School-wide AI review
A map of where AI touches your school (teaching, assessment, admissions, career services, faculty policy) and which changes are most urgent.
You get: a written review ranking the areas by urgency and effort, with the evidence behind each and the decisions they depend on.
Assessment and grading
Which exams and assignments still show what a student can do alone, which no longer do, and what to replace them with. Options are weighed for cost, faculty time and effect on grade reliability.
You get: a position paper for the dean and faculty, with the trade-offs of each option and a practical guide for faculty.
Faculty working group support
Help setting up an AI working group and running it to decisions: its charter, the criteria it judges proposals by, how members propose and rank areas, and briefings at each meeting.
You get: a working plan for the group, meeting materials, and plain-language briefings members can share with colleagues.
Research briefings
Short, sourced answers to the questions faculty ask. Does AI weaken students’ thinking? What do employers now expect of new lawyers? What have peer schools changed? Each briefing says how strong the evidence is and what it leaves open.
You get: a written note with sources for each question, usually within one to two weeks.
Analysis of your school’s data
Evidence from your own records: how consistent your exams and grades are, how grades relate across courses and years, how they relate to bar passage and first jobs, and what a proposed grading change would do before you adopt it. Work is done on de-identified records your school prepares.
You get: a plain-language report with the figures behind it, and the analysis code if you want to rerun it.
Implementation planning
For changes the school adopts: pilots, owners, timelines, and how results will be judged before anything is scaled up.
You get: a written plan for each change, with the measures that will show whether it worked.