Giving Credit Where Credit is Due: U.S. Perspectives on Recognition of Academic Credit for Coursework Completed Abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giving Credit Where Credit is Due; U.S. Perspectives on Recognition of Academic Credit for Coursework Completed Abroad\nIn 2016, the ABA’s Section on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar issued revisions to Standard 310, Determination of Credit Hours for Coursework, as well as a Guidance Memo from the Managing Director. The Section also issued a Memorandum further explaining implementation of the Revised Standards and Rules of Procedure as they affect other Standards that relate to credit transfer for study abroad. These changes will affect the ways that all of our schools determine how to accept credit for student work done under the supervision of our partner schools abroad.\nHow should U.S. law schools implement the revised Standards? This panel will encourage a lively discussion of this important question, one that is informed not only by the ABA revision process, but also by thoughtful approaches to similar questions debated in other countries. After all, regulating the granting of credit for coursework undertaken at foreign universities is not uniquely an issue for U.S. law schools. Law schools in Canada and universities throughout the European Union, for example, have participated in educational exchanges for nearly thirty years. This panel will also attempt to encourage discussion of the implementation of ABA Revised Standard 310 as informed by approaches in other countries.\nPresenters:\nWilliam E. Adams, Jr., Deputy Managing Director, ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the BAR\nDiane Penneys Edelman, Director of International Programs and Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".