at 0.26; the closer to 1.0 of a score, the stronger the relationship between
the criteria. Data Summary, p. 1. (on file with the author).
130
In a separate paper, I discuss why Lawyering Skills Grades was the best predictor of success and the implications
for these results. See Leah M. Christensen, The Power of Skills (Or in Other Words, It’s Time to Take Skills
Training Seriously If We Care About How Our Students Learn)(forthcoming).
131
See infra at n. 104.
132
See Lani Guinier et al., Becoming Gentlemen: Women's Experiences at One Ivy League Law School , 143 U. PA.
L. REV. 1, 23, n.70 -74 (1994).
133 Susan Sturm & Lani Guinier, The Future of Affirmative Action: Reclaiming the Innovative Ideal, 84 Cal. L.
Rev. 953, 959-97, n. 68-69.
134
Ann M. Enquist, Unlocking the Secrets of Highly Successful Legal Writing Students, 82 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 609,
668 (2008).
135
Id.
136
Id.
137
Data Summary, p. 1 (on file with the author).
17
LWII. Far better predictors were the students' grades in the first-year legal writing course
and especially their overall first-year grades in law school.138
I found similar results when examining the reading strategies of the most successful law
students in a study how legal reading impacts law school GPA. 139 While the use of reading
strategies correlated to law school success, there was no correlation between LSAT scores and
law school GPA.140
Further, in the present study, law students who scored higher on the LSAT were more
likely to be performance oriented learners and not mastery oriented learners. 141 And in the
present study, mastery goal orientation correlated to law school success whereas performance
orientation did not.142 If the LSAT is selecting performance oriented learners over masteryoriented learners, is the LSAT selecting students who will be more successful? Although we
cannot know what actually causes the relationship between LSAT and performance-orientation
or between class rank and mastery-orientation,143 the study results do offer another perspective
from which to critique the LSAT exam.
The real danger of the LSAT is legal education’s almost exclusive reliance on the LSAT
for admissions and scholarship decisions.144 And this cycle is only exacerbated by the use of the
LSAT in the law school rankings “game.”145 Based upon the present research and the prior
studies that have questioned the reliability of the LSAT, legal education should seriously
reconsider its use and reliance upon the LSAT. Further, LSAC, the institution that creates and
administers the LSAT---should consider revising the exam to more accurately reflect the full
range of skills required to succeed in law school (and in the practice of law)---likely the very
skills that are taught in a Lawyering Skills class.146
The LSAT claims to assess logical reasoning, analytical thinking, reading
comprehension, and other cognitive skills.147 “Admittedly these skills are useful in navigating
through some of the first-year law school curriculum, but certainly there are other skills that are
important to success in law school and the profession-- skills that can be said to distinguish the
138
Enquist, supra note 134 at 668-69.
Leah M. Christensen, Legal Reading, supra note 180 at 626-27.
140
Id.
141
See discussion infra section II; see also Data Summary, p. 1-2.
142
Data Summary, p. 1-2.
143
Correlations explore associations, but they cannot tell us “causation” between variables. See discussion of
correlations, infra at n. 99.
144
See William C. Kidder, Portia Denied: Unmasking Gender Bias on the LSAT and Its Relationship to Racial
Diversity in Legal Education, 12 Yale J.L. & Feminism 1, 20 (2000).
145
Phoebe A. Haddon and Deborah W. Post, Misuse and Abuse of the LSAT: Making the Case for Alternative
Evaluative Efforts and a Definition of Merit, 80 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 41, 45-46 (2006).
146
In a separate article, I address the significance of Lawyering Skills Grade as a predictor of success in law school
(high class rank). See Leah M. Christensen, The Power of Skills, supra note 187 (forthcoming). The fact that
students may learn the skills that lead them to overall success in law school illustrates both the importance of skills
classes generally, and, specifically, that students are learning a great deal of essential skills in their Lawyering Skills,
and other skills classes.
147
Haddon & Post, supra note 200, at 53-54.
139
18
good lawyer.”148 This seems particularly true based upon the results of the present study—
where Lawyering Skills Grade was the best predictor of law school success. 149 The skills
students learn in Lawyering Skills are likely a better representative of what enhances success in
law school than the questions on the LSAT. Certainly the multitude of skills a new lawyer needs
includes more than analytical reasoning and reading comprehension--skills that the LSAT tests
most heavily.150 It is time for legal education to consider an alternative to the LSAT---a more
comprehensive exam that would test the broad array of skills that both a successful law student
and a successful lawyer need to possess.151
CONCLUSION
The present study used achievement goal theory to examine the learning goals of the
most successful law students. The study found that mastery-oriented law students tended to be
the students at the top of their law school class despite the performance-based goal structure of
law school.152 The study results also showed the relative weakness of the LSAT as a predictor of
law school success in comparison to other academic variables, including Lawyering Skills Grade
and UGPA.153 Lawyering Skills Grade was the strongest predictor of law school success.154
Further, those students who excelled in Lawyering Skills tended to be mastery-oriented
learners.155
These study results suggest a need for legal education reform. In my dreams, I envision a
law school curriculum that stresses competence over performance. This type of mastery-goal
curriculum would prepare our students for the future---and for the actual practice of law. I also
envision a law school curriculum that integrates legal doctrine and skills training. This new
system would pay and promote law professors equally without regard to the particular classes
they choose to teach. This means practically that law schools need to invest more in their skills
programs and in the professors that teach them. Skills classes should receive the same number of
credit hours as other courses. Skills classes should be graded in the same manner as doctrinal
courses. If skills professors have the same responsibilities as doctrinal professors, they should be
paid equally. And professors that teach skills deserve the opportunity to apply for and receive
tenure-track status---which means that law schools need set aside or create tenure-track lines for
those professors that teach skills. If anything, the results of this study illustrate that skills
148
Id. at 54.
Data Summary, p. 1 (on file with the author).
150
Haddon & Post, supra note 200, at 54
151
Id. (citing Professor Marjorie Shultz and Sheldon Zedeck, (Principle investigators), Phase 1 final Report:
identification and development of predictors for successful lawyering (report on research initially funded by LSAC) (on
file with authors)). Shultz and Zedeck are investigating lawyer competencies in order to identify the qualities or skills that
an alternative to the LSAT might test in order to predict who would be a good lawyer. They have identified twenty-six
effectiveness factors, including creativity and innovation, integrity and honesty, passion and engagement, empathy,
listening, and others we might call people skills. Id.
152
Data Summary, p. 1-2 (on file with the author).
153
Id. at 1.
154
Id.
155
Id. at 3-4.
149
19
training is perhaps the most important component of the law school curriculum. It is time for
legal education to acknowledge the power of legal skills.
20