On Saturday, April 1, a beautiful spring day, the LEAP Center continued with a packed schedule of both community and academic events. While LEAP Center Ambassadors and volunteers assisted in the annual Wynne Home community Easter Egg Hunt, 17 Pre-Law Society students showed up at 9:30 am on Saturday to take a Mock LSAT, the Law School Admission Test.
Students applying to law school will take the actual LSAT in a fall semester, a year before they plan to start law school. Students who are freshmen through seniors are encouraged to take the Mock LSAT.
A Mock LSAT score provides helpful information to aspiring pre-law students early in a student’s academic career. First, a baseline Mock LSAT score allows students to see how close they are to their goal LSAT score. Then, students can work with a pre-law advisor at the LEAP Center to develop a study plan to prepare for the LSAT, an important first step in their journey to law school. Second, students experience taking an actual LSAT under LSAT timing conditions.
In addition to administering the Mock LSAT twice a year, the LEAP Center offers pre-law advising and various pre-law activities, such as the provision of a Mock law school taught by a law professor from Houston’s South Texas College of Law. These pre-law activities contribute to Sam Houston State University’s continued ranking in the top 200 nationally as a top law-school feeder among almost 3,000 four-year universities and colleges in the United States.
This past week at the Pre-Law Society meeting, we welcomed Ms. Shawn Adams, the director for recruitment at Texas Tech School of Law.
Ms. Adams graduated from Texas Tech with a Master’s in Business Administration and a JD! We learned a lot from her educational background and experience as a practicing attorney.
On this evening, her goal was not only to recruit students to Texas Tech School of Law, but also to give us loads of advice regarding the law school application process and what to look for in law schools. She started by looking for three main things when choosing a law school.
Looking at what the cost of living will be at the school apart from tuition
Bar passage rate
Post-graduate employment rate
All three items can be located on the law school’s 509 reports!
Ms. Adams covered what is needed in a law school application: transcript, letter of recommendation, personal statement, LSAT score, and resume–and how those are weighted at Texas Tech.
We also learned more about what Texas Tech school of law offers and how beautiful and engaging their campus life is! In addition, they offer many great resources for students interested in criminal defense and even have a dual degree program.
As the meeting ended, Ms. Adams stressed that it is essential to go at our own pace, and it is okay if we do not make straight A’s in law school because of how rigorous it is. And she encouraged us, noting that if we continue to work hard and have our hearts in the studying, we can go far.
Many thanks to Ms. Shawn Adams for her continual support of the LEAP Center and Pre-Law Society at Sam Houston State University.
On April 13th the LEAP Center hosted the 10th Court of Appeals, which came in from Waco to hear cases on SHSU’s campus. Like all Appeals courts, the 10th COA holds hearings that review the legal process of lower courts, assessing whether an actionable error occurred. Currently, the three Justices serving on the 10th Court of Appeals are Chief Justice Tom Gray, Justice Matt Johnson, and Justice Steven Smith. The Court heard three cases throughout the day, one at 10 am, 11 am, and another at 1:30 pm.
The LEAP Ambassadors gathered the large crowd outside of the Kerper Courtroom in the College of Criminal Justice building. Heather and Jessica handed Courtroom Etiquette Rules and case facts to students and other attendees of the 10th Court of Appeals session.
With 3 cases to hear, the court began around 10:00 a.m. with its first case! The turnout for the first case happened to be one of the largest crowds in recent years, with more than 100 students, faculty, and other audience members. The proceedings begin as all rise, and the Justices enter the room.
As always, Chief Justice Gray introduces elected officials in the crowd, including County Judge Pierce, Judge David Moorman, County Court at Law Judge Tracy Sorensen, and District Clerk elect Leslie Woolley. He also introduced the LEAP Ambassadors.
The first case involved a personal injury claim. The plaintiff sued Cowboy Up (a furniture shop) after her fall from the stairs of the shop which resulted in multiple injuries.
One of the features of this program is that the Justices allow the attorneys to turn to the audience and describe the facts of the case, which helps the lay audience follow along, somewhat, with the legalities.
Students, in particular, enjoyed the hearing of the first case and were left with many thoughts, reflections, and imponderables.
Once the first case wrapped up around 11 a.m., the judges remained in their places while the new audience found their seats. As the crowd settled down the hearing of the second case began.
Lasting about 60-70 minutes, the second case concerned the mask mandate enforced by Governor Greg Abbott. The legalities associated with this case were the most complex, and not all of the audience (including me!) followed along fully.
Nonetheless, the seriousness and importance of this case informed the audience of the role of the governor vis-a-vis local officials, while also highlighting the importance of jurisdictional issues.
After the conclusion of the second case, the three judges, elected officials, and the LEAP Ambassadors made their way to the Friel’s conference room for a brief lunch before the third case hearing and question sessions began.
During this time the LEAP Ambassadors spoke with Justice Gray, Justice Johnson and Justice Smith, Judge Sorensen, staff attorneys Rick Bradly and Jill Durbin, Court Clerk Nita Whitener, and District Clerk elect Leslie Woolley.
Discussions held at lunch ranged from the future career goals of the LEAP Ambassadors to the positions held by each judge present in the room, to conversations about which law schools are the best and of course the tasty cookies Linda McKenzie sent for our lunch since she could not attend.
Wrapping up our conversations and lunch, the LEAP Ambassadors and Judges made their way back into the courtroom for the last hearing of the day.
In the third case, the appellant, Michael Todd Austin was represented by Carmen Roe and Brian Wice for his conviction of sexual assault.
This case was very well delivered, easy to understand, and kept brief as both appellant and appellee argued the facts of the case.
As the last case came to an end, Chief Justice Gray opened the floor to the audience members, who had many questions for the attorneys regarding their jobs and roles. One student asked, “How do refrain from emotional attachment in cases such as the one presented today?” while others asked about the duration of cases and the complexity of courtroom procedures. Justice Gray, Carmen Roe, and Brian Wice, along with the prosecution attorney Doug Howell…
…answered each question with extensive knowledge for the students!
After the question session, the LEAP Ambassadors made their way down to greet the judges and have informal conversations and take pictures!
It was an honor hosting the 10th Court of Appeals for another year. We are very thankful to Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith for coming to Sam Houston and making it a memorable experience for students and faculty!
For our first official meeting of the semester, we welcomed all the new and returning members, it was a very informational, yet fun meeting. Heather Barodi, President of the PLS made an introduction by voting on the new officers to be approved as well as the update of the signature card. She introduced the new officers, discussed orglink, upcoming meetings and upcoming activities like the Kat Safety Bash, Old Town Theatre Cleanup/Pizza Party/ showing of “My Cousin Vinny” and the Scare on the Square.
Next, she introduced our guest speaker for the evening, Dave Farnum, the Assistant Director of Recruitment at the University of Texas Law. Farnum is from Rhode Island and moved here for his career at UT. He is immensely proud of his school and even more proud to be a Longhorn. He visited our organization to give us insight on how to get into UT’s prestigious law school, and for the most part, how to get into any law school. It was definitely worth listening to.
After he described the school as the “Top Law School in Texas,” he went on to discuss employment after attending the school. Seventy-five percent of students that graduate from the law program choose to work in Texas after they complete school. Twenty-five percent of students that graduate leave Texas , usually going to New York, Washington D.C or California.
Some unique facts he shared about UT:
Bar Passage Rates in Texas were at 91%, while the state average is only about 75%.
There is a 10:1 professor to student ratio, with 201 courses offered, suggesting they have plenty of options for students . They have an alumni-mentor program that is hand-selected to match uniquely to the student.
Lastly, UT Law offers many experiential learning opportunities. Examples of this included working with immigrants, indigent suspects, and assistance with the Innocent Project.
Some quick facts are that his year’s class had a median score of 169 on the LSAT, a median GPA of 3.80, and more women than men (for the first time ever!).
Next, he discussed the key factors in the admission process: the LSAT, GPA, personal statement, resume, and letters of recommendation.
Consistent with a philosophy that emphasizes admitting “humans, not robots,” UT tries to delve deep into the applicants’ backgrounds. Indeed, they will accept up to a three-page resume, and Farnum encouraged us to “make use of that space.” Farnum further recommended to freshmen and sophomores to (1) get GPAs as high as possible, (2) make connections with professors, (3) and to stay out of trouble.
For juniors and seniors who may not be ready to apply, Farnum noted that it’s okay to take a gap year, although he did encourage students to ensure that gap year is productive.
During the Q & A, Jade asked whether it was better to get her supervisor at her law firm or a professor to write a letter of recommendation. Farnum suggested that the person who knows the student best would write the best letter, but that the student should submit a letter from at least one professor.
Mr. Farnum concluded with offering the students some swag from UT Law–items that proved very popular!
We are incredibly grateful that he came out to give us this very useful knowledge of all the things to expect when applying to law school.
Despite the pandemic, we were able to kick off our first Pre-Law Society meeting of the Fall 2020 semester. Our advisor, Mike Yawn introduced the PLS to all the new members and explained our agenda for the evening. For the first meeting, we had the great honor to have a Zoom meeting with two special women, Alicia Cramer and Shawn Adams, to discuss law school and answer any questions we may have in regard to admissions.
To begin, we first had Shawn Adams speak. She is not only an attorney, but she is also the Assistant Director for Recruitment at Texas Tech Law. She discussed how Texas Tech has a ‘dual degree program’ where a student can finish their first year of school, then start their Masters. They can complete law school in three years, receiving both Juris Doctor (JD) and an MBA. She also mentions how you can be a “student attorney” where you can work under a licensed attorney and have clients and go to court, which I felt like caught a lot of members’ attention!
Dean Alicia Cramer was next. Cramer is the Assistant Dean of Admissions and South Texas College of Law. To showcase the school, she mentioned how they were recently nationally ranked for their Moot Court and Mock Trial teams. As an assistant dean, she emphasized the importance of being involved in different programs and clinics the school offers. She also encouraged students to begin building relationships with people who may write letter of recommendations.
Following the presentations, the guest speakers took questions.
Two questions that stuck out to me were:
Q: Do I need to apply separately for scholarships, or will I receive automatic consideration through the admissions process?
A: You can do both. Depending on your situation, you can apply for financial aid, but also you can earn money depending on your GPA and LSAT scores, so study!
Q: I was another major for two years and it tanked my GPA. Even with the A’s and B’s I have been making in my Pre-Law major, my GPA hasn’t touched a 3.0 yet, does that ruin my chance to be accepted?
A: No, if your GPA isn’t the best and your LSAT scores are subpar, your personal statement will really dictate your acceptance or not. You want a great personal statement that not only describes you as a person but also explains why your grades were not the best. You need to stick out during the admissions process and show the board why you deserve to attend their law school.
After the Q&A portion of our meeting, we applauded and thanked them for their time and insight on the navigation of law admissions. To end our meeting was officer elections. The group had eight members running for positions of VP of Finances, VP of Membership, Secretary and Historian. With time running short, members’ speeches were short and to the point. For President, we have appointed Quinn Kobrin (senior), VP of Finances, Leslie Canchola-Rangel (junior);
Our second meeting of the semester went on without skipping a beat. There were very few minor things to take care of before we got right down to business with our guest panel, which included three law school deans or recruiters.
We started our meeting with some housekeeping, which included an acknowledgement and congratulations for our most members (yet) and ended with a discussion on our upcoming volunteer event, Scare on the Square.
Afterwards, we were introduced to our admissions panel. We had Megan Henson (Associate Director of Admissions at University of Tulsa), Shawn Adams (Assistant Director for Recruitment at Texas Tech Law), and Jens Sandberg (Admissions Recruiter at South Texas College of Law).
Our president, Sawyer Massie, started our Q&A with a few basic questions, but our members quickly jumped in and had some interesting questions of their own.
Our panelist informed on things to put on our applications, what not to put, how to write the “perfect” personal statements, retaking LSATs, and many other things.
Each panelist offered their own unique advice fit for their school, as well as their own personal advice that they endeavored when they applied for law schools. They were very informative, while also injecting some humor into the discussion.
The common denominator for that all three came into agreement on one thing: be yourself. That is the one thing most applicants miss on because they focus on what they think the admissions office wants to hear rather than the truth.
At the end of this meeting, we can all say we left with more than we expected know and feel a little less nervous for our applications. Our final meeting of the fall semester is November 20, and we expect to have another exciting and educational meeting!
Every Spring, the Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics invites Professor Val Ricks to teach a Mock Law class on the SHSU Campus. He teaches a class on contract law exactly as he teaches it down in his own classroom at South Texas College of Law in Houston. Students that sign up are emailed the cases about a week before the class and are expected to read and brief them by class time. Professor Ricks teaches the class using the Socratic method, a form of interlocutory discussion, which is commonly used in law schools to develop critical thinking in students.
The lesson focused on the concept of consideration and how it is an essential element of every contract. We learned all about how both parties in an agreement must each offer something in exchange for the agreement to be considered valid.
We answered questions about the facts of the case and discussed several different scenarios in which consideration from one of the parties in an agreement was lacking and how it affected the ruling in each case.
It was a unique opportunity for many of the students who had never been exposed to law school to experience what it’s like inside a law classroom.
Toward the end of class, Professor Ricks invited anyone who had questions to approach him and ask, to which many students did.
Before bidding us goodbye, he shared that we performed about as well as his usual first-year students that he teaches down in Houston. As a group, we thanked him for making the drive up to Huntsville and expressed hope that he’d join us again next spring.
Just one day after hearing three appellate cases in the Kerper Court Room, the Leapsters were back and ready for more!
Today, we were going to take part in a Voir Dire training for the Texas Special Prosecution Unit. The SPU was established in 1999 to handle cases involving sexual offenders who have been convicted of two sexual offenses, incarcerated for at least one of them, and are about to be released back into society. The cases they work are to determine if the individual has a behavior abnormality and should be sent to a rehabilitation facility. These cases are unique in that they are civil cases, but they still have a twelve-person jury decide the outcome. Hence, the Voir Dire team is there to understand each person as an individual and see the potentiality of being fair and impartial throughout the trial, which is not always an easy process. During Voir Dire, the prosecution and the defense will ask a series of questions in order to select the best possible jury for their client.
After receiving the background information about the Special Prosecution Unit, we were given a fake identity to role-play for the Voir Dire. My identity was a single, 28 year old, with no children, who worked at a correctional facility. I knew, according to my provided profile, someone who had been sexually assaulted, but I could still be fair and impartial.
The prosecutors then took turns asking us questions and giving us hypotheticals.
If an individual agreed or disagreed with a statement, the prosecutor would ask that individual more questions.
Everyone in the Courtroom had a different character they had to play.
They were give certain guidelines such as mine but it was up to them to play their part as best as possible.
After the Voir Dire session, some students stayed to ask the prosecutors questions about Voir Dire process….
…how they became a part of the SPU…
and the cases they have worked.
I asked Erin, one of the prosecutors, how many cases have there been where the jury found that the individual did not need to go to the rehabilitation facility. She replied with very impressive numbers. She stated that the Special Prosecution Unit has handled a little over 400 cases and out of those cases, only five individuals were found by the jury to not have a behavioral abnormality.
Out of all the individuals who have been sent to the rehabilitation facility, only six have been released back into society and none of them has reoffended. Likewise, the other lawyers had very similar stories to tell and experiences that they went through. We also received law school advice, such as in Karla’s case who wants to go to Texas Tech. One of the lawyers was a Texas Tech alumni, and so they spoke about the different opportunities that Texas Tech had to offer. Everyone was sad to leave, as the conversations were very interesting. However, we all learned so much from this experience, not only of the process of Voir Dire and law school.
Many thanks to the Texas Special Prosecutors Unit, particularly Jack Choate and Erin Faseler, for partnering with SHSU on this rewarding activity.
Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics 