JD Next:预测不同学生在法学院成功的有效可靠工具

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-03 DOI:10.1111/jels.12342
Jessica Findley, Adriana Cimetta, Heidi Legg Burross, Katherine C. Cheng, Matt Charles, Cayley Balser, Ran Li, Christopher Robertson
{"title":"JD Next:预测不同学生在法学院成功的有效可靠工具","authors":"Jessica Findley,&nbsp;Adriana Cimetta,&nbsp;Heidi Legg Burross,&nbsp;Katherine C. Cheng,&nbsp;Matt Charles,&nbsp;Cayley Balser,&nbsp;Ran Li,&nbsp;Christopher Robertson","doi":"10.1111/jels.12342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Admissions tests have increasingly come under attack by those seeking to broaden access and reduce disparities in higher education. Meanwhile, in other sectors there is a movement towards “work-sample” or “proximal” testing. Especially for underrepresented students, the goal is to measure not just the accumulated knowledge and skills that they would bring <i>to</i> a new academic program, but also their ability to grow and learn <i>through</i> the program. The JD-Next is a fully online, noncredit, 7- to 10-week course to train potential JD students in case reading and analysis skills, prior to their first year of law school. This study tests the validity and reliability of the JD-Next exam as a potential admissions tool for juris doctor programs of education. (In a companion article, we report on the efficacy of the course for preparing students for law school.) In 2019, we recruited a national sample of potential JD students, enriched for racial/ethnic diversity, along with a sample of volunteers at one university (<i>N</i> = 62). In 2020, we partnered with 17 law schools around the country to recruit a cohort of their incoming law students (<i>N</i> = 238). At the end of the course, students were incentivized to take and perform well on an exam that we graded with a standardized methodology. We collected first-semester grades as an outcome variable, and compared JD-Next exam properties to legacy exams now used by law schools (the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), including converted GRE scores). We found that the JD-Next exam was a valid and reliable predictor of law school performance, comparable to legacy exams. For schools ranked outside the Top 50, we found that the legacy exams lacked significant incremental validity in our sample, but the JD-Next exam provided a significant advantage. We also replicated known, substantial racial and ethnic disparities on the legacy exam scores, but estimate smaller, nonsignificant score disparities on the JD-Next exam. Together this research suggests that, as an admissions tool, the JD-Next exam may reduce the risk that capable students will be excluded from legal education and the legal profession.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":"134-165"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12342","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"JD-Next: A valid and reliable tool to predict diverse students' success in law school\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Findley,&nbsp;Adriana Cimetta,&nbsp;Heidi Legg Burross,&nbsp;Katherine C. Cheng,&nbsp;Matt Charles,&nbsp;Cayley Balser,&nbsp;Ran Li,&nbsp;Christopher Robertson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jels.12342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Admissions tests have increasingly come under attack by those seeking to broaden access and reduce disparities in higher education. Meanwhile, in other sectors there is a movement towards “work-sample” or “proximal” testing. Especially for underrepresented students, the goal is to measure not just the accumulated knowledge and skills that they would bring <i>to</i> a new academic program, but also their ability to grow and learn <i>through</i> the program. The JD-Next is a fully online, noncredit, 7- to 10-week course to train potential JD students in case reading and analysis skills, prior to their first year of law school. This study tests the validity and reliability of the JD-Next exam as a potential admissions tool for juris doctor programs of education. (In a companion article, we report on the efficacy of the course for preparing students for law school.) In 2019, we recruited a national sample of potential JD students, enriched for racial/ethnic diversity, along with a sample of volunteers at one university (<i>N</i> = 62). In 2020, we partnered with 17 law schools around the country to recruit a cohort of their incoming law students (<i>N</i> = 238). At the end of the course, students were incentivized to take and perform well on an exam that we graded with a standardized methodology. We collected first-semester grades as an outcome variable, and compared JD-Next exam properties to legacy exams now used by law schools (the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), including converted GRE scores). We found that the JD-Next exam was a valid and reliable predictor of law school performance, comparable to legacy exams. For schools ranked outside the Top 50, we found that the legacy exams lacked significant incremental validity in our sample, but the JD-Next exam provided a significant advantage. We also replicated known, substantial racial and ethnic disparities on the legacy exam scores, but estimate smaller, nonsignificant score disparities on the JD-Next exam. Together this research suggests that, as an admissions tool, the JD-Next exam may reduce the risk that capable students will be excluded from legal education and the legal profession.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"134-165\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12342\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12342\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12342","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

招生考试越来越多地受到那些寻求扩大入学机会和缩小高等教育差距的人的攻击。与此同时,在其他部门,也出现了向“工作样本”或“近端”检测的趋势。特别是对于代表性不足的学生,目标不仅是衡量他们将为新的学术项目带来的积累的知识和技能,还包括他们通过该项目成长和学习的能力。JD Next是一门全在线、无学分、为期7至10周的课程,旨在培训潜在的JD学生在法学院一年级之前的案例阅读和分析技能。这项研究测试了JD Next考试的有效性和可靠性,该考试是法学博士教育项目的潜在招生工具。(在一篇配套文章中,我们报告了该课程对法学院学生的有效性。)2019年,我们招募了一个全国性的潜在法学博士学生样本,丰富了种族/民族多样性,以及一所大学的志愿者样本(N=62)。2020年,我们与全国17所法学院合作,招募了一批即将入学的法学院学生(N=238)。课程结束时,学生们被激励参加我们用标准化方法评分的考试,并在考试中表现出色。我们收集了第一学期的成绩作为一个结果变量,并将JD Next考试的属性与法学院现在使用的传统考试(法学院招生考试(LSAT),包括转换后的GRE成绩)进行了比较。我们发现,与传统考试相比,JD Next考试是法学院表现的有效和可靠的预测指标。对于排名在前50名之外的学校,我们发现传统考试在我们的样本中缺乏显著的增量有效性,但JD Next考试提供了显著的优势。我们还复制了传统考试成绩上已知的、显著的种族和民族差异,但估计了JD Next考试的较小、不显著的成绩差异。这项研究表明,作为一种招生工具,JD Next测试可能会降低有能力的学生被排除在法律教育和法律职业之外的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
JD-Next: A valid and reliable tool to predict diverse students' success in law school

Admissions tests have increasingly come under attack by those seeking to broaden access and reduce disparities in higher education. Meanwhile, in other sectors there is a movement towards “work-sample” or “proximal” testing. Especially for underrepresented students, the goal is to measure not just the accumulated knowledge and skills that they would bring to a new academic program, but also their ability to grow and learn through the program. The JD-Next is a fully online, noncredit, 7- to 10-week course to train potential JD students in case reading and analysis skills, prior to their first year of law school. This study tests the validity and reliability of the JD-Next exam as a potential admissions tool for juris doctor programs of education. (In a companion article, we report on the efficacy of the course for preparing students for law school.) In 2019, we recruited a national sample of potential JD students, enriched for racial/ethnic diversity, along with a sample of volunteers at one university (N = 62). In 2020, we partnered with 17 law schools around the country to recruit a cohort of their incoming law students (N = 238). At the end of the course, students were incentivized to take and perform well on an exam that we graded with a standardized methodology. We collected first-semester grades as an outcome variable, and compared JD-Next exam properties to legacy exams now used by law schools (the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), including converted GRE scores). We found that the JD-Next exam was a valid and reliable predictor of law school performance, comparable to legacy exams. For schools ranked outside the Top 50, we found that the legacy exams lacked significant incremental validity in our sample, but the JD-Next exam provided a significant advantage. We also replicated known, substantial racial and ethnic disparities on the legacy exam scores, but estimate smaller, nonsignificant score disparities on the JD-Next exam. Together this research suggests that, as an admissions tool, the JD-Next exam may reduce the risk that capable students will be excluded from legal education and the legal profession.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Impact of Judicial Leadership on Consensus Formation: Evidence From the Supreme Court of Norway Introducing a New Corpus of Definitive M&A Agreements, 2000–2020 Killing as Capital: Perverse Effects of Truce Negotiations on Gang Violence in El Salvador Patents Used in Patent Office Rejections as Indicators of Value
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1