University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Identifying and defining environmental stressors influencing law student wellness and well-being: an exploratory study

(USC Thesis Other)

Identifying and defining environmental stressors influencing law student wellness and well-being: an exploratory study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Identifying and Defining Environmental Stressors Influencing Law Student Wellness and
Well-Being: An Exploratory Study
by
Erica Caye Silbiger

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Erica Caye Silbiger 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Erica Caye Silbiger certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kenneth Yates
Alexandra Wilcox
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv

Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the various environmental stressors
impacting law student mental health and wellness based on the experiences and perspectives
gathered from 10 interviews with current law students and recent graduates (i.e., May 2021). The
concept of a person’s environment influencing their behavior and cognition from Bandura’s
(1986) social cognitive theory (SCT) acted as this study’s theoretical framework. This study’s
conceptual framework employed Bandura’s (1986) triadic model of reciprocal causation to
demonstrate the impact of environmental stressors on law student behavior and motivation.
This framework was the scaffolding for the interview questions and a priori codes to determine
emergent themes in the research findings. The purpose of conducting interviews for this study
was to gather the participants’ perceptions and experiences with environmental stressors and
navigating their institution’s wellness resources. The predominant themes that emerged
pertaining to environmental stressors was the law school culture, academic and career
motivation, and law student cognition and identity. Furthermore, this study explored the
disconnect between the repeatedly identified environmental stressors in the literature, the
available institutional wellness resources, and studies that continue to confirm that law students
are experiencing psychological distress at problematic rates. The purpose of this study was to
analyze the research findings to provide recommendations to stakeholders in legal education for
improving the efficacy and effectiveness of institutional wellness resources to better position law
students to be successful lawyers and adequately serve their future clients.

v
Dedication
To law students everywhere, and to those who are losing faith in their ability to persevere, you
can. And you will.

vi
Acknowledgements
This study would not have been possible without the law students who donated their
valuable time to speak with me about their experiences or my friends in the law profession
listening to my ideas and answering a multitude of questions about their chosen field. I sincerely
appreciate my OCL professors who supported us through an objectively difficult time in our
country, and in the world. Additionally, I thank my classmates who provided me with an
unwavering support system.
I am grateful for the support of my committee members, Dr. Alexandra Wilcox, Dr.
Kenneth Yates, and especially my chair, Dr. Patricia Tobey. They challenged me to think deeper
about this topic, more critically, and from various perspectives. Thank you to my advisors, Dr.
Don Murphy, and Dr. Larry Hausner, who provided their invaluable insight and guidance
throughout the entire process. Finally, I am deeply grateful for the unconditional love and
support of my family and friends. Without them, I would not have had the opportunity to write
this paper at all.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 6
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 8
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Environmental Stressors Identified in the Literature ........................................................ 12
Navigating Institutional Wellness Resources ................................................................... 29
Presentation of Theories ................................................................................................... 30
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 34
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 35
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 37
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 38
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 40
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 42

viii
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 43
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 44
Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………..45
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 46
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 48
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 50
Descriptions of the Participants ........................................................................................ 51
Research Findings ............................................................................................................. 58
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 121
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 123
Overview of Study .......................................................................................................... 123
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 124
Implications of the Study ................................................................................................ 132
Practice Recommendations ............................................................................................. 132
Evaluation Framework .................................................................................................... 137
Research Recommendations ........................................................................................... 143
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 144
References ................................................................................................................................... 146
Appendix A: Integrated Model of Thriving ................................................................................ 157
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 158
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 160
Appendix D: Mental Health Resources ...................................................................................... 163
Appendix E: Interview Recruitment Letter ................................................................................. 164

ix
Appendix F: A Priori and in Vivo Transcription Codes ............................................................. 165
Appendix G: Breakdown of Time Allocations ........................................................................... 166
Appendix H: W.K. Kellogg Logic Model .................................................................................. 167

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Theoretical Framework Alignment 51
Table 2: Interview Participants’ Self-Identified Ethnicity, Gender, and Age 53
Table 3: Interview Participants’ Self-Identified Enrollment Status 54
Appendix F: A Priori and in Vivo Transcription Codes 165
Appendix G: Breakdown of Time Allocations 166

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Social Cognitive Theory 31
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 35
Appendix A: Integrated Model of Thriving 157
Appendix H: W.K. Kellogg Logic Model 167
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
This five-chapter qualitative study explored the environmental stressors impacting law
student well-being. Studies have indicated that law school students experience depression,
anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse at higher rates than those in any other graduate
program (Bibelhausen et al., 2015; Coyle, 2018; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Lusk, 2018; Organ et al.,
2016). The cumulative results of these studies conclude that there is a disconnect between law
school wellness resources and students’ specific needs to combat problematic environmental
stressors and improve their overall well-being.
This study determined the predominant environmental stressors in the literature
pertaining to legal education. It supplemented these findings with data from 10 online interviews
with currently enrolled students or recent graduate students. The purpose of these interviews was
to further explore these stressors by gathering law students’ experiences and perceptions on
navigating both their learning environment and their respective institutions’ wellness resources.
This study employs social cognitive theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986) as its theoretical
framework. The implementation of SCT provided the opportunity to explore Bandura’s (1986)
triadic model of reciprocal causation in relation to the bi-directional influences between the
identified environmental stressors, law student cognition, and law student behavior. Furthermore,
this study’s conceptual framework determined the research questions and subsequently organized
the environmental stressors identified in the literature.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the findings from the literature and data
collected from this study’s participants to then provide recommendations for practice to the
necessary stakeholders in legal education. These recommendations are delineated in Chapter
2

Five. Additionally, Chapter Five includes a suggested blueprint for implementing and evaluating
these recommendations.
Background of the Problem
In 2015, the National Task Force (NTF) on Lawyer Well-Being, a group commissioned
by the American Bar Association (ABA), conducted the most comprehensive study on law
students’ mental health, substance use, and help-seeking behavior (Organ et al., 2016). In 2016,
the NTF administered the survey on law student well-being (SLSWB) and collected responses
from approximately 3,300 individuals and 15 law schools, generating the only empirical multi-
school study on law student mental health and wellness. Additionally, it was the first multi-
school study to address substance use, alcoholism, prescription and nonprescription drug abuse,
mental health and wellness concerns, and help-seeking behavior in the same survey.
The SLSWB included questions regarding depression, anxiety, eating disorders, patterns
of alcoholism, substance abuse, environmental stressors, help-seeking behavior, and suicidal
ideation. The study’s results indicated that 21% of respondents reported they had seriously
considered suicide during their lifetime and 6% of those students had seriously considered
attempting suicide within the previous 12 months. Organ et al. (2016) also found that 22% of
respondents binge-drank two or more times in the 2 weeks prior to submitting their responses to
the SLSWB. Additionally, the survey data revealed that law students in their third year reported
engaging in binge drinking more often than students in their first year. This reconfirmed
Benjamin et al.’s (1986) research findings, which noted a meaningful increase in the students’
psychological distress from their first to their third year in law school.
The SLSWB also tracked the usage of prescription and non-prescription drugs, finding
that 12% of students had sedative or anxiety medication prescriptions, 13% were on a prescribed
3

regimen for stimulants, and 12% received a prescription for antidepressants (Organ et al., 2016).
Another 14% of students indicated they had abused similar medications but without a
prescription. The most abused substances, however, were non-prescription stimulants. More than
half of the respondents who indicated a pattern of abuse with stimulants noted that their usage
had increased over the previous 12 months. This further demonstrated that their abuse of
stimulants amplified after starting law school.
The SLSWB found that 37% of respondents screened positive for anxiety disorders, 27%
screened positive for eating disorders, and 14% reported prescription drug abuse in the previous
12 months (Organ et al., 2016). Additionally, 21% indicated a history of suicidal ideation. Organ
et al. (2016) also found that 30% of law students with anxiety disorder diagnoses had received
their diagnoses after they enrolled in law school.
The 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health results discovered that 19.1% of
adults in the United States have a diagnosable mental illness (Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2018). Moreover, 31.1% were diagnosed with
anxiety disorders, 4.6% seriously considered suicide (i.e., suicidal ideation), and 6.5% abused
prescription drugs. SAMHSA (2018) and Organ et al.’s (2016) findings, respectively, revealed
that the high rates of psychological distress in law students exceed those of the general
population.
Organ et al. (2016) compared the SLSWB’s findings to the results from The Healthy
Minds Study in 2015. The Healthy Minds Study (2015) is an annual survey by the University of
Michigan that collects data from over 100,000 undergraduate students and 25,000 graduate
students. This study dispersed a survey like the SLSWB but included a broader sample
population.
4

Organ et al. (2016) reviewed these data to compare responses on the SLSWB to other
graduate and undergraduate students on the same topics of psychological distress, substance
abuse, and help-seeking behavior. Organ et al. (2016) noted a trend in the data signifying law
students were experiencing psychological distress at higher rates than those reported by the
Healthy Minds Study (2015). The Healthy Minds Study (2015) revealed that 5% of graduate
students overall reported severe suicidal thoughts within the previous 12 months. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (2015) report noted that 3.9% of Americans over 18 years old
indicated suicidal ideation within the previous 12 months. Together, these results confirm that
law schools host a suicidal ideation rate higher than other graduate programs and the general
public.
Statement of the Problem
The first known study on law student mental health and wellness was conducted in 1956
and revealed these students were suffering from anxiety and depression at rates higher than
students in other professional graduate degree programs (Eron & Redmount, 1956, as cited in
Peterson & Peterson, 2009). Both Keller et al. (1986) and Shanfield and Benjamin (1985) further
explored law student mental health in comparison to medical students and reconfirmed Eron and
Redmount’s (1956) findings almost 30 years later. In 1986, Benjamin et al. expanded the
research on this topic by studying psychological distress exclusively with law students.
Since 1986, there have been numerous studies on law student psychological distress.
However, the findings from these subsequent studies reconfirmed the original findings on this
topic, demonstrating that wellness is still a concern (Organ et al., 2016; Peterson & Peterson,
2009; Shanfield & Benjamin, 1985; Silver, 1968, as cited in Organ et al., 2016). Furthermore,
multiple studies have inferred that wellness decreases exponentially from a student’s first year in
5

law school to their third (Benjamin et al., 1986; Organ et al., 2016; Shanfield & Benjamin,
1985). In 1986, Benjamin et al. conducted a homogenous, longitudinal study to measure
potential changes in depression from a student’s first year (1L) to their third (3L), investigating
whether depression increases over time while in law school.
Benjamin et al. (1986) observed that 20% of law students in their first year self-reported
that they were struggling with depression, anxiety, or other mental health concerns. However,
this number rose to 40% in their third year, significantly increasing the number of those
struggling with psychological distress. This number rose even higher when Benjamin et al.
(1986) measured the changes in wellness from enrollment to graduation.
Benjamin et al.’s (1986) longitudinal study was the most frequently referenced study on
this topic until the SLSWB report was published 3 decades later. The SLSWB report became the
most pivotal data on law student mental health, substance abuse, and help-seeking behavior and
simultaneously validated previous literature on law student distress and help-seeking behavior
(Organ et al., 2016). Additionally, the SLSWB comprehensively depicted the consequences of
environmental stressors within legal education.
As the research on this topic expanded, findings have revealed anecdotal and
subsequently empirical data identifying specific environmental influences associated with legal
education perpetuating psychological distress and impacting student well-being. These findings
are problematic as most law schools provide wellness opportunities and various initiatives in
concert with available resources from the ABA to combat the high impact of the identified
environmental stressors on law students. This problem is important to address as the
environmental stressors defined in the literature continue to impact law student well-being and
6

highlight a disconnect between available institutional resources and the students’ essential needs
to adequately combat these stressors, consequently perpetuating psychological distress.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the various environmental stressors impacting
law student mental health and wellness based on experiences and perspectives gathered through
interviews with current law school students and recent graduates. Subsequently, this study
utilized the data collected from those interviews to review the literature on this topic to provide
recommendations to the appropriate stakeholders within legal education. These
recommendations, outlined in Chapter Five, encompass evaluation techniques using program
theory and logic models to improve and increase the efficacy and efficiency of institutional
wellness programs and initiatives. Furthermore, this study intended to analyze the data to
improve law student wellness overall to better position these students to be successful lawyers
who can adequately serve their future clients.
Three research questions guided this study.
1. What are the most impactful environmental stressors identified by law students?
2. What are the experiences and perceptions held by law students when navigating their law
schools’ available resources for student wellness?
3. What are the recommendations for stakeholders in legal education to improve the
efficacy of the wellness resources they provide to their students?
Significance of the Study
When concerns with student wellness are left unaddressed, students’ early stages of
depression or substance abuse can follow them into their careers and family lives, amplifying an
illness that only becomes more challenging to manage, potentially harming colleagues, family
7

members, and clients (Bibelhausen et al., 2015; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Peterson & Peterson,
2009). For example, the Mayo Clinic (2018) found that if students experienced an episode of
anxiety or a panic attack, they could develop chronic anxiety or other disorders if not addressed
immediately and adequately. Meanwhile, the findings from the SLSWB detailed previously
stated that 30% of law students had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder after they enrolled
in law school (Organ et al., 2016). That percentage only increased as they progressed to their
third year and graduation.
Anxiety is not the only long-term consequence of poor self-care while in law school.
Alcoholism and substance abuse have become increasingly problematic among young law
professionals. In 2014, SAMHSA found that law students and lawyers both suffer from
substance abuse disorders approximately twice as much as the general public. A few years later,
Krill et al. (2016) administered the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) to discover
patterns of alcohol abuse in the legal profession. Out of the approximately 13,000 lawyers who
responded to this survey, 20.6% reported engaging in harmful, problematic drinking behavior.
However, participants 30 years of age or younger scored higher on the AUDIT for
hazardous drinking than older participants. Notably, the AUDIT determined that 14.2% of
respondents who self-reported problematic drinking patterns indicated that their disorders had
manifested during law school. Krill et al. (2016) concluded that those in the legal profession
experienced problematic drinking habits at a higher rate than those in other professions.
Furthermore, studies have found that individuals who were genetically prone to certain
severe mental illnesses, such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, were more likely to have
their illnesses triggered from an onset of severe distress and most commonly in their 20s (Howes
et al., 2017; Jones, 2007). Jones (2007) posited that it is highly likely for students struggling with
8

bipolar disorder to attempt suicide if they do not seek help and are left untreated. An illness
triggered when an individual is in their 20s is significant as this is also within the age bracket of
a traditional student commencing a rigorous course load in law school (Jolly-Ryan, 2010).
The combination of triggering a severe mental illness, persevering through a challenging
educational experience, not seeking help, or receiving adequate attention for this issue, is
dangerous and potentially deadly. These findings demonstrate the long-term consequences of
neglecting the impact of environmental stressors. Without tools for proper stress management
and knowledge of stress-related mental health resources, the students’ coping strategies can
trigger severe genetic mental illnesses, prolong symptoms of anxiety, or devolve to substance
abuse, in turn causing long-term physical, mental, social, and financial damage.
Definition of Terms
• Coping strategies are used when “psychological distress is reduced or ameliorated by
coping processes or resources that counter the adverse consequences of the stressor”
(Wills, 1987, p. 20).
• Disordered eating describes a student who displays unhealthy or irregular eating habits
who will inevitably receive a diagnosis for an eating disorder (Striegel‐Moore et al.,
1989).
• Help-seeking is when a student consults with a health professional or school
administrator regarding their concerns with substance abuse or mental health issues
(Organ et al., 2016).
• Mental health literacy refers to the acquired knowledge and understanding of mental
illnesses, which in turn develops awareness and an ability to manage or prevent disorders.
It is the “ability to recognize specific disorders; knowing how to seek mental health
9

information; knowledge of risk factors and causes, of self-treatments, and of professional
help available; and attitudes that promote recognition and appropriate help-seeking”
(Jorm et al., 1997, p. 182).
• Psychological distress refers to a collective of mental health illnesses or disorders, such
as depression, anxiety, stress, and substance abuse. It is a term that is used to replace
multiple ailments rather than listing each illness or disorder individually (Skead et al.,
2018).
• Public mental health stigma is a widely held disapproval of those with mental health
issues (Levin, 2014).
• Student wellness is the act of “participating in the various dimensions of human
flourishing in a balanced and integrated way” (Crowe, 2020, p.1).
• Substance abuse refers to a pattern of misusing alcohol, prescription drugs, and other
illegal substances (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2021).
• Suicidal ideation is the serious consideration of committing suicide or attempting to do so
(SAMSA, 2018).
Organization of the Study
This five-chapter qualitative study examines the environmental stressors identified in the
literature and further defined by current law students or recent graduates. Chapter One
summarized the problem of practice and introduced the context surrounding law student mental
health and its long history of having the highest rates of psychological distress. This chapter also
presented this study’s research questions and identified SCT (Bandura, 1986) as its primary
theoretical framework. Chapter One highlighted key points discussed further in Chapter Two.
10

Chapter Two delineates and explores the environmental stressors identified by the
literature and further defined in Chapter Four. The literature reviewed in Chapter Two pinpoints
and further explores meaningful themes on this topic. Additionally, Chapter Two organizes the
emergent themes using this study’s conceptual framework, which is an adaptation of Sheldon
and Krieger’s (2007) Integrated Model of Thriving (IMT).
Chapter Three details this study’s methodology and research design. This chapter
explains the study’s framework by defining the scaffolding constructed to frame the study in
further detail. This chapter also describes the interview protocol and rationale for the participant
criteria.
Chapter Three outlines the data collection process for the purpose of triangulating the
data, which validated the claims from the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Additionally,
qualitative methods such as member checking are discussed to establish the researcher’s
credibility and trustworthiness. Subsequently, Chapter Three pinpoints the limitations and
delimitations that presented barriers during this study, detailing those that were self-imposed and
those that were not.
Chapter Four presents research findings from the participants’ interview responses. The
data collected from these interviews are organized by themes that emerged during the
conversations with the 10 participants. In Chapter Five, the recommendations for primary
stakeholders are delineated, followed by an introduction to program theory and logic models that
were used as this study’s evaluation method.
11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter reviews the literature on the predominant environmental stressors impacting
law students within their learning environment. The theoretical lens of SCT (Bandura, 1986)
reviewed these stressors to demonstrate the reciprocal causation between a person, their
behavior, and their environment. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1986), stress is defined as
“a relationship with the environment that the person appraises as significant for his or her own
well-being and in which the demands tax or exceed available coping resources” (p. 63).
Furthermore, Lazarus and Folkman argued that a person’s behavior resulted from changes in
their environment and in the way they perceived their environment.
Like Bandura’s (1978) theory on reciprocal determinism, Lazarus and Folkman (1986)
posited that the person influences their environment and vice versa and further stated that stress
was determined by the reciprocal relationship between the person and environment over time.
Therefore, this study explored environmental stressors that the literature argues are ingrained in
the traditions and overall structure of legal education. Subsequently, the interviews noted the
long-term impact of these stressors on law students based on their experiences. Although this
chapter reviews the literature on common environmental stressors in law school, Lazarus and
Folkman (1986) would agree that the stressors outlined in this chapter impact each student
differently due to various unique factors in the environment and the circumstances surrounding
them.
Flynn et al. (2017) further determined that an event itself was not necessarily stressful,
but that the law student’s perception of their environment could cause stress. Consequently, the
stressors in legal education are negatively impacting students’ cognitive capacity (Austin, 2013).
However, the literature argues that students who perceive their environment to be stressful still
12

avoid navigating institutional wellness resources (Coyle, 2018; James, 2011; Organ et al., 2016;
Rickwood et al., 2007).
The following section details the challenges the students experience as identified in the
literature. Additionally, Chapter Four explores the theme of navigating institutional wellness
resources in-depth based on the students’ experiences with seeking resources when in distress.
The findings in Chapter Four present both the parallels between the participants’ experiences and
the stressors identified in the research and demonstrates the individualistic experiences and
perceptions each participant noted about the same environmental stressors. This chapter
concludes with an in-depth description of this study’s conceptual framework and other relevant
theories, and an introduction to this study’s methodology and research design.
Environmental Stressors Identified in the Literature
The MacCrate Report, published in 1992 by the ABA, and the Carnegie Report,
published 15 years later by Sullivan et al. (2007), highlighted common stressors. These stressors
included significant debt from consistent increases in tuition, the lack of adequate job
opportunities upon graduation, overall dissatisfaction with the value of their education, and the
overwhelming workload. These reports pinpointed key stressors within and outside the law
students’ environments that were responsible for impacting their daily life and, ultimately, their
well-being (ABA & MacCrate, 1992; Sullivan et al., 2007). Almost a decade later, a study by
Bergin and Pakenham (2015) presented similar findings.
In 2015, Bergin and Pakenham surveyed 647 law students to measure four environmental
stressors: academic demands, social isolation, career pressure, and study/life imbalance. Bergin
and Pakenham’s (2015) findings indicated that all four stressors predicted an increase in anxiety
and depression. Additionally, poorer life satisfaction and reduced self-acceptance were both
13

found to be directly related to the stressors of career pressure, study/life imbalance, and social
isolation.
The dimension of academic demands, however, negatively impacted personal growth and
purpose in life. Furthermore, all four stressors were negatively correlated to environmental
mastery. These studies mentioned above infer that the high rates of anxiety and depression
discussed in Chapter One are related to six predominant environmental stressors: academic
demands, social isolation, career pressure, student debt, educational value, and study/life
imbalance (ABA & MacCrate, 1992; Bergin & Pakenham, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2007). The
following sections explore the stressors identified in the literature as they pertain to law school
culture, academic and career motivation, and self-efficacy.
Law School Culture and the Social Context
Law schools are described as a normative cultural model, due to the perpetuation of the
monocultural behavior with a rite of passage mentality (Holvino, 2008). DeBlasis and Usman
(2017) posited that stress and high anxiety were normalized in legal education, as the distress
that the environment manifested was considered a badge of honor and part of the rite of passage.
The literature identifies various stressors within the social context that manifests and perpetuates
the normative culture in legal education. These stressors include the competitiveness of both the
program and career aspirations, the overwhelming workload and unreasonable program
expectations, the blanket acceptance of a culture perpetuating high rates of psychological
distress, and the rite of passage mentality through the overall structure of legal education and its
antiquated traditions. These stressors are important to address as research shows that a
demanding learning environment can have a significant impact on a student’s well-being
(Bandura, 1978, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1986).
14

Competitive Atmosphere
According to the literature, the grading curve, internships, mock trials, law journals, job
offers at the best firms, the classroom environment, and the admissions process manifested the
competitive nature of the learning environment in law schools (DeBlasis & Usman, 2017).
Bandura (2001) considers this an imposed environment as the students have minimal control
over the institutionalized practices generating its competitiveness. The pressure to secure both an
internship and a placement at an objectively notable firm in a tough market while still in school
increases the competitive culture. Furthermore, law students are studying and training for a
profession in which they regularly compete and therefore frequently practice these skills.
In 2020, Skead et al. conducted a study on the competitive nature of the law school
environment and its subsequent impact on student well-being. Skead et al. (2020) used the Brief
Emotional Experience Scale to assess law students’ reflections on their experiences throughout
the semester. This scale included items pertaining to the pressure the participants experienced
both internally and externally, perceptions of their learning environment, and their overall
emotional well-being.
The choices available for this scale included supportive, competitive, welcoming, overall
positive experience, and overall negative experience. The results of this assessment revealed that
most students perceived the law school environment as very and extremely competitive. Skead et
al. (2020) further determined from this assessment that the competitive learning environment
directly and negatively impacted law student well-being.
The majority of the respondents on the SLSWB, when questioned about their substance-
use habits, indicated that they abused substances to heighten their concentration while studying.
Furthermore, 49% of respondents indicated that they abused prescription drugs to enhance their
15

academic performance. However, 20% of those respondents further clarified that they abused
prescription drugs to gain an academic advantage over their classmates, noting their awareness of
their classmates’ prescription drug use habits (Organ et al., 2016). The influences manifesting a
competitive environment both contribute to a cultural setting prone to substance abuse and
perpetuate the high rates of law student psychological distress.
Psychological Distress
Benjamin et al. (1986) determined that law students not only had the highest rates of
psychological distress out of other professional graduate programs, but that this distress
increased over time from their first year to their third. Multiple studies have validated these
findings over the last few decades, normalizing psychological distress as an acceptable mindset
while in school (Organ et al., 2016; Peterson & Peterson, 2009; Shanfield & Benjamin, 1985;
Silver, 1968, as cited in Organ et al., 2016). Larcombe and Fethers (2013) notes that this mindset
is so ingrained in the law school culture that it carries on to the legal profession as well.
Austin (2013) interviewed law school graduates and received a common response that
they felt broken by the time they completed their third year and had graduated law school feeling
bad about themselves. As mentioned in Chapter One, the ABA created a task force after
discovering that the high rates of psychological distress still existed. As a result, the previously
mentioned SLSWB was dispersed to 11,000 law students to learn more about what was causing
their psychological distress and their subsequent behaviors when determining their coping
strategies. Organ et al. (2016) found that 30% of respondents had not only been diagnosed with
an anxiety disorder but were diagnosed after enrolling in law school or upon their completion.
In 2007, Sheldon and Krieger determined that law students did not enroll in law school
with severe psychological distress and that they were, in fact, highly motivated during their first
16

year. However, Sheldon and Krieger (2007) also found that their motivation decreased over time
as their psychological distress became prevalent. Multiple studies over the last 60 years
presented similar conclusions that students’ distress increases while in law school (Eron &
Redmount, 1956; Organ et al., 2016; Peterson & Peterson, 2009; Shanfield & Benjamin, 1985;
Silver, 1968, as cited in Organ et al., 2016). The literature posits that the inflexible curriculum
and resistance to change partially explain this decades-old phenomenon (Carasik, 2011; Jolly-
Ryan, 2010; Spencer, 2012; Wald & Pearce, 2011).
Antiquated Traditions
The law school curriculum and teaching methods have remained largely unchanged over
the last 100 years (Carasik, 2011; Minow, 2017; Spencer, 2012). Scholars posited that legal
education is inflexible and in need of cultural revolution through curriculum adaptations and an
evolved pedagogy (Carasik, 2011; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Spencer, 2012; Wald & Pearce, 2011).
Carasik (2011) argued that traditions in legal education perpetuate a culture of privilege and
luxury and noted that a conversation is necessary on deconstructing and reassessing the
processes and traditions that start during student recruitment and the admissions process through
the licensing process. Furthermore, students described law school as traumatic as they perceived
the traditions to reflect hazing rituals and not beneficial to their learning experience (Austin,
2013).
Carasik (2011) further stated that these processes supported
a self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating system and culture that fails to serve our students
and the society in which they will operate as professionals. … Given the well-
documented emotional and fiscal price that legal education is exacting from our students,
it is unconscionable to maintain the status quo. (p.737)
17

