Once Again - Why Motivations Matter
Stephen Daniels
Research Professor Emeritus
American Bar Foundation
Shih-Chun Chien
Assistant Professor
Cleveland State University College of Law
Students’ motivations for attending law school and choosing law as a career are crucially important. So we have argued in two previous posts[1] and elsewhere.[2] Those motivations are important for understanding students’ career aspirations and what they hope to do as lawyers. (we have a special interest in public service).[3] More generally they help in understanding the future of the legal profession and the role it plays or should play in our society.
Our exploration of motivations began with a special set of seven questions (in addition to the full suite of annual questions) posed to a subset of the 2010 LSSSE survey schools. The questions asked students to rate each of seven motivations on seven-point scale from “not at all influential” to “very influential” (see Figure 1 below). Importantly, each motivation was assessed independently, meaning students were not asked to choose among them. These questions were the focus of our first post.
Wanting to extend our work we asked the LSSSE administrators if they could add those seven motivation questions to the 2021 survey. They generously did so adding the questions for a subset of schools. With an interest in any change in responses to the motivation questions, a comparison of the 2010 and 2021 responses to those questions was the focus of our second post.
Working with the null hypothesis of no substantial change in motivations between 2010 and 2021, we found that to be the case with one key exception. It involved the motivation of contributing to the public good, one of importance to us with our interest in public service. It became more important in 2021 compared to 2010. Wondering if this change signaled an ongoing shift or perhaps just a short-term disturbance related to the COVID pandemic, we again asked the LSSSE administrators if they could add those seven motivation questions for a subset of schools in the 2024 survey. And again, they did.[4]
Here we compare the 2024 motivation responses to those from 2010 and 2021, looking for evidence of an ongoing shift for contributing to the public good or a short-term disturbance.
Drawing from each of the surveys, Figure 1 compares 1L responses to the seven motivation questions. The bars represent the percentage who reported that a given motivation was more influential for them (a rating of 5, 6, or 7 on the seven-point scale). 1Ls because they are closest to the decision to attend law school.
Perhaps the most striking general pattern is the relative stability in 1L motivations. With only small decreases over time in the degree of influence, the intrinsic motivations of a challenging career and academic development are the most intense motivations. They are followed by the extrinsic motivation of financial security, which stayed within a narrow range. A bit lower in intensity is the extrinsic motivation of prestige, that also stayed within a narrow range.
The extrinsic motivation of contributing to the public good is different, with a marked increase from 2010 to 2021 in its importance. The question for us is whether this was just a short-term disturbance. While there is a small decrease in 2024 (not unlike those for challenging career and academic development), the percentage does not return to the 2010 level. The importance of this is a focus of our ongoing analyses.
Perhaps we can say these five motivations make-up a relatively stable core (relative only because of the shifts for public good) for most students, one reflecting the mixture of motivations – intrinsic and extrinsic -- drawing students to law school. The remaining two motivations – unsure and others – are less important in comparison, but not unimportant. They are different in not having an identifiable substance as the others do and pose an interesting interpretative challenge.
Importantly, even at the individual-level students report a mixture of motivations – particular motivations are not necessarily mutually exclusive (again, each motivation was assessed independently). A simple correlation matrix using he 2024 data – which shows the relationships each of the motivations has with each of the other motivations – shows few relationships that are not significant.[5]
Not every law school appears in each annual LSSSE survey or in the motivation subsets, but one school did appear in each of the motivation subsets. Like the general pattern in Figure 1, it had a marked increase in the importance of the public good motivation between 2010 and 2021 (more influential going from 63% to 77%), with a slight decrease in 2024 (more influential 75%). A second school appeared in 2010 and 2024, with more influential at 66% in 2010 and at 73% in 2024. What we don’t know is whether some schools may be more attractive to those motivated by the public good and others less so.
The extent to which motivations and aspirations are connected is the focus of our ongoing work along with the ways law schools can support public service careers. While not all who are motivated by the public good will go into public service, it is still important to know if the interest in the public good follows students into other legal careers as well. Fostering this motivation should be a part of any idea of professional identity.
___
[1] Stephen Daniels and Shih-Chun Chien,” Beyond Enrollment: Why Motivations Matter to the Study of Legal Education and the Legal Profession?” LSSSE Guest Blog (Sept. 24, 2020); Stephen Daniels and Shih-Chun Chien, “Why Motivations Matter Revisited: More So Now” (Dec. 21, 2021).
[2] Shih-Chun Chien and Stephen Daniels, Who Wants to be a Prosecutor? And Why Care? Law Students’ Career Aspirations and Reform Prosecutors’ Goals, 65 HOWARD L.J. 173 (2021).
[3] While we are interested in public service generally, we have a special interest in the criminal justice system (e.g., as prosecutors and public defenders).
[4] The respective motivation subsets were not the same for each survey (2010, 2021, and 2024). Perhaps we can look at the subsets as a very rough form of sampling with replacement from a relatively small population.
[5] The relationship between public good and financial security is not significant as is the relationship between public good and unsure and public good and others’ expectations. Of course, not all relationships are strong or even positive.
Evolving Support for Law Students: 20 Years of LSSSE
The 2024 LSSSE annual report 20 Years of LSSSE is now available on the LSSSE website. Our previous post examined trends in law student demographics. In this post, we will share some trends in student support services, both in terms of satisfaction with formal law school student services offices and relationships with faculty and staff.
A large part of overall student satisfaction with law school is likely due to strong bonds with others on campus. Student relationships with faculty and classmates have been compellingly positive over the past twenty years. Throughout the past two decades, over three-quarters (76-81%) of law students have consistently rated their relationships with classmates as five or higher on a seven-point scale. Peer relationships are the only ones to have remained in 2024 at the high levels of 2019, showing these bonds quickly recovered from any potential pandemic-related decline. Students also report strong bonds with professors. Roughly three-quarters (73-78%) of LSSSE respondents from 2004 to 2024 have rated relationships with faculty as positive, measured as five or higher on a seven-point scale. Though the current 73% of students reporting strong relationships with their professors is slightly down from 2019 levels (76%), it nevertheless remains high. Relationships between students and staff, on the other hand, are more concerning. From 2004 to 2019, roughly two-thirds (65-68%) of law students reported positive relationships with staff; in 2024, this figure dropped to 59%. While student-staff connections have never been as strong as those between students and faculty or students with peers, those reported in 2024 are the lowest ever recorded, revealing room for significant improvement in these relations post-pandemic.
Because staff have many opportunities to interact with students in response to various issues, each contact provides an opportunity to strengthen bonds between them. Between 2004 (61%) and 2019 (71%), there were steady increases in satisfaction with academic advising; however, the percentage of law students reporting they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” dropped to 64% in 2024. Whether due to COVID-19 or other reasons, student satisfaction with academic advising declined over the past five years, instead of continuing the steady progress it enjoyed through 2019. Because the percentage of students using academic advising remains particularly high (90-94% in the past decade), positive interactions with academic advising staff could be instrumental in improving student-staff relationships overall.
Most students also partake in advising opportunities with career services staff, including 87-92% of all students over the past twenty years. Though only half (51%) of students were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with career counseling in 2004, that percentage also steadily increased over time for fifteen years through 2019. However, as with other staff services, the upward trend has stopped, with current student satisfaction with career counseling (64%) matching 2014 levels, down from 69% five years ago.
Satisfaction with personal counseling sessions also enjoyed incremental increases over time for fifteen years, from a low of 57% in 2004 to 65-67% in 2009 and 2014, to a high of 68% in 2019. Troublingly, satisfaction has dropped significantly in the past five years, down to only 60% of students who are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the personal counseling they receive. Although the myriad challenges of the pandemic and other upheavals in legal education and society writ large may suggest personal counseling is all the more necessary for law students today, only 60% used these services in 2024 (another drop from 68% who sought personal counseling in 2019).
Students also reported lower levels of satisfaction with job search help in 2024 than they did in 2019, with only 61% reporting they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with these services. Again, this reveals a break in the trend of increasing satisfaction with job search help from 2004 (49%) through 2019 (66%). The good news is that roughly the same percentage of students (83-85%) over the past decade have sought assistance with their job search; thus, opportunities remain to improve these interactions over time.
For more information on how the law student experience has changed over time, including overall satisfaction and trends in student debt, please visit the LSSSE website to read the entire report.
Diversity in Legal Education: A 20-Year Transformation
The 2024 LSSSE annual report 20 Years of LSSSE is now available on the LSSSE website. The report emphasizes the progress law schools have made in fostering inclusivity and preparing students for diverse workplaces while also addressing areas that need improvement, such as affordability and equitable support for all students. In this blog post, we will highlight some of the shifting demographics of the law student population that have occurred since LSSSE’s inaugural survey in 2004.
Law students are becoming an ever-more diverse bunch—though that progress may yet be stymied by the end of affirmative action as we know it. Over the past two decades, we have seen increases in diversity as measured by race, gender, age, and sexual orientation. Students of color, including those who identify as Black, Latinx, Asian American, Native American, and multiracial, accounted for just 17% of all LSSSE respondents in 2004; by 2024 their representation had grown to one-third (32%). In particular, the multiracial population has grown substantially (from 1% in 2004 to 10% in 2024, with roughly equal representation between multiracial men and women) as has the percentage of Latinx students (growing from 4% to 8% of law students in twenty years). Alarmingly, the Native American population has remained at or below 1% throughout the twenty years of LSSSE data collection, with a slight decline in recent years.
The percentage of women in legal education has continued to increase in the past decade, from 51-52% between 2004 and 2014 to now 60%. Law students are also trending younger, with a full 11% of current students reporting their age as under 23 years (compared to only 1% in 2004, up from 9% in 2019). There are also higher percentages of students identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual; currently, the LGBTQ+ population together represents 17% of all law students, up from just 4% in 2009 (as LSSSE first began collecting these data in 2005) and 9% in 2019. By any measure, legal education is more diverse now than at any point previously documented.
For more information on the shifts in legal education that occurred over the past twenty years, please visit the LSSSE website to read the entire report. In our next post, we will provide a snapshot of how support for law students has evolved over the last twenty years, including a concerning decrease in relationship satisfaction that warrants special attention.
Time Well Spent? The Role of School Environment in Law Student Work-Life Balance
Time Well Spent? The Role of School Environment in Law Student Work-Life Balance
Steven Feldman
LSSSE Graduate Assistant
Indiana University
In recent years, the well-being of law students has become a crucial focus for law schools (Todres, 2022). Students face enormous demands trying to balance rigorous academic demands with their personal life and professional responsibilities. Outside of the classroom, students often engage in work-related activities like paid legal work and pro bono service. Yet they also must find ways of engaging in selfcare in order to maintain their health and well-being while in law school. By examining the relationship between students’ time spent on various activities and their views on their law school environment, we can gain insight into which factors might help or hinder their well-being.
Using five work- and well-being-related items along with ten environment items from the Law School Survey of Student Engagement, we can see some important correlations between time spent and students’ perceptions of their school environment. For example, the more that students believe their law school emphasizes spending significant amounts of time studying and on academic work, the less time they spend on well-being activities and working outside of the classroom. On the flip side, the more that students believe their law school emphasizes helping students cope with non-academic responsibilities, providing support students need to thrive socially, and etc., the more time students spend on things like exercising and socializing. This suggests that when law schools emphasize a culture of support and well-being, students are potentially more likely to engage in activities that can improve their well-being.
Interestingly, work-related activities had some potentially surprising correlations. For example, the more that students believe their law school emphasizes encouraging the ethical practice of the law, the less time they spend working pro bono and working for pay in a law-related job. Additionally, the more that students believe their law school emphasizes providing the support you need to succeed in your employment search, the less time they spend working for pay in a law-related job. Although these correlations don’t imply causation, they still warrant future investigation.
Correlations | |||||
To what extent does your law school emphasize each of the following? | Exercising or participating in fitness activities | Relaxing and socializing (watching TV, partying, etc.) | Sleeping | Working probono not for a class or clinical course | Working for pay in a law-related job |
Spending significant amounts of time studying and on academic work | -.031* | -.113** | -.044** | -.037** | -.063** |
Encouraging the ethical practice of the law | .029* | -.041** | -.036** | ||
Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically | .045** | -.076** | |||
Encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, sexual orientation, and racial or ethnic backgrounds | .077** | .042** | .029* | ||
Providing the support you need to succeed in your employment search | .031* | .028* | -.070** | ||
Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) | .104** | .052** | .044** | -.032* | |
Providing the support you need to thrive socially | .107** | .058** | .041** | -.056** | |
Attending campus events and activities (special speakers, cultural events, symposia, etc.) | .044** | .049** | -.101** | ||
Providing the financial counseling you need to afford your education | .082** | -.032* | -.061** | ||
Using technology in academic work | .042** | .058** | -.052** | ||
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01 |
These overall findings suggest that a holistic approach to education that encompasses both academic and non-academic responsibilities may further enhance students’ overall well-being and work-life balance. Understanding these relationships can help law schools consider how they might allocate resources to support students balancing work, social, personal, and academic commitments.
References
Todres, J. (2022). Work-life balance and the need to give law students a break. University of Pittsburgh Law Review Online, 83, 1–13.
An Indispensable Resource: The Law School Survey of Student Engagement at Twenty
Lauren Robel
Van Nolan Professor of Law Emerita, Provost Emerita
Indiana University
Now in its twentieth year, the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (LSSSE) has become an indispensable resource for everyone who cares about legal education. Modeled on the National Survey of Student Engagement, which has been asking undergraduates about behavior that empirically correlates with good learning outcomes since 2000, LSSSE has for two decades provided individual schools and those interested in legal education with a wealth of empirical information and important insights about how law students navigate their educations. From a starting point of 42 law school participants, the annual survey over its lifetime has included over 425,000 students at more than 200 discrete institutions in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. LSSSE has accumulated a lot of data in two decades about how law students experience legal education and what schools are doing to help them thrive. Working from that unique and powerful dataset, LSSSE has flowered from a yearly snapshot of student behavior to an exceptional resource for understanding how law schools create and respond to change.
The power of this resource is a function of its unmatched longitudinal and comparative data. This annual report relies on that data to ask what twenty years of survey responses can tell us about what has stayed the same and what has changed in the years that the survey has been administered. There is much good news. Law students, like practicing lawyers, have been and remain overwhelmingly satisfied with their chosen vocational path.[1] Students continue to participate in experiential learning at high levels and large numbers of them take advantage of opportunities for public service and pro bono. More of them--- almost half---- believe that their law schools are doing a good job in preparing them to work with diverse constituencies than when LSSSE first began collecting data.
And the same is true of identity formation: more than half credit their schools with developing their professional identity. As these data document, law schools are doing many things right.
During its twenty years of collecting these data, LSSSE has remained staunchly committed to its founding mission of helping law schools improve learning by keeping the voices of students front and center. Its focus on how students learn predated the ABA’s adoption of learning outcome accreditation standards by ten years,[2] and it has helped law schools demonstrate that they are meeting the requirements of that standard. While providing deep analysis of single-school data on a specific topic, LSSSE also regularly steps back to analyze how schools can think holistically about their data. For instance, LSSSE has pulled together a set of responses that show how often students report engaging in the specific skills that, together, constitute “thinking like a lawyer.”[3] And it has cultivated partnerships to understand how behaviors in law school might be influenced to improve bar passage rates.[4] Law schools are also able to compare how their students are using their career and advising services, or their libraries, to students’ use at peer institutions, allowing them to benchmark and improve these critical services. All of these services are important to student success and are expensive to provide, putting a premium on ensuring that schools can rely on their responsiveness and efficacy. For individual schools, LSSSE is an invaluable tool for ensuring the quality and efficacy of the school’s work.
While all of this has helped individual schools, LSSSE has done much more. It has responded to important new questions driven by the evolving literature on law schools or experiments that law schools themselves want to explore. For instance, schools took seriously the questions arising from the Carnegie Foundation’s important report on law school professional identity formation,[5] and LSSSE helped them understand how the programming they instituted affected their students’ understanding of their nascent professional selves. Similarly, law schools have expanded their experiential offerings tremendously during the twenty years of LSSSE administration. Schools interested in ensuring the effectiveness of new graduation requirements, such as pro bono or clinical course requirements, can use LSSSE to follow changes over time and adjust where necessary. Institutions interested in how law schools have responded to criticism can look to LSSSE for empirical answers. LSSSE provides a way to stand both inside and outside a single school, allowing deans, faculty, staff, and constituencies interested in the profession to determine whether innovation is having the hoped-for effects on students’ development as professionals.
The annual reports have also thoughtfully explored the effect of major cultural and social events and trends, like the pandemic and the interest in online courses it triggered, on legal education.[6] They have explored difficult and intractable issues, such as student debt levels.[7] And under Professor Meera Deo’s thoughtful leadership, LSSSE has been especially attentive to exploring how diverse students experience law school.[8] One of the great success stories of the past twenty years has been the increased diversity of the student bodies of schools across the country, which LSSSE has documented and which may be imperiled by the Supreme Court’s dismantling of affirmative action. Increasing the presence of diverse students carries with it the imperative of ensuring that their path to success does not face unintended barriers. As Dean Jelani Jefferson Exum explained, “LSSSE data has been extremely useful in illuminating the culture of law schools,” and permitting schools to stay true to their missions for all of their students.[9]
In addition to its own stellar work with the data, LSSSE has also supported an impressive and deepening array of research and scholarship (at last count, close to 150 articles, books, and doctoral dissertations) that looks to this data set to answer questions about legal education, student engagement and success, diverse students’ experiences, and comparisons to other professions.[10] LSSSE has become an important resource for scholars as well as schools.
What makes LSSSE’s work critically important, of course, is the importance of the work for which we are preparing our students. Our country endows lawyers with a great deal of power and responsibility, both for their clients’ lives and for the health of the rule of law. The more we know about how students are forming their skills, judgment, and ethics, the better we can perform the crucial task of preparing them for a virtuous practice that supports the highest values of the profession. For twenty years, LSSSE has made succeeding at this task more possible. Congratulations to LSSSE and the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research for their important and growing contributions to the success of our students.
___
[1] See R. Nelson et al., THE MAKING OF LAWYERS’ CAREERS: INEQUALITY AND OPPORTUNITY IN THE AMERICAN LEGAL PROFESSION (2023), reporting on a twenty-year longitudinal study of practicing lawyers that found lawyers overwhelmingly satisfied with their decision to become a lawyer.
[2] Stephen C. Bahls, Adoption of Student Learning Outcomes: Lessons for Systemic Change in Legal Education, 67 Journal of Legal Educ. 376 (2018) (Chair of ABA’s Student Learning Outcomes Committee discussing process that led to adoption of ABA Standard 302 in 2014).
[3] Jak Petzold, Learning to Think Like A Lawyer, (August 7, 2024) at https://lssse.indiana.edu/blog/learning-to-think-like-a-lawyer/
[4] AccessLex Institute/LSSSE Bar Exam Success Initiative at https://lssse.indiana.edu/accesslexlssse-bar-exam-success-initiative/
[5] William Sullivan, Jr., et al., EDUCATING LAWYERS: PREPARATION FOR THE PROFESSION OF LAW (2007) (part of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s “Preparation for the Professions” series0.
[6] 2021 Annual Report, The COVID Crisis in Legal Education; http://lssse.indiana.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/COVID-Crisis-in-Legal-Education-Final-1.24.22.pdf 2022 Annual Report, Success with Online Education, https://lssse.indiana.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Success-with-Online-Education-Final-10.26.22.pdf
[7] 2015 Annual Report, How a Decade of Debt Changed the Law School Experience at http://lssse.indiana.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/LSSSE-Annual-Report-2015-Update-FINAL-revised-web.pdf
[8] See Diversity and Exclusion, LSSSE Annual Report 2020 at http://lssse.indiana.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Diversity-and-Exclusion-Final-9.29.20.pdf The Cost of Women’s Success, LSSSE Annual Report 2019 at http://lssse.indiana.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/LSSSE-AnnualSurvey-Gender-Final.pdf
[9] Jelani Jefferson Exum, The Role of Data in Mission Focused Law School Leadership (Sept. 20, 2024) at https://lssse.indiana.edu/blog/the-role-of-data-in-mission-focused-law-school-leadership/
[10] See Publications citing LSSSE Research at https://lssse.indiana.edu/scholarship/
Law Students are Highly Satisfied with Law Libraries
Law libraries are an essential cornerstone of legal education, providing students with the resources, spaces, and support needed to excel academically and to prepare for their future careers. Understanding how students feel about their law libraries is critical for ensuring these spaces and services effectively meet their needs. Exploring student satisfaction provides valuable insights into what is working well and where improvements can be made, helping law schools enhance the library experience and strengthen its role in fostering academic and professional success.
The Law Library topical module is an extension of the LSSSE survey that provides participating law schools with the opportunity to assess specific features of their law library including satisfaction with library training and support, quality of print and online resources, usefulness of physical spaces, and achievement of learning outcomes related to legal research. Today we will share satisfaction with some of the general features of academic law libraries using data from the 22 law schools that administered the Law Library module between 2022 and 2024.
Four in five law students (82%) used the law library in the past year, and those students using the law library are are generally very satisfied with the services they receive. An astonishing 94+% of law library users are satisfied or highly satisfied with the quality of their law library’s online resources, reference/research assistance, interlibrary loan assistance, and circulation/reserve services. When students are dissatisfied with aspects of their library, their concerns are more likely to be related to access to the physical spaces, including hours the library is open (91% satisfaction), use of the library as a study space (87% satisfaction), and collaborative space availability (82% satisfaction). These satisfaction levels are still quite high, however, and this dissatisfaction can be viewed as a sign that students’ major complaints are that they want more of the library: longer hours and more collaborative and individual workspaces to use.
Law libraries play a vital role in shaping the academic and professional success of law students. The high levels of satisfaction with key library services underscore the critical support these libraries provide. The areas where students express less satisfaction highlight opportunities for growth, particularly in enhancing access to physical spaces. By listening to students' feedback and addressing their needs, law schools can ensure their libraries remain dynamic, indispensable resources that empower students to thrive.
Meaningful Sources of Career Advice for Law Students
Navigating career decisions can be one of the most challenging aspects of law school, and many students find themselves seeking advice to chart their path forward. Whether considering judicial clerkships, corporate law roles, public interest positions, or alternative legal careers, law students often feel a mix of excitement and uncertainty. Balancing academic demands with the pressure to make strategic choices about internships, networking, and future goals requires careful planning. And the guidance of mentors, professors, and peers can make all the difference.
Using 2023-2024 data from the LSSSE Student Services module, we examined the meaningful sources of career advice that law students draw upon to help with professional preparation. Interestingly, law students are more likely to seek out career advice from faculty or staff members not formally assigned as career advisors rather than from formal career advisors at their law school. Only about a third of law students receive meaningful advice from careers advisors available to any student, and only about a quarter receive meaningful advice from a career advisor assigned to them, which is equal to the percentage of students receiving meaningful advice from family members (26%).
Given that family input will vary widely across different student backgrounds, we compared the sources of career advice for first-generation and non-first-generation law students. For first-generation law students (those who do not have a parent with at least a bachelor's degree), family members are much less likely to be a meaningful source of career advice. However, troublingly, first-generation students are also less likely to receive meaningful career advice from other sources relative to their non-first-generation peers. In other words, law schools may not be filling the gaps for first-generation students to support their transition into the legal profession.
Digging deeper into the non-first-generation data, we wanted to know what impact having a parent with a law degree has on students’ sources of meaningful career advice. Among students who have a parent with a doctoral or professional degree, we see, not surprisingly, that students who have a parent with a JD are more likely to cite family members as a meaningful source of career advice than students who have a parent with a non-JD doctoral or professional degree. However, only around half (52%) of law students who have a parent with a JD note that they are receiving meaningful career advice from a family member. The students with a JD-holding parent are a little more likely to get advice from career advisors assigned to them and a little less likely to receive advice from faculty, staff, or career advisors who are not formally assigned to them.
These findings highlight critical gaps and opportunities in how law schools support students in their career preparation. While informal networks and personal relationships with faculty or staff often play a vital role, the data suggest that formal career advising structures may not be as effective as they could be, particularly for first-generation students. Law schools should consider rethinking how they engage with students in career advising, ensuring that resources are accessible and tailored to meet the diverse needs of their student body. By strengthening these systems and bridging the advice gap, particularly for those from underrepresented backgrounds, law schools can better prepare all students for the challenges and opportunities of the legal profession.
The Parenting Penalty for Law Students
Laila L. Harris
Associate Professor of Law & Co-Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic
Associate Provost of International Affairs
Tulane University Law School
This fall, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory on the mental health and well-being of parents, responding to levels of high stress parents report and the harmful effects on their own mental health, as well as their children’s. This was on the heels of findings from a national study that a majority of parents experience isolation, loneliness and burnout related to parenting. For those of us at law schools, often recognized as high stress environments already, it raises the question: what is the landscape for parents in law schools?
Professor Lindsay M. Harris (University of San Francisco Law School) and I have begun talking and writing about “the parenting professor penalty,” the panoply of harms and challenges that pregnant and parenting people, as well as those who are presumed to become pregnant or parenting, face in entering and being successful as faculty within the legal academy. We are bringing this topic to the annual AALS meeting, focused on “Courage in Action” held in January as a discussion group session and welcome you to join us. Yet faculty often comprise those with the most privileged positions in law schools, relative to staff and students. Law students who are parents, or more broadly caretakers, may face steep challenges and inequities related to their status and circumstances.
Mental health has long been a concern in law schools and the legal profession. According to LSSSE, around 60% of law students experience very high law-school related stress or anxiety. Law students who also serve as caretakers are particularly likely to have more stress. This is especially true because students with dependents also spend more time on commuting to class and working, and less time on exercising and socializing, which may help combating anxiety and isolation.
While about one-third of law students reported spending time caring for dependents, the burden of hours spent every week is particularly high for non-traditional law students. First-gen students comprise a larger portion of law student caretakers: 44% of first-gen students spend time caring for dependents, compared to 33% of non-first-gen students.
Caretakers are also over-represented in part-time law programs, with 56% of part-time students reporting caretaking for dependents. Time spent caretaking per week is highest for older law students, as 40% of those aged 31-40 spent 11 or more hours per week caretaking, and nearly half of those aged over 40 spent 11 or more hours caring for dependents.
Given these genuine concerns for law student caregivers, how can we as law faculty respond individually and collectively, and how can we respond institutionally as law schools?
As individual actors, law professors should think about how to account for the stresses parenting law students may be facing. Professor Harris and Professor Mallika Kaur recently released a co-edited volume titled How to Account for Trauma and Emotions in Law Teaching, which is instructive and helps to mainstream conversations about stress and well-being within law schools. Professors may, for example, want to think about whether they want to model “parenting loudly,” though this is not without varying consequences depending on an individual professor’s positionality, as Professor Meera E. Deo documents in her book Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia.
How can law schools as institutions respond to the special needs of law students who are caretakers and are at risk of heightened stress and burnout? As part of the ABA mandate that law schools provide substantial opportunities to explore “well-being practices,” law schools should offer meaningful courses and co-curricular activities to address law students’ well-being, including trainings, screenings, and policies to encourage work-life balance. These co-curricular programs should also have resources to address the particular needs of law students who are parents or caretakers. Some institutions do this already. For example, some schools have created a clearinghouse of information directing students to school and city-specific parenting resources, as well as child care subsidies and student groups.
Schools should also conduct internal assessments to learn about the experiences and needs of law students who are caregivers to consider whether policies and practices around leaves and broader resources for this community are responsive to needs. Creative responses including creating parenting support groups are warranted. Schools can also take steps to accommodate the schedules for working parents. For example, one law school designated one of the nine first year small section modules as the parent module (affectionately called the “mommy mod”) and classes were scheduled to align with times when school was open and to accommodate drop off and pick up responsibilities. Similarly, another school designed a part-time law program so law students with school age children take coursework while their children are in school. Finally, as a broader measure and perhaps an impetus for the cultural shift the moment demands, U.S. law schools should consider signing on to the International Guidelines for Wellbeing in Legal Education, which would require a comprehensive overhaul of law school structure, curriculum, and atmosphere with well-being in mind.
Assessment of ABA Standard 303(c)
The American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 303(c) mandates that law schools provide students with substantial education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism to ensure they are equipped to serve a diverse client base and uphold justice in an inclusive legal environment. This requirement, effective for all law schools accredited by the ABA, emphasizes integrating this training at critical junctures in a law student's education, such as during orientation and within a course prior to graduation. Standard 303(c) encourages schools to create meaningful, context-specific programs that prepare future lawyers to understand and navigate the societal and cultural complexities affecting the legal system.
To aid law schools in evaluating their success toward meeting the requirements of Standard 303(c), LSSSE began asking questions about bias and anti-racism education during the 2024 survey administration. The question asks “During the current school year, in which of the following ways, if any, has your law school provided education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism? (Select all that apply.)” and gives the following options:
- Orientation sessions for incoming students
- Lectures on these topics
- Courses incorporating these topics
- Other educational experiences incorporating these topics
Substantial numbers of law students are receiving bias, cross-cultural competency, and anti-racism training in each of the four venues. Orientations for incoming students and courses incorporating these topics were the most selected answers, encompassing 71% of students. Two-thirds (67%) of students had received lectures on these topics, and a little over half (52%) of students participated in other educational experiences incorporating these topics.
ABA Standard 303(c) represents a step toward fostering a more inclusive and culturally aware legal profession prepared to serve diverse communities with empathy, insight, and a commitment to equity. By mandating that law schools provide substantial education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism, this Standard ensures that future lawyers are equipped not only to recognize but also to challenge the social and cultural biases that can impact the justice system. LSSSE data show that the majority of law students are receiving this essential training through orientations, lectures, and integrated courses. To assess whether students at your law school are having these experiences and to compare your law students to the national averages, sign up for LSSSE 2025. Registration is now open.
Law Student Online Engagement and Universal Socratic
Law Student Online Engagement and Universal Socratic
Christopher J. Robinette[1]
Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School
In the fall of 2023, Southwestern Law School received ABA approval to operate the country’s first fully online Juris Doctor program. Moreover, to increase student flexibility, the program is asynchronous, with only a few voluntary synchronous sessions. In essence, the students and professor will not be online together in a Zoom room, but students will access videos of the professor and exercises on their own schedules.
As a law professor who has taught in-person courses for over twenty years, I deliberated a long time before volunteering to teach online. I love the energy of the face-to-face classroom and, frankly, I was somewhat skeptical about the efficacy of online law classes, particularly in the first year. In fact, one of the most compelling reasons that I agreed to teach online was the hope of improving my pedagogy in the “real” classroom. As I began planning my online course, however, I became excited about the possibilities particular to the online mode.
The 2022 LSSSE Annual Report, Success with Online Education, says half (50%) of all law students were enrolled in at least one course that was taught mostly or entirely online and every law school participating in the LSSSE survey offered at least some online courses. Most law students (70%) took courses that met in-person, though 10% took mostly online courses, and 20% reported that they had enrolled in a mix of courses that met online and in-person. Of those who did meet online, most (78%) were in synchronous classes; but 3% of LSSSE respondents in online courses met asynchronously and an additional 19% were in hybrid courses. Clearly, online education is here to stay and could grow even more prominent in the years ahead.
As an instructor, my biggest concern about teaching online was something about which LSSSE is expert: engagement. Keeping students engaged can be difficult under any circumstances, but it is especially challenging online. I believe a solution to the online engagement problem is not singular; instead, it lies in numerous program and instructional design decisions. With that in mind, I considered how law professors engage their students, particularly first years, in the traditional classroom. Of course, a major technique is the Socratic method, in which the professor asks a (usually cold-called) student increasingly challenging questions about a case. This is an interactive mode of teaching and learning that involves the students and does not conceive of them as passive recipients of knowledge. Although they exist, I do not need the overwhelming data telling me that active learning is superior. I can sense it in the fact that the air starts to go out of the room whenever I lecture my students for lengthy periods of time.
Was there a way to adapt the Socratic method to the online asynchronous environment? In thinking about this, I had to admit that one facet of the Socratic method in the classroom was not replicable. In the traditional classroom, the professor is able to tailor her follow-up questions precisely to the student’s answers. This is not possible in an asynchronous online class. But—and this is where I grasped that the online environment has advantages—you can ask all of the students all of the questions. In the traditional classroom, one student is on call. Ideally, we expect the other students to be following along and answering the questions silently for themselves. In reality, we know that at least some of them do not. They are spaced out, or shopping online, or simply exhausted. In an online course, all students can be engaged. And it can be verified.
This is how I developed the Universal Socratic for my online course. For each module in my course, I selected one case that I found significant and created an interactive exercise around that case. I wrote five questions about the case. For the first few modules, I followed the structure of a basic case brief (facts, issue, holding, disposition, rationale), allowing the students to reinforce their briefing skills. As the modules progressed, I formulated more questions in the upper ranges of Bloom’s Taxonomy (analyzing, evaluating, and creating). Thanks to exercises like this, LSSSE data indicate that students believe legal education contributes to multiple skills, especially thinking critically and analytically, as much online as in-person.
I then drafted answers to the questions. Using Canvas’s Quizzes feature, I inserted the questions and required the students to answer them one at a time. After the student has answered each question, and before they answer the next question, they are shown my answer and are able to compare it to theirs. Not only asking the questions but providing prompt feedback is helpful to engage students. Using this process, the student and I are essentially having a dialogue, even though I do not have the benefit of their exact answer in real time in person. Moreover, every student in the class engages in the exercise of answering the questions.
Given the growth in online education, students will benefit from legal educators modifying effective face-to-face techniques, like the Socratic method, for the asynchronous online mode. When educators do so, they will find that some features of online education make it better than the original.
[1] I benefited greatly on this project from the ideas of my terrific colleagues Catherine Carpenter, John De Sousa, and Danni Hart.