sba strategic plan 2005 -- manifesting the promise

8/3/2019 SBA Strategic Plan 2005 -- Manifesting The Promise

1/33

MANIFESTING THE PROMISE OF AGWLAW EDUCATION

ASTRATEGIC PLAN FORTHE GEORGEWASHINGTON UNIVERSITYLAWSCHOOL

Student Bar Association 2005-2006

Eric KoesterPresident

Samir JammalExecutive Vice President

Karen MorganChief of Staff

Will WilderVice President of Communications

Jonathan WillinghamVice President of Finance

Christopher RoemerVice President of Outreach

Shannon GibsonVice President of Programming


2/33

***************************************

Prepared and presented by the

Student Bar Association

The George Washington University Law School

2000 H Street, North West

Washington, DC 20052

(202) 994-7150

[email protected]

www.gwsba.com

2002 G Street, North West

***************************************


3/33

MANIFESTING THE PROMISE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION &PURPOSE.......................................................................................................... 2

INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 4

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4

The Professional Development Center .................................................................................... 4

The Narrative............................................................................................................................. 4

The Details................................................................................................................................. 6Skills Boards............................................................................................................................. 10

Scholarly Writing....................................................................................................................... 10

New Skills Boards & Competitions.............................................................................................. 13

Student Recognition................................................................................................................ 15

MARKETING.................................................................................................................................. 16

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 16

Our Identity ............................................................................................................................. 16

Outreach to Prospective Students .......................................................................................... 17

Outreach to Alumni................................................................................................................. 18

Class Funds.............................................................................................................................. 19

Bring GW Law Alumni to Law School Day.................................................................................. 19Scholarships.............................................................................................................................. 20

Invite Alumni to Law School Events............................................................................................. 20

Host Alumni Events at the Law School......................................................................................... 21

Outreach to the Legal Profession........................................................................................... 21

Personal Contact........................................................................................................................ 22

Marketing to Legal Professionals.................................................................................................. 22

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 23

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 23

Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 23

A Finished Product.................................................................................................................. 24

A Signature Space .................................................................................................................... 25

A Student Focus....................................................................................................................... 25

A Self-SufficientCommunity .................................................................................................. 26

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................. 27

Individualized Student Development .................................................................................... 27

Marketing................................................................................................................................. 29

Capital Improvements............................................................................................................. 30

1


4/33

INTRODUCTION &PURPOSE

It is beyond question that over the past tenyears GW Law has reinvented itself. We haveeffectively attracted more and more qualifiedstudents, improved the physical plant, andstrengthened our preeminence in certainfields. Even more to our credit, we haveeffected this transformation while maintaininga sense of collegiality and reaffirming ratherthan relegating our identity. The results ofsuch a revolution, though,have not yet reached allcorners of the law school.

It is our position, andperhaps the thesis of thisdocument generally, thatcertain elements within thelaw school continue tooperate as if conductingthemselves at a second tierinstitution. We thus setforth a plan, serving ourrole as the voice of thestudent body, to manifest

the promise and potentialof a George Washington University LawSchool education. Our plan advances threemajor goals: a reinvention of the studentexperience as an individualized endeavor, aconsistent revelation of the GW quality to thelegal world, and a realization of the idealphysical campus.

The authors took this opportunity to reflecton why we each decided to attend law school.The question drew us to a common answer: it was the next step in our lifes workin ourcareers. Each of us came to law school forprofessional development, and we assumedour three years would put us well in line for ajob in our chosen field. That commonalitydeserves a similar focus from the law school.It should be our goal to produce more thanjust excellent students; it should be our goal to

produce excellent lawyers, well positioned in

the legal community for careers of repute andachievement. Employment and academics arenot diametrically opposed. It must be ourgoal that each student has a job upongraduation, and if they do not, we should putthe full weight of our resources into acommon search. We should tailor theexperience of our students so that theirindividual potential can be realized. With a

student-focused andindividualized approach tolife outside the classroom,

this great institution willdevelop better students,better lawyers, and betterpeople.

It occurs to us, based onspeaking with professors,administrators, and alumni,that a transition occurred inthe social fabric of thisinstitution in the 1990sa

transition that resulted inhappier students, happier alumni, and a moresatisfied community writ large. And while weare thankful for that transition, we cannotafford to forget the generations previous whomay have a mixed view of the law school.Therefore, it must be our goal to reach out tothose alumni and the generations of attorneysthey embody who now serve in prestigious Washington law firms and in high-levelgovernment posts. We feel that our law

school has actively marketed itself toprospective students, but must reach out toattorneys in the field. This has the benefit ofincreasing prestige, the ever elusive andmysterious criteria by which law schools areinherently judged thanks to the U.S. News & World Report. Ultimately, it is important tohave an active and cohesive plan to market

2


5/33

our law school externally. This, we find, willserve to benefit our entire community.

We also discussed what drew us to the variousscholastic options competing for our druthers,

and why our ultimate choice to matriculatehere at GW was difficult. We found that ourattention was initially drawn to the physicalfacilities that housed these law schools. Ourshas undergone a radical transformation, butwe are not certain where it is heading or whythese changes have been made. We arepleased with the results, but with all theimprovements benefiting students, we shouldfocus on promoting our long-term goals forconstruction. This must mean making anadditional push to finish renovations,

including the addition of a new law schoollibrary and a law school apartment complex. Attaining both combats many of our weaknesses among similarly ranked schools.Our law school is not far from a logicalconclusion of its renovationsit just needs topush forward and educate our community ofthe future steps and plans.

This plan is by no means exhaustive. Thereare many discussions still to be had about how

to make GW Law the best institution that itcan be. Serious consideration must be givento the importance and realization of diversityhere at the school. And issues are brewingabout the disconnect between students andthe decision-making processes at work oncampus. We hope that subsequent StudentBar Association administrations and Senates will put forth plans to memorialize ourcommitment to diversity in a committeecharged with recruiting minority faculty and

students, and that they will request and begranted student representation in the FacultySenate. But, as is all too often the case, wecan only address so many issues at a giventime, and so we put before you our proposalson the three most pressing issues as we seethem.

We hope then that you read this document with a mind open to the potential that liesbefore. We hope that you will see that we arenot jaded naysayers who wish to exalt thepractical and mundane over the academic and

profound. Rather, we hope that you will findour recommendations to be measured and ourdiscourse to be based on reasoning, on activestudent participation, and on a sincere beliefin the role that we in the Student BarAssociation play as a voice and vehicle for thestudent body. We in the Student Bar Association have recently adopted a newmotto:praesis ut prosis, lead that you may serve.We take this charge with humility and honorand so we set forth this plan with the hopethat it will not fall on deaf ears. We hope that

you will read this document, and itsrecommendations, with a mind open tomanifesting that promise to which we eachdevote ourselves: the promise of a betterGeorge Washington University Law School.

3


6/33

INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT DEVELOPMENT

Introduction The experience of conceiving and

authoring this document has been remarkable.The several recommendations and strands ofdiscussion that you will find herein haveundergone an interesting evolution, anddemonstrate a significant refinement. Thissection was originally conceived as TheOther 65% based on the idea that the CareerDevelopment Office and the various studentopportunities at the law school cater to thescholar designees, precisely the population

that does not need the help. The more latenight discussions and conversations overdinner that went in to the authoring of thisplan, the more we realized that so many ofour concerns stemmed from this issue, andthat it could not be remedied by merelyretooling the CDO. As our recommendationstook shape, it became evident that a moreradical approach would be required. Andindeed, we believe that our ultimate plan willresult in benefits beyond our initial concerns.

This branch of our proposal calls for arestructuring of the student experience toform a more holistic approach to oureducation and development as attorneys. Itasserts three areas of improvement: thecreation of a new Professional DevelopmentCenter as a combination of the CDO andcertain elements of Student Services; moreopportunities for participation on skillsboards; and a greater numbers of academicrecognition programs in the law school.

The Professional Dev-elopment Center

The centerpiece of this portion of theproposal is the Professional DevelopmentCenter (PDC). Such a center would be anamalgam of the CDO and the academic

advising functions of Student Services.

Currently, the CDO operates in isolation as ajob clearinghouse, and Student Servicesoperates as a pre-registration schedulingcounselor.1 We in no way mean to suggestthat either of these functions is not important,but rather we argue that this is a myopicapproach to student development. Werecommend that these two functions merge toform a department tasked with counselingstudents on their development.2

The Narrative

In the spring of 2005, the SBAconducted a survey of students on theirperceptions and experiences with the CDO.Strikingly, of the 2L, 3L, 4L, and LLMrespondents, the average level of satisfactionon a 5-point scale, with 1 being veryunsatisfied and 5 being very satisfied, was anappalling 2.42. One of the commoncomplaints raised was that the CareerDevelopment Office is a misnomer, as the

CDO doesnt infect offer career development. After careful analysis and thought, we haverealized that this perception, and arguablyfact, results from the underlying ethos of ourcurrent CDO. The CDO presently is aresource for students to consult, and thereinlies its fundamental flaw. Instead, it should bean integrated part of the academic experience.It should be a service that caters to each and

1Vis--vis Student Services, we are only referencing the

academic advising function here. We in no way intendto impeach the remarkable job that Student Servicesdoes dealing with all the sundry and complicated

concerns of students otherwise.2 The name Career Development Office is used at anumber of law schools. We have likewise seen the useof Professional Development in place of, or inconjunction with Career Development at a number ofschools including Duke University, the University ofArizona, and the University of Minnesota.

4


7/33

every student, on an individualized basis. Tobe sure, in no way do we suggest that theschool should focus its academics on gettingstudents a job. One of our great strengths isour scholarship and talented faculty.

We suggest a unique program thatintegrates, rather than isolates the variousfacets of life as a law student. The PDC would offer comprehensive counselingadvice on course selection, career explorationand application, and even skills boardpursuits. Currently, our balkanized systemsuggests little guidance on which coursesmight be better or worse for a particularinterest; a mindset that encourages unrealisticexcellence in all skills boards; and an approachto careers that results in many students feeling

left in the cold. The realities of our newsystem would include counselors who explorecareer and life interests with each student,attempt to tailor job searches and classchoices to those interests, and encourageparticipation in skills boards relevant to thatstudents interests while eschewingothers.

An anecdotemay be necessary to

explain the latter pointprior to moving on.One of the authors ofthis document and avery good friend of hishad diametricallyopposed interestsconcerning skillsboards. She longed toparticipate in law review, while he found oraladvocacy exhilarating. They shared similar

levels of distaste for the others interests.Despite this fact, both found themselvesparticipating in both the first year moot courtcompetition and the journal competition.Appropriately, he was asked to join the MootCourt Board while she was asked to join theLaw Review. Neither made the others skillsboard. At a more seasoned time, theydiscussed the appropriateness and perhaps

serendipity of that result, each lamenting thatthey had fallen prey to the law schoolmentality: you must do everything and excel atit all. The reality is that neither wanted to dowhat the other did, knew that going in to the

process, and did it anyway. Indeed, each hada miserable time doing the otherscompetition. There is certainly something tobe said for trying something new, but imaginehad the result been reversed and both wereselected to the others interest. We believethat it would be the role of counselors in thePDC to explore and advise students in similarsituations.

The system we propose offers abenefit that at first was not apparent to eventhe authors. GW finds itself twentieth among

law schools and, whether appropriate or not,that has a direct affect on the students whochoose to matriculate and the firms thatchoose to interview here. There is a certainsense in which arguing for efforts to rise inthe ranking and therefore attract better

students and firms isfallaciousit puts thecart before the horse. We as an institutionmust find a way to

attract the talentedstudents and theprestigious jobopportunities, anddoing so will in turnraise our profile. Webelieve that offering aunique program of

professionaldevelopment will separate us from the topschools and provide a unique appeal to GW.

Any approach to make GW more like schoolshigher ranked is doomed to failure. We willnever be Harvard, Stanford, or Yale andattempts to do so would be foolhardy at best.Rather, we need to be innovative, cutting-edge, and different from schools in ourechelon. We can do all of these things, webelieve, without changing the core values andsystems of this great institution. Indeed, we

5


8/33

already have the benefit of a uniqueenvironment, both in terms of geography andcommunity, and a faculty second-to-none, but we have been unable to effectivelydifferentiate ourselves from the competition.

This is indeed a fine line to walk, and we havetailored our proposal to operate bounded byour rich institutional heritage.

Such an approach will have theadditional benefit of producing betterprepared, better-rounded, and ultimately moresuccessful attorneys who, if nothing else, willhave had a happier experience. A conceptthat seems foreign to some of academia, andperhaps even more foreign to developmentoffices, is that todays students are tomorrowsalumni. Part of our global plan, discussed

more fully in Part II of this proposal, is anincreased focus on alumni relations. Thismust begin with a focus on studentsatisfaction. Happier students will speakbetter of GW, be better attorneys in the world, advance farther, and thus be morewilling and able to give back to GW.

The Details

Perhaps you were beginning to believe

that this was a proposal with an extendedintroduction that spoke in broad generalitiesand ultimately led nowhere. We would like toallay those fears presently with the details as we have conceived them. Our counselingefforts would extend from the first yearthrough the third, and are broken down forease of description, by semester. Additionally,they would call for a tracking system, wherebyeach and every student, and their progress injob search and academic performance is

tracked so that those students who need themost help are easily identified. During the fallsemester, each first-year student would meetwith a counselor so that each can get to knowthe other. Discussions in such sessions wouldcover why the student chose to attend lawschool, what they expect to get out of it, andperhaps a short legal interest survey. A givencounselor would be responsible for the same

group of students throughout their time atGW and beyond. A second meeting wouldfollow in February after grades were released.During this session, counselors would beexpected to discuss whether the students

interests have changed based on the firstsemester, whether they still feel that lawschool is right for them, and what hopes and

expectations they have for summeremployment. Counselors might want toencourage students to test whether theirinterests are correct by experimenting in thatfield in their first summer. Or perhaps if thestudent is sure of his or her interests, the

counselor might suggest trying somethingdifferent. In either event, the counselor would make a connection between generalcareer goals and planning for the 1L summer.Similarly, the counselor would be expected todiscuss course selection, and how variousclasses fit into the students broader plan. This would serve as a supplement to thepanels that are currently conducted by asections first year professors in which theyoffer their suggestions on course selections.

Counselors would be expected tofollow-up after Spring Break to determine, viathe tracking system, whether students have yetsecured summer employment. Those thathave not would be called back in to a secondinterview with the counselor. In that context,the counselor and student could revisit theircareer interests, and the realities of the jobmarket. The search could be more tailored,

6


9/33

and more individually focused for eachstudent. Moreover, the focus would shiftfrom all first-year students, to just those whoremain without employment or summer plans.This fact evidences the underlying philosophy

of this prong of our plan: customizing thePDC to those who need its services. Finally,at the end of the year, counselors would meet with all first-year students to discuss theeminent Fall Interview Program.

Currently, the overwhelming opinionamong students is that they should and willget their long-term employment via the FallInterview Program (FIP). Several problematicfacts contribute to this misperception, someof which can and should be institutionallyaddressed. First and foremost, no matter how

much you tell students that many of them willnot get a job through FIP, the very nature ofGW students prevents thatreality from setting in. Weall come from well-regarded schools, we werein the tops of ourrespective classes, and wehave performed well onthe LSAT. The very same way that all students

expect to be in the top35% of the class, allstudents expect that theCDOs remonstrations aredirected at people otherthan themselves.

pportunities.

Second, though,the CDO currently statesthat approximately half ofall students get jobsthrough the FIP, and this is false, both

statistically and anecdotally. In a recent NotaBene article, Carole Montgomery, Director ofthe CDO, stated that Generally around 47-48% of the students will find their summerjobs through FIP, including regionalprograms. This simply did not sit right withthe authors, especially given that our surveyindicated that only 31% of students foundjobs through FIP. We followed up with Ms.

Montgomery directly, who informed us thatthe CDO considers direct writing campaignsby individual students as part of FIP. Asmany of the authors of this plan obtainedtheir summer employment through such

campaigns, we feel safe in attesting that nostudent feels that direct writing is part of theFIPit is done individually, certainly not withhelp from the CDO.Indeed, those individuals hardest hit are

students in the 50-35 percentile. It is thesestudents who are crushed because of falsehope when they are turned down forinterview after interview while their friends inthe top 15% receive upwards of thirtyinterviews each. Finally, there is a disconnectbetween what the current CDO says and what

it does. While professing to students that FIPis just one program offered by the CDO for

career placement, thereality is FIP is treated asthe end all, be all of careeropportunities. The CDOmakes claims that theSmall Firm InterviewProgram and Government& Public Interest Fair isavailable, but they receive

only a fraction of theattention given to the FIP,and more importantlyresult in far feweremployment o

Our proposal, andthe new PDC, seeks toremedy this situation tothe greatest extent possiblethrough several different

means. First, the individualized counselor

interaction allows the PDC to mold a uniquecareer focus for each student. Rather thanaccosting the whole of the rising 2L class witha blitzkrieg of information, packets, panels,and emails regarding the FIP, each counselorwould be able to recommend participation inFIP to those students whose interests align with large, corporate firmsthe primary

7


10/33

Professional Development Center Counseling Schedule

8

Summary

1875 Students

1 Hour per Student

(30 Min. Meeting + 30 Min. Prep/Follow-up)

1875 Hours per Semester

20 Counseling/Advising Hours per week

10 advising weeks per semester

200 Hours of Advising Per Councilor

Approximately 10 Counselors Needed

Currently have 14 staff members in CDO

Office

Aug Sep Oct

Schedule Schedule Schedule

1L: Interest Inventory (LRW Class) 1L: Advising Sessions (late Oct.)

2L/3L: Participate in FIP 2L/3L: Advising Sessions

2L/3L: Advising Sessions

Hours Req. Hours Req. Hours Req.

1L: 300 Hours

2L/3L: 200 Hours 2L/3L: 700 Counseling Hours 2L/3L: 300 Hours

Nov Dec Jan


1L: Advising Sessions

2L/3L: Spring Advising (until Feb 15)


1L: 300 Hours

2L/3L: 500 Hours

Feb Mar Apr


1L: Spring Advising (after Feb 15) 1L: Spring Advising 1L: Follow-up

2L/3L: Follow-up Advising 2L/3L: Follow-up


1L: 300 Hours 1L: 300 Hours

2L/3L: 300 Hours 2L/3L: 400 Hours

May

Schedule

1L: Follow-up

2L/3L: Follow-up

Hours Req.


11/33

participants in FIP. Second, theindividualized attention would allowcounselors to demystify FIP and reduce thepressure associated with success in FIP byexplaining the realities of the program.

Finally, the individualized nature of theprogram would bring into sharp relief thereality of the current CDO in terms of itslimited offerings. If a counselor were forcedto say well, youre not really interested inlarge firms, so you shouldnt do FIP, but wedont actually have anything of substance tootherwise offer you, it would be painfullyclear that a new focus is required.

Counselors, thus, would be expected,at the final meeting with first year students, todiscuss the realities of FIP, gauge each

students interest, and tailor the firm searchaccordingly. The next meeting would thennot come until mid-October of the secondyear. At this time, most offers from FIPshould be known to students. Counselors andstudents could analyze first summerexperiences and FIP results, and then revisitlong-term goals, academic plans, and careeraspirations. For those students without jobsfrom FIP, the counselors would be expectedto guide the attendant job search, helping to

plan a realistic approach, and tailored to theindividual. Counselors would again meet in January with those students who still did nothave summer employment, and refine the jobsearch. Any student still without a job oralternative plan by April would again meet with his/her counselor. Concurrent withthese last-minute meetings, all students whohad expressed interest in judicial clerkships would meet with their counselor to discussthe implications of such a career choice,

determine if it is the best and desired courseof action, and develop a strategy for applyingto such positions.

In the fall of the third year, students would meet with their counselors betweenSeptember 1st and October 15th to debrief onsummer experiences, clerkship applications,and academic choices. Ensuring that eachstudent is still on track with their goals and/or

revising those goals as necessary is animportant but lacking function of our school.Counselors would also use meetings with 3Lsto reflect on and improve upon servicescurrently provided. In the spring, those

students without long-term employment would meet with their counselor at thebeginning of the semester to re-evaluate. Asnecessary, further meetings would occur untilsome career path has been identified andprocured. Finally, all students wouldparticipate in exit interviews, in which thereflection begun in the fall with each 3L,would culminate in an in-depth discussion ofa students academic and professionaldevelopment up to that point, his/her lawschool experience generally, and the services

offered by the PDC. Such interviews, though, would hopefully not mark the end of therelationship between a student and his/hercounselor, but merely a transition pointbetween an intramural and extramuralrelationship.

The resources required forindividualized advising and counseling are notprohibitive. The summary of our estimatescan be found on the preceding page. Notably,Georgetown provides academic advising to

students by specified administrators andcounselors, while Boston College providescounseling by a faculty mentor. MBAprograms, such as that at Wharton, alsoprovide individualized counseling. Indeed,many of the students here at GW were alsoaccepted at schools like Cornell, where thecareer office guarantees a job within sixmonths of graduation. While we are notasking for such lofty aspirations, we do notethat the individualized focus that we are

advocating can and has been donesuccessfully elsewhere.In order to ensure that this new

enterprise remains both effective andresponsive to student needs, we recommendthe addition of institutionalized oversight.Students, faculty, and alumni should worktogether on an oversight committee,empowered to make recommendations to the

9


12/33

PDC Director. Moreover, we recommendthat the PDC itself be headed by an assistantor associate dean, as is done at several otherpeer institutions. This academic oversight isespecially important given the increased

academic focus of the PDC versus the currentCDO.

Skills Boards The second prong of effectuating

individualized student development is theexpansion of the skills board opportunitiesavailable to students. This effort takes twoforms: increasing scholarly writingopportunities and the creation of new skillsboards and competitions. Req. Pref. Not Req. Req. Pref. Not Req.0% 87% 13% 0% 83% 17%

Req. Pref. Not Req. Req. Pref. Not Req.

0% 67% 33% 0% 57% 43%

Moot Court Mock Trial

Writing Programs

Law Review Some Journal

Skills Boards

Scholarly Writing

Scholarly writing is undoubtedlyimportant to employers of law students. Wesurveyed 30 firms interviewing in the Fall2005 Fall Interview Program. Of those 30,87% said participation in the Law Review waspreferred, while 83% said participation on anyjournal was preferred.

At the George Washington University

Law School, we currently publish fourjournals in which students can participate. According to the most recent American Bar Association survey from 2003-2004, thosefour journals comprise 387 studentparticipants. Thus 37% of the eligiblestudents (students in their second, third, andfourth year) serve as members of a journal atour law school. Such limited participation notonly impacts job prospects, it also severelylimits clerkship applications where judges arelargely preferential to students with somescholarly writing experience, usually in theform of journal experience. The remaining63% of students are thus left at a seriousdisadvantage.

The authors of this document arecognizant of the logical fallacy that seems tofollow from this discussion. We are in no wayadvocating that the prestige associated with

journal participation be lessened so that morepeople can simply get jobs. Such an argumentcorresponds to grade inflation; if everyone ison a journal, then it becomes meaningless.But GW is in no danger of devaluing journal

experience. We, as an institution, are at thelower end of both the number of journals andparticipation rates on those journals.

Of schools ranked above GW, onlyfour of the schools have four or fewerjournals. The remaining fifteen schools havemore than four journals. Likewise, only fiveof the schools ranked above us have aparticipation rate on journals equal or lower

than GW (37%). If you were to compare usto the other 29 schools in the top 30 of theU.S. News and World Report annual ranking,you would find similar statistics. Only ten ofthe top 30 schools (excluding GW) have fouror fewer journals. Likewise, only ten of thetop 30 schools (excluding GW) haveparticipation rates equal to or lower than GW.

This information is available on the chartsopposite this page. These data tell us twothings: it will be difficult for GW to increaseits ranking without increasing its journalparticipation rate, and the number of journalsgenerally; and we are not providing enoughscholarly writing opportunities to studentsfrom our current journals.

In order to be competitive in the jobmarket and to increase public perception ofour law school, it is important to increase thenumber of scholarly writing opportunities forstudents. Our recommendations are thus asfollows. First, we must develop newopportunities for students to participate onjournals. We recommend increasing thenumber of students that can participate oncurrent journals as well as addressing therelatively low number of journals at our lawschool. This is a good opportunity to bring to

10


13/33

Number of Journals per Law School

US NewsRank School No. ofJournals

1 Yale University (CT) 9

2 Harvard University (MA) 13

3 Stanford University (CA) 7

4 Columbia University (NY) 14

5 New York University 8

6 University of Chicago 3

7 University of MichiganAnn Arbor 6

7 University of Pennsylvania 4

9 University of Virginia 810 Duke University (NC) 7

10 Northwestern University (IL) 5

12 Cornell University (NY) 3

13 University of CaliforniaBerkeley 10

14 Georgetown University (DC) 10

15 University of TexasAustin 12

16 University of CaliforniaLos Angeles 10

17 Vanderbilt University (TN) 3

18 University of Southern California 5

19 University of MinnesotaTwin Cities 8

20 George Washington University (DC) 420 University of Notre Dame (IN) 5

20 Washington University in St. Louis 3

23 Boston University 6

23 Emory University (GA) 3

23 University of Iowa 3

23 Washington and Lee University (VA) 3

27 University of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign 6

28 University of North CarolinaChapel Hill 4

29 Boston College 6

29 College of William and Mary (VA) 4

Howard 1

Catholic 3

American 8

11


14/33

Journal Participation Rates per Law School

12

US News

Rank School

Journal

ParticipationRate

Total

Eligible forJournals

Total on

Journals

1 Yale University (CT) 179% 388.0 694

2 Harvard University (MA) 62% 1,102.7 681

3 Stanford University (CA) 99% 346.0 341

4 Columbia University (NY) 67% 816.7 544

5 New York University 55% 897.3 490

6 University of Chicago 20% 392.7 80

7 University of MichiganAnn Arbor 50% 766.0 382

7 University of Pennsylvania 54% 551.3 299

9 University of Virginia 69% 724.7 500

10 Duke University (NC) 57% 436.0 25010 Northwestern University (IL) 48% 488.0 236

12 Cornell University (NY) 60% 390.0 235

13 University of CaliforniaBerkeley 28% 616.0 172

14 Georgetown University (DC) 52% 1,328.7 690

15 University of TexasAustin 63% 1,021.3 646

16 University of CaliforniaLos Angeles 58% 641.3 375

17 Vanderbilt University (TN) 45% 396.7 180

18 University of Southern California 36% 430.0 153

19 University of MinnesotaTwin Cities 36% 524.7 188

20 George Washington University (DC) 37% 1,036.7 387

20 University of Notre Dame (IN) 36% 368.0 133

20 Washington University in St. Louis 42% 494.7 207

23 Boston University 62% 538.0 335

23 Emory University (GA) 32% 464.7 151

23 University of Iowa 36% 483.3 173

23 Washington and Lee University (VA) 34% 259.3 89

27 University of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign 31% 454.0 141

28 University of North CarolinaChapel Hill 38% 471.3 178

29 Boston College 31% 544.0 166

29 College of William and Mary (VA) 56% 388.0 218

Howard 12% 346.7 40

Catholic 30% 593.3 180

American 29% 926.0 265


15/33

the fore our strength in Complex Litigation,Health Law, Corporate Responsibility, andother various specialties of the law school.We also may benefit from taking a cue from aschool such as the University of Virginia.

There, students may apply to the severaljournals based solely on their writing. It isonly the Law Review itself which uses gradesas a determinative factor. Such a systemencourages writing as a skill, as well asallowing students interested in particular fieldsto focus their attention on particular journals.

Presently, only the American IntellectualProperty Law Association Quarterly of thefour journals at GW does not consider grades

as a factor. Using a students grades as adeterminative factor, as the other threejournals do, seems antithetical to the titleskills board. In only a superficial way aresuch journals therefore focusing on writing asa skill, or rewarding students whose naturaltalents lead them to writing as a passion. It would be curious indeed if the Moot CourtBoard allowed those students to participatewho are in the top 25% of the class, but whoare no more an oral advocate than the average

student. The authors certainly understandthat, to a certain extent, and universal in legalacademia, an institutions law review is anhonor as well as a forum for good writing.But to expand that philosophy to the otherjournals is to simply create another way ofstating ones GPA.

Second, we must provide alternative writing opportunities. We therefore

encourage the law school to develop writingopportunities that may not be purely legalincluding transaction work, editorials, andsimilar skills-based practices. Not only does itfocus on certain of strengths unique to GW, it

casts the schools collective gaze vanward, andserves to set us apart from similarly rankedschools.

Finally, we must develop internal writing competitions. In 2005, the StudentBar Association will recognize severalstudents for excellence in written work withcash prizes and the opportunity to bepublished in a collection of written work byGW Law Students. This represents anexample of a competition that will providegreater exposure for writers. We encourage

more competitions such as legislative draftingcompetitions, as well as the traditional notewriting fare.

We find that, given the size of ourschool, we do not provide enough scholarlywriting opportunities for students. Each year, we are unable to accommodate all thestudents that wish to participate in journals fewer than 40% of interested students receivea position on a journal. The addition ofjournals at this law school will work to

enhance the outside reputation of the lawschool in the legal community and providestudents with a greater ability to obtain jobs.In the short run, it is important to developoptions such as internal writing competitionsor increased access to outside writingcompetitions to help students have the mostopportunity to participate in writing duringlaw school.

New Skills Boards & Competitions

The importance of legal skills trainingcannot be understated. At present, the lawschool has three skills boards: the Moot CourtBoard, the Mock Trial Board, and theAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Board.In our analysis of 30 firms interviewing at thisyears Fall Interview Program, we looked tosee the preference for participants of the

13


16/33

Mock Trial and Moot Court Skills Boards. We found that 57% of the firms preferredparticipation on the Mock Trial Board while67% preferred participation on the MootCourt Board. No firms noted preference for

the ADR Board.Obviously, the participation andexcellence in skills-related competitions isheld to be important by interviewingorganizations. It is also undoubtedly centralto a career as an effective and well-roundedattorney. Therefore, we feel it is important tocultivate additional opportunities for GW Lawstudents to participate in legal skills practice.

These types of skills competitions areimportant because we oftentimes rely on area-practitioners and alumni to judge such

competitions. This serves as an importanttool for the law school to reach out topractitioners and provide a valuable trainingprogram for students. Overall, we find thatthe creation of more opportunities forstudents to participate will give students moreopportunities to excel and gain valuabletraining. Likewise, we hope that alternative-skills training programs may attract students with interests different from those of thecurrent boards. Promotion of diversity, as

recognized in ever so many Supreme Courtopinions on the nature of American academia, will help promote well-rounded andindividualized student development.

We have four majorrecommendations. First, we must increase thenumber of traditional skills competitions. It isimportant to provide a broad breadth ofopportunities for students to participate intraditional legal skills such as Moot Court,Mock Trial, and Alternative Dispute

Resolution. This includes increasingparticipation in both internal and externalcompetitions. For example, the Moot CourtBoard is currently exploring the possibility ofhaving a new general-interest competition inthe spring as another opportunity for studentsto try-out for the Board. Additionally,though, it is important to explore alternativecompetitions that fall within any of the

current boards. As an example, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Boardcurrently holds two internal competitions:Client Counseling and Negotiations. Othersuch options and opportunities include:

Arbitration Competition (ADR); Civil TrialMock Trial Competitions (Mock Trial); PleaBargain Competitions (ADR/Mock Trial);Health Law Moot Court.

Second, we must expand the numberof alternative skills competitions andboards. A number of non-traditional oralternative legal skills allow for significantopportunity. These include transaction work,mergers and acquisitions, legal documentssuch as wills, trusts, or estates, and others. Inparticular, the development of a skills board

focused on corporate law initiatives includingtransactions may have a broad market. Otheroptions and opportunities include: LegislativeDrafting Competitions; International LawDocuments; Intellectual Property Documentsor Transactions; Environmental Documentsor Legislation.

Third, we feel that we must also findways to allow students to participate in skills

competitions that are not members of therespective skills boards. If a competitionexists that GW does not currently participatein or in which no member of the skills boardis planning to participate, we shouldencourage non-members to attend. We willneed to provide resources (coaching,registration/travel costs) to these teams, butwe should not exclude student participation if

14


17/33

the team is properly prepared and the skillsboard does not wish or cannot compete. Forexample, there are Hispanic Law Student Association (HLSA) competitions that GWfirst participated in during the 2004-2005

school year with tremendous success. Thisis an example of a trend that should becontinued involvement of students in skillsto enhance their legal knowledge for theircareer.

Fourth, we find that there may be value in adding non-credit skills trainingcourses. We have seen a dramatic expansionin the number and type of skills courses at thelaw school. While the value of these coursessuch as trial advocacy, negotiations, or legaldrafting are without question, the potential

does exist that many students cannotparticipate in these courses. Simply put, thereis a limitation on time and credits available forthese courses. Therefore, we recommendadding non-credit skills training courses incompressed formats. In such a course, aprofessor of Negotiations could offer ashortened schedule course (8-12 hours) forinterested students who could receive sometype of notation on their transcript or resume. This serves to provide greater exposure to

students as well as provide employers withstudents who are better trained in the practicallegal arts.

Student Recognition In order to produce better-rounded

students with practical appeal both topotential employers and judges, it is importantto find additional ways and methods torecognize excellence at the law school. Thisincludes recognition of outstanding work inexternal legal skills competitions, nationalleadership positions, and internal recognitionprograms. First, we recommend theimplementation of semester GPA recognition.Currently, the scholar-designation awards areonly given to students that are in the top x%of the class for their cumulative GPA;however, a student may have an excellent

semester, yet not be able to raise his or herGPA to showcase cumulative excellence. It isimportant to develop recognition programsthat can be highlighted by a number ofstudents. Therefore, the law school should

recognize scholar designations by thecumulative basis, but should also considerrecognition for individual semester academicexcellence. Second, the school shoulddevelop annual awards for non-graduatingstudents. The law school offers a number ofawards at graduation for students.Unfortunately, many times these awards nolonger assist the student in his or her jobsearch. It is important to develop awards andrecognition for excellence during the courseof law school and highlight outstanding

scholarship, service, writing, and leadership.

15


18/33

MARKETING

IntroductionMembers of the GW Law Community

cannot deny that we as an institution have aunique identity. We are a collegialenvironment, with superior programs inintellectual property law, international law,and government contracts. But we are also somuch more than just the sum of these parts.

And while our excellence in these fields is wellknown, we are sometimes confined by those very same fields. In order to truly take our

place in the pantheon of legal scholastichegemony, we must first ensure that weenunciate that identity, and second we mustmake known the full scope of our character.Our lack of clarity in expressing andmarketing GW Law has an impact on thestudents that choose to matriculate, thefaculty and scholars that we can attract, andthe job opportunities available to ourgraduates and alumni. In this section, we donot recommend an alteration to ourinstitutional and cultural identity, but rather

advocate for a full and formal explanation ofthat identitya cohesive illustration of what itis to be The George Washington UniversityLaw School.

As current students, we have theluxury of attending GW Law in such aprogressive period in the schools history.Our campus is being renovated, the quality of

student life is ever improving, and each year we are told that the incoming class is evenbrighter and more achieved than the previous.In this period of constant upgrowth, we wantto be sure that the image and identity of GWLaw is maintained, but marketedappropriately.

GW Law should be known as a leaderin the legal profession in all possible modi. Itis not enough to excel in legal education.Excellence without appropriate marketingresults in brilliance without application. Wemust make it clear to the legal communityacross the country that GW Law is a unique

entity that excels in all aspects of legaleducation. Therefore, in order to fulfill andmarket the GW Law identity, we proposethree main efforts: sincerely communicate with prospective students to keep the topaccepted students here at GW; rebuildrelationships with alumni and bring themmore fully into the fold of our sharedcommunity; and emphatically reach out tomembers of the legal profession through arenewed marketing approach that aims to

identify and separate GW Law from thesundry other fine institutions of legaleducation.

Our Identity Before we can properly market out

identity, we must give that identity expression. The nature and form of that expressionshould frame all outreach and marketingefforts undertaken by the law school. It isthus crucial that it be carefully developed and

appropriately stated. We thereforerecommend that the law school from acommittee of constituents from across theGW Law community, includingadministrators, faculty, students, and alumni,charged with the explication of the GW Lawidentity. We further recommend and stress asintegral to a successful effort, that the law

16


19/33

school should contract with an externalmarketing firm, specialists in the constructionof effective messages, to lead this effort. Thecommittee should produce a report definingthe vision, values, and mission of the GW

Law School. The marketing firm, afterfacilitating the discussions of the committee,should then be tasked with developing astrategy for marketing that identity.

Notably, Northwestern Law Schoolspent considerable time and energydeveloping a plan that lays forth the valuesand identity of the school, which was creditedby some as contributing to Northwesternsrise in prominence and concurrent rise in lawschool rankings. Our report should similarlybe publicized to all members of the GW Law

community, for it is only when that definedidentity is embraced by the larger communitythat it can be successfully demonstrated to thetargets of our marketing.

We recommend that the law schoolcarry through the long-term marketing of GWLaw by a new marketing office. This officeshould be directed by a marketing expert, andit should be charged with oversight of allexternal communications to insureconsistency. This office will thus serve as the

focal point of the three major outreach effortsconducted by the law school, for in order tosuccessfully market the GW Law identity, wemust reach three demographics: prospectivestudents, alumni, and potential employers. The role of this office as per thesedemographics is discussed in the followingthree sections.

Outreach to

Prospective Students In order to have the best possible GWLaw students, we must attract and retain thebest possible prospective students. Currently,GW Law is the second most-applied-to lawschools in the country; however, this demanddoes not always translate into the beststudents. After the application process, we

have a tendency to lose students to othersimilarly ranked schools; for example, themajority of students who are accepted at bothGeorge Washington and Georgetown attendGeorgetown.

The first step towards reaching out toprospective students is to succinctly and

effectively convey the GW Law identity. Weare confident that once a student has a truepicture of what it means to be a GW Lawstudent, they will choose to matriculate. It will be easier for prospective students tochoose usboth during the application andacceptance stageswhen they know us. We

need to be certain that there is someone whocan communicate our identity to prospectivestudents. Therefore, we propose theestablishment of a Recruitment Director aspart of the new marketing office. This person will be in charge of marketing the uniqueidentity of GW Law to prospective students.

It is important to note the differencebetween a Recruitment Director and thecurrent admissions staff. In no way do wemean to diminish the excellent job done by

Dean Stanek and his staff. But their concernshould and must be the admissions process,not the recruitment process. The formerconcerns academic standards and decisions on who should and should not be admitted.Once that process is completed, the focusshould then shift to the Recruitment Directorto ensure that the best of the admittedstudents decide to attend GW Law.

17


20/33

The Recruitment Director wouldideally have a strong relationship withundergraduate universities throughout thecountry, in order to make the GW Lawidentity familiar to undergraduate students. In

addition, the Recruitment Director wouldoversee all materials sent to admitted students,from the day they first receive an informationbrochure to the deadline for accepting theiroffers. Having one person in charge of theprocess from start to finish will allowcohesion throughout the process. In addition,since all materials would go through oneperson, we could avoid sending too manymailings or repetitive information.

In addition, the Recruitment Director would oversee the Student Recruitment

Committee, and would therefore have astrong role in planning tours of the lawschool, Preview Day, regional AdmittedStudents Receptions, and any otherrecruitment events. By integrating allmarketing going towards prospectivestudents, from print materials to events, wewill be able to strengthen the overall processof marketing to prospective students.

Outreach to Alumni

Legal education cannot exist in avacuum. A lawyers attachments to his or herschool should not last for only three (or four)years. Therefore, GW Law must reach out toour alumni. There is a significant segment ofGW Alumni that have become disconnectedfrom the law school, and it is essential for thefuture of the law school to reinvigorate asmany of those alumni as possible. Not only will increased alumni outreach lead toincreased fundraising, it will also help toimprove the attitude of alumni and thereputation of the school. Our goal should beto make every alumnus and alumna proud ofthe legal education he or she received and theacademic institution that GW Law hasbecome. If we can make this happen, it willbe a natural progression for alumni to donateto the law school.

The first step in reincorporatingalumni into the GW Law community must bea consolidation of communication. Efforts towork with alumni are currently split betweenup to three different and often unrelated

offices in the law school: Alumni Relations,Development, and the CDO. Some alumnihave claimed that they are contacted by various departments and are uncertain with whom they should work with on issues. Weneed to simplify the process for alumni andmake their involvement in our communityconsistent. In order to do this, werecommend a more focused approach by which all communication must pass throughthe Marketing Director, discussed below.

Communication with alumni, and they

with the school, must not only be consistent,but it must be facilitated and personalized. To that end, we recommend two coordinateefforts: personalized alumni outreach and thecreation of an online alumni community.Mass emails are impersonal and do notengender feelings of pride and fellowship. Assuch, we recommend that directcommunications be made personally byalumni staff. Such communications shouldfoster a personal relationship between the

individual alumnus or alumna and theinstitution. We recognize, though, that certaininformation must go out to all alumni andthus personal communication is prohibitivelytime-consuming, and that other information isroutine. Such is the purpose of the onlinecommunity.

The community should take the formof a website devoted to connecting alumni with the school and with each other. Such asite should present alumni with the various

resources that they need to interact with theschool ranging from career resources toalumni giving options. Despite our incrediblylarge alumni base, our network is not asstrong as peer institutions such as USC, Duke,Cornell, and Emory. This can be attributedto several factors, but certainly one of themain reasons is the disconnect among the

18


21/33

alumni and between the alumni and thecurrent school.

Alumni can be linked to one anotherboth through an online community, but alsoin their local community. The school should

foster the creation of alumni chapters in citiesand organizations with high concentrations ofGW Law alumni; our efforts must extendbeyond the beltway. Regional alumnidirectors should be created who areresponsible for coordinating alumni efforts intheir areas ranging from social gatherings tofundraising to courting accepted students. Alumni chapters should also be established within organizations such as firms andgovernment agencies. Such chapters will beresponsible for conducting luncheons,

coordinating recruiting efforts vis--vis GWLaw students, and creating fellowshipbetween former GW Law students withintheir organization.

This disconnect can be overcome inseveral different ways, not the least of whichare those discussed above. But the disconnectis between more than just the alumni and thelaw school qua an institution. It is betweenthe alumni and the experience of lawschoolbetween alumni and the current

students. Efforts by current students toconnect with alumni have heretofore beenhindered by the unnecessarily restrictive, subrosa approach taken by the Alumni Office tocontact between current and former students.The severe limitations placed on the release ofalumni records affect far more than jobsolicitations and instead prevent anymeaningful contact between classes andgenerations of GW Law students.

Programming must be an important

aspect of alumni outreach. In particular, it isimportant to include current students inalumni outreach programming. We cannotsufficiently stress that this can only beeffected by reducing the barrier betweencurrent students and alumni. Somesuggestions for alumni programming includethe following:

Class Funds

One way to connect students of GWLaw across generations is to make alumniinvolved, even in a remote way, with the

direction of the school. Establishing fundsfor each graduating class will allow alumni todonate to the school, but simultaneouslydirect those funds, thereby keeping theminvolved. We recommend that eachgraduating class elect officers to oversee anendowment, funded by money collected in theClass Gift program and any subsequent fund-specific donations. These officers will beresponsible for directing how the interestfrom that fund will be appropriated with theschool and coordinating continued

fundraising. Such officers should be electedin five year terms, in conjunction with five-year reunions

Bring GW Law Alumni to Law School Day

GW Law has gone through numerouschanges in the past few years. The physicalcampus itself has changed dramatically in ashort amount of time. Unfortunately, manyalumni are either unaware of the changes or

unaware of the actual extent of the physicalimprovements. Since many alumnicomplained about the state of the physicalcampus when they were students, they aremore likely to contribute funds specifically toturn GW Law into the type of law school they would have liked to attend. Even thoughalumni cannot benefit from the physicalchanges as much as current students can, theyappreciate the value of these changes both forstudents and for the law school as a whole.

Therefore, it is important to exposealumni to the physical campus of the lawschool. One way to do that is to have a daywhere we specifically bring GW Law Alumnito the law school. On this day, we could havestudents taking small groups of alumni ontours of the law school; student leaders wouldbe available to answer any questions; alumnicould mingle with former classmates,

19


22/33

professors, and colleagues; but mostimportantly, alumni would be exposed to thephysical campus of the law school. Bringingalumni back to their school will also makefresh in their minds the experience of law

school once again, hopefully evoke wistfulsentiments, and develop some sense ofcamaraderie between themselves and currentstudents. Encouraging students to interact with alumniin a manner other thansoliciting employmentcreates a bondbetween classes, a sense of community acrosstime. Such connections certainly lead toincreased generosity.

Scholarships

Another way to reach out to alumniand increase interaction between students andalumni is to offer alumni-sponsoredscholarships. Ideally, these scholarships willbe made on behalf of a particular alumnus oralumna, in order to sponsor a student in asimilar field of study, extracurricularorganization, skills board, or personalsituation, as chosen by the alumnus oralumna. For example, a minority alumnusmay want to sponsor a minority scholarship;

an environmental lawyer may want to sponsora scholarship for someone in the field ofenvironmental law. The scholarships wouldbe in any amount, from $1000 to full tuition. The alumni would be encouraged to meetwith the student who receives the scholarship.

These scholarships would accomplisha number of objectives. First, alumni wouldlikely be more willing to make a largecontribution to the law school if they knewexactly where the funds were going. If a

specific student is receiving a scholarship as aresult of the alumnuss gift, the alumnus willfeel that the law school is accountable for themoney that was donated. Second, alumni willhave the chance to interact with students insimilar circumstances. By allowing alumni tochoose an aspect of their law career that theyfind significant and sponsor the education ofanother student in a similar situation, we will

encourage alumni to bond with students. Inaddition, students will likely find possiblementors in the alumni who sponsor theirscholarships.

Alumni-sponsored scholarships will

have another positive long-term effect. Astudent who is the beneficiary of one of thesescholarships will be much more likely tocontribute to the law school in the future,perhaps even by offering a scholarship of hisor her own. Recipients of these scholarships will be future donors, creating a revolvingdoor of alumni donors. An alumnus who canpinpoint how alumni donations helped himduring his tenure as a student will be morelikely to contribute similarly as an alumnus.

Invite Alumni to Law School Events

While much of the focus in alumnirelations is about getting money, a duel focusshould be on building awareness about thesuccess of the school the past few years andwelcoming these alums back. Student groupsshould be able to coordinate with the Alumni

Office for career networking events or justgeneral gatherings.For example, when the SBA Minority

Affairs Committee plans this years minoritystudent dinner, student groups (HLSA, BLSA,etc.) should have access to lists of alumni whomight be interested in attending such anevent. While the SBA should make aconcerted effort to encourage student groups

20


23/33

to keep member lists from years past, having asuccessful event requires help from theschool, especially in the instance where anorganization or organizations are just nowbuilding the capacity to maintain such

contacts. While this in no way is meant tosuggest that alumni should be overwhelmed with invitations to student group events,student groups and the Alumni Office shouldcoordinate with one another on at least oneevent per year that reaches out to alumni who were either members of the organization orwould be sympathetic to its goals. This wouldhelp educate alumni, who may havepreviously not been inclined to donate, on thegreat work students are doing, as well building

stronger communities with not just thegeneral law school, but with specific aspectsof the school.

The SBA should push student groupsto explore events with the Alumni Office,create databases of their current and formermembers, and support creative endeavors bystudent groups attempting to buildconnections with the greater GW lawcommunity. This is only possible if the wallsbuilt by the Alumni Office barring

communication between current and formerstudents are lowered.

Host Alumni Events at the Law School

Every alumni event that canreasonably be held at the law school shouldbe. Although there are occasions where it ispreferable for the law school to go to alumni,anyone planning an event that wouldotherwise be held at a restaurant or hotel

should at least strongly consider hosting theevent in the law school. For example, DeanLawrences welcome receptions in DC shouldbe held at the law school. These events cancurrently be held in the Faculty Lounge or inan area of the first floor. In addition, whenthe physical renovations to the law school arecomplete, events should be held in thesignature space in the library, discussed below.

Outreach to the LegalProfession

Many members of the legal

community are not fully aware of theexcellence of GW Law. For example, one ofthe commonly cited reasons for GW Lawsinability to rise in national law school rankingsis the role of assessments by lawyers andjudges. Often legal professionals base theirassessments of a law school on the scores thatschool received the previous year. Therefore,although we are slowly making our way up inthe rankings based on other factors, it isdifficult to change the assessment of the legal

community without making a significantexpenditure of resources.

The difficulty of changing a lawschools reputation within the legal professionaffects GW Law in many ways. Perhaps mostimportantly, students have a more difficulttime finding employment because GWsreputation in the profession is not maximized.Correspondingly, many employers who recruitat similarly ranked schools do not come toGW Laws on campus interviews. If we can

find a way to increase our reputation amongthe legal profession, GW Law students will bemore likely to find jobs and GW Law will risein the rankings.

In order to reach out to legalprofessionals and change their assessment ofGW Law, we propose a two-step approach.First we should task the Director ofMarketing with reaching out to legalprofessionals. The Marketing Directorsprimary job, other than overseeing the officeof marketing generally, would be marketing

the unique product of GW Lawourstudents and their excellenceto legalprofessionals. The Marketing Directorsposition would have two main components.First, he or she would be responsible formaking personal contact with firmsthroughout the nation and world. Second, heor she would be the primary responsible party

21


24/33

for the proposal, design, and implementationof marketing to legal professionals.

Personal Contact

Traditionally, GW Law has done agood job of bringing law firms andgovernment employers from DC to campus.However, GW Law has had less successoutside of the DC Metropolitan area. Duringthe 2005 Fall Interview Program, regionalinterview programs near DC, such as the New York Regional, had significantly moreemployers than regional programs from otherlarge cities. None of these regional programshad even a small percentage of the number oflarge legal employers present in the city.

If GW Law wants to be competitiveamong the top-tier law schools, we must finda way to have more firms from more parts ofthe countryand worldinterview oncampus and at regional programs. TheMarketing Director should be the person tocontact law firms across the country and formpersonal relationships with them on behalf ofGW Law.

Marketing to Legal Professionals

In addition to being the liaisonbetween GW Law and legal employers across

the country, the Marketing Director wouldalso oversee all marketing targeted for legalprofessionals. For example, the MarketingDirector would propose and implement anymarketing materials that are sent to

employers. The Marketing Director wouldalso oversee press releases put out by the lawschool in order to ensure that marketingopportunities are used to the fullest potential. This should include directing media requeststo the appropriate faculty, and converselypromoting our faculty to the media. Whileour outward demonstration of excellence inthe practice and study of law will raise ourprofile nation-wide, it can only benefit usmore to have a dedicated individual singingour praises to the legal community.

Although we highly recommend hiringsomeone for the position with strongmarketing experience, we also believe that it would be helpful for the Marketing Directorto work in conjunction with a marketingconsultant, particular in the beginning stages.A marketing or branding expert could give usvaluable advice on how exactly to brand andmarket GW Law without losing the qualitiesthat make us an excellent academic institutionin the first place.

City Number of Employers

Atlanta 9Chicago 6Dallas 9

Los Angeles 15Miami 12

New Hampshire 17New York 26

Philadelphia 13San Francisco 17

We realize that some people will findthe idea of focusing strongly on marketingdisagreeable, but in order to clarify: we are notsimply discussing advertising. Marketinginvolves every way in which the law schoolreaches out to the legal community, and aMarketing Director could ensure that allmaterials are cohesive and cogent. We are notproposing that GW Law become a brand inthe way that Gap is a brand; we are proposingthat GW Law brands itself by demonstrating

and extolling its identity and focusing on theways in which we are unique within the legalprofession.

22


25/33

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Introduction Over the past five years, the law

school has benefited from the hard work ofthe current administration in receiving asubstantial face-lift. The renovations havetransformed these facilities into a cutting-edgeacademic force. These changes have resultedin improved uniformity, aesthetic, andfunctionality; they enhance more than walls,doors, and windows, they enhance our entirelaw school community. The administrationsplan has been ambitious,

and remains so withseveral excellent futureplans including thepresently begunrenovations to LisnerHall. We recognize andappreciate this ambition,and the successes thathave already resultedtherefrom. We posit,though, that there

remain a few hurdles to achieving a completeacademic center for the 21st Century.In our minds, what is truly missing

from our physical structure, is the feeling ofpurposeful completion. In our eyes, ourcommunity lacks a sense of ownership,investment, and understanding of the past andfuture renovations. Members of thecommunity are satisfied with them, but viewthem more as renovation rather thanreinvention. This results in a communalprivation of resolution. We have come this

far, and our recommendation in this sectionargues that we must take the capitalimprovements to their logical conclusion.

Purpose While many of the student leaders

involved in the writing of this plan have been

actively involved in providing information andideas for the administrations renovationplansomething that we have been honoredand excited to dowe have not participatedin the overarching development of afundamental statement of purpose of theserenovations. We feel the determination andcommunication of this purpose is vitallyimportant. Of course, we understand thatrenovations improve student study space,enhance faculty offices, and the like, but such

things are the productsof renovation, not theunderlying purpose.

With a cohesivepurpose laid forth, wecan recruit donors,reach out to alumni,attract prospectivestudents, appeal tofaculty, and generallyenhance the lawschools diversecommunity. Our hopeis that as we

communicate the overarching purpose ofpast, current, and future renovations, we willenhance the sense of community among andwithin the law school itself.

Such a purpose should and must bethe creation of a whole academic andprofessional center. One of the threadsthroughout this document has been the needfor a holism in approach. And so it has beenthat much of the classroom space andadministrative and faculty offices have beencompletely renovated and enhanced. Suchimprovements have the most direct effect onthe traditional student experience: academics.But what remains is the student experiencebeyond the classroom, and so to achieve thepurpose of a complete and cohesive studentexperience, we recommend that futureimprovements focus on library space, studentlounge space, and new living options.

23


26/33

A Finished Product It is our opinion that the law school

should work to create a campus for our lawschool that encompasses the entire squareblock of 20th Street to 21st Street between Gand H Streets. As such, we should pursue theacquisition of Bell Hall and Corcoran Hall. With those additions, and subsequentrenovations, it is our opinion that our lawschool campus will have a greater sense ofcompletion. The addition of these facilities will likely necessitate the creation of newfacilities for several ofGWs scienceprograms. However, we find that these

programs in scienceand technology aresome of the mostlikely to need newfacilities given therapid pace of changein science and thegrowth in reputationof GWs science andtechnology programs.It is a logical step for a new building to be

built for these programs while retrofitting thevacated space for future law school plans.The most important benefit of such a

change will be the sense of completion of thelaw school campus. Indeed, it is just that factthat we find most compelling: it will producea law school campus. The courtyard, while stillremaining open space, will become a morelaw school specific space. Additionally, it will provide a better look, feel and layout ofthe campus giving a logical quad-basedstructure to the facilities, providing asimplified understanding of how, where, andwhat our campus is. It has been documentedthat our law school, even with the recentadditions of space, still suffers from a lowersquare foot per student ratio than othersimilarly situated institutions. While it may bepossible to acquire space in other locations inFoggy Bottom, most people in the GW Law

Community will agree that the current spaceoutside of the main campus is seen as apartfrom the law school itself.

We contend that a plan to complete alaw school quadrangle would add additional

space for our clinical programs, a library,research facilities, student offices, and otheroffices necessary for faculty, adjunctprofessors, etc. The specific use of thesebuildings is best left to a committee made ofrepresentatives from the law schoolcommunity, although we offer the followingrudimentary suggestions. First, and discussed

more fully below,Corcoran Hall is anexcellent location for anew library. There is a

certain propriety inlocating a library inCorcoran as it mirrorsthe appearance ofStockton Hall.Stockton Hall is, to acertain extent, theheart of the academicwing of the law school. The law library is

traditionally the counterpart to the law class.

Structuring the school in such a way as tohave the two poles of law student life face oneanother has a certain pedagogical appeal.

The space vacated by a migrated lawlibrary would leave much of Burns Hallempty. We would recommend that first andforemost, the rear wall of Burns (that facingthe quad) should be modified to include windows. It has always seemed anathema toaesthetic sense that the best views from Burnshave never been realized, or otherwise

reserved to a stairwell. Once modified, thespace would be an excellent location forstudent offices. As part of the pastrenovations, several of the studentorganizations have been relegated to agingbuildings on G Street. The move has createda tangible divide between the SBA, for one,and the student population. The major skillsboards and the SBA would be prime

24


27/33

candidates for residency in a renovated BurnsHall. Such a plan would leave Bell Hall formore student lounge space, small seminarclassrooms, and space for the clinics.

Finally, it is important to connect the

law school both physically, and temporally. Inan effort to reconnect with our past and bindourselves to our future, and in so doing creategreater social cohesiveness, we recommend

the addition of historical exhibitions in anyrenovated space. Specifically, we are awarethat the law school possesses many of theoriginal writings of George Washington.Displays of such works would be fruitful forGWs reputation, but more importantly would

foster pride and duty among current studentsfaced with such historical promise.

A Signature Space While the proliferation of online

academic and research resources has resultedin a diminished emphasis on the legal library,we remain committed to the importance of atop level library facility in our law schoolcomplex. A library not only serves as thetheoretical centerpiece of a law schooldedicated to the practice of research andeducation, but also provides the physicalcenterpiece as a signature space for all visitorsto the law school. While we may have seenless emphasis on books and non-electronicmedia for research, this does not affect theimportance of the library as a researchinstitution and as the visible manifestation of

the law. Having all been prospective lawstudents at one point in the recent past, theauthors of this document can attest to the factthat, when visiting various schools underconsideration, one of the major points of

attraction is the law library. There issomething that seems inherently legal aboutstudying in a large gothic hall filled withbooks, or an expansive reading room with views of prominent legal landmarks orpastoral scenes, whether or not any studentactually finds that to be their primary behavioronce matriculated.

A new library and learning centershould continue to be one of the mostpressing priorities for development in our lawschool. One of the centerpieces of most law

schools with impressive facilities is the lawlibrary. While we have outstanding facilitiesin other areas, our student tour guides are toldto avoid tours of the library for prospectivestudents. This message in itself is reason fora priority to be given to a new facility. Ourfacility, hidden in the bowels of Burns and without independent form or impressiveentry-ways is just one more way in which wesit in the shadow of Georgetown with its viewof the Capitol. Because we are a research and

learning institution, it is vital to provide asignature space: facilities that can be a covershot on our brochures, a highlight point ontours, and a meeting point for all members ofthe law school community. We need thisspace to serve as the culmination of ourinstitution and a space that highlights all thatmakes our law school unique.

A Student Focus The law school has been fortunate to

see significant increases in the student usageof the law school and its study space. Assuch, we see that students still see a lack ofstorage space and smaller group study space. We advocate for the contemplation ofadditional storage spaces for studentsmorelockers and more organizational storagefacilities including offices. This serves the

25


28/33

dual purposes of encouraging students to usethe facilities and thereby enhancing the senseof community and cohesion at the law school.Likewise, we argue for the development ofadditional, small breakout rooms for studying,

interviews, and group meetings.

A Self-SufficientCommunity

Two major developments are requiredto make the law school facilities self-sufficientand identifiable from the larger universitymass: the addition of a law school eatingfacility and the construction of a law schooldorm. It is our understanding that an eating

facility may be added to the renovated LernerHall and we applaud this development.Providing law students with a uniquely law-school eating establishment will allow formore casual interaction among students andbetween students and faculty. Moreover, suchspace will reduce the strain on the over-crowded lounges.

To be sure, there is some debate overthe logic of building a law school dorm. Wecontend, though, that given the size of our

law school and the large number of visitors,international L.L.M. candidates, and otherscoming to the campus for a limited timeperiod, a dorm would be a logical addition. We caution that any facility should bedesigned with the close cooperation ofstudents as some of these facilities at otherlaw schools have received some sentimentthat it enhances rather than reduces stress onstudents. While this is certainly a long termgoal, it is one that should not be forgotten.

26


29/33

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is a summary of the recommendations discussed throughout the document. Werealize that we have set forth a plan of expansive and drastic recommendations. Certainly somegoals are long-term, but we stress that issues of individualized student development should beaddressed first and foremost, especially as they pertain to the Career Development Office.

Individualized Student Development 1. Create a Professional Development Center

a. Merge academic and career advising in a new department. Academic advising andcareer counseling should not occur independently of one another. Law school is aprofessional school and as such, a students course work and career aspirations should workin tandem. In our balkanized system, students do not receive integrated advice. Werecommend that the school provide counselors with the resources to advise students withrespect to academic curriculum and career choices. This will encourage students to

participate in clinics, skills competitions, and courses that fit their career plans and moreclosely match their long-term interests. Moreover, it will establish a single point person withan individualized focus for every student to contact regarding law school issues.

b. Name the department the Professional Development Center. This title better capturesthe functions of a combined department. Additionally, a new name overcomes theentrenched animosity among both alumni and current students toward the inefficacy,perceived or true, of the CDO. Any changes should be publicized to alumni.

c. Implement a mandatory advising program for all students. Currently, the extensiveresources and tools provided by the law school do not reach all students. This is mosttroubling when the students who need help the most, especially with career help, feel that

the current CDO is unresponsive to their needs. By implementing a mandatory advisingprogram, we ensure that all resources are available to all students. Moreover, we provideindividualized attention to each student, resulting in a more fulfilling and tailored experience.

d. Institute an interest survey for all first-year students. Many students begin law school without a full conception of scholastic, extracurricular, and employment opportunitiesavailable to them. Counselors cannot effectively guide a students individualizedprofessional development without a clear picture of a students interests, distastes, and goals.Such a survey should serve as the starting point for any counseling efforts.

e. Develop a database for career and academic tracking . Effective advising cannot occurwithout a database that contains information on students courses, grades, interests, and joboutlook. By not tracking students progress, especially during the job search, we cannoteffectively help those who need it the most. We should be aware at all times where astudent is in the job search. This provides a valuable tool for targeted emails, programs, andcounseling. Such data will also become helpful in more effectively tracking alumni. Similarsystems are used at a number of law schools and nearly all MBA programs. Such a programshould also incorporate an incentive program that ties student job satisfaction back to thecounselors.

27


30/33

f. Establish a PDC oversight committee. Currently there is little faculty or studentoversight to the CDO, and we believe that this has contributed to its inefficacy. Anoversight committee should be established, composed of faculty, students, and alumni, toboth advise the CDO on programming. Moreover, an associate or assistant dean should becharged with overseeing the functioning of the new office.

2. Develop new journals or other faculty-supervised writing for students. Our law school hasfewer journals and lower journal participation rates than most schools in the top 30. We haveoutstanding faculty in key niche areas that should be tapped to lead the development of newwritten products. Moreover, student interest level outpaces opportunity. Given the importanceof journals in the job market and the overall prestige of the school, it is important to identifyareas where our law school excels and provide a coordinate writing product.

3. Find alternative methods to increase scholarly writing, including internal competitions,more targeted writing courses, and greater participation in external competitions. The WritingCenter should work with students to actively market external writing competitions. Moreover,the law school should host internal competitions to encourage scholarly writing.

4. Increase the number of traditional skills competitions. The law school should encouragethe traditional skills boards to increase the number of internal competitions. New competitionsshould focus on areas of expertise for GW Law including arbitration, health law, criminalprocedure, etc.

5. Develop alternative skills competitions. There are a number of options for new alternativeskills competitions that will give students a greater chance to both gain experience anddemonstrate excellence. These include legislative drafting, int