Legal education originally followed the apprenticeship model; however, the methodology flipped
indefinitely to the case method model, consequently removing student opportunities for practical
training (Carasik, 2011; Spencer, 2012). Eventually, the program included clinics to provide
practical skills supplemental to the program, and in 2014, the ABA included a professional skills
and competency requirement (Carasik, 2011; Stuckey, 2016). However, fundamentally, the
structure of legal education and the traditions from over 100 years ago have not changed
significantly in the last 35 years (Carasik, 2011; Minow, 2017).
The literature shows that over the last few decades faculty members have opposed
fundamental changes to the program’s structure more than any other stakeholder group, citing
concerns that any changes could alter the quality and academic rigor of the law school
experience (DeBlasis & Usman, 2017). However, Minow (2017) argued that “law schools have
the capacity to retain traditions and to enable change, to protect reliance on past practices and
laws and also to inspire reform” (Minow, 2017, p. 2281). Furthermore, relying on past practices
and traditions like the processes associated with retaining an attorney’s license resulted in the
manifestation of a public mental health stigma, consequently creating a learning environment
stigmatizing seeking help when experiencing psychological distress (Denzel, 2011; Dragnich,
2014; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Levin, 2014; Lusk, 2018; Organ et al., 2016).
Public Mental Health Stigma and the Character and Fitness Assessment
Public stigma is a negative belief system about a specific population that becomes
widespread and can result in discrimination, stereotyping, and prejudice against that population
(Corrigan, 2004). This stressor is significant as the institutionalized mental health stigma is a
primary reason why law students do not seek help when experiencing depression, anxiety,
disordered eating, suicide ideation, and substance abuse (Denzel, 2011; Dragnich, 2014; Jolly-
18

Ryan, 2010; Levin, 2014; Lusk, 2018; Organ et al., 2016). Scholars have argued that the
character and fitness assessment (CFA), a requirement associated with the attorney’s licensing
process, influences students’ behavior, and perpetuates both the high rates of psychological
distress and the public stigma against mental health (Bauer, 2001; Blackard, 1937; Denzel, 2011;
Dragnich, 2014; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Levin, 2014; Lusk, 2018).
Multiple studies have identified the CFA, specifically the questions on mental health, as a
stressor for law students (Bauer, 2001; Blackard, 1937; Denzel, 2011; Dragnich, 2014; Jolly-
Ryan, 2010; Levin, 2014; Lusk, 2018). These questions have sparked nationwide controversy
due to the state-specific questions asked, the court cases it has provoked, and the legislation
written to control the issue. The repercussions of these questions are presented in further detail in
the following sections.
The CFA is a required component of the attorney licensing process meant to evaluate an
applicant’s character and ability to meet the rigorous standards required to practice law (e.g.,
fitness) and reinforce the applicant’s ability to maintain the profession’s ultimate purpose of
protecting the public and preserving the justice system (National Conference of Bar Examiners,
2020; Organ et al., 2016). However, multiple studies have highlighted that the mental health
questions on the CFA have been controversial for several decades (Bauer, 2001; Blackard, 1937;
Denzel, 2011; Dragnich, 2014; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Levin, 2014; Lusk, 2018). When surveyed on
law school stressors and barriers to seeking help when in psychological distress, law students
reported they feared the repercussions of marking an affirmative response on the CFA and
therefore avoided reaching out to medical professionals for their mental health concerns (Organ
et al., 2016).
19

This fear resulted from a heightened concern that the nature of their responses would
jeopardize their bar eligibility (Bibelhausen et al., 2015; Coyle, 2018; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Organ et
al., 2016). In summary, law students perceive mental health treatment as grounds for bar
rejection, receiving a conditional attorney’s license, or other undesirable consequences. The
following sections further explore this environmental stressor providing context for the students’
fears.
Scholars have argued that an individual’s mental health diagnosis alone does not
determine their future behavior (Dragnich, 2014; Duke, 1997; Lusk, 2018); therefore, the mental
health questions on the CFA cannot accurately predict an applicant’s future behavior. The
literature points out several successful lawyers with mental health issues, just as there are many
unsuccessful lawyers without mental health issues (Dragnich, 2014; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Joukov &
Casper, 2020). Nevertheless, this ubiquitous fear of jeopardizing bar eligibility by seeking help
remains active per the SLSWB’s results in 2016 (Organ et al.).
After marking an affirmative response for one of the mental health questions on the CFA,
an applicant could be invited to attend a hearing at the request of the respective state bar (Denzel,
2011; Lusk, 2018). The purpose of this hearing is to determine the applicant’s fitness to practice
law and the extent to which their self-disclosed mental illness could hinder their ability to do so.
The literature argues that the criminal-style hearings and conditional admissions process
significantly contributes to the external stressors of law school, as it influences law students to
assume that they are not worthy, as suggested by the Bar Examiner’s Code (Denzel, 2011;
Joukov & Casper, 2020; Levin, 2014; National Conference of Bar Examiners, 2020, p.viii).
As a result, these students suffer in silence while in law school and attempt to suppress
their mental illness or their struggle with a disorder rather than discuss their issues with an
20

administrator or mental health professional for fear it could lead to a response on the CFA that
would prompt a criminal-style hearing (Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Lusk, 2018; Organ et al., 2016). This
stressor is reinforced when members of the bar examiners’ committee describe mental illnesses,
such as depression, by using words like irresponsible and frail. In contrast, other illnesses like
heart disease or narcolepsy, do not receive similar treatment during bar admissions (Denzel,
2011; Dragnich, 2014; Jolly-Ryan, 2010).
A report by the Working Group on Attorney Mental Health of the New York State Bar
Association (NYSBA, 2019) discovered that the committees surveyed for the report (e.g., the
committees responsible for investigating applicants’ mental health) were predominantly
comprised of legal professionals. NYSBA (2019) deduced that the members of the committees
tasked with making such evaluations did not include those with adequate qualifications to
evaluate a person’s mental health, such as a medically trained or licensed mental health
professional (Joukov & Casper, 2020). This is important to address, as the current admissions
process periodically requires non-medical professionals to make licensing decisions in cases that
are medical in nature, such as an applicant’s mental health (Joukov & Casper, 2020).
This extensive historical context emphasizes the tradition-based, modernization-resistant
nature of legal education and how this resistance caused and perpetuates dangerous and long-
term issues. As mentioned, Carasik (2011) posited that incremental changes in legal education
have been made; however, legal education needs a fundamental shift. Influences such as the
CFA, public stigma against mental health, and competitive learning environment are important to
address as the students’ social context, manifested by these stressors, has a direct impact on their
motivation and overall well-being.
21

Academic and Career Motivation
A study by Skead et al. (2020) determined that students perceived their environments as
only moderately supportive. However, studies by Sheldon and Krieger (2004, 2007) determined
that adequate support was necessary within the social context to have a positive impact on law
students’ motivation and, over time, their overall well-being. For example, in 2004, Sheldon and
Krieger conducted a longitudinal study to determine the impact of law school environmental
stressors on students’ motivation and their mental health. This study, utilizing self-determination
theory (SDT) as a theoretical framework (Deci & Ryan, 2000), determined that at the conclusion
of a law student’s first year in the program, both their life satisfaction and well-being had already
dropped significantly due to a decrease in motivation.
Sheldon and Krieger (2004) found that this decrease in mental health was attributed to
changes in the students’ motivation and consequently, influenced their overall values. The law
students became less intrinsically motivated and more extrinsically motivated from their first to
their third year, noting various environmental stressors that are explored in this study as factors
(Sheldon & Krieger, 2004). As a result, the students presented a decrease in intrinsic motivation,
an increase in appearance values, and a decrease in the students’ values regarding community
service (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004).
This problem is important to address as the decrease in law students’ motivation, whether
academic or career-focused, influenced their subsequent behavior both during the program and
when making career choices. Scholars have argued that the grading curve, tuition increases,
overwhelming student debt, and unreasonable program expectations significantly impact
motivation and subsequent behaviors (Carasik, 2011; Flynn et al., 2017; Organ et al., 2016; Wald
& Pearce, 2011). In addition, SDT demonstrates that, ultimately, low motivation increases the
22

chances for experiencing psychological distress, potentially resulting in mental health issues such
as depression, anxiety, suicide ideation, disordered eating, and substance abuse (Benjamin et al.,
1986; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004, 2007). Furthermore, scholars have noted
that the type of feedback, high expectations, and the unpredictability of the grading curve
simultaneously increases stress and decreases motivation (Carasik, 2011; Flynn et al., 2017;
Organ et al., 2016; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004, 2007).
Grading Curve
Sheldon and Krieger (2004) found that the students with the highest grades were also
identified as having the most intrinsic motivation. Subsequently, a study in 2017 confirmed that a
negative correlation still existed between a change in the quality of a student’s grades and the
value this same individual placed on themselves and their future career (Flynn et al.). For
example, as the grades increased, the student’s sense of self-worth decreased (Flynn et al., 2017;
Sheldon & Krieger, 2004).
Carasik (2011) posited that the grading curve only creates competition with classmates
and does not necessarily identify the student’s subject mastery. Carasik further noted that the
grading curve is mostly based on one exam at the end of the semester in a program that is not
designed to include formative feedback. Without feedback and the opportunity for self-
reflection, the grading process is unmotivating and discourages collaboration (Carasik, 2011;
Niedwiecki, 2012).
The literature demonstrates that law students allow their grades to define them. A high
grade point average is vital to succeed both in the program and with future career opportunities.
Therefore, the unpredictability of the grading curve without formative feedback decreases
motivation to collaborate and maintain relationships, consequently manifesting an isolating
23

environment and increasing both stress and self-doubt (Carasik, 2011; Flynn et al., 2017;
Niedwiecki, 2012).
Workload
The law school workload is commonly criticized as one of the most significant
environmental stressors, described in the literature as an “unrelenting workload” (Bergin &
Pakenham, 2015; Carasik, 2011; Flynn et al., 2017). Flynn et al. (2017) noted that the immense
workload impacts students’ health as it prevents them from engaging in self-care and healthy
behaviors, such as adequate sleep and exercise. In a study by Austin (2013), one participant
commented on their unhealthy sleeping patterns. This student “was not sleeping in bed more than
3 nights since beginning law school due to consistently dropping off to sleep either at the
computer or in the living room while studying” (Austin, 2013, p. 794). In multiple studies, law
students have reported the unrelenting workload to be exhausting and overwhelming, not only
minimizing opportunities for healthy sleeping patterns but also leaving them with inadequate
time to fully comprehend the material before moving on to the next assignment (Austin, 2013;
Carasik, 2011; Flynn et al., 2017).
Additionally, the volume of work and reading required decreases a student’s ability to
build and maintain social relationships, creating an isolating environment (Bergin & Pakenham,
2015). In 2019, Flynn et al. conducted a study to measure law student mental health by
identifying their school stressors and addressing implications for college counselors to address
the students’ psychological needs therapeutically. Flynn et al. (2017) identified that law school
workload was a primary stressor that significantly impacted three dimensions tested in the study.
These three dimensions were psychological distress, depression, and anxiety. Similarly, the IMT
24

by Sheldon and Krieger (2007) demonstrates that isolation, or the absence of relationships, can
negatively influence a students’ motivation, and over time, their well-being and ability to thrive.
Rising Tuition and Student Debt
As mentioned, Sheldon and Krieger (2004) determined that law student motivation shifts
from intrinsic to extrinsic from the student’s first year in law school to their third. Several studies
have found a correlation between this shift and the financial burden the students are experiencing
due to the debt they acquired to pay tuition (Bergin & Pakenham, 2015; Flynn et al., 2017). The
literature demonstrates a trend with this topic, positing that students who enroll with the intention
practice social justice upon graduation inevitably seek employment in corporate law due to their
immense student debt (Bergin & Pakenham, 2015; Carasik, 2011; Flynn et al., 2019; Organ et
al., 2016; Sheldon & Krieger, 2007). This trend demonstrates that the financial burden associated
with the student debt generated by law school tuition impacts intrinsic motivation and career
motivation (Carasik, 2011).
Carasik (2011) noted that, regardless of subject matter, law students are increasingly
experiencing a poor job market upon graduation, with some students not able to secure
employment at all. Carasik (2011) explained,
[Law students] have endured three years of grueling academic demands, forgone income,
and mounting debt, all undertaken with the belief that at the light at the end of the tunnel
was a respectable profession and a reasonable salary. Instead, they face temporary
employment, underemployment in areas such as low-wage contract work or even worse,
complete unemployment. (p. 746)
Notably, the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) published a report regarding the
graduating class of 2019, stating that job placement statistics for that specific graduating class
25

were higher than they had been in previous years (NALP, 2020). However, in the most recent
report on the class of 2020, NALP noted that the employment rate decreased, and they predict
the employment rates will continue to decrease due to the COVID-19 global pandemic (NALP,
2021).
Law Student Cognition and Identity
Bandura’s (1986) SCT and theory of reciprocal determinism (1978) demonstrate that a
person’s environment reciprocally impacts their cognition. The literature shows that, similarly,
stressors in the environment directly impact law students’ cognition and self-efficacy based on
their individual perspectives and experiences with each stressor (Austin, 2013; Flynn et al., 2017;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1986). If environmental stressors negatively impact a student’s self-
efficacy, they are more vulnerable to experiencing stress as their low self-efficacy creates doubt
in their capability to cope or persevere in a difficult situation (Bandura, 2012; Scheier & Carver,
1985).
Alternatively, students with perceived high self-efficacy believe that they have the
capability to persevere through a challenging endeavor, demonstrating greater persistence with
their efforts in correlation to their belief system growing stronger (Bandura, 1989). Law students,
when experiencing high self-efficacy, are more persistent in their efforts to master the subject
matter and persevere through the challenges and knowledge gaps during their transition to law
school and, subsequently, their first year in the program (Bandura, 1989; Wald & Pearce, 2011).
Additionally, Bandura (2012) posited that the belief in one’s capability to persevere ultimately
leads to higher achievements and performance accomplishments.
26

First-Year Experience and Self-Efficacy
The literature demonstrates notable challenges law students face when transitioning from
either their undergraduate institution or professional lifestyle. Carasik (2011) noted that the first
year in law school is jarring for most students as they might have thrived in their undergraduate
courses but are then disoriented and tend to struggle with the rigorous courses, confusing jargon,
and overwhelming workload. Additionally, first-year students are adjusting to significant
changes in the classroom environment, specifically the institutionalized Socratic teaching
method.
Carasik (2011) and Spencer (2012) stated that the use of the Socratic method creates an
intimidating environment and subsequently impacts law student self-efficacy, causing the
manifestation of feelings associated with isolation, humiliation, and low self-worth. Additionally,
students in their first year perceived that their ideas and opinions were overlooked and
sometimes ridiculed. Scholars posited that the utilization of the Socratic method heavily
influences those sentiments and is widely considered a damaging pedagogy (Bergin &
Pakenham, 2015; Carasik, 2011; Spencer, 2012; Wald & Pearce, 2011). Carasik (2011) argued
that this method is toxic as it also varies based on the expertise and temperament of the professor
using this method.
Regardless, Carasik (2011) noted that although there are some proponents of this method
and its sustainability, “allowing this one-dimensional methodology to dominate the entire first
year eclipses other learning opportunities, as it is well-suited to only a narrow range of learning
styles” (p. 749). Furthermore, the current pedagogy can be considered alienating as it sometimes
requires students to respond to questions by disassociating from their morals.
27

Subject Mastery and Preparation for the Profession
Scholars noted that, instead, the first year in law school should integrate practical skills
training with the traditional writing curriculum (Bergin & Pakenham, 2015; Carasik, 2011; Flynn
et al., 2017; Spencer, 2012; Wald & Pearce, 2011). As mentioned, competencies such as
professionalism, ethics, and practical training are vital to producing a well-rounded and
successful lawyer upon graduation (Bergin & Pakenham, 2015; Carasik, 2011; Flynn et al.,
2017; Spencer, 2012). Wald and Pearce (2011) argue that law school is “failing to effectively
prepare students for the practice of law, being too theoretical and too detached from the
profession, and offering a dehumanizing and alienating educational experience” (p. 403).
Spencer (2012) noted that official reports have called for an updated curriculum that includes
more practical training since 1971.
Student Identity: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Carasik (2011) argued that law schools are making a concerted effort to increase diversity
within the faculty and administration, further commenting that recruitment practices have
improved as well. Although significant progress has been made to diversify the student body,
Carasik (2011) posited that “merely acknowledging the importance of diversity within law
schools is insufficient to combat the existing disparities with the intention, determination, and
rigor necessary to overcome the barriers to fuller participation” (p. 771). Dallinger-Lain (2018)
commented on the hostility within the classroom for minority students, further stating that the
students feel unsafe and unwelcome.
The literature suggests that this atmosphere is generated by professors who are not
prepared or adequately trained to navigate uncomfortable conversations in the classroom
(Dallinger-Lain, 2018). For example, Dallinger-Lain (2018) noted an incident in a classroom
28

related to a recent racially motivated murder in the Black community and complexities that
followed due to the demographic make-up of that particular classroom. Dallinger-Lain (2018)
observed,
The death of Trayvon Martin evoked the complexities of race, but so did the fact that
only one student of color was present in the classroom. This type of interaction and
discussion had numerous levels of racialized interaction that were compounded by the
class demographics. … When these interactions are effectively navigated, they can
improve racial harmony, racial literacy, communication, and learning. When they are
ineffectively navigated, they can affect the mental health of all students, perpetuate
stereotypes, produce the stereotype threat effect, and lower productivity and academic
performance, and lessen empathy and compassion for others. (p. 784–785)
Although conversations on social justice present a multitude of differing and complicated
dynamics, it is vital to educate faculty and administration on navigating these discussions in the
classroom.
Furthermore, microaggressions and implicit bias present in the classroom can devolve
into daily acts of intolerance outside of the classroom. Dallinger-Lain (2018) suggested that these
acts of intolerance could go unnoticed by the institution’s faculty and staff depending on the staff
member’s racial identity development. The potential for racial acts of intolerance to go unnoticed
further supports the argument that law schools need to maintain a diverse and inclusive faculty
and administration (Carasik, 2011). Maintaining an environment that students perceive as unsafe
and unwelcoming can negatively impact their mental health and well-being (Carasik, 2011;
Spencer, 2012).
29

Carasik (2011) suggested the curriculum include multicultural competencies to combat
the microaggressions and implicit bias in the classroom. Additionally, Carasik (2011) noted that
legal education lacked adequate resources for law students of color and suggested that schools
should increase their mentorship programs and hire more faculty role models. The following
section reviews the literature on institutional wellness resources, the importance of utilizing these
resources, and the consequences law students face from relying on inadequate coping strategies
due to the challenges they encounter when attempting to navigate their institution’s wellness
resources.
Navigating Institutional Wellness Resources
The literature suggests that individuals with a heightened awareness of resources
available to them, and the benefits of these resources, are more likely to seek help when
experiencing psychological distress (Coyle, 2018; James, 2011; Organ et al., 2016; Rickwood et
al., 2007). For example, students who can conceptually process knowledge can recognize the
stressors causing their psychological distress and subsequently search for the appropriate coping
strategies (James, 2011; Krathwohl, 2002). Bandura (1977, 1995) would argue that students who
are aware of available institutional wellness resources and possess high self-efficacy in their
capabilities and the efficacy of the available resources are more likely to navigate and utilize
available institutional resources.
However, law students who fail to recognize the stressors impacting their cognition and
possess low self-efficacy are unlikely to follow through with seeking adequate coping strategies
(Bandura 1977, 1995). Furthermore, students with low self-efficacy lack the motivation to seek
institutional wellness resources, and as a result, utilize coping strategies that are inadequate and
unhealthy (Bandura, 1977, 1995; Bibelhausen et al., 2015). For example, Bibelhausen et al.
30

(2015) found that substances such as alcohol, caffeine, prescription drugs, and nonprescription
drugs are used as primary coping mechanisms for those experiencing stress when in challenging
or high-pressure situations. These coping mechanisms, when abused, can mask a student’s ability
to manage stressful situations and weaken their ability to manage stress in the future
(Bibelhausen et al., 2015).
Presentation of Theories
The following section delineates the primary theories that build the scaffolding for this
study. Bandura’s (1986) triadic model demonstrating reciprocal causation between a person,
their behavior, and their environment was employed as this study’s theoretical framework and
subsequently utilized as an outline when composing the conceptual framework. The IMT was
adapted from Sheldon and Krieger (2007) to build the conceptual framework and subsequently
applied to construct this study’s research questions and interview items. The conceptual
framework also served as a method for organizing the environmental stressors in this chapter and
the emergent themes explored in Chapter Four. Additionally, the IMT is framed by SDT (Deci &
Ryan, 2000) and explained in further detail in the following sections.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory (SCT) is demonstrated by a triadic model of reciprocal causation
showing a bidirectional relationship among three determinants: cognition, behavior, and the
environment (Bandura, 1986). Figure 1 illustrates the SCT model, demonstrating how influences
within the environment can affect cognition or motivation, for example. Bandura (2000) wrote,
“People are the products of their environments, but by selecting, creating, and transforming their
environmental circumstances they are producers of environments as well” (p. 75). Bandura
31

(1986) posited that the interconnectedness of these three determinants defined psychosocial
functioning and human motivation.

Figure 1
Social Cognitive Theory

Adapted from Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory by A.
Bandura, 1986, Prentice Hall. Copyright 1986 by Prentice Hall.

Person
Environment
Behavior
32

Bandura’s (1978) theory on reciprocal determinism demonstrates the bidirectional
relationship between the environmental influences on a person as well as the person’s influence
on their environment. The triadic model represented in Figure 1 portrays this bidirectional causal
relationship. However, Bandura (1986) posited that a person’s behavior also bidirectionally
influences their cognition in addition to their environment.
The following sections further explain the concept of behavior in its relation to self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Furthermore, Bandura (1988) noted that the SCT triadic model is used
as an explanation of psychosocial functioning and human behavior and can be adapted as a
framework for improving organizational functioning. For this study, the SCT model displayed in
Figure 1 was further adapted to guide the recommendations in Chapter Five to improve both
organizational and psychosocial functioning.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Self-efficacy is the product of one’s self-regulation while determining one’s capabilities
to complete a task or perform a specific behavior (Bandura, 1977, 1995). For example, an
individual with high self-efficacy likely possesses heightened cognition, functions at an
exceptional level, makes appropriate decisions, and thinks optimistically (Bandura, 2012;
Scheier & Carver, 1985). Contrary to this, individuals with low self-efficacy tend to make poor
decisions using their limited cognition and thinking pessimistically (Bandura, 2012; Scheier &
Carver, 1985).
In the context of the model representing SCT in Figure 1, a person’s self-efficacy directly
impacts their motivation and their subsequent effort to persevere through a challenging situation.
The greater one’s belief in their coping capabilities, the stronger their efforts to persevere and
persist (Bandura, 1988). Alternatively, a person possessing high levels of self-doubt in their
33

capability to master challenges exerts less effort to overcome difficult situations (Bandura,
1977). Bandura (1977) further noted that a person with extremely low self-efficacy might
abandon their efforts prematurely or overall.
Bandura (1989) explains that one’s self-appraisal of their self-efficacy influences
subsequent goal setting. For example, a person who possesses strong beliefs in their own
capabilities to exercise control over certain events sets higher goals than one with lower self-
efficacy and maintains a stronger commitment to meeting those goals. Therefore, high self-
efficacy influences more challenging goal setting, resulting in better performance
accomplishments (Bandura, 1988, 1989).
Self-Determination Theory
Self-determination theory (SDT) is the recognition of a correlation between various
motivational stages and the nature of the intrinsic and extrinsic influences that manifested them
(Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Additionally, SDT posits a relationship also
exists between an individual’s motivational stage and the degree to which that individual is likely
to mobilize and act (Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation as it pertains to the specific reasons or goals that manifest a behavior.
Integrated Model of Thriving
The IMT is a conceptual model based on Deci and Ryan’s (2000) theory on self-
determination (Sheldon & Krieger, 2007). However, the IMT specifically pertains to law
students and their ability to thrive within the law school environment. Furthermore, the IMT
demonstrates the relationship between the social context (i.e., law school), perceived autonomy
support, psychological need satisfaction, and how those relationships significantly influence law
student success and their ability to thrive over time (Sheldon & Krieger, 2007).
34

In the context of this study, the IMT was adapted to demonstrate a causal relationship
among law school as the student’s social context, motivation, student identity, and how these
three concepts could impact a student’s ability to thrive over time while in law school.
Furthermore, this study used the IMT to explore the effect of those concepts on subjective well-
being, career motivation, and performance or achievement, concluding that negative influences
within the social context could, in turn, negatively impact a student’s well-being, motivation, and
performance, and vice versa. This model is presented in Appendix A.
Conceptual Framework
The environmental stressors explored in this study are framed by SCT (Bandura, 1986),
integrating concepts from Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy and SDT (Deci & Ryan,
2000). Additionally, the conceptual framework for this study adapts concepts from the IMT
(Sheldon & Krieger, 2007) to determine the impact of environmental stressors present in the
culture of legal education on law student well-being. Figure 2 demonstrates a triadic model of
reciprocal causation between a student’s belief system, the impact on their motivation and
subsequent behaviors, and their learning environment.

35

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the literature that identifies and defines the predominant
environmental stressors impacting law students. This SCT lens, demonstrating the bidirectional
causal relationship between the person, their behavior, and their environment, allowed for further
exploration of these stressors. The conceptual framework organized this study by employing a
conceptual model integrating self-efficacy theory, SDT, and concepts from the IMT. The
conceptual framework, presented in Figure 2, built the scaffolding to frame this study and further
illustrate the environmental influences impacting law students.
Chapter Three delineates this study’s methodology and qualitative research design,
detailing the rationale behind the criteria used in the sampling process. Furthermore, any
limitations and delimitations present during the study are identified and described. Additionally,
Environment
social context
law school culture
Person
self-efficacy
competence
relatedness
Behavior
self-determination
theory
36

Chapter Three presents the researcher’s credibility and trustworthiness, noting concerns
pertaining to positionality or bias.

37

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter introduces this study’s research design and the methods implemented to
further explore the environmental stressors influencing law students’ cognition and behavior
(Bandura, 1986). As an action research study, the goal was to explore recommendations for
implementation by the intended stakeholders (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These
recommendations are comprised of suggestions that can placate the impact of environmental
stressors and evaluative methods to determine the efficacy of current institutional wellness
programs and initiatives.
This chapter identifies the sample population and criteria for data collection and the
rationale supporting the implementation of the interview protocol. The data analysis procedure is
also recognized, and subsequently justified, as an adequate means for establishing the
recommendations presented in Chapter Five. The conceptual framework, influenced by the IMT
(Sheldon & Krieger, 2007), built the scaffolding that generated both the study’s research
questions and its corresponding interview items. This methodology allowed for the most precise
and robust data to shape the recommendations detailed in Chapter Five.
This qualitative design incorporated post-positivist epistemological themes into the
study’s framework (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Post-positivism embodies theories based on cause
and effect, like that of environmental stressors and their implications on law students (Creswell,
2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, this chapter examines ethical inferences,
researcher credibility and trustworthiness, and outlines the limitations and delimitations of the
study’s methodology.
Three research questions guided this study.
1. What are the most impactful environmental stressors identified by law students?
38

2. What are the experiences and perceptions held by law students when navigating their law
schools’ available resources for student wellness?
3. What are the recommendations for stakeholders in legal education to improve the
efficacy of the wellness resources they provide to their students?
Sample and Population
This study’s methodology constructed the scaffolding to build capacity for the collection
and subsequent analysis of meaningful data (Creswell, 2014). The population chosen to
participate in this study was sampled purposefully and supplemented by snowball sampling
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Purposive sampling determines a participant’s qualifications using
previously defined criteria. That means participants were chosen to fulfill a specific purpose.
Snowball sampling occurs when one qualified participant recommends or recruits another
qualified participant. These methods were chosen to ensure that the data collection process
gathered a maximized collection of experiences provided by individuals who embody various
worldviews and represent a microcosm of the law student population (Creswell, 2014; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Sampling and data collection concluded after 10 interviews as the data became
redundant and saturated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
To target this predetermined population, requests for participation were posted via
various social media channels and dispersed to professional law student organization listserves
with the attempt to engage prospective participants either directly or through word of mouth. To
participate in this study, the interviewee needed to be a currently enrolled JD student or a recent
graduate. A recent graduate was defined as any JD student who graduated in May 2021. The
student’s individual enrollment status (i.e., second-year, third-year, or recent graduate) was not a
39

criterion as the goal was to interview as many participants as possible from varying enrollment
statuses to collect multiple perspectives on this topic.
Benjamin et al. (1986) determined that law students increasingly experience
psychological distress when progressing from their first year in school to their third. This study
cross-tabulated the literature reviewed with the data collected from the interviews to explore the
environmental stressors influencing this increase in psychological distress. Therefore, students
enrolled in their first, second, or third year of law school were included to better triangulate
claims in the literature that psychological distress is most prevalent in law programs and
increases from the students’ first to their third year in the program.
Additionally, the participants needed to be enrolled in an accredited, nonprofit law school
as full-time students unless they had recently graduated from a school that met these
qualifications. The definition of an accredited law school is one that has met the standards
required by the ABA the primary accrediting body of law schools (ABA, 2021, Standards
section). A nonprofit institution is defined as a charitable organization that receives tax benefits
from the government for serving the public (Bennett, 2005).
These criteria increased instrument credibility as they generated consistency (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This means that the interview data came from students who claimed to attend, or
had graduated from, a law school that adhered to the basic accreditation and nonprofit standards
and regulations. This also means that the internal school policies and procedures were mostly
homogenous. Additionally, the interviews encouraged voluntary participation, and incentives
were not provided to any participants (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Importantly, a student’s
mental health status did not affect their inclusion in this study.
40

Instrumentation
To triangulate the data, this study included 10 interviews from current law school
students or recent graduates. The purpose of these interviews was to gain insight into the
participants’ lived experiences within their learning environment. Additionally, these interviews
intended to gather perspectives of their respective institutions’ prioritization of student wellness
and to further explore self-identified environmental stressors.
The interviews asked about three main topics that were directly related to this study’s
research questions. These interview items included demographic, probing, and concluding
questions, allowing the interviewee to provide further information not asked during the interview
(Maxwell, 2013). Additionally, a semi-structured interview process created space for follow-up
questions, encouraging more detailed anecdotes from the interviewees while also maintaining a
consistent methodology to support valid and reliable data collection (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Like most qualitative studies, the orientation of the interview questions followed a
phenomenological philosophy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This philosophy framed the
questioning to seek meaning within the students’ lived experiences. The interview questions
began with simple questions, such as “Who or what motivated you to apply or enroll in law
school?” intending to create a comfortable interview environment for the participant.
Questions also pertained to the interviewees’ experiences, behavior, perspectives, and
values. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) would classify some of the questions as “feeling questions”
(p. 118). The feeling questions were meant to dive deeper into the participants’ lived experiences
to extract their true sentiments on this issue if they felt comfortable sharing them. Due to the
sensitive nature of the topic of this study, the interview questions included both hypothetical (i.e.,
41

What if you had a friend who …) and devil’s advocate (i.e., Some people would say …) to allow
the participant to provide a unique response free from the fear of judgement.
Prior to the interview, the participants were recorded, with their permission, verbally
confirming their receipt and thorough review of the informed consent form (See Appendix B).
Their verbal confirmation indicated their understanding of the terms of their participation in this
study and the study’s voluntary and confidential nature. The interviews were conducted online
via a video conference platform (Zoom.us) to both minimize inconvenience for the interviewees
and to comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidelines
published to ensure safety during the global pandemic and prevent further spreading of COVID-
19 (CDC, 2020).
As of this writing, travel restrictions due to the global outbreak of the novel coronavirus
disease (COVID-19) posed additional challenges for travel because of a government-mandated
quarantine and social distancing requirements (CDC, 2020). To respect the participants’ valuable
time, the interviews took approximately 45 minutes to an hour to complete. Except for one
interview, with the interviewees’ permission, all interviews were recorded with both audio and
video to ensure data collection accuracy. A copy of the interview protocol for this study is in
Appendix C.
The interviewees were reminded of their voluntary status as participants and that they
could stop or pause the questioning at any time. To avoid increasing, and potentially mitigate,
psychological distress during the interview, the researcher supplied all interviewees with a
document delineating available mental health resources. A copy of this document is in Appendix
D. This list of resources served as guidance for seeking and receiving psychological support,
42

should the participant feel triggered by the interview questions or if general mental health
support was needed.
Data Collection
The purpose of data collection and analysis in this study was to verify the assumed
influences and answer the research questions presented and defined above (Gibbs, 2018). To
gather sufficient data, this study conducted and transcribed 10 interviews, after which the data
reached saturation due to redundancies (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Once
saturation was met, further data collection was no longer required. As mentioned previously, this
study conducted interviews to establish triangulation by using multiple data sources to validate
the study’s findings (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In 2014, the ABA determined that approximately 119,000 students enroll in law school
each year. Due to the overwhelming size of that population and the time allotted to complete this
study, this study did not seek total population participation (Creswell, 2014). As previously
mentioned, social media posts and email communication with professional organizations hosting
a large population of law students and recent graduates were employed as the interview
recruitment methods for greater participation from the selected sample. A copy of the
recruitment letter used in this study is in Appendix E.
The limited time frame and resources available to conduct this study required a cross-
sectional methodological design rather than a longitudinal study (Creswell, 2014). While more
reliable data could be collected in a longitudinal study, the interviews were only conducted in
one round. All participants received a pseudonym to maintain anonymity and for confidentiality
purposes. Any law school or organization referenced in the interviews also remained anonymous.
43

The increase in and awareness of Zoom fatigue (e.g., fatigue associated with the students’
participation in an overwhelming number of virtual lectures and meetings) from the government-
mandated quarantine presented a limitation for this study when recruiting participants. This
required the recruitment communications to be brief and absent of any triggering information
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Additionally, all data gathered was collected in a password-
protected Google Drive that was purged at the conclusion of this study.
Data Analysis
The data analysis included an ongoing qualitative evaluation of the interview responses
for the purposes of making sense of the data, answering this study’s research questions, and
supporting the thematic coding structure implemented in the transcription process (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The first phase of data collection included interviews with as many current law
students or recent graduates as possible. These interviews allowed for the accumulation of
detailed student experiences to further explore the participant-identified environmental stressors
and their perceptions of their respective institutions’ prioritization of student wellness. The data
collection process reached saturation after 10 interviews, as any additional data would have been
considered redundant and would not have changed the study’s outcomes (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
The second phase consisted of the transcription and coding of the interviewees’ responses
using Rev.com, a professional paid transcription service. The program Atlas.ti subsequently
coded these transcriptions using concept-driven coding. This coding process applied pre-
determined thematic codes derived from this study’s conceptual framework (Gibbs, 2018). These
pre-determined codes, also known as a priori codes, were formulated using the cognitive,
behavioral, and environmental concepts of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and those
44

drawn from Sheldon and Krieger’s (2007) IMT to draw connections to the literature and answer
this study’s research questions. The a priori codes and those determined in vivo when evaluating
the interview transcriptions are listed in Appendix F (Maxwell, 2013).
Subsequently, the transcription analysis revealed emergent themes connecting the
students’ lived experiences and perceptions to those identified and defined by the literature.
When utilizing cross-tabulation, the research findings uncovered additional themes and
discovered comparisons within the interviewees’ responses, determining meaningful connections
between these findings and the study’s theoretical and conceptual frameworks (Gibbs, 2018).
The results of this data analysis guided the recommendations detailed in Chapter Five.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility is the degree to which a researcher’s conclusions mirror reality, while
trustworthiness is the level of trust and confidence placed in the researcher formulating those
conclusions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) argued that the two most significant
threats to credibility are researcher bias and reactivity. Researcher bias is the researcher’s
positionality and possible interference with the study and its conclusions.
Employment in the legal education industry with a passion for mental health advocacy
presented the possibility for subjectivity or positionality to influence the study or its results.
However, steps were taken to reduce the potential for bias or power dynamics associated with
positionality. For example, participants were actively recruited from schools unrelated to any
institution that would jeopardize the study’s subjectivity. In a qualitative study, strategies to
establish credibility include triangulation, member checking, constant comparisons, and critical
self-reflection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Member checking was utilized to establish credibility
45

as the participants in this study were contacted during the data analysis process to confirm the
accuracy of the data collected.
Working at a law school while conducting this study presented itself as both a weakness
in credibility and a strength. The opportunity for prolonged observation of law students and to
experience the environment within legal education strengthened this study’s credibility.
However, the potential for this study’s results to be affected by reactivity, which is the
researcher’s influence on the study site or its participants, weakened credibility (Maxwell, 2013).
Maxwell (2013) posited that the attempt to remove all researcher reactivity is impractical;
however, researchers should remain cognizant of their positionality, maintain awareness of their
influence on participants and their environment, and understand how to utilize it strategically. To
this end, the interview items did not include any questions that could be classified as leading
questions.
The interview’s consent form guaranteed participant anonymity and confidentiality,
further stating that the participants and their respective institutions would be provided with a
non-identifying pseudonym. The participants were informed that the data would be stored on a
password-protected Google Drive and only accessible to those involved in this study.
Additionally, these data, which included the Zoom.us audio files and their respective
transcriptions, were promptly deleted at the study’s conclusion.
Ethics
Ethical research involves a researcher’s awareness of their privilege and possible impact
on their participants while recognizing that the participants are also human beings, not simply
pieces of data (Gibbs, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Gibbs (2018) articulated, “The key to
ethics in research is to minimize the cost or harm and maximize the benefit” (p. 139). This study
46

adhered to the guidelines provided by the University of Southern California’s (USC) Institutional
Review Board (IRB) to formally confirm that the participants would be treated with respect and
have their privacy protected. Additionally, to legitimize the ability to lead this study,
qualifications were obtained with a Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative certification in
January 2020.
To minimize conflicts of interest, the participants were intentionally recruited from
institutions that presented limited to no conflict with the study’s credibility. This recruitment
method also attempted to eliminate and prevent any issues associated with power, administrative
privileges, or administrative positionality. The interview protocol included a consent form that
provided full disclosure to the participants and ensured the confidentiality of the participants’
responses. This consent form also included reassurance to the participants that they could remove
themselves from the study at any time. Additionally, the participants were appraised of their
temporal expectations, allowing for responses that did not feel rushed.
This consent form was provided to potential participants prior to the interview to allow
for discussion, further clarification, and follow-up questions, if needed. Subsequently, the
interviewees were asked for their consent to be recorded prior to the recording and again once
the recording commenced. One participant did not consent to be recorded; therefore, copious
notes were taken during that interview, and member checking for data accuracy occurred when
necessary.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are uncontrollable, unpreventable issues that have affected or will affect a
study (Creswell, 2014; Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). The known limitations were the time
frame provided to complete this study, inexperience in the legal education industry, the
47

anticipated responses to the interview questions and the lack of control over the nature of these
responses, as well as the inability to determine in advance the interviewees who would or would
not consent to have their interview session recorded. Ideally, a study such as this one should have
been longitudinal.
Observing, surveying, and interviewing law students periodically over time from
enrollment to their first year of employment would have provided for a more robust data
analysis, and thus became one of the study’s biggest limitations (Creswell, 2014). Due to the
study’s time frame, a cross-sectional study was necessary. This also provided the rationale behind
the population sample criterion allowing the participant to be a recent graduate or enrolled in
either their first, second or third year, instead of requiring a specific enrollment status.
This study focuses on law students and other members of the legal community. However,
without a JD or legal experience, an outsider’s perspective framed this problem of practice.
While an outsider’s perspective was also a strength in this study, the lack of industry experience
produced limitations such as misunderstood jargon, unfamiliar processes, and inadequate
awareness of the intricacies of legal education and the law profession. However, the research
questions for this study focused on law students’ perceptions and lived experiences, meaning
extensive experience in the field, or holding a law degree, could have resulted in a potential
weakness as it could have increased the influence of positionality and biases on the study.
Ideally, all law students and recent graduates should have been interviewed if it were
possible. Due to time constraints, travel restrictions, access to students, the minimal free time in
their schedules, and several other limitations, this study only included 10 interviews. These
limitations could also be seen as a delimitation due to the choice to only conduct 10 interviews
instead of 119,000, (i.e., the annual average number of law students enrolled in law school
48

according to the ABA in 2014), and therefore considered self-imposed limitation (Theofanidis &
Fountouki, 2018). This approximation by the ABA in their 2014 report does not include recent
graduates.
Delimitations are limitations the researchers place on themselves to limit the scope of
their projects (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). Theofanidis and Fountouki (2018) argued that,
in essence, delimitations are somewhat under researchers’ control because they are not
necessarily explanations of why the researcher made a choice but why they did not make a
different choice. A delimitation was set when this study exclusively recruited students and recent
graduates from institutions that did not pose a conflict with the study’s credibility to minimize
bias.
Furthermore, the participants of the study were predominantly from similar age groups,
ethnicities, and enrollment statuses due to the snowball sampling recruitment method. This
study’s temporal limitations restricted the ability to continue the recruitment process for the
purpose of achieving perfect participation diversity. As a result, the lack of diversity in the
participant group limited the variety of perspectives and experiences collected from the sample
population. Finally, the interview items are original and were not adopted or adapted from
previously proven reliable interviews validated by other scholars and researchers. This can call
the items’ credibility into question when analyzing the data and forming conclusions.
Conclusion
The qualitative research design in this study provided an opportunity for further
exploration into the experiences and perceptions of law students’ and recent graduates’ as it
pertains to the stressors within their learning environment impacting their wellness and well-
being. Chapter Four provides the findings and analysis of the data collected from the interviews.
49

Subsequently, Chapter Five utilizes these findings to provide recommendations for
implementation and implications for future research.
50

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to define and explore the predominant environmental
stressors impacting law school students. Chapter Four presents the findings from 10 interviews
with current or recently graduated law students conducted to further identify and define
environmental stressors from the students’ perspectives and their shared experiences. These
interviews supported the environmental stressors identified in the literature and further defined in
Chapter Two. Additionally, Chapter Four utilizes this study’s conceptual framework to organize
and analyze the data gathered from the participants’ interviews. Using this framework, multiple
themes emerged as they relate to the concepts of self-efficacy, self-determination theory, and the
social context.
This chapter is purposefully outlined using the triadic model of reciprocal causation,
demonstrating the bidirectional influence of environmental stressors on law students and their
behavior. The conceptual framework, in addition to this study’s theoretical framework, shaped
the research questions. This chapter exclusively focuses on the first two research questions; the
third question is answered in Chapter Five. Table 1 demonstrates the theoretical alignment for
these research questions.

51

Table 1
Theoretical Framework Alignment
Research question Theoretical framework Data instrument item
What are the most impactful
environmental stressors
identified by law students?
Self-determination theory
(Deci & Ryan, 2000,
2008); social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1986)
12–17, 19, 20
What are the experiences and
perceptions held by law
students when navigating
their law schools’ available
resources for student
wellness?
Social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1986); self-
efficacy theory (Bandura,
1977)
12, 13, 18, 21

What are the recommendations
for stakeholders in legal
education to improve the
efficacy of the wellness
resources they provide to
their students?

Social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1986); self-
efficacy theory (Bandura,
1977); self-determination
theory (Ryan & Deci,
2000)

19, 21

Demographic questions

1–11

Concluding question

22

Descriptions of the Participants
This study conducted 10 interviews with both current law students and recent graduates.
The interview questions, designed using this study’s conceptual framework, inquired into the
daily stressors of legal education from the students’ perspective and their experiences navigating
their respective institution’s wellness resources. These questions also provided the opportunity to
gain a deeper understanding of the student’s perspective of legal education’s relationship to
52

student wellness, specifically pertaining to their respective institution’s prioritization of
providing wellness resources that are available, accessible, and beneficial.
The 10 interviewees were either recent graduates (i.e., May 2021) or current law
students. This study included current students due to their ability to easily recall recent
experiences and fresh perspectives regarding their initial transition into law school and their first
impressions of legal education. Recent graduates were included as they could recollect and
reflect on experiences from all 3 years in school, comparing their first impressions when
transitioning into law school with their perspectives post-graduation and transitioning into
employment. Recent graduates were included in this study as they had transitioned into law
school prior to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), meaning they were able to
experience law school in the traditional sense, unlike the participants who are currently enrolled
and have only experienced law school during a global pandemic. Table 2 demonstrates a
breakdown of each participant via pseudonym to protect their privacy and their self-identified
ethnicity, gender, and age.

53

Table 2
Interview Participants’ Self-Identified Ethnicity, Gender, and Age
Participant Ethnicity Gender Age
Ashley Asian Female/Cis gender 23
Brianna
Half Japanese, the other half is
Caucasian with a mixture of
German, Norwegian, and English
Female 30
Cheryl Caucasian, White Female 26
Daniela Mixed Female 32
Esther Undisclosed* Female Undisclosed*
Leah White, Caucasian Woman 30
Robert Asian American Male 33
Sean White and Hispanic Male 28
Susan Mixed race Woman 33
Thomas White Male 30

Note. Undisclosed signifies this participant did not wish to share this information with the
researcher.

Table 3 shows the enrollment status provided by each participant. This study was
conducted between academic sessions; therefore, if a participant used the term “rising,” it
signified they were in between academic school years. For example, Sean indicated that he was a
Rising 2L, meaning he completed his first year of law school and, come August, would be
considered a second-year (i.e., 2L) law student. Any participant that indicated their status as a
recent graduate signified that this participant graduated from law school in May 2021, as this
graduation term was only a few months prior to the commencement of this study’s data
collection phase. It is essential to include the enrollment status, as it played a significant part in
the emergent themes from their responses.

54

Table 3
Interview Participants’ Self-Identified Enrollment Status
Participant Enrollment status
Ashley Rising 3L
Brianna Rising 3L
Cheryl Recent graduate*
Daniela Recent graduate*
Esther Rising 3L
Leah Recent graduate*
Robert Recent graduate*
Sean Rising 2L
Susan Recent graduate*
Thomas Rising 2L

Note. Recent graduate signifies the participant graduated from law school in May 2021.

Ashley
Ashley is a 23-year-old student about to begin her third year and upon graduation, she
plans to sit for the bar exam in either New York or Washington, DC. Ashley did not have a law
background when she applied to law school. In fact, her undergraduate degree was in
engineering. However, she responded that law was a better fit. She has not yet solidified the field
in which she intends to practice, but she is interested in studying intellectual property and doing
government-facing work.
Brianna
Brianna is 30 years old and about to start her third year. She plans to sit for the bar exam
in Massachusetts, and like Ashley, she did not start law school with previous experience in legal
education. Her humanities background prompted an interest in pursuing a position in academia.
Simultaneously, when Brianna considered applying to law school, she noted that the job
market was not in her favor. With a tense political climate, she reported that she felt a call to
55

action to be a stronger advocate. When Brianna first enrolled, she was interested in practicing
law in the public interest, specifically immigration law. However, in her third year, she switched
her focus to corporate law.
Cheryl
Cheryl is a recent graduate and took the Georgia bar exam only a week prior to
participating in this study. Cheryl does not have a law background academically, but she always
knew she would become an attorney. She knew this since pre-kindergarten and enjoyed retelling
the story of her mother correcting another parent who claimed Cheryl would be a singer.
Her mother explained to this parent that Cheryl, in fact, would be a lawyer. To clarify,
Cheryl did not feel pressured to become a lawyer. It was something she knew she was meant to
do, and others saw that in her as well.
Daniela
As a 32-year-old recent graduate, Daniela took the bar exam in New York only a few
weeks prior to participating in this study. When she went to law school, she already had a
professional background. However, in her job, she said that she needed an advanced degree and
debated between a business degree and a law degree.
Daniela noted that she would learn more with a law degree and chose that option. For
most of law school, Daniela’s interests were in the intersection between sports law and
prosecution. Although she specialized in sports, she never strayed from her original interest in
prosecution.
Esther
Esther, an already barred lawyer, is very knowledgeable on the economics of law school
and noted the significance of acquired student debt compared to the median salary of jobs
56

available upon graduation. As a current student with multiple degrees, Esther has a unique
perspective on legal education in comparison with other graduate-level programs. Esther is
passionate about and concerned with the marginalization of underrepresented communities
present in the bar exam process, as well as the gatekeeping and exclusivity experienced by these
same populations due to the jargon used in the curriculum and the classroom.
Leah
Leah, a recent graduate, and 31 years old, took the bar exam only a few days prior to her
participation in this study. She was relieved the exam was over, but she took time away from her
vacation on the beach to have her interview as she said that the topic is important to her. Her
background is in economic policy in Washington, DC, and she noted that an advanced degree is
necessary to continue in her chosen field.
Although her husband is a lawyer, that was not her predominant influence to apply to law
school. She shared that it was helpful to have his perspective when she began the program, but
she was not pressured or heavily influenced by it. She recalled that everyone else around her had
an advanced degree, and following the presidential election during that time, she perceived a
strong need to buckle down and go to law school.
Leah shared various anecdotes about her struggle with a hidden disability and although
she recognized law school is challenging for most students, she noted that her hidden disability
made it especially challenging for her. Leah commented that as someone who already had
professional experience going into law school, she was referred to as an OWL (i.e., Old Wise
Lady). Leah clarified that almost anyone over 27 received this label, but it was not meant to be
offensive.

57

Robert
Robert is a recent graduate and took the bar exam only a few days prior to his
participation in this study. Robert has a unique academic history as he was concurrently working
towards a master’s in public policy while in law school studying to obtain a JD. This provided
the study with a rare perspective as Robert could compare his experiences in both graduate
programs in real-time.
Prior to law school, Robert was a teacher. He was influenced to apply to law school by a
law professor in his public policy program. Most importantly, after he witnessed the significant
challenges his students and colleagues faced daily, he realized that a career in advocacy through
policy and law is where he is meant to be.
Sean
Sean knew early on that he wanted to go to law school. However, his mentors asked him
several appropriate questions about his motivations to enroll in a JD program, and because he did
not have adequate responses, the timing was not right. Meanwhile, his Hispanic background
inspired him to go into politics, explaining that although the American dream is not his story, he
said that it is ingrained in his identity. To honor his heritage and explore what he might want to
do, he joined the Clinton campaign in 2015 right after graduating from college.
His goals are motivated by the opportunity to preserve and expand opportunities for as
many people as possible. He went from campaign to campaign but did not find that sustainable
and ultimately decided to apply to and enroll in law school. Sean is starting his second year in
law school and is interested in going back into public service in some capacity after graduation
instead of practicing law.

58

Susan
Susan is 33 and a recent law school graduate. She recalled that prior to applying, every
attorney told her not to go to law school; however, this is something she needed to do. When she
began law school, she took courses in intellectual property as she was not yet familiar with her
school’s relationship to her predominant subject of interest, civil rights law. Susan chose her law
school because it encouraged a balance between theoretical education and practical training to
meet her career expectations. Additionally, it provides her with the opportunity to practice as a
lawyer initially upon graduation, and then transition into her true passion of civil rights law.
Thomas
Thomas’s grandfather, a federal judge, constantly encouraged him to attend law school
when he was younger. Heading into his second year of law school, Thomas reflected that those
conversations with his grandfather were initially not enough to persuade him to apply. However,
when Thomas became a teacher, the barriers his students faced, like poverty, welfare, and
housing, provided the push and additional encouragement he needed to apply to law school.
Thomas further explained that a law degree is necessary as he is unable to influence
adequate change for students like his without it. Thomas shared that going to law school is the
most effective way to help children face the barriers he observed. He shared that he continues to
think of his grandfather, the judge, and the constant encouragement to apply to law school.
Ultimately, the most significant factor in his decision to apply to law school was the access to
knowledge and resources that he can utilize to help children obtain their fundamental needs.
Research Findings
Several themes emerged from the research findings. These emergent themes, organized
using this study’s conceptual framework, further explored and defined the themes identified from
59

the literature and reviewed in Chapter Two. Additionally, other notable themes emerged from the
research findings not previously identified in this study and are further discussed in this chapter.
Research Question 1 Findings: Environmental Stressors
Findings from the first research question exhibited themes related to the environmental
stressors experienced and perceived by the participants. The major themes pertained to the law
school culture and legal profession, academic and career motivation, and law student cognition
and identity. These themes are outlined in a format that demonstrates the reciprocal and causal
relationship between the environment, behavior, and the person.
Law School Culture
This section explores the identified stressors within the culture of both legal education
and the profession that impact law students daily. Three themes emerged in relation to the
participants’ social context. These themes are the competitive atmosphere, a culture normalizing
anxiety and psychological distress, and a distorted reality manifested by deep-rooted traditions.
Competitive Atmosphere. When asked about their respective learning environments,
each participant reported that the competitive nature within the campus culture frequently
impacted their well-being. Furthermore, this culture impacted their study habits and ability to
form relationships. Susan, for example, shared her studying experiences and habits. She
explained,
You’re encouraged basically to compare yourself to other people. If someone’s spending
more time, then you feel like you should be spending more time. I think the hardest part
is feeling like you need to do that, but I guess even harder than that is letting go of that.
60

Susan commented that she knew her perception sounded unreasonable but that it was still safer
for her to go along with this practice than to do something different and risk her place on the
grading curve.
Cheryl’s experience was very similar. Her perception of the competitive environment
prevented her from working together with her peers to achieve their best, as they were all
competing against each other for the same grade. Thomas agreed and shared, “I think it’s just
this sense that I get where people don’t want to help each other because of the competition.”
Thomas also shared a conversation with his therapist regarding his struggle to celebrate
accolades and positive moments due to his fear of his peers’ reactions. Thomas reported
similarly negative experiences associated with the competitive culture:
I heard classmates who would go around and ask everyone their LSAT scores, or at the
end of a conversation where somebody else came in and was like, “I can’t believe he got
a diversity associateship for this summer. He was only half Puerto Rican.” And just these
awful things that you hear because it’s such this competitive thing of like, “I got to get
ahead of somebody else.”
Thomas further explained that he also experienced the competitive nature of the notetaking
process. He shared an experience where his peers did not want to share their outlines out of fear
that their ideas would be stolen.
Susan’s experience demonstrated the competitive culture influenced something as small
as the interactions in the school’s hallways:
There was a weird competition thing where you knew who was maybe going to be going
to your next class, so you’re walking behind them. Then everyone’s kind of walking fast,
so it’s like, okay, do I actually care that much about where I sit, or am I just doing this
61

because everyone else is doing it? You just get on this hamster wheel where everyone
else is on the hamster wheel that kind of started Day 1.
Susan’s experiences left her with the perception that the competitive environment was so
ingrained in the culture of law school that her classmates were not truthful regarding their
accomplishments, noting that they were not always doing what they said they were doing.
Both Cheryl and Daniela reported on experiences pertaining to the amount of pressure
that resulted from this competitive environment. Cheryl did not feel pressured by her classmates
but by the institution and the profession overall. Contrasting Susan’s experience, Cheryl
perceived her relationship with her classmates to be more trusting and supportive.
However, the pressure to be a top student was a significant stressor that Cheryl
experienced. She noted,
Doesn’t matter where you go, there’s always going to be your ranking. There’s always
going to be a top 10%. There’s always going to be the firms that are looking for the top
10%. So, I think the pressure is the biggest thing that causes people stress.
Daniela shared Cheryl’s perception of the high-pressure environment, commenting that this
pressure manifested for different people in different ways.
Sean shared his perception of the high-pressure environment, stating that students came
into law school already assuming there was a competitive culture, which resulted in a self-
fulfilling prophecy. He explained,
You end up with the pressure cooker environment because it’s a lot of kids that are
approaching it that way, and then they leave law school and bring that same culture into
the firm that they end up working at.
62

Sean explained that his perception of the mental health crisis in the legal profession was partly
due to this self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuated a high-pressure and competitive environment.
When Daniela attended classes, she perceived that most of her classmates were high
performers, brilliant, and hard-working. She noted that this was a significant stressor for her, as
the expectation was to be at the top of the class when starting the program. She further
commented that this was a challenge because it was an expectation held by all incoming
students.
For example, Sean shared a similar experience pertaining to this expectation, but from a
professional environment instead of an academic one. He commented, “I was doing objectively
high-level work and coming back to an environment where I’m doing fine but I’m not
necessarily the standout.” Sean noted that he was thriving in his professional environment but
then enrolled in law school with the same expectations Daniela described.
Susan’s experience with the competitive culture in the classroom was her perception that
her classmates preferred to compete against each other instead of competing with themselves:
I think that there’s just individual people who are so obsessed with being the best and are
coming to law school with the scarcity mindset, and like only one of us can do well.
Everyone wants to be the best. It’s just relative in terms of how much you feel that you
need to tear someone down to get there.
Furthermore, Susan observed that her peers who did choose to compete against themselves rather
than competing with other classmates experienced more success in the program. In contrast, her
observations also determined that those who chose to perpetuate the competitive culture seemed
significantly overwhelmed.
63

Brianna shared Cheryl’s perception that the competitive culture was not conducive to
building and sustaining trusting relationships. She commented, “I think [law students] have to
have the image of being quote-unquote put together, when really, inside, you have no idea what’s
going on and you can’t talk about it with anybody because that’s your competition.” Brianna
perceived that this culture affected the law students’ ability to effectively communicate, and, as a
result, their mental health.
Cheryl further elaborated on her experience with competition in the classroom, noting
that she did not have issues with building relationships. However, she perceived that her
classmates lacked authenticity due to the fear instilled by the competitive environment. Cheryl
explained,
When you have all these people who feel as if they’re suffering from [psychological
distress] and they feel as if they need to pretend to be something that they’re not and it’s
almost . . . I don’t know. I felt as if I couldn’t necessarily trust everybody that I was
speaking to just because everybody’s trying to live up to the expectation. I wouldn’t tell
anybody about jobs, and I wouldn’t ask my friends about jobs just because you want to
be sensitive. It’s a very weird situation because you are rooting for people, but you also
want to celebrate your wins, but you can’t celebrate your wins with your friends. It’s
never about your success.
Cheryl recalled her experiences when she supported and celebrated her classmates’ accolades.
However, she also noted that the competitive nature of the classroom environment prevented her
from sharing her own successes with those she supported.
64

Although Thomas had positive experiences with forming and building relationships with
his peers overall, he shared an experience with his study group that demonstrated the program’s
competitive nature and how it created an isolating environment. Thomas explained,
I think that it’s so hard to form those relationships in law school because everything is so
cutthroat and because you’re kind of pushed to be doing it on your own, and you’re
fighting other people. I think it’s hard to find those genuine people who are going to be
supportive of you. I think that people asking, “Did you get into moot court? Did you get
this? Are you in law review? What are you doing?” Even to the sense of like people not
wanting to share their ideas for their law review notes because they don’t want somebody
else to steal it.
Susan and Daniela also perceived that the competitive culture manifested an isolating
environment. Prior to law school, Daniela was working in a community-oriented profession and
was constantly working with people. She noted that her transition to law school was a dramatic
shift from that type of environment to one that was isolating.
Psychological Distress. Throughout the interviews, the participants commented on their
relationship with mental health and well-being. Near the end of the interview, the participants
were then asked to share any comments or sentiments associated with the statement that law
school has the highest rates of psychological distress than any other graduate program. This
section explores the role that psychological distress plays when discussing the culture of legal
education.
Brianna shared her perception of law school culture as an anti-self-advocacy
environment. She explained,
At the end of the day, you’re helping clients, whether that’s a corporation or individuals.
65

The culture itself doesn’t help you help yourself. So, it doesn’t promote self-advocacy. I
just never felt that I really could care for myself without feeling guilty or without
sacrificing something.
Brianna noted the irony in this perception as the profession itself was predicated on helping
people.
As mentioned previously, Susan perceived that the coping culture was one that promoted
the internalization of emotions when a student struggled with environmental stressors, such as
the workload. Her experiences, and those of her peers, included the students working themselves
to exhaustion and then eventually finding relief by crying themselves to sleep. Ashley shared this
perception as she experienced her peers being unable to pay attention in class as the extreme
levels of anxiety her peers possessed did not allow for healthy sleeping habits.
Cheryl shared her personal experience with psychological distress, stating that her tenure
in law school was the most stressful 3 years of her life. She reflected, “I think if people aren’t
taking care of themselves, and I know people who have not, that it can crack you.” Furthermore,
Daniela commented that the psychological distress resulting from a stressful anti-advocacy
learning environment self-perpetuates due to the high stakes in law school and the legal
profession overall.
Daniela explained her perception of legal education’s target student population. She
commented that legal education attracts Type-A, competitive students. Furthermore, she
perceived that the institution of legal education shapes and molds incoming students into
perfectionists, if they are not already inherently perfectionists.
Additionally, Daniela perceived that this is done using fear tactics. Daniela further
elaborated, “I think it’s like very fear-driven. It’s not driven by like aspirations or effort or trust.”
66

Brianna shared Daniela’s perception that the culture of legal education is designed to create and
reward perfectionists, noting that this line of thinking is very damaging on an emotional level.
Cheryl noted that psychological distress is not just a consequence of law school’s
competitive nature and workload but that it was normalized and now a permanent fixture within
the culture, regardless of the wellness resources available. She commented, “You can go to the
biggest kumbaya law school, and everyone could love everybody, and I still think that it would
still be there, and there’s no way of changing it.” Each participant in this study echoed Cheryl’s
perception.
During the interviews, the participants were read a statement about the high rates of
psychological distress in law schools, further stating that the rates are also the highest out of any
other professional graduate program. The purpose of this question was to gauge the participants’
perception of the culture of psychological distress in law school by noting their reaction to that
statement. Most of the participants met this question with overall complacency, demonstrating a
lack of surprise or shock at hearing this information.
Without prompting, most participants elaborated on why they were unsurprised, reporting
how psychological distress and anxiety became normalized within the law school environment.
Furthermore, the participants shared that this environment was not only an expectation that they
held when applying to and enrolling in law school, but it was a culture that was encouraged due
to the high stakes of the legal profession. Brianna considered the environment as a “distorted
perception of reality.” The remainder of this section explores the participants’ direct responses to
the previously mentioned interview question.
Robert offered a unique perspective as a participant who attended two different degree
programs at the same time. His enrollment in two graduate-level programs allowed Robert to
67

compare his experiences in his JD program to his master’s in public policy. For example, Robert
shared his experience with imposter syndrome, which he did not experience to the same level of
intensity as he did in his public policy program.
Robert further elaborated that his experiences in law school supported his perception that
the high rates of psychological distress were due, in part, to the competitive environment and the
knowledge gap, compounded with low-paying jobs in the public interest space and the
competitive job market overall. Robert commented, “That makes it really draining to do what a
lot of us came into law school to do.” Robert also noted that the culture of psychological distress
was further perpetuated by students who struggled in their classes, the challenges associated with
applying to jobs and positions with federal judges, and the knowledge that the grades received
from a complicated and subjective grading curve had a significant impact on the law school
experience and future career opportunities.
Thomas commented that he experienced constant pressure while in law school, and
therefore understood why the rates were so high. Cheryl, Leah, and Brianna also noted that the
pressure was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, stressor that they experienced while in school.
Cheryl and Leah experienced this pressure through the grading structure. In contrast, Brianna
experienced it through the responsibilities and expectations in her second year and the limited
time available to complete these tasks.
After Susan expressed her initial lack of surprise when hearing of the high rates, she
clarified her reaction by describing her experience during orientation. She explained that
although the school devoted a day of her orientation to discussing stress and substance abuse at
length, the students still perceived that the ability to maintain one’s mental health was humorous.
Susan shared,
68

I think that there’s kind of gallows humor that’s happening in law school within law
students, and you just work yourself to death, and you can cry yourself to sleep, and then
you’ll feel relief eventually. I feel like that’s kind of the vibe. Every [social media] page
is just people working forever or looking like they’ve just come off of a bender. That’s
everything that we joke about, is how tired we are, how none of it matters.
Importantly, Susan reported that she and her peers joked about the stressful environment.
However, they still sought and utilized counseling from a therapist, whether that was a resource
from their own institution or otherwise.
When asked his thoughts on the high rates of psychological distress, Sean responded that
this was a familiar topic in his family. Sean said,
I really do believe that. The famous line in the family is if I keep doing this, I’ll end up
divorced or dead. So, I grew up with the “No Lawyers” magnet on the fridge, and it was
one of those kinds of households.
The culture of psychological distress reverberated since his childhood experiences and therefore,
he was not surprised when he heard the statement on psychological distress.
Ashley was also unsurprised by this statement. She commented, “I didn’t know that, but
it doesn’t surprise me. And I guess because it doesn’t surprise me, I don’t know that I feel
strongly about it.” Although Ashley did perceive the high rates of psychological distress to be a
problem, she also noted that it became so normalized within her learning environment that she
did not have a strong reaction to the statistic.
Daniela reported that she had prior knowledge of the high rates of psychological distress
and subsequently connected this statistic directly to the legal profession. She elaborated,
69

That’s not news to me. But I think that at this point, after having completed law school,
one of my predominant reactions to that is frustration. And what I’ve seen has been that
this is oversimplified, but like, the legal profession tends to consist of people who take
everything really seriously.
Daniela perceived law student psychological distress as a problem. However, she noted that
because this distress self-perpetuates due to the high stakes involved in the legal profession, her
reaction to the interview question was more conflicted than those of the other participants.
She further commented that the normalized environment presents itself as the chicken
and the egg conundrum, noting that she could not immediately place which stressor initially
caused the culture of psychological distress. However, her comment that students enrolled in
school anticipating a stressful environment demonstrates the connection between the normalized
culture of psychological distress and the antiquated traditions interwoven throughout the
program.
Antiquated Traditions. As discussed in Chapter Two, several of the identified
environmental stressors are generated by the traditions of legal education and the structure of a
program that has not significantly or meaningfully changed since its formation over 100 years
ago. All participants noted their challenges with the workload and knowledge gap, among other
stressors, that all tie back to specific traditions of legal education passed down through several
generations. Two participants specifically compared law school to a separate and disconnected
reality from the rest of the world outside of the program. This section touches on only a few of
the generational stressors experienced and perceived by the participants.
The participants noted stressors ranging from a culture of fear and perfectionism to the
bar exam and legal education’s influence on their childhood and home life. As mentioned in
70

Chapter Two, the literature expands on the rite of passage mentality held by various members of
the legal community. While the literature identified the professors as a common culprit of this
mentality, Esther was the only participant who experienced this specific mentality with her
professors. She shared that, from her experience, her professors supported the rite of passage
mentality and were looking to get payback for the treatment they received when they were in law
school.
Esther further explained that the jargon used in the classroom was another way that she
experienced this mentality with her professors and that this experience was typical for first-year
students everywhere, but especially in her school. Esther reported,
There’s a famous example about the teacup and the tablecloth. The professor asks, “If
you rip the tablecloth off of the table without breaking anything, what are the teacups
sitting on now?” Most students would say table, but the answer is a saucer. Not many
people even know what a saucer is.
Esther perceived exercises like this one to be an elitist use of language that, therefore, also acts
as a gatekeeper.
Cheryl’s experience with the rite of passage mentality occurred when communicating
with attorneys and other members of the legal profession. She said, “The 65-year-old attorneys
who you’re speaking to on the weekend, they’re not willing to change it. They’re happy to tell us
how hard of a time they had it, and it’s like that for us as well.” Cheryl commented that even
with encouragement from her professors, the overwhelming aspects of law school were not going
to change until the outside world changes.
71

Thomas had a similar experience with his stepfather when they were discussing
traditional law school accolades such as participating in law review, a highly coveted
extracurricular activity. He shared,
My stepdad kept saying, “It’s a feather in your cap,” and I was like, “I think the more
important thing is if I don’t do it, it’s a feather that’s missing from my cap.” Or at this
point, I just had to do it, or in every interview, they’re going to be like, “Why didn’t you
do law review?” and I would need a better answer than, “I didn’t want to do it.” But there
are people who aren’t going to be receptive to that, and I think that’s also very clear and
that, “this is law school, this is how it’s always been done, so this is how we’re going to
keep doing it.”
Thomas shared that he did not necessarily want to join law review, but after the conversation
with his stepfather he perceived that simply having a lack of interest in a prestigious
extracurricular activity was not a sufficient reason to remove himself as a candidate from the
activity, even if it meant negatively impacting his future career opportunities.
Brianna and Daniela perceived that this environmental stressor stemmed from the
pervasive mentality found in the law school culture, demonstrating legal education’s desire to
shape its students into a specific mold using fear and encouraging a culture of perfectionism.
Daniela, as mentioned, perceived the culture to be fear-driven and not necessarily driven by
ambitions or trust. She further explained,
It’s driven by making people afraid of what’s going to happen if they do what are
objectively kind of normal things to do. And that’s bothersome to me because it’s like a
pretty oppressive way to organize a group of people based on fear like that.
72

Brianna perceived that law school teaches students how to become perfectionists if the students
did not already enroll as such.
Susan perceived this mold to be one the students need to adjust to fit into, as law school’s
antiquated structure will not adjust to fit the needs of the students. She noted, “The law school’s
not changing so we all have to, you know?” Cheryl, however, perceived the law school’s
traditional structure to encourage hazing. She said, “Hazing, hazing. I hate to use the word,
but…” Cheryl further explained her comment and the practices of hazing in the legal profession
as well.
As mentioned, Esther perceived that legal education upheld traditions that perpetuates
discrimination through gatekeeping. For example, she perceived the multiple-choice questions on
the bar exam to be particularly biased against historically marginalized communities.
Additionally, she noted that it is a requirement for men to wear suits to the Virginia bar exam,
and all exam takers are required to take the test in person, stating that this “demonstrates the
dedication to the old ways.” Esther further commented that requirements such as these were
implemented over 100 years ago to put others at a disadvantage.
Public Mental Health Stigma and the CFA. The literature review detailed several
external environmental stressors that influence law student wellness and their motivation to act
on help-seeking behavior. One of the most significant mentioned in the literature was mental
health stigma. Additionally, the CFA was identified as having a notable influence on this stigma.
As discussed in Chapter Two, the literature determined that the help-seeking culture in
law schools is inadequate and ultimately accounts for the significantly high rates of student
psychological distress. Chapter Two also reviewed the research available on the mental health
stigma and other notable influences affecting law student help-seeking behavior when
73

experiencing distress. While the participants shared their awareness of the mental health stigma,
they did not identify this as a significant stressor or as a notable influence on their motivation to
navigate and utilize institutional wellness resources when experiencing stress or psychological
distress.
Although the public stigma and CFA stressors were heavily discussed in the literature,
they did not emerge as significant themes during the interviews. However, one participant did
note its significance on her law school experience as both a stressor and an influence on her
decision not to seek help when she experienced significant stress or distress. Cheryl perceived
that there was a public mental health stigma and negative attitudes towards utilizing wellness
resources when experiencing distress. She also noted that this stigma was present within the
school as much as it was outside of it. Additionally, Cheryl commented that her perception of the
stigma and the negative attitude towards help-seeking was significant enough to discourage her
on several occasions from navigating and utilizing institutional wellness resources when she was
concerned with her mental health.
Cheryl further commented on her concern that her peers and other administrators would
perceive her as weak or unable to succeed in a rigorous academic environment if they discovered
that she sought help:
There is a perception. I don’t know if it’s just me personally because I’ve always kind of
felt this way, but the weakness part of it, are you going to take advantage of this? Do you
feel like you need to talk to someone? Does that make you weak in the eyes of other
people in the competitive school? Is that something you should be worried about? Can
you talk to your friends about the fact that you use the resources?
74

Cheryl further explained that she feared her friends would have judged her simply for speaking
with a therapist.
Cheryl shared similar experiences from her peers, noting their struggle to seek help due
to the stigma, as well. She noted, “I think that’s truly a thing that a lot of people struggle with,
and it’s like, what are people going to think if I do that? Do they think that I can’t handle it as
much as they can?” The participants openly shared their experiences with help-seeking,
acknowledging the help-seeking challenges associated with the mental health stigma. However,
the participants noted that they hoped to reduce the stigma and normalize help-seeking using
these open discussions and sharing their respective help-seeking experiences.
As explained in Chapter Two, the CFA played a significant role in manifesting and
perpetuating the public mental health stigma and impacting help-seeking behaviors in law
school. Chapter Two outlines pivotal moments identified in the literature that explain how the
CFA supported the creation of an institutionalized, systemic problem of a public stigma against
mental health and help-seeking. Cheryl shared her perspective and noted the weight of the
stigma’s influence that she experienced firsthand when applying to sit for the bar exam.
When filling out the CFA, in certain states, the applicant must indicate mental health-
related experiences, such as seeing a therapist. Cheryl expressed concern with this section of the
assessment:
You had to mention if you had seen a therapist, and it’s just sort of like, well, do I really
have to mention it? Obviously, you do because you can’t lie. And it’s like, well, what are
they going to think of me then? Does that mean I’m going to get an interview, and now
they’re going to interview me? And that means that I’m not just going to pass like
everybody else? I mean, it’s scary. Yeah, it’s scary.
75

Cheryl expressed earlier in the interview that she had experienced distress while in school, due to
a few of the stressors identified in this study. However, the stigma and its influence prevented
her from seeking the necessary wellness and mental health resources that were available and
accessible at her institution.
Academic and Career Motivation
The previous section defined the influences that manifested a stressful environment.
However, this section delineates the environmental stressors impacting motivation. Three main
topics discussed were the grading curve, the program’s workload and demanding expectations,
and the impact of a consistently increasing tuition cost resulting in significant student debt.
Grading Curve. Overall, the grading curve and assessment structure significantly
impacted motivation by manifesting a competitive and isolating learning environment. The
grading curve is an assessment system that limits the letter grades available for distribution to the
students. For example, if four students submitted relatively similar work, only two of those
students might receive A letter grades. As a point of reference, most participants referred to the
grading curve as the curve.
Thomas noted the anxiety he experienced from this assessment process. He explained his
frustration with studying hard and still lacking confidence with his place on the curve. He noted,
There’s only so many spots in everything, and I think even the fact that they tell you what
the curve is, but it’s like in any given 1L course, only one to two people are going to get
an A-plus and maybe only 10 people are going to get As or higher. So, knowing that just
makes it so tough; so, that’s what you’re competing with.
This impacted his motivation as his diminishing confidence was directly correlated to his
motivation to keep studying with the same intensity.
76

Robert struggled to understand the curve due to the unique grading structure at his
school. His school only provided marks in high honors, honors, and passing, as opposed to the
traditional letter grades. He shared,
Even if you do well, it’s hard to understand why. In my case, I didn’t pass the threshold
from the passing grade to an honors grade. So, I definitely struggled with trying to
succeed in those timed exams in a way that would actually earn me any kind of
meaningfully distinguishing grade.
Robert noted that his struggle with grades left him constantly trying to define himself
academically both as an individual and amongst his peers.
Leah and Cheryl both commented on the pressure they experienced to compete with their
classmates and, like Robert, to define themselves and their value through their grades. Leah
expressed a perception that as an older student, she initially did not find it necessary to compete
for the curve, unlike her younger classmates. She recalled,
I thought, “Oh, I would weather that fine, because I was a woman of experience, and I
have already defined myself as more than my grades.” But again, I did not do well. Once
again, I fell back into defining myself through my grades.
Cheryl perceived the grading curve to be so competitive that she sometimes lied about her grade,
as she identified more with a grade that demonstrated her efforts than the grade she received on
the curve.
Sean and Susan shared the perception that grades were vital to success both during and
after graduation and, therefore, a major stressor. Sean explained, “The acknowledgement,
frankly, that your grades matter so much. I think that it’s not just that you want to do well, it’s
also that there’s really a consensus that your employers care a lot.” Sean agreed that some level
77

of assessment was necessary; however, he perceived that his friends attending law schools
without the antiquated grading curve were less stressed and more motivated to succeed
academically and professionally.
Thomas shared his perspective that law schools should stop using the curve. However, he
also agreed that this change would only work if every law school updated and improved its
assessment processes at the same time. Thomas also noted that he did not foresee change this
drastic happening in the future.
Overall, nine of the 10 participants commented on the grading curve’s influence on their
experience. Furthermore, each participant shared an example of the curve’s impact on their sense
of self-worth and motivation to be at the top of the class. The desire to be at the top was still
present, but they were increasingly unmotivated to navigate the ambiguous rules related to the
grading structure.
Workload and Program Expectations. A primary theme that emerged when discussing
participant motivation was the overwhelming workload in the program and unreasonable
expectations. Cheryl, Ashley, Susan, and Thomas specifically cited the workload as the reason
why they did not have a social life and reflected on their accomplishments within the program’s
time constraints. Cheryl commented that because of her dedication to her schoolwork, law school
itself became her identity.
Thomas responded that the volume of reading met his expectations, but he perceived that
the younger students who transitioned directly from their undergraduate institutions had a
rougher transition. Regardless, Thomas’s experiences in the classroom demonstrated the high
volume of material they were expected to review and the professor’s expectations. He shared,
I think [it’s] the amount of reading. My com-law professor on the first day was very
78

much like, “Look, this a lot of reading. There’s a lot of material we have to cover.
There’s nothing I can really do about it. It’s a lot of reading.” And it’s tough because, on
the one hand, there are those expectations of how much reading you have to do and how
much material you have to cover.
Thomas further explained that his attempt to gain a head start on the readings by starting
his readings early portrays the time commitment associated with the volume of reading assigned
in his classes. Although Thomas said that he started his readings ahead of schedule, he still
experienced challenges related to the amount of time he needed to invest in the readings and
shared the consequences associated with falling behind. He noted,
I think a really tough thing is also the amount of time that it takes to do it, and I think that
kind of became this cascading problem of because you didn’t finish one class’s reading
on time, then you’re behind, and then you get more behind and then you’re scrambling to
catch up before the final. God, I feel like I killed myself for 3 years, and now for what?
Ashley shared Thomas’ reflection, “Looking back, I don’t know how I was pulling those out, but
I was doing it because I had people with me, around me, too.” Ashley explained that the
workload was immense and overwhelming, but the experience was made bearable due to her
social circle.
In contrast, Susan noted that it was virtually impossible to maintain a social life while in
law school. Susan’s workload experience was like the other participants due to the volume of
reading required and noted her confusion when she studied for her courses. Susan recalled, “It
was challenging. I think for me, it was really hard to get through the reading. There’s just so
much, and I was trying to take notes on all of it. I knew that I wasn’t doing it right, but I just kept
doing it that way.” Both Susan and Leah noted that the workload and high expectations were
79

overwhelming and caused confusion, consequently decreasing their motivation to maintain a
social life, thereby neglecting their support systems.
Leah further commented on her experience attempting to manage the workload and
expectations. She reflected,
It just always feels like you’re playing a game of whack-a-mole, on the daily side. But
it’s like you have so many things to do, and you’re constantly trying to whack down one
thing, and then something else comes up, and you’re trying to whack that thing down.
Leah noted that her hidden disability created additional challenges, commenting that although
her peers also faced challenges, her hidden disability made it even more difficult for her to focus.
Brianna commented that she perceived the environment to be a distorted perception of
reality due to the program’s numerous and unreasonable expectations of the students. Robert
agreed with this perception, “I think [it’s] the biggest stressor across the board for law students. I
guess I would really probably phrase it best as an expectations-reality gap.” As previously
mentioned, Robert explained that due to this distorted reality, he frequently experienced imposter
syndrome, noting that he never knew if he was doing enough or doing it correctly.
Cheryl shared her frustration and lack of motivation due to the unfair practices associated
with the outlining process. She noted that the work was so challenging. She perceived that only
those with friends in upper-level classes with access to their study materials were better able to
navigate the program’s expectations. Cheryl further commented that, unfortunately, she was not
one of those students during her first year.
Brianna shared experiences from her second year in law school and her perception that
second-year students had the most demanding expectations due to the volume of events they
were tasked to coordinate. She shared,
80

I just think so much of the labor goes to 2Ls in terms of planning activities and things like
that. I just felt this constant pressure of not having enough time, and that was very
challenging. Where I was taking classes that demanded a lot of time, and then I had
extracurriculars that took up equal amounts of time.
Thomas shared an experience while in his first year that there was an unwritten
expectation to transfer to a higher-ranked school if a student exceeded expectations early on.
Thomas continued, noting that this perception of jumping to a better opportunity was expected in
the law profession as well, stating that this was a mindset ingrained in the students to take with
them to their future law firms.
Thomas also commented on the volume of expectations, whether they were academic,
extracurricular, or professional, explaining his perception of the limited time they had to
accomplish everything. He said,
It’s just this challenge of there’s so much expected of you, and there’s a lot that needs to
get done, and so I feel like that can be just difficult to accomplish in the amount of time
that you have because it is such a quick-paced thing.
Thomas noted that his awareness of the limited time to complete the tasks provided to him
frequently challenged his motivation to try, already knowing that he would not be able to meet
the program’s expectations. The workload and expectations within the program impacted the
participants’ motivation and subsequent behaviors. However, the student debt acquired during
the program had a long-term influence over the participants’ motivation to choose different
career paths.
Rising Tuition and Student Debt. For law students, choosing a focus to practice after
graduation is not as black and white as other graduate programs. As described in Chapter Two,
81

student debt is a primary consideration due to the high tuition costs and low employment
opportunities after graduation. Esther perceived student debt to be the most significant stressor of
all. Each participant recalled their experiences with student debt, their unknown shift from
intrinsic to extrinsic motivation, and their perception of their future.
Leah and Brianna chose their specialties specifically because of their student debt, even
though their career interests were elsewhere. Leah shared,
It comes with the downside of a lot of debt, so that was something I definitely had to
grapple with. And I’m going into [corporate] law, which is not my lifelong dream, but I
have a lot of debt, so I kind of had to come to terms with that, as well. It wasn’t
something that I could do and just slide right back into the policy world, because frankly,
I couldn’t really afford to do that.
Brianna also chose to go into corporate law due to her student loans. She said,
I had dreams of doing immigrant work, and then just because of loans being what they
are, I am currently working as a summer associate for a [corporate] law firm. And I’m
planning to do that after graduation for at least a few years until my loan is repaid.
Brianna explained that she was prepared to go into corporate law for a few years right after
graduation, knowing that she would take on much debt, even though she was 30 years old and
did not want to do corporate law long-term.
Robert perceived student debt as a significant aspect of law school as it directly
intersected with mental health, specifically for those in the public interest space. He commented,
Even if you have the resources to say, take on a lower-paying public interest job that pays
maybe like 50, 60K coming out of school, when you have all this debt, the way to do that
is to apply for these very selective, prestigious narrow public interest fellowships.
82

Robert explained that hundreds of students applied to these fellowships, but they were granted to
only 20 to 40 students per year, out of every law school in the country. He then explained his
experience with his school’s mental health week, commenting that he perceived it to be
performative. It did not address the underlying factors, such as student debt and the financial
stress associated with paying tuition.
Sean shared the perception that the mental health crisis was associated with student debt
and perceived this stressor to specifically emerge after graduation if a graduate student wanted to
transition from one law firm to another. He noted that this transition would not be as challenging
if the students were more deliberate in choosing whether they should go to law school or not.
However, Sean also commented that he understood why students needed to start in corporate law
before transitioning to public interest law:
I think that some of the misery that a lot of kids feel in law school is getting trapped by,
well, how am I going to pay rent if I don’t go take the private firm job this summer?
You’re taking on so much debt to do this. [I] want to feel like I’m not going to have to
worry about paying my grocery bill, in addition to my rent.
Although Cheryl was working at a boutique firm by choice, regardless of the cost of law school,
she had observed her peers make financial decisions due to their student loans.
Cheryl explained that some of her peers chose to persevere in the public interest field,
which was their passion, regardless of how challenging it would be financially. However, she
also noted several peers were forced to choose corporate law as they needed the money to feed
their families. She said, “I’m not working in [corporate] law, but even so working at a boutique
firm, I can’t imagine making less than what I’m going to be making.” She shared an experience
when she had lunch with two colleagues. Her colleague at a corporate law firm spoke about
83

buying a car, while the other colleague, a public defender, was planning to “ride it out” for 10
years to qualify for the public loan forgiveness program.
Cheryl, Thomas, and Sean noted that they were not in a financial position where they
were obligated to choose corporate law and indicated an awareness of their privilege in not
having to make that choice. Cheryl reflected, “It’s an interesting perspective because it is, it’s so
expensive. You can’t afford to take jobs that aren’t paying. I mean unless you have the means
outside.” Thomas noted the competitive nature of the job market and his perception that there
was almost an obligation to apply for those high-paying competitive jobs because law school was
so expensive. Thomas shared,
I think about the other people who are interested in public interest but are looking to get
jobs at firms because they feel like they need to do that for a couple years to pay off these
loans before they can move into it.
Thomas commented that even though he received a scholarship, he would still graduate with
student debt. He also said that he would not go into corporate law simply to make money to pay
off the degree. He said,
Would it be a horrible decision for me to go make a lot of money for a couple years
because I’m going to be in a lot of debt? It would be a pretty understandable thing to do,
but I don’t want to do that, and I’m making the decision, but I also get that, one, that’s a
hard decision. Two, my family’s not wildly wealthy, but my family’s not impoverished. I
have family that is able to support me if I needed support, so I also get that to a certain
degree, it’s a decision that I can make that not all of my classmates can make.
Thomas recognized that his family’s financial privilege allowed him to choose his law field of
choice while also recognizing the choices made by those without the same financial privilege.
84

Law Student Cognition and Identity
The stressors explored in this section directly impact a student’s cognition and identity.
The themes that emerged during the interviews include experiences from their first year in law
school, the impact of feedback and other stressors on their self-efficacy, subject mastery and
level of preparedness for the legal profession, and stressors impacting their cultural identity. This
section further explores the participants’ struggles with imposter syndrome and their concerns
with being unprepared for the legal profession after graduation.
First-Year Experience and Self-Efficacy. The participants all indicated that their first
year in the program was a significant adjustment in several ways and expressed there were two
stressors, specifically, that emerged as the predominant culprits that negatively impacted their
self-efficacy. The participants noted the lack of adequate feedback as one stressor and their
challenges navigating the program itself as a second. Furthermore, the participants described the
navigation process as having to complete and succeed in a new and unfamiliar program without
rules or guidance.
Leah, for example, shared an experience where she attempted to seek feedback but left
disappointed and confused. Leah reported,
Sometimes you go for feedback, and they’re like, “I can’t really give you much because
this is actually pretty good.” And that happened a few times. And it’s like, “Okay, well, I
don’t really know where to go from here.” So, even the sense of trying to learn from your
mistakes can sometimes feel a little bit futile.
This experience prompted Leah’s perception that she was not making progress in the program as
she did not receive the tools to improve.
85

Similarly, in Susan’s first semester, the lack of feedback impacted her study habits, as she
never knew if she had studied enough or what else she should have been doing to solidify the
grade she wanted. She recalled,
You just have no way of gauging if you’re doing well or not. It was just so much reading.
I would just leave class and read until like 11:00 pm and then do it again the next day. I
think that was hard because that also obviously then cuts into social stuff and figuring out
that balance was hard because I just felt like there was always so much more that I could
be doing.
Thomas expressed that the insufficient feedback was jarring. This perception came from the lack
of clarity when attempting to define what was considered adequate comprehension of the
material. However, as stressful as that was, Thomas identified the prompt adjustment to a new
and unfamiliar writing style as his predominant stressor.
As mentioned, each participant experienced the impact of inadequate feedback on their
self-efficacy, consequently manifesting perceptions of inadequacy, significantly doubting their
learning abilities, and constantly questioning the effectiveness of their study habits and writing
skills. For example, Cheryl and Robert shared their experiences with imposter syndrome, as they
frequently perceived that they were not good enough to be in the program. Robert reported, “I
definitely struggled with not just seeking feedback, but also feeling like my best was never good
enough in these classes.” Daniela perceived the lack of feedback as a challenge when she was
trying to determine her level of success in her classes.
Daniela noted that the feedback she received in her first year was problematic due to the
structure of the curriculum. She explained,
I think the way that the first-year curriculum is structured, it really exacerbated that
86

problem for me, because of the whole model is you like absorb material for 6 months or
whatever, 3 months, and then you get effectively no feedback.
Daniela also shared her experience with how the feedback she received did not translate into the
grade she received on paper. She noted that she had received praise for her work, but it was not
reflected in the physical grade she was provided on paper due to the enigmatic grading curve.
Thomas’ experience with feedback was like Daniela’s. He suggested that most of the
stress associated with feedback could have been eliminated if his program had included more
opportunities for reflection and improvement assessments like midterms. Thomas was confident
that his suggestion was a viable solution, but he did not perceive that his classmates would have
been as accepting of the additional testing and assessments.
Robert reflected on his experience with feedback by comparing his law program to his
undergraduate program, stating that he received limited meaningful feedback in law school in
contrast to his undergraduate program. He stated, “If you want students to produce, I think
there’s a lot of issues with how we teach and how we should look more systematically at
changing the method of assessment in law school classes.” Leah also shared the concern that
there needed to be adjustments in the assessment method in law school, further commenting on
how challenging it was for her to receive any feedback.
Cheryl and Brianna specifically reported on their experiences with feeling like a failure.
Brianna noted that the culture of law school overall, and not just the feedback process,
manifested this perception of failing. She elaborated,
The culture is set up in such a way where you index on grades, law review, moot court,
whatever, these prestigious activities, that you then kind of buy into this messaging that
the law school puts out. And law school culture puts out that if you don’t do these things,
87

then you’re a failure. Or if you don’t do these things well, then you’re a failure. If you’re
not working at this firm, then you’re a failure.
Cheryl further noted that most students in law school transitioned from environments where they
were not used to failing or feeling like they were failing.
Reflecting on her experience, Cheryl shared her frustration with working her hardest, yet
still falling short of where she wanted to be. Like Robert, Cheryl also experienced imposter
syndrome. She expressed that this was a result of the feeling of failing as mentioned previously
and shared her concern that she was lying about herself and her capabilities as she did not
perceive to be as academically successful as her classmates.
The participants transitioned to law school from various backgrounds, whether
academically, professionally, or culturally. However, each participant noted a similar stressor
during their first year pertaining to the challenges of adjusting to a new learning style. Not only
did they perceive themselves to be ill-prepared for the program, but they also questioned their
capability to complete the required tasks and meet expectations.
Leah shared her experience and how this transition impacted her mental health. She said,
Speaking of mental health, I think that your first year is just really hard and not that fun
for anybody. And I definitely grappled with it more so once I got there, like, “what have I
signed up for? This is awful.”
Cheryl agreed that her first year was the most challenging as it was not as hands-on as she had
expected. She explained,
I found the pressure of 1L really difficult because I’m a person who learns from doing,
and that doesn’t go over well in law school. So, my first year was my worst year, which,
as you know, it’s the most important year.
88

She further noted that this adjustment was both a struggle and impacted her ego.
While the participants expressed that they had struggled overall when transitioning into
the program and throughout their first year, each highlighted the knowledge gap as another
significant, and daily, stressor. The common sentiment was that they did not know to navigate
law school itself. Most of the participants referred to this as not knowing how to do law school.
Leah perceived that this knowledge gap could make or break a student’s first year. She
explained, “I just didn’t really get how to take a law school exam. And I think that’s the big
difference in terms of how well you do your first year.” Leah further explained that she
perceived some of her classmates to understand the nuances of exams and classroom
assignments more than she did.
Thomas experienced similar challenges, noting the ambiguity in the program’s
expectations related to his class assignments. Like Cheryl, he did not perceive the program to
encourage handholding. He elaborated that the primary challenge was the lack of handholding
paired with the program’s rigid and unreasonable expectations for the final product of an
assignment. Thomas stated,
I think that felt very challenging to me at times because it was like, I want to know how
to do this properly but if you don’t tell me how to do it properly . . . I want to know the
rules, but if you don’t tell me the rules, then I can’t fit within the rules.
Both Cheryl and Robert shared their struggle with the learning curve and the challenges
they faced learning how to navigate law school overall. Robert specifically reported that he had
concerns about executing a strong written exam during a timed setting. Additionally, he
struggled to determine what his exam response needed to encompass to deserve a high grade.
89

Robert noted that neither the outlining nor study process provided him with any issues, but that
he was ill-prepared to execute what he learned and to do it in a way that kept him competitive.
Leah similarly had faced challenges with the exam process. She explained, “I think what
was most difficult for me was not the jargon, but I struggled my first year because they never
really taught us how to take a law school exam, which I know sounds crazy.” Leah compared
this process to an artform, noting her frustration and the disappointment she experienced when
she worked hard and did not achieve the grades she had anticipated.
Robert shared Leah’s perception of the study process, noting that the processes involved
in both studying and exam-taking were very particular. Robert further explained,
The transition for me was very abrupt, and it was very abrupt even with seven years of
career experience. It was abrupt even with a year of graduate school beforehand, one,
actually two classes having moderate to significant law and legal content. And so, it
wasn’t that I didn’t know how to study, but I think that law school itself is a very
particular kind of environment, a very particular kind of studying. One thing that would
have been really helpful would have been a lot more workshops on really how to succeed
in law school exams.
Ashley also shared this experience; when she transitioned to law school, she was not provided
with vital knowledge navigating law school itself.
Susan commented that she learned how to navigate the processes by observing others
whom she perceived to be more knowledgeable than her. She shared, “You’re constantly looking
at what other people are doing, and it’s hard, especially at the beginning, to know what works for
you because it’s a completely new style of learning and examination.” Susan explained that she
90

attempted to close this knowledge gap when she attended a pre-program orientation. She
reported,
[It] basically gives you a week of crash courses in law school to kind of give you a sense
of what you’re doing. I’m really grateful to have been able to do that because I at least
knew what I was supposed to be looking for in a case and the kind of structure of a
classroom.
Esther also took preparatory law courses. However, Esther noted that this year-long program cost
money, and the school did not automatically offer it. She said that this experience significantly
helped with her transition and added that a student’s first few classes should be about how to
navigate programmatic nuances.
Brianna experienced this knowledge gap when she tried to learn how to compose a legal
analysis. She perceived that her classmates who had lawyers in their families had fared better
with these assignments because they had personal resources available and were able to review
acceptable examples:
I noticed my peers who had family members who are practicing lawyers, they have this
insider knowledge that I just didn’t have. And so, I think I didn’t know what good looks
like until I did know what good looks like. So, even though I had seen model answers, I
just didn’t know what legal analysis really looked like until I practiced, and then I got
more exposure to it.
Additionally, both Brianna and Esther experienced moments where they had been overwhelmed
by the unknown terms and jargon used in the classroom, noting that their respective transitions
into law school did not prepare them for that terminology.
91

As mentioned, the transition into law school and the first-year experience was a challenge
and influenced the participants’ self-efficacy. This influence manifested perceptions that they
were incapable of thriving in the program. Some felt they were imposters. Additionally, each
participant noted obstacles to settling into the program based on their expectations of legal
education and the significant gap between those expectations and what was necessary for the
participants to know to navigate and succeed in law school.
Subject Mastery and Preparation for the Profession. A common sentiment among all
10 participants was their perception of subject mastery, and their lack of confidence in their
preparedness for the legal profession upon graduation. The participants agreed that their
program’s subject matter was either not up to date or too theoretical. Additionally, the outdated
subject matter and lack of preparation for the profession created a significant concern that they
would not be prepared to practice law upon graduation.
As mentioned in the previous section, the participants were concerned with the fast
adjustment to a new writing style. Robert reiterated this sentiment and noted the importance of
learning the writing style but also to be adequately trained as a writer in the profession. He
explained,
I think there’s a lot that needs to be done to really teach that style of writing and that style
of thinking. And I think that law schools themselves don’t really do a great job of
teaching that in the first few weeks, along with the substantive content material.
Robert further commented on the curriculum, noting that it did not include teaching the
intricacies of legal culture.
Furthermore, two other participants shared concerns regarding material missing from the
curriculum that would prepare them for their future careers in the legal profession. A few
92

missing topics, for example, were conducting successful informational interviews, tracking those
interviews, and building relationships with members of the legal community. Additionally,
Robert elaborated that he would have been interested in learning more about where to find local
bar associations to obtain a student membership.
Sean, Thomas, and Robert reflected on the relevance of the curriculum in some of their
courses. Robert shared the importance of teaching specific topics from the start of the program as
he perceived them to be the most important and most relevant. Expressing that the program
should teach
how to think from the start about law and political economy, or law and racial and social
justice themes. And how those overlap courses’ content, especially because there’s a lot
of really upsetting and problematic things that are glossed or not really covered in first-
year law school classes, and those tend to re-up themselves in second- and third-year
classes.
Sean and Thomas were concerned with the overly theoretical curriculum and wanted more
practical assignments.
Both Sean and Thomas took initiative with their research, even though it veered from
their professors’ original assignments. Thomas noted,
When I’m doing research, it’s not to find the case that the professor wanted us to find it
was really on my own, and I don’t know it also would be like, “Hey, I wrote this thing
that got a child reunited with their mother.” Instead of here’s this theoretical thing that
happened if somebody was having a party and then they showed up and did it violate the
Fourth Amendment.
93

To Thomas, the coursework was too theoretical and did not directly connect with the work in the
organization where he was employed.
Daniela noted that she had to adjust from her professional work, which was created with
her community-oriented organization, to the theoretical material that was not as relevant or
important. Daniela said, “I think it was very difficult for me not to be producing something that I
felt was valuable.” She further commented that this adjustment, and her perception that her work
in the program was meaningless, was one of her biggest challenges in law school.
Susan discussed her perception of the relevance of the curriculum, demonstrating that
there were antiquated traditions within the curriculum itself. She shared,
What you’re learning about in law school, especially your first semester, is old. I mean
it’s relevant to what’s happening because there’s always something that’s civil procedure
happening in the world, but there’s not any class time that’s devoted to what’s happening
in the real world.
This perception aligns with the career preparation section in Chapter Two, demonstrating
the disconnect between the curriculum and the subject matter the students perceive as relevant
and beneficial to their future careers. The following section shares findings from the participants’
perception of the stressors’ impact on their self-efficacy and overall identity.
Student Identity: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Finally, a common theme both
identified in the literature and further defined by all 10 participants was the stressor associated
with a facet of their identity. The participants specifically mentioned their perceptions of
diversity and inclusivity regarding their age and lifestyle, sentiments in the classroom pertaining
to social justice and conversations influenced by current racial injustices, diversity within the
classrooms, and the perception that feelings, emotions, and mental health concerns were not
94

welcomed discussions. Additionally, Robert, Susan, Brianna, and Daniela each commented on a
stressor pertaining to the unwelcoming but widely understood concept of fitting into a specific
mold.
Thomas, Sean, and Daniela considered themselves of a non-traditional age for law
school. Additionally, they first gained several years of professional experience prior to enrolling
in law school. Sean, for example, commented on his initial reaction to being in the classroom as
an older student. He said,
I think that coming in a little bit older, I’m in law school where the median age in my
class is 4 or 5 years younger than I am. So, there was a little bit of a transition there,
coming back into that piece of it.
However, Thomas noted that he did have classmates that were older than him which had
provided him with some comfort.
Like Thomas, Daniela also perceived that the environmental stressors experienced by
traditional-age students were different from the non-traditional-aged students. She specified that
the difference was attributed to the older students having more work experience. She perceived
that her younger peers, specifically those who were recent college graduates, were more
successful as they were more accustomed to being in a challenging academic environment due to
their recent transition from an academic institution. Furthermore, as an older student with various
commitments outside of law school, Daniela noted the lack of autonomy involved during the
class scheduling process. Her schedule required her to attend classes at different times each day,
which created numerous challenges for her when she needed to schedule meetings or study
groups.
95

Cheryl attended law school at a more traditional age with only 2 years of work
experience. Contrary to Daniela, Cheryl perceived her classroom experiences to be more
challenging because she did not have more work experience. According to Cheryl, additional
experience in the workforce would have better prepared her for the transition to law school.
Robert shared his perception as a student of color, noting several experiences with
mishandled conversations about race in the classroom. Robert elaborated on one specific
experience:
I will say that actually the trauma I definitely experienced in my first-year classes,
instances where it’s almost like even if the law school tried to push out some of that
trauma, it wasn’t theirs, so it would still find its way into the classroom. I think our
professor, an elderly White man, was generally trying to do the White thing, the right
thing. Freudian slip.
Robert further noted an experience where other students of color were unhappy with one of the
guest lecturers as they presented an hour-long lecture on criminal justice without mentioning
police brutality. Robert reported that there were only four other students of color in the
classroom out of 100 and, therefore, perceived that their complaints were not taken seriously
enough.
Another participant expressed concern that the administration did not adequately address
concerns about racial issues. Both Susan and Esther shared Robert’s classroom experience,
describing an incident when a professor did not adequately address a complicated topic, whether
the topic was on race or mental health. Furthermore, Esther and Susan indicated that their
professors’ reactions to challenging discussions often created a triggering environment in the
classroom.
96

Susan further perceived that the professors also placed a burden on the students to
manage and maintain their own well-being, even if the stressors the students experienced
originated in a stressful environment generated and perpetuated by the professors. She reported,
It’s hard because I think a lot of the labor of being well is put on students, and sometimes
the pinpricks are coming from professors who aren’t taught how to be professors, so they
don’t necessarily know how to foster the kind of classroom environment that would
encourage mental health or make it possible for students to feel comfortable and not have
to deal with that extra stress of going into a classroom where it’s not safe for them.
Robert shared this perception, commenting that his past trauma and experiences were not
welcome in the classroom. Robert noted, “I felt like there was still definitely a sense of having to
check your emotions at the door, having to feel like even though I have all this past experience in
my life, in some sense, it doesn’t matter.” Notably, Robert shared his perception that the classes
were becoming more diverse, despite the challenges.
As mentioned, Robert, Susan, Brianna, and Daniela perceived an overall understanding
that each student must fit a specific mold. These two participants noted the challenges they faced
as students who did not fit this mold. Robert shared,
I don’t think I was surprised to see that there was that encouragement to follow the mold,
but I wish I had been a little bit more prepared to experience what it would have been
like, to be a fish swimming against the current, so to speak.
The expectation to fit into a mold designed by legal education also highlights the cultural and
environmental issues manifested by the antiquated traditions detailed in an earlier section.
97

Summary of Research Question 1
The previous sections explored the environmental stressors identified in Chapter Two and
from the themes that emerged in response to the first research question. The participants echoed
most of the findings in the literature, yet there were a few notable differences. First, the Socratic
method was highly discussed in the literature and defined in Chapter Two. Only one participant
shared his experiences with the Socratic method during his interview, but his comments were not
significantly relevant to the study, nor did he discuss this method in the context of being an
environmental stressor.
Secondly, the literature provides much evidence that the public mental health stigma and
the CFA are predominant influences on law student well-being. One participant affirmed that
these two stressors impacted her experience. However, the other nine participants explained that
they were aware of mental health stigma but did not acknowledge it as a significant stressor.
Additionally, those nine participants expressed their desires to change the narrative on
mental health and help-seeking. They explained that they want a healthy help-seeking culture to
become normative within law school culture. The following section delineates the participants’
experiences when navigating institutional wellness resources, resulting from the distress caused
by the environmental stressors previously discussed.
Research Question 2 Findings: Navigating Institutional Resources
The purpose of the first research question was to better understand law student self-
efficacy pertaining to their experiences navigating institutional wellness resources. Participants
shared various perspectives of their navigation processes, portraying perceptions of their
institutions’ efficacy in managing stressors. Through the findings derived from this question,
98

four prominent themes emerged: resource availability and access, reliability of resources,
institutional prioritization of student wellness, and alternative coping strategies.
Resource Availability, Access, and Reliability
Participants were asked about their overall experiences navigating wellness resources at
their institutions. Four of the 10 participants indicated that they did not have any experience
doing so. These participants were, however, still aware of the resources available to them. This
awareness and their perceptions of what was available are detailed further in the following
section. Furthermore, students who did not navigate institutional resources indicated their
alternative methods for coping with stress, which are detailed later in this section.
The six participants who recalled experiences seeking and utilizing wellness resources
noted positive experiences finding and booking appointments with school counselors or
therapists. For example, Susan expressed satisfaction with her school’s therapy services and
shared that this satisfaction continued when the school also assisted her with navigating the
website when she wanted to transition to a different counselor. Daniela’s experience was unique
as she had successfully navigated her school’s therapy services, noting no complications in the
process.
However, Daniela stated that the services available were not meant for her or other
students in similar situations. She said,
Early on, I went to the school therapist or whatever because I felt like it would be useful.
And then my takeaway was that I felt like her role was really to catch, and I felt like this
about a lot of the resources that were available.
Daniela was referring to students who wanted to utilize therapy to maintain their mental health,
noting that these resources were only meant to be accessed by those with severe issues.
99

Although Daniela knew these resources were available and was interested in using them,
she noted that she would only navigate them again if she was truly in trouble. Daniela expressed,
If I were really struggling, or in jeopardy, the resources would be there. But if I was like
actually doing fine, I just wanted to be feeling a little bit better about things, the resources
weren’t really designed for that.
While the interviewees reported that most students were aware of the institution’s
available resources, not all participants agreed that these resources were accessible to all
students. Three participants, while they eventually acquired their desired resources, relayed
experiences having issues with the insurance process when attempting to access therapy
resources. For example, Robert mentioned that his only on-campus counseling option was a
choice between two counselors due to the limitations in his insurance policy:
I had a fine experience as far as booking and having actual appointments. I think the
greater difficulties I experienced … I felt that I was really nudged by just the way our
insurance plan worked to really talk to one of these two folks as opposed to trying to seek
a therapist off campus or see someone outside of the university health services program.
Importantly, Robert noted that it was even more challenging for students of color to access this
resource due to the limitations in his university’s health insurance plan.
Although Robert did not experience any meaningful challenges navigating resources as a
student of color, based on his observations, he noted,
A lot of people of color who provide psychology and mental health services in general,
whether or not they’re targeted at lawyers, a lot of them are independent out of network
100

practitioners, who charge maybe $200 a session. So, it seems to the extent, going back to
your question of how easily accessible are the services, the counselors are there, the
rhetoric is easily able to access.
Cheryl also had issues accessing institutional wellness resources and although she was aware that
resources for wellness programs were available (e.g., mindfulness courses and workshops) she
had difficulty accessing them as the classes and workshops had limited seats and were almost
always filled.
Leah and Susan, however, noted positive experiences accessing institutional wellness
resources. Leah commented on the ease with which she accessed and booked therapy
appointments and navigated the health insurance process. Susan noted her successful experiences
accessing opportunities to be involved in the creation and availability of these resources to her
fellow classmates and recalled an experience with the student group, Peer Wellness Coalition.
She explained that this coalition provided grants to fund wellness opportunities organized
and run by student groups. Susan reported, “I’ve applied to them a bunch of times. We put on a
wellness workshop, How to Be Happy in Law School or something, when I was on student
council.” Susan also mentioned that resources not only came from student groups but were also
accessible through her professors. During her 1L year, specifically, Susan recalled attending a
series called Human-Centered Lawyering organized and run by a few of the professors at her
school.
Sean expressed an unpopular opinion among the participants pertaining to accessing
resources. He shared that the institutions should not be held liable for managing the mental
health and wellness of their students as the students should access resources themselves. Four
participants disagreed with Sean’s advice.
101

Leah succeeded in seeking out and utilizing an on-campus therapist, and although she
mentioned that the therapist was helpful, she was disappointed that she had to navigate the
process herself to access this resource. Leah said that a student experiencing trauma should not
have to navigate complicated waters to access necessary resources:
That’s the major turning point, is when a student experiences a major environmental
stressor, are there resources available to them from the institution that they can jump on
to take advantage of that, and then to be able to work through it? Or are they kind of
treading water, and then trying to figure it out themselves?
Brianna shared similar sentiments regarding an experience with reaching out for an
accommodation and expressed her disappointment in needing to access this accommodation
herself.
However, Brianna and Esther both shared their confidence in their ability to access
institutional resources and that those resources would be available to them if needed. Brianna
noted, “I knew how to access it, though I didn’t always need it. But if I did need support, for
whatever reason, I felt that I could reach out.” The following section details the experiences and
perceptions of resource reliability from the law students who were able to access their
institution’s wellness resources.
Another theme that emerged during the interviews was the extent to which wellness
resources were perceived as reliable. The participants noted their long-term success in seeking
and utilizing affinity groups and the perception that the most impactful wellness resources they
might need were consistently available and readily accessible. The participants also shared
negative experiences, such as the perception that the institution maintained impactful resources
102

but that the onus was on the student to seek out those resources and the level of impact the
institutional resources had when the institution engaged with its students.
Both Susan and Ashley had success with their school’s affinity groups, and while Susan
did not necessarily use the available affinity groups, she still reported that this was a reliable
resource. Susan reflected:
Especially, I think being a woman and a student of color, there’s just more affinity groups
available with people who want to be your mentor or provide resources so that you can
succeed. Some of it is through the school, and some of it is put on students, which of
course. So, as wild as it was, I never felt like there was nowhere I could go.
Following this statement, Susan shared that there were always people available in the
administration whom she could rely on if she needed them.
Susan further reported on the reliability of her institution’s wellness resources, noting the
consistency in which her school held seminars and workshops on wellness, whether the students
attended or not. She recalled,
I feel like what [my law school] does well is they kind of shove it in your face. They’re
like, “We’ll be in this classroom every single week and you can show up or not.” It does
make it a little bit easier to reach out and find help.
Ashley also had a positive perception of the affinity groups at her institution and their
reliability. She noted,
A lot of law schools have affinity groups for people of different identities or student
organizations and those, more so than anything, coming from the administration are
good resources for both navigating law school and staying mentally healthy throughout it.
Robert agreed with the reliability of affinity groups, especially for students of color.
103

Ashley reported that aside from the reliable affinity groups, the general wellness
resources at her institution were available but unhelpful and unreliable. She explained,
Our student life office would have drop-in office hours or things like that. But I think the
way it was coming through was through an email. And I always just delete those emails.
And I guess there’s also like, even if I did read them, there’s nothing prompting me to
really participate in anything.
The following section delineates the participants’ positive and negative perceptions of their
respective institutions’ prioritization of law student wellness.
Perceptions of Law Schools Prioritizing Student Wellness
The participants were asked about their perception of their institution’s relationship to
law student wellness and if their institution prioritized student wellness by providing adequate
and reliable resources. Overall, the participants reported that their respective institutions did
prioritize student wellness, as well as provided adequate wellness resources that were available
and accessible if or when the students needed them. The participants acknowledged they were
aware of their institution’s genuine interest in prioritizing student wellness; however, the
participants also indicated they perceived their institutions to better prioritize maintaining
national rankings over the needs of the students. Additionally, this section demonstrates a shared
perception that the participants’ institutions’ prioritization of student wellness was performative
and that their institutions neglected student mental health overall.
Six participants noted a positive perception of their institution’s relationship to student
wellness, indicating that their respective institutions had demonstrated that student wellness was
a priority. Both Brianna, Esther, and Susan recalled that their respective schools provided
available and accessible resources and shared that they were confident that adequate resources
104

were available if or when they needed them. Susan acknowledged that “There’s certain people
on campus who you kind of know are just available to you for mental health related things, so it
did feel … There’s no one I know who feels like there’s nothing available to them through the
school.” Similarly, Cheryl noted that not only was her school very involved but that it had
specifically prioritized student wellness and mental health.
Cheryl explained that the resources were available and available for a reason. She said,
“So they’re not just giving me things to not use them. There’s a reason why everything is
presented to you, and I think that there’s a lot more that the administration thinks of that as
students, we truly remember.” Sean also perceived that his law school both prioritized law
student wellness and was proactive about it.
Sean noted that the school was concerned with his well-being and that the school had
preemptively shared information about where the students could sign up for mental health
resources. Sean said, “I mean, that’s incredible. That’s exactly how it should be.” Both Sean and
Daniela commented that the schools were doing the best that they could, and the students should
not expect more than what was already provided. Sean stated,
I think you’re always going to have folks who feel like more could be done, but I just try
to be pragmatic about the reality of the situation. This is an academic institution, not a
mental health clinic, and the fact that they are proactive enough to say, “We have
someone in house who we can provide on a very subsidized level if you need to talk to
somebody,” I think that’s huge.
Daniela and Susan agreed with Sean that their schools did their best, but they could have done
more if the schools were not so concerned with their national rankings.
105

Attending a highly ranked law school is greatly coveted by law school applicants.
Daniela and Susan perceived that their schools were divided between improving or maintaining
their academic rankings and better prioritizing their students’ mental health and wellness:
I think [my law school] is trying to provide as many resources as possible, and they do as
much as they can I think, while still maintaining the reputation and ranking. I mean, they
want you to have it, but I really see them in kind of a bind. They obviously want us to be
well, and I think that they would like to make as many concessions as possible, but
because it’s a law school, they still have to deal with what every other law school is
doing.
Daniela noted that the schools needed to be able to compete academically, and that required
balance between resources to increase institutional rankings and resources to promote law
student wellness. Daniela explained:
They are also trying to walk this balance between playing the game, which I think they
feel like they have to do to remain competitive on some level, but then also trying to
create a different environment and to the extent that those things are different or like
mutually exclusive, there’s only so much that can really be done.
Overall, the participants perceived that their institutions either prioritized law student wellness or
did the best they could to provide as many resources as possible.
Four of the participants had negative perceptions of their respective institutions’
relationship to law student wellness. They perceived that it was not adequately prioritized at their
institutions. Additionally, the participants who acknowledged their institution’s available
wellness resources earlier in this section also shared their perception that their institution’s
relationship to student wellness was performative and lacked any meaningful benefit.
106

Two participants commented that their institution’s resources were made into jokes and
not taken seriously. Robert recalled,
There’s so many cliché jokes among law students about law schools pretending to offer
mental health and wellness, and there’s a yoga class or a yoga Zoom, or during
lunchtime, you can do some coloring, and it’s like art therapy.
Importantly, Robert indicated that the resources were not helpful as they did not address the
underlying issues and environmental stressors that law students truly faced.
Robert reiterated his institution’s performative actions regarding law student wellness,
noting the school’s failure to address stressors such as student debt and the financial burden legal
education placed on students. He shared, “You have this performative law mental health week,
without addressing any of the underlying factors, all while students are facing the financial stress
of paying more for this law school experience.” Robert restated that these environmental
stressors needed to be addressed.
Both Leah and Ashley expressed their frustrations with their respective institution’s low
prioritization of student mental health. Leah said that her institution’s efforts were inauthentic.
Ashley agreed that the outreach from her school was there, but it was not very helpful or
beneficial. She stated, “I think the student body overall would say too that this school is not
looking out for student wellness.” Ashley responded that her school did not prioritize student
wellness, nor was it comparable to the availability and reliability of the resources at her
undergraduate institution.
Thomas responded with similar sentiments, noting that his school’s actions were also
performative and perceived that student wellness was not a priority. He said,
107

The sense that I get from hearing from other students is that it is very much just like, a
“Yeah, here’s something that we’re going to do for you,” and it doesn’t really feel like a
true support. It’s like, “Hey, here’s something that you could use if you want,” but I don’t
think that people always feel as though it’s a thing.
These participants perceived that, given the environmental stressors in the schools and the legal
profession in general, wellness resources should have been a higher priority than what they
experienced.
Furthermore, four participants shared their perceptions that their institutions inadequately
acknowledged the culture of psychological distress. However, Brianna shared that although she
perceived her institution did not prioritize mental health, she expressed that if a student truly
needed adequate mental health resources, the school would provide the resources and would be
supportive. She further explained,
[My school] positions itself to really care about students’ mental health. However, I do
think some of the decisions that upper administration has made doesn’t necessarily
always prioritize it. And so, then it becomes really difficult for students. I do think,
ultimately, if a student needed support, the administration would support the student, but
I don’t think that necessarily their actions always follow their messaging.
Susan experienced her school providing the students with adequate resources but noted that these
resources were provided during the first week of orientation and not referenced again. She
recalled that it was up to the students to remember those details from that first week.
Leah was a former student who utilized institutional resources for her hidden disability.
Due to her experiences navigating these resources, she commented, “I don’t feel like the law
school really acknowledges how many people suffer from those kinds of mental health problems,
108

despite the fact that it’s a well-known fact that they do.” She perceived that her school did not
adequately acknowledge that mental health was an issue overall.
Similarly, Thomas expressed frustration in the school’s new telehealth services. He did
not understand why these services were only offered when the global pandemic began. Thomas
noted, “Law students have needed to talk to somebody for, I can safely say, decades. Only
having been a law student for 1 year, I can assume that it’s decades that they’ve needed to be
able to talk to somebody.” However, Thomas also stated that those services seemed helpful and
had made a positive impact on law student mental health.
Although the participants’ institutions prioritized student wellness to varying degrees,
high rates of psychological distress in law schools did not manifest exclusively due to inadequate
institutional resources. Most law students chose to seek alternative coping strategies to manage
stress and wellness. The following section summarizes the alternative strategies utilized by the
participants in this study.
Perceived Coping Efficacy and Alternative Strategies
The final theme that emerged relating to the second research question pertains to the
primary alternative coping strategies this study’s participants utilized when in psychological
distress. This section summarizes responses from the participants who did not perceive that their
institution adequately prioritized student wellness and therefore chose not to use their
institution’s resources when impacted by an environmental stressor. Instead, these participants
chose alternative strategies to cope with their respective issues. Additionally, this section shares
advice from the participants to new and incoming students on navigating resources and
establishing the most effective coping strategies, both institutional and alternative.
109

Robert, when under immense pressure, explained that he had successfully managed his
stress by pursuing and maintaining meaningful relationships with practicing attorneys and
alumni. A primary reason for replacing institutional resources with mentor-mentee relationships
with attorneys and other external resources was to avoid the challenges he had faced navigating
institutional resources as a student of color. He further commented on his need to supplement his
institution’s available resources as he perceived that they were not provided to him with the same
level of access and reliability as his more privileged peers due to his status as a student from a
historically excluded background.
Similarly, Ashley had also reached out for support outside of her school’s walls and
found it very beneficial when coping with stress. She said, “I think the things that have gotten me
through law school are other people in the community that have provided both academic support
but then also general emotional support, friendship.” Both Cheryl and Thomas also utilized
friendships, specifically with their peers and classmates, as a successful coping strategy.
Earlier in this chapter, the participants shared their experiences with their classmates and
how the competitive environment was the most predominant environmental stressor. However,
Cheryl and Thomas both expressed that this was a conundrum as their classmates both caused
distress and were the most helpful when coping with this same distress, noting that their
classmates were their biggest advocates. Cheryl explained, “I feel like all of my classmates were
willing to help me and I was willing to help them. We all had each other’s back.” Thomas
reported that he had doubted the necessity to make friends at 29 years old. However, his
relationships with his classmates grew strong and became a solid resource and coping strategy
when experiencing significant stress.
110

Two of the participants evaded coping strategies altogether by internalizing their distress
instead of reaching out to the community or their classmates. Susan and Cheryl provided further
details on their respective decisions to avoid seeking institutional wellness resources when in
distress. Susan shared a joke she read online, “[It] was like, “Advice for 1Ls. Work yourself to
the bone. You can rest later.” Susan further explained that her perception of the coping culture
was something that had generated and was perpetuated by jokes that went viral on social media.
These jokes revolved around the students being assigned an unreasonable volume of work and
that the only way to find relief was for the students to cry themselves to sleep.
Cheryl commented that she chose to internalize her stress and turned to yoga on occasion
to manage it. She noted that it was a personal choice not to seek institutional wellness resources
even though there were moments where she struggled. She shared, “I internalize things and I’m
like, “Okay, I can handle it.” Cheryl’s perception of coping with stress was that challenges were
only challenges if you let them become challenges.
Thomas also turned to athletics when managing his stress. Thomas stated, “That was my
biggest mental health thing probably was like, I’m stuck on this case I’m going to go outside and
bike and just de-stress that way.” When battling a mental illness, sometimes a student needs
more than just institutional wellness resources and a membership to the gym. Leah, a participant
with a hidden disability, turned to a previous treatment plan that included a medication regimen
when she was no longer as happy as she was when she started law school.
Leah had previously taken medication for depression, but her doctor determined that it
was no longer necessary stating that she was happy when she initially enrolled in law school. She
explained,
I’ve dealt with depression on and off before. But I went in not depressed and [I was]
111

happy. I felt my [illness] was under control. And in my second semester, I definitely got
back on the antidepressants.
Importantly, Leah returned to her school therapist for counseling in addition to restarting her
medication regimen and noted that these strategies made a positive difference.
Furthermore, the participants were asked if they had any advice or suggestions for new
students when coping with stress while in school. The participants shared advice like keeping
their heads down or developing external professional relationships. Sean summarized, “I think
that there are plenty of [students] who do not utilize these resources, who would really benefit
from them.” Whether the participants had indicated having any experiences navigating
institutional wellness resources or not, they still strongly encouraged incoming students to seek
and take advantage of both on- and off-campus resources.
Additionally, Sean noted his gratitude for the available resources and the notion that he
did not need to be as stressed in school as he had anticipated. Sean said, “I came in definitely
appreciating that it doesn’t have to be miserable.” Sean did not agree with the old school
mentality that necessitated the students must be stressed and overwhelmed while in school.
In contrast, both Cheryl and Ashley advised incoming students to maintain the status quo.
Cheryl commented, “Keep your focus, keep your head down and use what the school provides
you. Stay calm is really my biggest thing. Don’t be emotional. Be a robot. Be a robot. Don’t get
emotional about all of it.” Ashley’s advice was similar; she noted, “Just go with the flow and
don’t try to hurt yourself.” However, Ashley also stated that students should still try to seek out
resources when possible.
Leah encouraged students who struggled with their mental health to be prepared to seek
additional help, likely more than their peers. Leah stated, “I would say that if you have any
112

history of struggling with mental health, at any point, get your ducks in a row with that going
into it, and be aware that you might need more help.” Leah was experienced with seeking
resources relating to mental illness and had described her experience needing additional
resources that her peers did not.
Robert shared advice he would give to new or incoming law students who came from
traditionally underrepresented, historically excluded backgrounds like himself:
I would say to those students to definitely seek out spaces, even spaces that have not
traditionally welcomed you. Seek out spaces that do seem difficult to access, and also try
to seek out mentors in the form of professors, in the form of professional networks. Seek
out individuals who are willing to help give you resources and opportunities to really find
ways to advance and achieve your goals and really find ways to help other people
through the use of the law. See the world outside of the four corners of the law school
building.
Robert encouraged new students to take advantage of all the resources available; between the
high volume of resources outside of the institution’s walls and those inside. When Susan was
asked to share advice, she recognized that she would be giving advice she did not take herself.
Susan stated, “I want to say, ‘Yeah, make sure to ask for help when you need it,’ but I’m like,
did you, [Susan]?”’ Susan advised that the students should learn to say no and to create
boundaries for themselves, as this was something that she noted she still needed to work on.
Susan further reflected that it would have been helpful to take advantage of the wellness
resources available at her institution when she was stressed. She commented, “That was a very
foolish approach to take because it is already isolating enough. You don’t need to do anything
113

extra to isolate yourself.” Susan advised the incoming students to be kind to other people, and to
themselves, and to recognize that they are not able to do everything.
Similarly, Cheryl advised that incoming and current students should take advantage of
their institution’s wellness resources stating, “It’s there for a reason, and I think that’s something
to always remember.” The coping strategies discussed in this section and the challenges
presented when navigating and accessing proper, effective, and beneficial institutional wellness
resources demonstrate the problematic nature of the impact from the environmental stressors
identified in this study. Furthermore, the identified stressors perpetuate a pervasive culture of
psychological distress embedded within the culture of legal education.
Summary of Research Question 2
In summary, the participants provided several unexpected responses to this study’s
interview questions. The research highlights a perception that law schools do not provide ample
resources to support student mental health and wellness. However, every participant disagreed
with this assessment.
While their responses varied pertaining to the degree to which their respective schools
prioritized student wellness, each participant shared positive experiences with either navigating
their institution’s resources or their knowledge of the high volume of resources available to
them. The responses were contradictory again when the participants perceived that their
respective institutions’ wellness initiatives were highly performative. However, every participant
noted that they perceived the available resources to be reliable and would use them if they felt
that they truly needed them. Furthermore, when providing advice to incoming students, all
participants strongly encouraged the new students to take advantage of their respective
institution’s resources, even though almost every participant refrained from using said resources.
114

The stressors explored in the previous section were identified by the literature in Chapter
Two. However, three additional themes emerged from the interviews that should be addressed.
These themes are the legal profession’s influence on the culture of legal education, the additional
challenges due to COVID-19 and the global pandemic, and the comparison between law school
and medical school.
Other Emergent Themes
This section outlines the findings of three emergent themes that were not identified by the
literature earlier in this study or included in the research questions. The interview questions in
this study did not inquire about influences from the legal profession, the participants’
experiences with the novel coronavirus, or their perceptions of the comparison between medical
school and law school. However, every participant noted at least one, if not all three of these
themes in their responses.
The Legal Profession
Five of the participants shared their perceptions of the legal profession overall and how it
contributed as an environmental stressor impacting law students. In their responses, the
participants perceived the legal industry to hold a high volume of unhappy lawyers surrounded
by a cutthroat culture. Additionally, the participants commented on their experiences in law
school that they perceived to be a simulation of or training for the previously described
environment.
Brianna commented on her experiences in the program and her perception that these
experiences were purposefully designed to train her for her future in the legal profession.
However, she also commented that this training was not necessarily positive. She stated,
115

I think what happens is you become trained to become very anticipatory. And while that
can be really good, and our profession rewards that, what can be damaging is then you
anticipate all these things and you over-analyze, and you overthink. And I think that type
of thinking can be really damaging, emotionally.
Robert agreed with this perception; however, he noted that his classroom learning experiences
lacked training for the idiosyncrasies of what attorneys are looking for during the hiring process
for recent law school graduates.
Cheryl’s perception of the legal profession focused more on what the profession itself
does to its employees. She further explained the hoops and the hazing process that she mentioned
in a previous section when discussing her perception of the law school culture. She explained,
“[The law profession] just feels very stripped of people’s real-life circumstances, requiring you
to go through all these, some are, I think, important hoops. Others, like the bar, just seem like
hazing.” Cheryl elaborated on her perception, sharing that these hoops and the hazing process
provides privilege to those who are already privileged and can further increase society’s
inequities. She further noted that she perceived this process to induce an unnecessary mental
health disaster.
Thomas and Sean also commented on their perception of the profession’s relationship to
mental health. Sean shared his encounters with his mentors and how their guidance encouraged
him to be deliberate when thinking about his career and life beyond receiving his JD. This
perception was also shaped by the attorneys he engaged with while working in politics prior to
attending law school. He explained,
But when you talk about a mental health crisis and in this field in this industry, I think
that that’s where a lot of it comes from. I think that too many [attorneys] just do not go
116

through that thought process and thinking about, “what do I want to do?” And they end
up miserable.
Sean’s perception is that the mental health crisis in the legal profession is significantly
influenced by the students’ lack of direction when enrolling in law school.
Thomas agreed with the perception that attorneys are unhappy. He commented,
I’ve heard so much from talking to people who have been in the legal world for a little bit
and the number of people who don’t even make it to 5 years in the legal field, and they’re
like, “I can’t do this anymore.”
Thomas also commented on his perception of the cutthroat culture in the legal profession
and shared a conversation with his mother. He said, “My mom told me, ‘[Thomas], you need to
be more cutthroat if you’re going to be a lawyer.’ And I was like, ‘No, thanks. I’ll try to get by
without being cutthroat.’” Thomas further commented that although he intended to avoid
perpetuating the cutthroat culture, he did perceive the profession to be highly competitive and
pressurized.
COVID-19 and the Global Pandemic
This study did not include any questions on the COVID-19 global pandemic. However,
the temporary, government-mandated quarantine impacted the participants so significantly that
they shared stressful law school experiences related to this quarantine without being prompted or
encouraged. Because of the emergence of this theme, it is included in this chapter.
This study’s methodology expanded to include recent graduates instead of only current
students due to the timing of their enrollment. At the time of this study, law students would have
experienced environmental stressors resulting from the COVID-19 global pandemic for the
entirety of their law school experience. However, the recent graduates were enrolled during and
117

prior to the outbreak, allowing them to share and compare their traditional and nontraditional law
school experiences. Unfortunately, the participants noted that the stressors related to the virus
only exacerbated environmental stressors. These stressors included isolation, additional financial
pressure, and controversial changes to the grading curve.
Ashley and Sean specifically commented on their experiences with isolation due to
COVID-19. Sean noted that the stressors were a transition and perceived that isolation and this
transition likely caused mental health issues for some of his classmates. Similarly, Sean further
commented that, unlike his classmates who were local, he did not experience much of his new
city where he had relocated for law school until the vaccine became available and he was eligible
to receive it.
Ashley is a recent graduate who experienced law school prior to the COVID-19 outbreak.
She shared,
A lot of people I knew were in New York and attending classes remotely, but from their
New York apartments. So, I just felt very isolated and had lost a lot of what I had
appreciated about my 1L year, which was having people around me going through the
same thing.
Ashley further noted that although her classes were taking place in New York, due to COVID-19
she had moved back to her home state, meaning her classes were now at 6:00 am due to the time
difference. She commented that this time difference significantly impacted her law school
experience.
Brianna shared her experience with isolation, noting that she was grateful for having been
a student for a semester prior to COVID-19, as this provided her with a friend group to maintain
while the program was remote. Robert also commented on these relationships, stating, “I think I
118

also see the different, say, stronger bonds that some of my classmates had, who stayed on
campus all 3 years, who went through maybe some more of those traditional markers.” Robert’s
perception was that the students who attended classes on campus prior to COVID-19 had
stronger bonds and a more traditional experience than those who were forced into a remote
program.
Thomas commented on the lack of engagement he experienced in his classes due to
COVID-19 forcing all his classes to be taught online. Susan also commented on the virtual
experience. She explained that it was challenging to learn about wellness resources as she
perceived the information to be posted on campus while she and her classmates were home and
accessing their classes online.
Cheryl commented on her experiences, sharing that she perceived COVID-19 was a
challenge if she let it be one. In contrast, Thomas’ experience was more drastic. Thomas shared,
I think COVID was such a huge drastic thing that I think has skewed everything. I mean
that was just this kind of this bigger shift and being a student in COVID, obviously I’d
never done it before and didn’t expect and plan for.
However, Cheryl also reported that she experienced her peers losing internship opportunities due
to the pandemic, further stating that she would be lost if she did not have her previous internship
experience prior to COVID-19.
Thomas previously noted that he experienced an unexpected shift due to the pandemic.
He reported that he also witnessed his friends experiencing financial issues due to COVID-19.
He shared,
My friends took on all these loans expecting to get a [corporate law] salary starting in
September, and then because of COVID and the bar being delayed, these firms pushed
119

back the start dates to 2021, but all of a sudden, these people had these loans due, and
they weren’t making any money.
Brianna shared her experience with an unexpected shift due to the need to quickly relocate when
the mandatory quarantine closed the school.
Both Brianna and Robert commented on how they perceived the grading curve
environmental stressor to be exacerbated by COVID-19. Brianna and Robert’s respective law
schools switched from letter grades to a pass/fail option when the program was forced to be
conducted remotely. However, Robert noted, “Whereas once those schools went back to
traditional grades, everyone else in the arms race of grades went back to traditional grades.” Both
Robert and Brianna stressed that they perceived the pass/fail option caused more stress, and the
stress only increased when the programs switched back to letter grades.
Comparing Medical School to Law School
As mentioned previously, the interviews did not include questions related to medical
school. However, Leah, Cheryl, Daniela, and Thomas compared the two professional schools
during their interviews. Most of their responses were prompted by the question about their
thoughts regarding the high rates of psychological distress or were part of a discussion about the
traditional law school curriculum.
Leah referenced medical school when reporting on her experiences with navigating
wellness resources at her institution. She shared a conversation she had with a friend attending
medical school:
[T]his is a friend of mine who’s in med school currently, and I think they’re aware of [the
resources] but she always complains. And she is someone who experiences a lot of
mental health issues. So, they keep forcing them to go to these health symposiums, but
120

then they don’t have time. She’s always so resentful, because she’s like, “I could have
used those 2 hours to actually take care of my mental health, and I’m sitting in a lecture
hall.” So, it’s a balancing act. I think that you don’t want to hit people over the head with
it in a sense of taking more time.
Based on her friend’s experience, she perceived medical students to have a heightened awareness
of the resources available to them on campus over law students.
Leah further noted that she perceived medical school to provide more opportunities for
improving or maintaining student wellness. However, she commented that many of these
opportunities were required and, therefore, overwhelming for the students. Leah’s response
demonstrates the conundrum mentioned earlier in this chapter regarding the degree of effort
institutions put into their wellness initiatives and whether these institutions prioritize student
wellness.
The participants had differing perceptions pertaining to their respective institutions
having adequate and accessible resources and whether they prioritized student wellness. Leah’s
comment about her friend reflects that she perceived her friend’s medical school to make mental
health literacy a priority, but these efforts were only adding to the students’ distress.
Thomas, Cheryl, and Leah responded to the question about the high rates of
psychological distress with a reflection on the challenges of medical school, at first sharing their
perception that medical school should be ranked higher when discussing the rates of
psychological distress. However, all three participants followed these comments by sharing their
experiences with the competitive law school environment, subsequently noting a change in their
perception that law school was appropriately ranked when discussing the exorbitant number of
students experiencing psychological distress. Thomas and Leah explained that they perceived the
121

law school environment to be more competitive than medical school, specifically because of
legal education’s obsession with rankings.
Additionally, Thomas and Daniela shared their perception of the curricular differences
between law school and medical school. Both perceived law school to have a more theoretical
curriculum, while medical school was more hands-on and meaningful. Daniela explained,
I just think the two immediate things that jump to mind with med school are, first of all, it
actually matters. You’re literally talking about life and death situations, and in law half
the time, you’re talking about a comma, and I’m not saying it doesn’t have relevance or
that it doesn’t translate into life-or-death situations. But specifically, what you personally
are dealing with is, a lot of the times, just words. But I think [medical school] is actually
high stakes.
Thomas shared Daniela’s perception, noting that he perceived medical school’s curriculum to be
more tangible early in the program, whereas his classroom experiences were theoretical and not
as applicable until his third year. Finally, Daniela shared that she perceived medical students to
have more professional direction prior to attending school, whereas she experienced her
classmates in law school enrolling because they did not know what else to do.
Summary
The first research question concerned the environmental stressors law students
experienced in school. Additionally, it gathered their perceptions of the normative culture of
psychological distress. The purpose of the second research question was to discover any
challenges or concerns while navigating their institutions’ wellness resources.
The themes regarding the second question pertained to the availability of resources,
whether those resources were accessible and to whom, and their reliability. Furthermore, this
122

research question concerned the participants’ perceptions of their institutions’ relationship to and
prioritization of student wellness and mental health. Their experiences were mostly positive
when they actively sought and utilized the resources. However, almost every participant
remarked on the performative nature of their institution’s prioritization of student well-being.
Chapter Five further discusses the findings in this chapter and draws connections to the
literature review in Chapter Two. Additionally, it outlines and provides a detailed summary of
the suggested evaluation model and its implementation. Finally, Chapter Five delineates
recommendations for law schools and other stakeholders in legal education.
123

Chapter Five: Discussion
According to the ABA (2014), an average of approximately 119,000 students are enrolled
in law schools nationwide each year. Additionally, approximately 40,000 of those students
comprise the average of new law students enrolled annually. These numbers indicate that
approximately 40,000 new students enroll into a program each year that hosts the highest rates of
psychological distress out of any graduate program (ABA, 2014; Bibelhausen et al., 2015; Coyle,
2018; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Lusk, 2018; Organ et al., 2016).
Psychological distress has been a concern in law schools for decades. The ABA created
multiple task forces to further explore and combat this issue, most recently by implementing the
SLSWB (Organ et al., 2016). The results from the SLSWB demonstrated that the law school
environment perpetuated a culture of psychological distress. This culture has not fundamentally
changed since the study by Benjamin et al. in 1986.
This study identifies the predominant environmental stressors that are deeply ingrained in
the culture of legal education, further positing that law schools will continue to host the highest
rates of psychological distress unless there are fundamental, cultural shifts within legal
education. The previous chapter collected the perceptions and experiences of either current or
recently graduated law students to further explore the stressors identified by the literature in
Chapter Two. In this chapter, the data collected are further assessed and evaluated using the
W.K. Kellogg Logic Model (2004) to provide recommendations to the appropriate stakeholders
for implementation.
Overview of Study
This study focused on identifying and defining the environmental stressors impacting law
students that are manifesting and perpetuating the high rates of psychological distress in law
124

schools. The research identifies multiple environmental stressors bidirectionally impacting law
student cognition, motivation, and subsequent behavior. This qualitative study conducted 10 one-
on-one virtual interviews with current law students and recent law school graduates to further
explore the stressors identified in the literature from their perspective and individual experiences.
These interviews were conducted during a global pandemic, increasing the intensity of
the environmental stressors’ impact on the participants’ cognition and motivation. Most of the
participants noted residual stressors from the pandemic. However, the predominant themes that
emerged from the data validated and expanded upon the research outlined in the literature review
in Chapter Two.
Notably, six of the 10 participants were referred by a peer or classmate, demonstrating
snowball sampling as the study’s primary recruitment tactic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Additionally, each participant began their respective interviews expressing their shared interest
in supplementing the literature on law student mental health and well-being. Furthermore, the
participants elaborated on their perception of mental health and well-being as a problem within
legal education and a significant issue to be address within their chosen profession.
Summary of Findings
This study utilized SCT as its theoretical framework, demonstrating a triadic model of
reciprocal causation between a person’s environment, behavior, and cognition (Bandura, 1986).
SCT represents the bidirectional relationship between these three elements and the notion that
the elements influence each other interchangeably. This theoretical framework built the
scaffolding to design this study’s conceptual framework, adapted from the IMT, showing the
bidirectional influence between the law school environment, law student self-efficacy and
competence, and their motivation and subsequent behaviors (Sheldon & Krieger, 2007).
125

Furthermore, Sheldon and Krieger (2007) posit that the IMT demonstrates the impact of
environmental stressors on a law student’s ability to thrive overtime.
The conceptual framework constructed this study’s research questions and generated the
themes used to identify and subsequently organize the environmental stressors discussed in the
literature. This framework identified four predominant themes from the literature: law school
culture, academic and career motivation, law student cognition and identity, and navigating
institutional resources. The findings discussed in Chapter Four further defined these themes and
introduced emergent themes that were not initially identified in Chapter Two. These emergent
themes included the legal profession’s influence on legal education and its culture, challenges
associated with the COVID-19 global pandemic, and a comparison between medical school’s
curriculum and wellness practices to the curriculum and available resources in law school.
The purpose of the first research question was to identify the primary and most impactful
environmental stressors from the student’s perspective. The themes that emerged directly
correlated to those identified in Chapter Two. These three themes included the environmental
stressors manifesting and perpetuating the law school culture, the impact on academic and career
motivation, and the influence on the participants’ cognition and sense of identity.
The findings in Chapter Four identified three stressors pertaining to the law school
culture, such as the competitive atmosphere, the normalized culture of psychological distress,
and the antiquated traditions of legal education. The fourth topic briefly mentioned the public
mental health stigma and the CFA, and although the literature notes these two stressors as
significant (Bauer, 2001; Blackard, 1937; Denzel, 2011; Dragnich, 2014; Jolly-Ryan, 2010;
Levin, 2014; Lusk, 2018; Organ et al., 2016), only one participant shared their experiences with
both the mental health stigma and the CFA, thereby classifying those stressors as insignificant.
126

Each participant discussed the competitive culture, at length, when indicating its
significance as an environmental stressor. In 2020, Skead et al. conducted a study to determine
the impact of the competitive environment on law student well-being, finding a negative
correlation between the competitive culture and law student well-being. These findings were
echoed in the interviews with the participants, sharing that it was a “pressure cooker” and
isolating environment due to the challenges attempting to build strong and trusting friendships.
For example, Susan noted, “Everyone wants to be the best, it’s just relative in terms of how
much you feel that you need to tear someone down to get there.” Sean had a similar perception
of the competitive culture, further stating that the culture is problematic as it is also perpetuated
in the legal profession.
The findings in Chapter Four also validated the perception of a normalized culture of
psychological distress. When asked about their thoughts on the high rates of psychological
distress in law school, every participant responded that they were not surprised. Multiple studies
over the last few decades continue to confirm the findings from Benjamin et al.’s (1986) study,
validating that psychological distress has become normative within legal education (Organ et al.,
2016; Peterson & Peterson, 2009; Shanfield & Benjamin, 1985; Silver, 1968, as cited in Organ et
al., 2016). Larcombe and Fethers (2013) would agree with Sean’s perception that this mindset is
carried into the legal profession.
The participants also elaborated on their perception of the rite of passage mentality and
their negative experiences with old school processes that one participant equated to hazing
rituals. Austin (2013) noted that the perception of hazing rituals caused significant trauma to the
students as opposed to benefiting the students’ learning experiences. Esther identified her
127

predominant stressors as the use of jargon in the curriculum and the continuation of antiquated
traditions that acted as a gatekeeper for those coming from marginalized communities.
The second theme that emerged was the impact on law student academic and career
motivation. The literature identifies this stressor as one that is triggered by the perception of an
unsupportive environment (Skead et al., 2020). Additionally, Sheldon and Krieger (2004)
determined that law student motivation significantly decreased from the student’s first to their
third year in law school. The participants noted the grading curve, overwhelming workload, and
the increase in tuition and student debt as significantly impacting their academic and career
motivation.
The grading curve was the most noted stressor among the participants. The literature
posited that the grading curve does not allow much reflection due to the limited and inadequate
feedback provided (Carasik, 2011). Without an opportunity to reflect, the grading curve
decreases law student motivation and discourages collaboration with other classmates. The
grading curve prompted participants to question not only their self-worth but how to find the
motivation to study with the same frequency and intensity each day, only to remain in the dark
regarding the fruits of their efforts.
Student debt also impacted the participants’ motivation with four of the participants
noting a shift in career interests from social justice to corporate law due to their fear of paying
off their debt in a timely manner. The literature highlights student debt as a stressor and validates
the participants’ fear of needing employment in a corporate firm to pay off their debts (Bergin &
Pakenham, 2015; Carasik, 2011; Flynn et al., 2019; Organ et al., 2016; Sheldon & Krieger,
2004). A study by Sheldon and Krieger in 2004 further explained that law student motivation
shifted from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation, which translated to the students’ interest
128

to seek employment in corporate law by their third year, almost exclusively due to the rise in
tuition and their subsequent student debt.
The third theme that emerged from the first interview question pertained to law student
cognition and identity, specifically as it impacted their self-efficacy, subject mastery, and
cultural identity. The literature heavily noted the Socratic method as a significant stressor
impacting law student self-efficacy (Carasik, 2011; Spencer, 2012). However, only one
participant briefly mentioned the Socratic method during the interview process. Each participant
elaborated on the inadequate feedback as the most significant stressor impacting their self-
efficacy, further noting their perception of imposter syndrome and their frustration with the
limited opportunities for reflection or improvement.
Subject mastery and unmet expectations regarding their preparedness for the legal
profession emerged as another stressor that impacted law student cognition and identity. Wald
and Pearce (2011) commented that law students are not adequately prepared for the profession as
the curriculum is outdated and does not include practical courses, and instead are heavily
theoretical. Robert also noted that he was hoping to learn about transitioning to the profession
itself, such as navigating the interview process or how to network effectively, for example.
The findings from Chapter Four also depicted the challenging conversations in the
classroom as another stressor. Carasik (2011) posited that classrooms are becoming more
diverse, but the administration has not yet mastered conversations surrounding the obstacles
students of color face each day. Three participants shared experiences in the classroom where
either they experienced microaggressions or they noted a classmate’s severe discomfort due to
the direction of a conversation topic mediated by their professor or a guest lecturer.
129

The purpose of the second research question was to collect the participants’ experiences
while navigating their respective institution’s wellness resources and the perspectives of those
who chose not to seek resources from their institution. Additionally, this question further
explored the participants’ perceptions of their respective institutions’ prioritization of student
mental health and well-being. Three themes that emerged from this research question were the
availability, accessibility, and reliability of institutional wellness resources, the perceptions held
by students pertaining to their institution’s prioritization of student wellness, and the
participants’ alternative coping strategies.
As mentioned in Chapter Two, students who are more aware of the institutional resources
available to them and their benefits are more likely to navigate and utilize those resources when
experiencing psychological distress (Coyle, 2018; James, 2011; Organ et al., 2016). Six of the
participants indicated that they had experiences with navigating institutional wellness resources.
However, all 10 participants acknowledged that the resources were available to them, if
necessary. Additionally, while the participants agreed that the resources were available, not
every participant agreed that these resources were easily accessible.
All participants noted their ability to eventually access the resource they were seeking.
However, the participants mentioned several factors like insurance policies, resource limitations,
and a system biased against students of color as challenges when they sought these resources.
Importantly, the participants who successfully navigated institutional resources reported that the
resources were reliable. One of the participants noted that although she did not have experience
with affinity groups, she perceived these groups to be successful based on conversations with her
peers. Overall, the participants reported mostly positive experiences when navigating
130

institutional wellness resources, determining that their respective institutions provided sufficient
resources that were accessible and reliable.
The second theme for this research question determined the relationships between the
participants’ institutions and student wellness and mental health. Six of the participants in this
study agreed that their schools provided adequate wellness resources and two of those
participants shared that their schools were proactive with the resources they provided.
Additionally, two of the participants commented that their schools would have made law student
wellness a higher priority, but it would have jeopardized the schools’ national rankings. The
participants noted that the national rankings were a significant factor in making a law school
competitive and selective.
Additionally, four participants agreed that their institution’s actions were performative,
sharing the perception that their respective institutions did not authentically prioritize student
well-being. Sheldon and Krieger (2004) suggested that this shared perception by the participants
can directly impact law student motivation. Furthermore, a study by Skead et al. (2020)
determined that law student motivation was significantly impacted by the level of support they
perceived in their environments.
However, the participants noted that their experiences with the resources provided to
them were not meaningful and did not improve their ability to succeed in their program, or as a
future law practitioner. The participants who identified their institution’s actions as performative
further explained that this perception stemmed from their institution’s inability to adequately
address underlying issues. These issues included the financial stress resulting from student debt,
pressure from the workload and grading curve, and the anxiety related to job-seeking while in
school and after graduation.
131

Bandura (1989) discussed the importance of resilient self-efficacy as a product of
mastering challenging situations and persevering through these challenges. Due to the
performative perception held by most participants, these participants chose to rely on resilient
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989) when managing their stress. Instead of institutional resources, they
used alternative coping strategies ranging from seeking mentors outside of the program, athletics,
a medication regimen, or simply relying on the support of their peers. Bandura (1977, 1995) and
Bibelhausen et al. (2015) posited that students with low self-efficacy lack the motivation to act
on help-seeking behavior when experiencing distress, resulting in the use of inadequate and
unhealthy coping strategies.
Finally, three emergent themes were discovered from the interviews that were not
directly related to this study’s research questions. As mentioned previously, these three themes
encompassed the influence of the legal profession, the effects of the COVID-19 global pandemic
on student well-being, and the comparison between aspects of law school and medical school.
Notably, when the four participants discussed the medical school comparison, they shared their
perceptions that the law school curriculum was more theoretical than medical school and
explained that they found the practical training present in medical education more useful.
Daniela perceived that the medical students were required to think about life-or-death
situations critically. She reported that the medical school curriculum needed to remain
progressive and up to date to include new and innovative medications and procedures.
Furthermore, these four participants noted the differences in wellness resources, sharing their
perception that medical education better prioritized its students and provided more reliable
resources. In the following section, this theme is further explored and details medical education’s
success with improving the quality of the education provided and subsequently lowering the
132

rates of medical students experiencing psychological distress (National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, & Medicine [NASEM], 2017; Slavin et al., 2014).
Implications of the Study
As mentioned, psychological distress has been a problem in legal education for decades
(Bibelhausen et al., 2015; Coyle, 2018; Jolly-Ryan, 2010; Lusk, 2018; Organ et al., 2016). The
findings from this study support necessary changes in the infrastructure of legal education that
could remove the most impactful environmental stressors. Law schools are aware of their
students’ mental health and well-being and provide resources for coping. However, as validated
by the participants in Chapter Four, the predominant stressors are embedded in the foundation of
legal education and this culture cannot change overnight simply by increasing the volume of
institutional resources or adding more wellness programming. This study intends to use the
evaluation model detailed later in this chapter to provide recommendations that can support law
schools and its stakeholders, ultimately shifting the culture of legal education and improving law
student mental health over time.
Practice Recommendations
The most impactful environmental stressors identified by the participants were those that
manifested a competitive and high-pressure environment, the skills deficit during their transition
and first-year experience, and the overwhelming workload and perception of unreasonable
program expectations. Unfortunately, the stressors identified previously have not changed
fundamentally in about 100 years (Carasik, 2011; Spencer, 2012). These stressors are ingrained
in the culture of legal education, perpetuating the psychological distress present in law students
over the last few decades.
133

This section provides recommendations to create organizational change in law schools by
shifting the culture of legal education overall. Additionally, these recommendations are
organized using this study’s conceptual framework with the purpose of improving the
relationship between the law school environment, law student cognition, and their motivation.
Ultimately, these recommendations will build the capacity to seek and utilize healthy and
effective coping strategies resulting in law student thriving and success.
The first recommendation is to shift the law school environment overall through updating
the accreditation requirements. In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
Medicine (NASEM) conducted a qualitative study to determine whether changing accreditation
standards for medical education could positively influence medical education and the profession.
According to NASEM, the purpose of accreditation in medical education is to:
[B]uild a competent health workforce by ensuring the quality of training taking place
within those institutions that have met certain criteria. … Accreditation offers educational
quality assurance to students, governments, ministries, and society. For the accredited
body, this recognition serves the purpose for instilling public confidence in the program,
institutions, or organization. (2017, p. 1)
NASEM found that changing accreditation can significantly influence the medical profession.
However, NASEM noted that accreditation can determine the requirements that will universally
assure a quality education for the students, but that the standards utilized for accreditation
approval should be a collaborative effort between the community, licensing bodies, educators,
and employers.
NASEM further explained the positive influence of an updated accreditation, stating that
improving a curriculum can “ensure that students are treated fairly well and educated well, and
134

quality improvement can keep educator and professionals mindful of their progress in figuring
out how to do things differently and better” (p. 10). In addition to curriculum and other
programming adjustments, medical accreditation also included improvements to their student
wellness resources. Slavin et al. (2014) posited that medical education, like legal education, can
negatively impact medical student mental health and well-being.
However, Slavin et al. (2014) conducted a study at the Saint Louis University School of
Medicine to determine whether the additional efforts to improve medical student wellness has
made a positive impact. The intended improvements included mental health provider
accessibility, removing barriers to help-seeking and reducing the influence of the public stigma,
and implementing and improving on campus wellness programs. Slavin et al. (2014) found that
the implementation of integrated and multifaceted improvements within the preclinical
curriculum heavily impacted various environmental stressors that influenced medical student
wellness.
For example, Slavin et al. (2014) found that there was a notable decrease in medical
student depression, anxiety, and stress after the administration implemented substantial, but
efficient changes to the curriculum, grading and assessment process, learning communities, and
adding a requirement for student engagement in resilience and mindfulness experiences. This
study by Slavin et al. (2014) demonstrated that implementing accreditation improvements for a
program historically known for having high rates of psychological distress can, as a result,
improve student mental health and wellness.
The second recommendation is to manage the first-year transition and skills deficit. The
participants noted that their transition into law school lacked adequate guidance on simple law
135

school nuances like the writing style, jargon, and specific law school-exclusive traditions.
Flanagan (2015) stated:
Many of today’s college graduates do not have the fundamental thinking and reasoning
skills necessary to master the law school curriculum. … Legal education has not dealt
with changes that leave students less prepared for the type of disciplined thinking, close
reading, and analytical rigor required to succeed in law school. (p. 135–136)
Flanagan (2015) further posited that this deficit should be measured during the admissions
process and subsequently tackled through adjustments and integrative approaches in the
curriculum.
Flanagan (2015) also noted that the under-preparedness of law students should be a
continuous topic of conversation between all law schools. Furthermore, the curriculum
adjustments should also reflect changes that include critical race theory and skills pertaining to
both prompting and managing productive discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion. The
curriculum adjustments related to the skills deficit and diversity education should be included in
the previously recommended changes to the standards of accreditation. This nationally
formalizes the curriculum and provides assurance to students, institutions, licensing bodies,
employers, and the general public that graduates of law school possess, at a minimum, a basic
knowledge of those skills and diversity training.
The third recommendation pertains to the overwhelming workload, the students’
perception of the unreasonable expectations for the program, and their desire to have more
control over their class schedules. Bowyer (2012) conducted a quantitative study to determine
the amount of time required to navigate the workload in law school and delineated these findings
by concentration. Bowyer (2012) utilized several metrics that included the level of critical
136

thinking needed, the volume and type of exams and assessments, teaching methods in the
classroom, whether the work is subjective or objective, effort level, and the student’s English
language skills.
An adaptation of this table is in Appendix G and breaks down specific metrics, such as
the required hours to prepare for an exam, take the exam, and study independently, to name a
few. Dispersing metrics like these to a student, or prospective student, who is declaring their
interest in a specific topic of law does not minimize the workload required of that student.
However, managing the expectations of that student increases their ability to self-regulate
(Bandura, 1991). In doing so, this softens the impact of the workload stressor by providing the
student with adequate time to prepare and to have more control over managing their time moving
forward.
Additionally, these metrics increase accountability and provide students with more
control over their time. However, this does not solve the more important issue, which is to have
more control over their schedules. Ultimately, the recommendation is to design a curriculum that
includes the metrics previously discussed, is more flexible, and provides adequate opportunities
for the students to engage with the decision-making process as it pertains to their education.
This study specifically focused on assessing and dispersing the course metrics as the
recommendation to adjust the curriculum would require significant input by faculty members. As
mentioned in Chapter Two and supported by the participants’ experiences and perceptions in
Chapter Four, most faculty members do not support dramatic shifts in the curriculum or major
changes to the program, overall. With significant input from the major stakeholders, the
adjustments to the curriculum and the metrics previously described increases student
accountability, manages workload expectations, and gives more control and autonomy to the
137

students regarding their education. However, without the full support of the faculty, a major
stakeholder in this process, minimal change is possible.
The purpose of the fourth recommendation is to enhance the reliability of institutional
wellness resources and improve the students’ abilities to navigate these resources. This
recommendation is to determine the needs of the students, as identified by the students
themselves. A common complaint by the participants was the limited availability of reliable
institutional wellness resources. The students should be assessed and surveyed prior to
enrollment, and periodically throughout the program to generate programing and resources
appropriate and timely for the student population enrolled in the program.
Steps should be taken to minimize survey fatigue and avoid increasing student workload.
To do this, the institutions should publicize the changes being made and how they are
personalizing their wellness resources. How are the data collected from the survey being used in
the decision-making process and how are the additional efforts exerted by the students
influencing these changes? A comprehensive and accessible timeline is needed to hold the
institution accountable and to minimize survey fatigue by demonstrating to the students how
their involvement will impact their future and future students.
Evaluation Framework
Program theory is employed when developing effective programming. It allows
stakeholders to use the collected data to continuously learn from and improve programs or
initiatives from any stage (Kellogg, 2004). In addition to learning opportunities and program
improvement, a logic model ensures better documentation of outcomes and shared knowledge on
the mechanics of a program’s success or failure and why. The Kellogg (2004) logic model is
demonstrated in Appendix H.
138

This study used the Kellogg (2004) logic model as its evaluation framework due to the
nature of the programming suggested in the recommendations for diffusing environmental
stressors and decreasing law student psychological distress. These recommendations are
programs or initiatives that must be monitored closely by the stakeholders and adapted over time
to fit the needs of the students. Environmental stressors and psychological distress do not
improve overnight. To create positive and meaningful changes, a culture shift needs to occur
within both legal education and the students’ learning environment. This logic model allows for
the continuous assessment and improvement of the programming recommendations outlined in
this study.
Kellogg (2004) noted that the logic model is a visual way to determine and present
relationships between the resources available for that program or initiative and the desired
changes. The logic model categorizes the work planned for the program (i.e., resources/inputs
and activities) and the intended results (i.e., outputs, outcomes, and impact). Furthermore, a logic
model provides both a formative evaluation, to determine improvements along the way, and a
summative evaluation to determine program effectiveness after the program’s implementation.
The first recommendation is to update ABA accreditation to include standards that
accurately reflect the ABA’s commitment to quality education and student wellness.
Additionally, its purpose is to provide meaningful assurance to the students, institutions,
employers, and the public that these standards will be upheld. The logic model will evaluate the
impact of these changes overtime, similar to the medical school evaluations by NASEM (2017)
and Slavin et al. (2014).
The resources required for this recommendation include all legal education stakeholders,
including students, faculty, employers, and members of the community. A task force, comprised
139

of participants from each group mentioned above and members from other accrediting bodies,
should meet regularly to determine the most pressing changes that need to be made, including
ways to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the current standards. A second task force
will evaluate the changes over time to determine which standards are producing the desired
results and which need to be modified.
A communication plan is necessary to update both the students and the legal community
of these changes and provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to submit their input throughout
the implementation process. This communication plan is integrated into the current mailings and
newsletters to avoid overwhelming the stakeholders with extra communications and to provide
consistent and comprehensive reminders and updates alongside other major projects. An ideal
output of this evaluation is widespread participation in the evaluation of the current standards,
and throughout the implementation process to hold the task forces accountable.
The ideal outcome of this recommendation is a working list of accreditation standards for
implementation within 2 years, and widespread knowledge throughout the community of these
changes. Additionally, the standards should include changes to the grading structure, diversity
training for students, faculty, and staff, and adjustments to the curriculum that integrate
mindfulness practices, reflect current events, industry trends, and professional skills, and infuse
literature on critical race theory and social justice into each course. These standards should be
reviewed and re-evaluated every 5 years. This reduces the competitive and cutthroat
environment, closes the skills and career preparedness deficit, prompts productive conversations
on social justice issues, and can have a long-term, positive impact on law student education and
wellness, the legal profession, and community overall.
140

The second recommendation pertains to the skills deficit, specifically to improve the
student’s transition to law school and 1L year in the program. A common concern by the
participants in this study was the challenges they faced transitioning to law school, their struggle
to meet expectations during their first year, and their perception of career preparedness upon
their graduation. All participants in this study attended highly ranked, selective, and competitive
law schools, yet stressors like the jargon used, the studying and exam-taking processes and the
note-taking style were all cause for confusion and distress during their transition. These stressors
fueled emotions related to imposter syndrome and failure, consequently lowering their self-
efficacy.
As mentioned previously, Flanagan (2015) noted that change needed to occur in both the
admissions process and by infusing procedural knowledge and professional skills into the first-
year curriculum. To hold institutions accountable for these changes, the efforts to close the skills
gap should be integrated into the new accreditation standards. Using this logic model, each
institution should individually engage various stakeholders like the admissions staff, faculty,
senior administration, alumni, and members of the legal community on a task force.
The purpose of this task force is to determine each respective institutions’ predominant
skills and knowledge gaps by surveying both the 1L students and their respective professors. The
purpose of surveying the professors is to gather their perceptions of this gap based on the
performance of their students on their exams and in classroom discussions. Resources are needed
to not only conduct a study with full member participation but to conduct this study with 1L
students and their professors annually for 5 years to determine meaningful trends in their
findings.
141

A communication plan is vital to the success of this recommendation as the skills gap
cannot be closed by editing the curriculum alone. The ability to learn or improve these skills
must be infused within the culture of the institution through outreach to the students on
workshops, programming, pop up workshops in the school lobby or library, and talks and
presentations on professionalism from alumni and members of the legal community.
Additionally, there should be virtual and live sessions using social media for the students’
convenience.
The ideal output for this recommendation is 100% participation for the annual surveys
and to deduce meaningful trends over the 5-year period of data collection. The outcome of this
recommendation is to not only determine the predominant skills gap, but to implement adequate
policies and curriculum changes based on the specific challenges of the deficit discovered. The
intended impact of this recommendation is to provide meaningful improvements to the
accreditation standards, thereby increasing law student self-efficacy, sense of self-worth, and
confidence in career preparedness.
The third recommendation impacts the overwhelming workload and student perceptions
of program expectations. This recommendation is to conduct a similar study to Bowyer’s (2012)
breakdown of hours required to succeed in each program. Each institution should engage a group
of students, faculty, and staff to determine the most viable metrics to conduct the study in a
meaningful and accurate manner. As mentioned previously, knowledge management will not
impact the student’s control over their class schedules, however it will manage expectations,
improve self-regulatory abilities, and increase accountability for the students to maintain more
control over their time.
142

Although the breakdown by Bowyer (2012) is delineated by program, this
recommendation encourages the group determining the metrics to do so for each course instead
as students may take electives, study abroad, or take a leave of absence, for example. The output
of this recommendation is to receive full faculty support to evaluate their materials and teaching
methods. Furthermore, the outcome for this recommendation is to manage incoming and current
law student expectations regarding the courses they choose, and the workload required. This
recommendation intends to impact law student distress by reducing the stress associated with
perceived expectations of the workload and improve the students’ overall health by increasing
their hours of sleep, social time with their peers, and opportunities for self-care.
The fourth recommendation, assessing student wellness needs, is an ongoing project as
students’ needs are constantly adjusting and evolving, and the resources available should do the
same. Per the logic model, the resources required are personnel to manage the assessments, focus
groups and industry experts to create the surveys, and the time needed to disperse, collect, and
analyze the surveys. After the surveys are created, using multiple focus groups and industry
experts, the surveys are then collected, analyzed, and frequently revisited.
For this assessment to change the culture of the learning environment, 100% participation
is required. The outcome of the data collected, and subsequent analysis will determine the
highest priority institutional wellness resources or programs needed for immediate
implementation. The impact of these programs will be determined by frequent check-ins with the
students using a short questionnaire to check their pulse.
Questions such as “Have you engaged with the resources requested previously? If not,
why not?” as well as several Likert scale items such as “Please rate on a scale of one to five the
effectiveness of the institutional wellness resources you have utilized thus far.” This
143

questionnaire is a requirement to determine the necessity and plausibility of utilizing institutional
resources to maintain these programs and initiatives. After assessing the impact of this
recommendation, the data collected should be reviewed and, with the new knowledge acquired,
reanalyzed using this logic model.
Research Recommendations
As demonstrated in Chapter Two, significant literature exists on law student mental
health and substance abuse. Only 6 years ago, Organ et al. (2016) published the findings from
the SLSWB. While this length of time may not be significant, since then, there has been a global
pandemic, which increased the number of environmental stressors impacting law students and
exacerbated those that already existed.
Further research is required to determine the impact of COVID-19 on legal education and
what is being done to support their students. For example, one participant noted his appreciation
for his institution’s accessible telehealth resources. However, his appreciation was overshadowed
by the notion that these services were provided once quarantine started, but not available
previously even though law student distress has been a widely documented issue since 1956
(Eron & Redmount).
Second, this study previously mentioned an initiative in 2018 by the ABA called the
Wellness Pledge. However, limited research exists determining the success of this initiative and
its ability to specifically influence the high rates of psychological distress in law schools. Due to
this initiative’s recent implementation, it would be challenging to collect longitudinal data on the
Pledge’s progress. However, it is essential to collect data from the law schools that have signed
the Pledge and any changes in their students’ well-being since they signed.
144

Finally, this study focused on law students; however, as demonstrated in Chapter Four,
law students continue to compare their experiences to those in medical school. In 1986,
Benjamin et al. conducted a study comparing law student psychological distress to medical
students. Although law students had ranked higher in this category, several adjustments have
been made to the medical school curriculum and structure, redefining the requirement for a
medical student to experience high levels of distress to become an adequate medical practitioner
(NASEM, 2017; Slavin et al., 2014). Further research comparing these two professional
programs, and the changes in progress for medical education, is necessary to determine the
changes that could be implemented in legal education, while allowing law schools to continue to
produce excellent lawyers without experiencing psychological distress.
Conclusion
Law schools are ranked the highest in psychological distress out of all graduate programs,
including medical school. All stakeholders involved, such as administration, faculty, and
students can lower these rates by assessing the students’ wellness needs and subsequently
provide adequate resources to combat the environmental stressors. However, students must take
note of their needs when navigating institutional resources, they must improve their ability to
self-regulate and do so properly and effectively, and they need to speak up when vital resources
are missing or proven unreliable.
This study, supported by the literature and collected anecdotes from the study’s
participants, demonstrates that meaningful change is required to preserve student well-being.
However, the literature also details, at length, the lack of significant progress made in legal
education over its 100-year history. This static history manifested the pervasive and normative
culture of psychological distress embedded within modern legal education. This is problematic
145

as the high rates of law students experiencing depression, anxiety, disordered eating, substance
abuse, and suicide ideation will remain and inevitably increase until the necessary stakeholders
buy into and support initiatives to shift this pervasive culture and create timely and adequate
change.
The stressors identified and defined in this study, along with their corresponding
recommendations, are not novel. Therefore, it is imperative to further examine and explore these
stressors to increase awareness and heighten the demands for this topic to be sufficiently
addressed. Properly addressing this problem allows law students to study their field of passion
without becoming a statistic.
146

References
American Bar Association. (2014, December 16). ABA Section of Legal Education reports 2014
law school enrollment data [Press release]. http://www.americanbar.org/news/
abanews/aba-news-archives/2014/12/aba_section_of_legal.html
American Bar Association. (2018). Well-Being in the Legal Profession.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/lawyer_assistance/well-being-in-the-legal-
profession/
American Bar Association. (2021). Standards.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/standards/
American Bar Association, & MacCrate, R. (1992). Task Force on Law Schools and the
Profession: Narrowing the Gap. (The MacCrate Report). ABA.
Austin, D. S. (2013). Killing Them Softly: Neuroscience Reveals How Brain Cells Die from Law
School Stress and How Neural Self-Hacking Can Optimize Cognitive
Performance. Loyola Law Review, 59(4), 791–860.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1978). The self-system in reciprocal determinism. American psychologist, 33(4),
344.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275–302.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. The American Psychologist,
44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
147

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, 50(2), 248–287.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2012). On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited. Journal
of Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Bauer, J. (2001). The character of the questions and the fitness of the process: Mental health, bar
admissions and the Americans with Disabilities Act. UCLA Law Review, 49, 93.
Benjamin, G. A. H., Kaszniak, A., Sales, B., & Shanfield, S. B. (1986). The role of legal
education in producing psychological distress among law students and lawyers. Law &
Social Inquiry, 11(2), 225–252.
Bennett, R. E. (2005). What does it mean to be a nonprofit educational measurement
organization in the 21st century? Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Bergin, A., & Pakenham, K. (2015). Law student stress: relationships between academic
demands, social isolation, career pressure, study/life imbalance and adjustment outcomes
in law students. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(3), 388–406.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.960026
Bibelhausen, J., Bender, K. M., & Barrett, R. (2015). Reducing the stigma: The deadly effect of
untreated mental illness and new strategies for changing outcomes in law students.
William Mitchell Law Review, 41(3), 918–947.
148

Blackard, W. R. (1937). Requirements for admission to the bar in revolutionary America.
Tennessee Law Review, 15(2), 116–127.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). Pearson A & B.
Bowyer, K. (2012). A model of student workload. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 34(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10/1080/1360080X.2012.678729
Carasik, L. (2011). Renaissance or retrenchment: legal education at a crossroads. Indiana Law
Review, 44(3), 735–.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, January 14). People Seeking Treatment.
https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/tools-resources/individuals/index.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, February 11). Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html
Corrigan, P. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist,
59(7), 614–625.
Coyle, J. C. (2018). The report of the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being and the role
of the bar admissions community in the lawyer well-being movement. The Bar
Examiner: The Bar Admissions Information Source, 87(2).
https://thebarexaminer.org/article/bar-admissions/the-report-of-the-national-task-force-on
-lawyer-well-being-and-the-role-of-the-bar-admissions-community-in-the-lawyer-well-be
ing-movement/
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Crowe, J. (2020). What is wellness?: The role of human values. Alternative Law Journal, 45(4),
149

261–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X20954872
Dallinger-Lain, E. (2018). Racialized interactions in the law school classroom: Pedagogical
approaches to creating safe learning environment. Journal of Legal Education, 67(3),
780–801.
DeBlasis, A. L., & Usman, E. A. (2017). Unrealized Potential: How shifting the focus to
student learning outcomes could reduce law student distress. University of Detroit Mercy
Law Review, 95(2), 179–252.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Plenum.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and
the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI104_01
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2008). Facilitating Optimal Motivation and Psychological Well-Being
Across Life’s Domains. Canadian Psychology = Psychologie Canadienne, 49(1), 14–23.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Denzel, S. (2011). Second-Class Licensure: The Use of Conditional Admission Programs for Bar
Applicant with Mental Health and Substance Abuse Histories. Connecticut Law Review
43(3), 889–930.
Dragnich, A. (2014). Have you ever: How State bar association inquiries into mental
health violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brooklyn Law Review, 80(3), 677–742.
Duke, H. (1997). The narrowing of state bar examiner inquiries into the mental health of bar
applicants: Bar examiner objectives are met better through attorney education,
rehabilitation, and discipline. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 11(1), 101–128.
150

Eron, L. D., & Redmount, R. S. (1956). Effect of Legal Education on Attitudes. The Journal of
Legal Education, 9(4), 431–443.
Flanagan, R. (2015). The Kids Aren’t Alright: Rethinking the Law Student Skills
Deficit. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2015(1), 135–186.
Flynn, Li, Y ., & Sanchez, B. (2017). Law School Stress: Moving from Narratives to
Measurement. Washburn Law Journal, 56(2), 259–.
Flynn, Li, Y ., & Sanchez, B. (2019). The mental health status of law students: implications for
college counselors. Journal of College Counseling, 22(1), 2–12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12110
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (V ol. 6). Sage Publications.
Healthy Minds Study. (2015) Data Report 2, http://healthymindsstudy.org/ wp-
content/uploads/20i5/o7/HMS_national_i4_i5.pdf
Holvino, E. (2008). Developing multicultural organizations: A change model. Chaos
Management, Ltd, 1–9.
Howes, O. D., McCutcheon, R., Owen, M. J., & Murray, R. M. (2017). The role of genes, stress,
and dopamine in the development of schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 81(1), 9–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.07.014
James, C. (2011). Law student wellbeing: Benefits of promoting psychological literacy and self-
awareness using mindfulness, strengths theory and emotional intelligence. Legal
Education Review, 21(1/2), 217–233.
Johns Hopkins Medicine. (November 2021). Substance Abuse/Chemical Dependency.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/substance-abuse-
chemical-dependency
151

Jolly-Ryan, J. (2010). The last taboo: Breaking law students with mental illnesses and
disabilities out of the stigma straitjacket. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review,
79(1), 123–162.
Jones, J. T. (2007). Walking the tightrope of bipolar disorder: The secret life of a law
professor. Journal of Legal Education, 57(3), 349–374.
Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., & Pollitt, P. (1997).
“Mental health literacy”: a survey of the public’s ability to recognise mental disorders
and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment. Medical Journal of Australia,
166(4), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1997.tb140071.x
Joukov, A. M., & Caspar Samantha, M. (2020). Who watches the watchmen? Character and
fitness panels and the onerous demands imposed on bar applicants. New Mexico Law
Review, 50(3), 383.
Kellogg, W. K. (2004). Logic model development guide. Michigan: WK Kellogg Foundation.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krill, P. R., Johnson, R., & Albert, L. (2016). The prevalence of substance use and other mental
health concerns among American attorneys. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 10(1), 46.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000182
Larcombe, W., & Fethers, K. (2013). Schooling the blues? Investigation of factors associated
with psychological distress among law students. The University of New South Wales Law
Journal, 36(2), 390–436.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1986). Cognitive theories of stress and the issue of circularity.
In Dynamics of stress (pp. 63-80). Springer, Boston, MA.
152

Leipold, J. G., & Taylor, D. A. (2020, August 11). Employment for the Class of 2019: Selected
Findings Report. National Association for Law Placement.
https://www.nalp.org/uploads/Classof2019SelectedFindings.pdf
Leipold, J. G., & Taylor, D. A. (2021, August 25). Employment for the Class of 2020: Selected
Findings Report. National Association for Law Placement.
https://www.nalp.org/uploads/Classof2019SelectedFindings.pdf
Levin, L. C. (2014). The folly of expecting evil: Reconsidering the bar’s character and fitness
requirement. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2014(4), 775–818.
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2014/iss4/2
Lusk, L. R. (2018). The poison of propensity: How character and fitness sacrifices the “others”
in the name of “protection”. University of Illinois Law Review, 2018(1), 345–395.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (V ol. 41). Sage
Publications.
Mayo Clinic. (2018). Panic attacks and panic disorder - Diagnosis and treatment.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/panic-attacks/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20
376027
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Minow, M. (2017). Marking 200 years of legal education: Traditions of change, reasoned debate,
and finding differences and commonalities. Harvard Law Review, 130(9), 2279–2297.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Exploring the Role of
Accreditation in Enhancing Quality and Innovation in Health Professions Education:
Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.
153

https://doi.org/10.17226/23636
National Conference of Bar Examiners. (2020). Comprehensive guide to bar admissions
requirements.
https://www.ncbex.org/assets/BarAdmissionGuide/CompGuide2020_021820_Online_Fin
al.pdf
National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being. (2015). The report of the National Task Force on
Lawyer Well-Being: The path to lawyer well-being: Practical recommendations for
positive change. https://lawyerwellbeing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lawyer-
Wellbeing-Report.pdf
Niedwiecki, A. (2012). Teaching for lifelong learning: Improving the metacognitive skills of law
students through more effective formative assessment techniques. Capital University Law
Review, 40(1), 149–194. https://repository.law.uic.edu/facpubs
Organ, J. M., Jaffe, D., & Bender, K. (2016). Suffering in silence: The survey of law student
well-being and the reluctance of law students to seek help for substance use and mental
health concerns. Journal of Legal Education, 66(1), 116–156.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26402424
Peterson, T., & Peterson, E. (2009). Stemming the tide of law student depression: What law
schools need to learn from the science of positive psychology. Yale Journal of Health
Policy, Law, and Ethics, 9(2), 357–434.
Rickwood, D. J., Deane, F. P., & Wilson, C. J. (2007). When and how do young people seek
professional help for mental health problems? Medical Journal of Australia, 187(S7),
S35–S39.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage Publications.
154

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic
Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. The American Psychological, 55(1),
68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003006X.55.1.68
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219.
Shanfield, S. B., & Benjamin, G. A. H. (1985). Psychiatric Distress in Law Students. Journal of
Legal Education, 35(1), 65–75.
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2004). Does legal education have undermining effects on law
students? Evaluating changes in motivation, values, and well‐being. Behavioral Sciences
& the Law, 22(2), 261–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.582
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2007). Understanding the negative effects of legal education
on law students: A longitudinal test of self-determination theory. Personality and social
psychology bulletin, 33(6), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301014
Silver, L. (1968). Anxiety and the first semester of law school. Wisconsin Law Review, 1201.
Skead, N. K., Rogers, S. L., & Doraisamy, J. (2018). Looking beyond the mirror:
Psychological distress; disordered eating, weight and shape concerns; and
maladaptive eating habits in lawyers and law students. International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, 61, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.06.002
Skead, N. K., Rogers, S. L., & Johnson, W. R. (2020). The role of place, people and perception
in law student well-being. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 73, 101631.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101631
Slavin, Schindler, D. L., & Chibnall, J. T. (2014). Medical Student Mental Health 3.0: Improving
Student Wellness Through Curricular Changes. Academic Medicine, 89(4), 573–577.
155

https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000166
Spencer, A. (2012). The law school critique in historical perspective. Washington and Lee Law
Review, 69(4), 1949–2066.
Striegel‐Moore, R. H., Silberstein, L. R., Frensch, P., & Rodin, J. (1989). A prospective study of
disordered eating among college students. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 8(5), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(198909)8:5<499::AID-
EAT2260080502>3.0.CO;2-A
Stuckey, R. (2016). The American Bar Association’s New Mandates for Teaching Professional
Skills and Values: Impact, Human Resources, New Roles for Clinical Teachers, and
Virtual Worlds. Wake Forest Law Review, 51(2), 259.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Results from the
2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings (HHS
Publication No. SMA 14-4863, NSDUH Series H-48). http://www.samhsa.gov/data/
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2018). Key substance use and
mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2017 National Survey on
Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 18-5068, NSDUH Series H-53).
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/
Sullivan, W. M., Colby, A., Wegner, J. W., Bond, L., & Shulman, L. S. (2007). Educating
lawyers: Preparation for the profession of law (V ol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022
Wald, E., & Pearce, R. G. (2011). Making good lawyers. University of St. Thomas Law Journal,
9(2), 403–445.
156

Wills, T. A. (1987). Help-seeking as a coping mechanism. In Coping with negative life
events (pp. 19–50). Springer, Boston, MA.
Working Group on Attorney Mental Health of the New York State Bar Association. (2019). The
impact, legality, use and utility of mental disability questions on the New York State Bar
Application. New York State Bar Association.
https://nysba.org/NYSBA/Practice%20Resources/Substantive%20Reports/PDF/Working
%20Group%20Report%20FINAL%2011.04.19%20Following%20adoption%20by%20H
OD.pdf
157

Appendix A: Integrated Model of Thriving

Adapted from “Understanding the negative effects of legal education on law students: A longitudinal test
of self-determination theory,” by K.M. Sheldon and L. S. Krieger, 2007, Personality and social
psychology bulletin, 33(6), 883–897. Copyright 2007 by the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology, Inc.

Law school
Perceived
autonomy
support
Enhanced
psychological
need-satisfaction
Greater self-
determined career
motivation
Better subjective
well-being
Higher
performance/
achievement
158

Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
USC Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

STUDY TITLE: Identifying and Defining Environmental Stressors Influencing Law
Student Wellness and Well-Being: An Exploratory Study

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Erica Silbiger, Organizational Change and Leadership EdD
Program Student

FACULTY ADVISOR: Patricia Tobey, PhD Professor of Clinical Education at Rossier School
of Education

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary, and you may
stop at any time. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions
about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to determine and define the various stressors affecting current law
students to determine recommendations for law schools to adjust their practices and provide
adequate wellness options. This study implements an interview process to collect student
perspectives and experiences regarding their current learning environment.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to participate in the interview, you will be asked three main questions. This
interview should not take more than 30 minutes to complete, and you can stop at any time. The
interview sampling and data collection will continue until the data collected has reached
saturation. The requirement to participate in this study is the interviewee must be a recent
graduate of law school, or a current law student enrolled in either their first, second, or third year
of law school. Additionally, this law school must be accredited. Interviewees will not be
compensated for their participation in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

No identifiable information will be available when this study is published or discussed at later
dates. All responses in the interview will be exclusively used for research and educational
purposes. Your name will not appear on any transcript, notes, or publications and neither will
your institution’s. The interviews will be recorded for accuracy. The researcher will be the only
person to review the recording and audio transcriptions.

159

Interview participants will be asked to choose a pseudonym, or they can opt to have one assigned
to them by the researcher. All identifying information will be removed before processing the
recordings. Participants have the right to review and/or edit the audio or video recordings and
transcriptions upon request. Audio and video recordings will be stored electronically and will be
password protected. Additionally, the recordings will be deleted when the research process is
complete. The researcher is the only person with the password to access the data. All student data
will be purged at the conclusion of this study.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Erica Silbiger, silbiger@usc.edu or
Patricia Tobey, PhD, tobey@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Version Date: 02/04/2021 Page 1 of 1
USC IRB Information Sheet Template Version Date: 07/27/2019

160

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Interview Script
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. This interview should take approximately 30
minutes to complete.

Psychological distress in law students exceeds that of any other graduate school. Studies show
that there are several significant stressors causing this distress. This interview is to learn more
about your experiences and perspectives of your law school environment and available wellness
resources. This interview is a safe space and any information shared here will not be traceable to
any school, peer, or administrator. To ensure the confidentiality of your responses, all
interviewees will be provided with a pseudonym. Please note that you do not have to answer
every question and you can end the interview or withdraw any of your responses at any time.

To protect participants’ identities, as I mentioned previously, a pseudonym will be used. Do you
have a preference for your pseudonym, or would you prefer to have me create one for you?

I am going to begin the recording process now. The recording is to ensure accuracy of your
responses during the data analysis process. Please note that we can stop the recording at any time
if you feel uncomfortable. Do you consent to having this interview recorded?

Demographic and Qualifying Questions
First, I am going to ask you a few questions that mostly relate to demographic information. You
do not have to answer all of them, and we can skip any or all you feel uncomfortable answering.

1. Did you receive the information sheet for exempt research?
2. Do you consent to being recorded for this interview?
3. As a reminder, this interview is only for law students enrolled full-time in either their first,
second, or third year of law school. What year in law school are you currently enrolled? If
you are not enrolled in law school, we can end the interview here and I thank you for your
time.
4. How would you describe your gender identity?
5. How would you describe your ethnicity?
6. How would you describe your age?
7. Have you already or are you planning to take the Bar Exam? If yes, when? If you are
planning to take the Bar Exam but not yet sure when, you can say that you are unsure.
8. If you answered yes to question #7, which state(s) are you seeking a license?

Pre-Interview and Probing Questions
Now we will move onto the main interview questions. Again, you can skip any question you do
not feel comfortable answering and we can stop this interview at any time. If you do not want to
answer the question, just let me know and we can skip over it.

9. Who or what influenced your decision to apply to law school?
Warm-up question.

161

10. What kind of law are you interested in practicing?
Warm-up question.

11. Has your interest in that subject of law changed since your original interest to apply to law
school?
Warm-up question.
Probing question.

12. If you are in your first year of law school, looking back now, what was your transition like
from your previous educational or professional experience to your current educational
environment?
RQ1: Environmental stressors.

a. Please describe your perception of the support students received and/or were
available at your institution during that period of transition.
RQ2: Student experiences and perceptions.

13. If you are a recent graduate or are in your second or third year, looking back now, what was
your transition like from your first year until now?
RQ1: Environmental stressors.

a. Please describe your perception of the support students received and/or were
available at your institution during that period of transition.
RQ2: Student experiences and perceptions.

14. Did you face any significant challenges during this transition?
RQ1: Environmental stressors.

15. Can you give me an example of a challenge that you face on a daily basis, if any?
RQ1: Environmental stressors.

16. In your opinion, what do you think is the biggest challenge(s) law students face on a daily
basis?
RQ1: Environmental stressors.

17. Studies show that law students have the highest rates of psychological distress out of any
graduate program. How does this statement make you feel? Do you have any comments
about that statement?
RQ1: Environmental stressors.

Interview Questions
18. What experiences do you have, if any, navigating your school’s available resources for
student wellness?
RQ2: Student experiences and perceptions.

19. What is your perception of your school’s relationship to student wellness?
162

RQ1: Environmental stressors.
RQ3: Recommendations and support.

20. What would you identify as the environmental stressors you find most impactful?
RQ1: Environmental stressors.

Conclusion/Wrap-Up
21. Before we conclude the interview, do you have any words of wisdom you would share with
any prospective students transitioning to law school? Are there any institutional resources
they might find helpful?
Concluding question.
RQ2: Student experiences and perceptions.
RQ3: Recommendations and support.

22. Finally, is there anything else you would like to share with me about this topic?
Concluding question.

Thank you for sharing your time and experiences with me. Your perspectives will greatly
influence my study. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions or concerns.
163

Appendix D: Mental Health Resources
This document is meant to provide guidance and assistance for those seeking accessible mental
health resources. Please take advantage of these resources if you should feel triggered in any way
during the interview process. This document has been sent to all interview participants.

The information was retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website
(CDC, 2019, People Seeking Treatment section). For more information, please visit
cdc.gov/mentalhealth/index.html. Please note, this list is not exhaustive, as there are numerous
resources available that are not listed here.

Helplines

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
1-800-273-8255
suicidepreventionlifeline.org

Veterans Crisis Line
1-800-274-8255
Veteranscrisisline.net

Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) Helpline
1-800-662-HELP (4357)
Samhsa.gov/find-help/national-helpline

Crisis Text Line
Text SIGNS to 741741 for 24/7, anonymous, free crisis counseling

Help Finding Treatment

American Psychiatrist Association Foundation
Finder.psychiatry.org

American Psychological Association
http://locator.apa.org/

Health Insurance and Mental Health Services
Mentalhealth.gov/get-help/health-insurance

Local Health Centers for Substance Abuse Services
Bphc.hrsa.gov
164

Appendix E: Interview Recruitment Letter

Dear Law Student,
I am conducting a study, under the supervision of Patricia Tobey, PhD, in partial
fulfillment of my doctoral degree at the USC Rossier School of Education. The purpose of my
study is to identify and define the various stressors affecting law students today. My goal is to
uncover these stressors through conversations with you regarding your experiences in and
perspectives of law school. I would like to kindly ask for 30 minutes of your time to participate
in an interview centered around three main questions.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and your responses will be kept
confidential. Your name and your institution will also be kept confidential, as you will be
provided with a pseudonym. Your responses will have no impact on your role as a student at your
institution. You may discontinue participation in the study at any time. Any data collected from
the interview will be stored electronically and password protected. The data will be purged
following the conclusion of this study.
For more information, please feel free to contact me at silbiger@usc.edu or Patricia
Tobey, PhD at tobey@usc.edu. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Erica Silbiger
165

Appendix F: A Priori and in Vivo Transcription Codes

Cognitive Behavioral Environmental
Self-efficacy Self-determination Social context
Competence Intrinsic motivation Competitive culture
Relatedness Extrinsic motivation Normative anxiety
Procedural knowledge Resource navigation Psychological distress
Self-regulation Classroom influences
Available coping strategies

166

Appendix G: Breakdown of Time Allocations
Unit Prep time Assessments Independent study Total time
Applied contract law 14.40 4.00 42.60 160.00
Business law 14.40 2.83 43.77 160.00
Intellectual property law 14.40 2.67 43.93 160.00
Tort law 14.40 3.42 43.18 160.00
Public relations law 14.40 2.83 43.77 160.00

Adapted from “A model of student workload,” by K. Bowyer, 2012, Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 34(3), 239–258. Copyright 2012 by the Association for
Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership
and Management.
167

Appendix H: W.K. Kellogg Logic Model

Adapted from the “Logic Model Development Guide,” by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004.
Copyright 1998 by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
1
Resources/inputs
2
Activities
3
Outputs
4
Outcomes
5
Impact
Your planned work Your intended results

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Improving student-athlete mental health services: addressing the mental health needs of college student-athletes

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher well-being matters: an explorative study of early childhood teacher well-being, their experiences, and perspectives

PDF

Media literacy education: a qualitative inquiry into the perspectives teachers hold about teaching media literacy

PDF

Teaching well-being alongside academic studies in an undergraduate for-credit mindfulness course

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

The relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs among college students

PDF

Nourish to flourish: strengthening social emotional wellness of teachers to mitigate stress, enrich engagement, and increase efficacy: an evaluation study

PDF

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

Well-being and healing as resistance: testimonios of Latina students’ arrebatos in California community colleges

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Evaluation of mental health support and needs for emergency department providers

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

Support for single parents in college: a gap analysis

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

Educational experiences and psychosocial well-being of newcomer Afghan refugee students in California community colleges

PDF

Exploring mental health care utilization and academic persistence among college students: evaluating racial and stigma-related disparities

PDF

Assessing student burnout using the AllWell? survey at Aalto University: an evaluation study

PDF

Student mental health and wellness in K-12 high-performing school districts in Northern California: best practices for educational leaders

Asset Metadata

Creator Silbiger, Erica Caye (author)

Core Title Identifying and defining environmental stressors influencing law student wellness and well-being: an exploratory study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 03/15/2022

Defense Date 12/02/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic demands,alternative coping strategies,antiquated traditions,anxiety,bar exam,behavioral change,career pressure,character and fitness assessment,classroom environment,competitive atmosphere,competitiveness,coping mechanisms,coping strategies,COVID-19,Depression,disordered eating,enhanced psychological needs satisfaction,environmental stressors,exploratory study,extrinsic motivation,first-year experience,global pandemic,grading curve,help-seeking,help-seeking behavior,help-seeking stigma,high-pressure environment,integrated model of thriving,intrinsic motivation,Kellogg logic model,knowledge gaps,law school,law school culture,law school students,law student competence,law student mental health,law student well-being,law student wellness,learning environment,legal education,medical school comparison,Mental Health,mental health literacy,Motivation,navigating wellness resources,normative anxiety,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,perceived autonomy support,perceived copy efficacy,performative wellness resources,prioritizing wellness,procedural knowledge,program expectations,program theory,psychological distress,public mental health stigma,qualitative study,reciprocal determinism,relatedness,resilience,resource access,resource availability,resource navigation,resource reliability,rite of passage mentality,self-determination theory,self-determined career motivation,self-efficacy theory,self-regulation,social cognitive theory,social isolation,Socratic method,student debt,student experiences,student identity,student perceptions,student wellness,subject mastery,subjective well-being,substance abuse,suicide ideation,well-being,wellness,workload

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Wilcox, Alexandra (committee member), Yates, Kenneth (committee member)

Creator Email erica.caye@gmail.com,silbiger@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110816146

Unique identifier UC110816146

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Silbiger, Erica Caye

Type texts

Source 20220321-usctheses-batch-916 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu