Who Gets in? The Quest for Diversity after Grutter

Transcript of The 2004 James McCormick Mitchell Lecture. On March 8, 2004, the University at Buffalo Law School hosted its annual Mitchell Lecture,1 a panel discussion entitled, Who Gets In? The Quest for Diversity After Grutter. The Mitchell Committee decided to focus this year\u27s lecture on innovative proposals to ensure diversity in law school admissions in light of the Supreme Court\u27s ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which confirmed that race and ethnicity could be taken into consideration in admission decisions for diversity purposes. Noting that much of the debate about Grutter thus far has emphasized the decision\u27s constitutionality or its implications for affirmative action, the Committee sought to have a different kind of conversation, one that explored new approaches to admissions that might aid law schools in admitting more diverse student bodies. To this end, the Committee invited five leading scholars, whose work, either analytical or empirical, could change or deepen understandings about the potential for and the obstacles to diversity in law school admissions post-Grutter. Their short presentations (each speaker had only twelve minutes to speak), which provoked a lively discussion, are presented in this edited transcript of the event together with selected excerpts from the question and answer period

Who Gets In? The Quest for Diversity after \u3cem\u3eGrutter\u3c/em\u3e

On March 8, 2004, the University at Buffalo Law School hosted its annual Mitchell Lecture,1 a panel discussion entitled, Who Gets In? The Quest for Diversity After Grutter. The Mitchell Committee decided to focus this year\u27s lecture on innovative proposals to ensure diversity in law school admissions in light of the Supreme Court\u27s ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which confirmed that race and ethnicity could be taken into consideration in admission decisions for diversity purposes. Noting that much of the debate about Grutter thus far has emphasized the decision\u27s constitutionality or its implications for affirmative action, the Committee sought to have a different kind of conversation, one that explored new approaches to admissions that might aid law schools in admitting more diverse student bodies. To this end, the Committee invited five leading scholars, whose work, either analytical or empirical, could change or deepen understandings about the potential for and the obstacles to diversity in law school admissions post-Grutter. Their short presentations (each speaker had only twelve minutes to speak), which provoked a lively discussion, are presented in this edited transcript of the event together with selected excerpts from the question and answer period

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Background: Considerable resources are spent on research to establish what works to improve the nation’s health. If the findings from this research are used, better health outcomes can follow, but we know that these findings are not always used. In public health, evidence of what works may not ‘fit’ everywhere, making it difficult to know what to do locally. Research suggests that evidence use is a social and dynamic process, not a simple application of research findings. It is unclear whether it is easier to get evidence used via a legal contracting process or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. Objective: To work in cocreation with research participants to investigate how research is utilised and knowledge mobilised in the commissioning and planning of public health services to reduce alcohol-related harms. Design, setting and participants: Two in-depth, largely qualitative, cross-comparison case studies were undertaken to compare real-time research utilisation in commissioning across a purchaser–provider split (England) and in joint planning under unified organisational arrangements (Scotland) to reduce alcohol-related harms. Using an overarching realist approach and working in cocreation, case study partners (stakeholders in the process) picked the topic and helped to interpret the findings. In Scotland, the topic picked was licensing; in England, it was reducing maternal alcohol consumption. Methods: Sixty-nine interviews, two focus groups, 14 observations of decision-making meetings, two local feedback workshops (n = 23 and n = 15) and one national workshop (n = 10) were undertaken. A questionnaire (n = 73) using a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale was issued to test the transferability of the 10 main findings. Given the small numbers, care must be taken in interpreting the findings. Findings: Not all practitioners have the time, skills or interest to work in cocreation, but when there was collaboration, much was learned. Evidence included professional and tacit knowledge, and anecdotes, as well as findings from rigorous research designs. It was difficult to identify evidence in use and decisions were sometimes progressed in informal ways and in places we did not get to see. There are few formal evidence entry points. Evidence (prevalence and trends in public health issues) enters the process and is embedded in strategic documents to set priorities, but local data were collected in both sites to provide actionable messages (sometimes replicating the evidence base). Conclusions: Two mid-range theories explain the findings. If evidence has saliency (relates to ‘here and now’ as opposed to ‘there and then’) and immediacy (short, presented verbally or visually and with emotional appeal) it is more likely to be used in both settings. A second mid-range theory explains how differing tensions pull and compete as feasible and acceptable local solutions are pursued across stakeholders. Answering what works depends on answering for whom and where simultaneously to find workable (if temporary) ‘blends’. Gaining this agreement across stakeholders appeared more difficult across the purchaser–provider split, because opportunities to interact were curtailed; however, more research is needed. Funding: This study was funded by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research

Admission to Law School: New Measures

Standardized tests have been increasingly controversial over recent years in high-stakes admission decisions. Their role in operationalizing definitions of merit and qualification is especially contested, but in law schools this challenge has become particularly intense. Law schools have relied on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and an INDEX (which includes grade point average [GPA]) since the 1940s. The LSAT measures analytic and logical reasoning and reading. Research has focused on the validity of the LSAT as a predictor of 1st-year GPA in law school, with almost no research on predicting lawyering effectiveness. This article examines the comparative potential between the LSAT versus noncognitive (e.g., personality, situational judgment, and biographical information) predictors of lawyering effectiveness. Theoretical links between 26 lawyering effectiveness factors and potential predictors are discussed and evaluated. Implications for broadening the criterion space, diversity in admissions, and the practice of law are discussed

Predicting Lawyer Effectiveness: Broadening the Basis for Law School Admissions Decisions

Law school admission decisions are heavily influenced by a student’s undergraduate grade point average (UGPA) and Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score. These measures, although predictive of first-year law school grades, make no effort to predict professional competence and, for the most part, they do not. These measures also create adverse impact on applicants from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. This article describes the rationale for and process by which we explored new tests to predict lawyer effectiveness rather than law school grades and reports results of a multiyear empirical study involving over 3,000 graduates from Berkeley Law School and Hastings College of the Law. Tests measuring personality constructs, interests, values, and judgment predicted lawyering competency but had little or no adverse impact on underrepresented minority applicants. Combined with the LSAT and UGPA, these broader tests could assess law applicants on the basis both of projected professional effectiveness and academic indicators