Revised law subject benchmark statement: UKCLE response

In August 2006 the Quality Assurance Agency issued a draft law subject benchmark statement for consultation – the UKCLE response is given below. The new law subject benchmark statement was released in December 2007.

---

Question 1: Overall, does the revised subject benchmark statement continue to fulfil its original intention in defining the nature of the discipline and the academic standards expected of an undergraduate in the subject area? If it does not, please describe the changes you would see as necessary for the revised subject benchmark statement to continue to fulfil its original intention.

The comments which follow apply as much to the original statement as to the revised version, since there is only a marginal difference between the two. The main amendments have been in relation to the formatting of the document which has made it in general, rather easier to read. We regret, however, that the opportunity to update and refresh the document, which remains rather dry and introspective, has not been taken; particularly at a time when, in our opinion, a more responsive and outward-looking approach is called for.

The law benchmark statement is notable for not defining the nature of the discipline in either the original or the revised version. Both documents are very technical in approach, concerned solely with the definition of standards. Where other benchmark statements commence with detailed overviews of the subject under discussion, and a consideration of the context in which the subject is taught, the law benchmark statement proceeds directly to a description of the standards required. There is no attempt made to place the study of law within its context or to convey to intending students, employers or other interested parties what is distinctive and intellectually exciting about the discipline of law. This is a pity since benchmarks are public documents, intended to be of interest to a range of audiences as well as a tool for law schools. It is important that as such the significance of law as a topic of academic study is adequately conveyed.

Question 2: Does the information in the introductory section(s) successfully describe the nature of the discipline and its defining principles? If it does not, what additional aspects might be included, excluded or elaborated? (For example, is there sufficient indication given to the existence of additional reference points such as the requirements of professional, statutory or regulatory bodies, or the existence of European standards?)

As above, it is our opinion that the benchmark statement does not spend enough time in the introductory section describing the discipline and its defining principles, and considering the current context and key changes since 2000.

In terms of key changes we would expect to see reference to the following matters:

1. While we agree that it is not the role of the benchmark statement to prescribe the content or assessment of law programmes it would be helpful to see an acknowledgement of shifts in pedagogical practice and how these can be accommodated within the standards described. The development of e-learning and the introduction of personal development planning are just two areas in which there has been significant development since 2000.
2. Employability and lifelong learning form a significant agenda both in the UK and in the EU. Comment on the particular challenges that this brings to the law curriculum might be expected.
3. An explanation of the perceived relationship between the academic and vocational stages of legal education might be expected.
4. The implications of the Bologna Process for legal education in the UK should be considered.
5. The increase in the number of law schools, the grant of degree awarding powers to private providers, and the development of law degrees which comprise the Graduate Diploma in Law plus the Legal Practice Course might be considered worthy of mention.
6. We have noted the exclusion of Scotland from this version of the benchmark statement. Through private enquiry that we have ascertained that this is because a separate statement for Scotland has been suggested by QAA. This is not widely known within the discipline community and there is no explanation of the omission in this revised document.

Question 3: Does the section on subject knowledge and understanding continue to describe successfully the core aspects of an undergraduate education in the subject area? Are there any areas of knowledge that should be included to reflect newly-emerged areas of teaching/research? Are there any areas that have become redundant? Please list these as appropriate.

This section remains unchanged. It is very brief, which is probably a reflection of the concern not to dictate content. However, the focus on the legal system as the core area of study does tend to underplay significantly the breadth of knowledge and understanding that will be fostered by the study of law. Again, it seems that the section is more concerned with technical points rather than with communicating a clear sense of the scope of the discipline area. It is our belief that the statement could be more descriptive without necessarily being prescriptive and that this would help to make the document as a whole more accessible, interesting and informative.

Question 4: Does the section relating to subject-specific skills continue to cover adequately the skills expected of an undergraduate in the subject area? If it does not, which particular skills should be added or omitted?

In our opinion it would be appropriate to make explicit reference to critical skills in the detailed reading and analysis of texts, the command of a broad range of vocabulary and appropriate terminology, and bibliographic skills appropriate to the discipline, including accurate citation of sources.

Question 5: Is the coverage of generic skills expected to be acquired by a graduate in the subject area adequate and appropriate? If it is not, which particular skills should be added or omitted?

The skills described are those that might be expected of any honours graduate, whatever the subject area. However, there is a case for arguing that law as a discipline is ideally suited to their development and as such should be particularly attractive both to potential students and ultimately to employers. This strength within the discipline could be highlighted, again to make the document less inward looking and more relevant to the concerns of diverse audiences. An example of the confined nature of the document is the description of the higher skills of analysis, synthesis, critical judgement and evaluation which seems to be focused entirely on the requirements for problem solving a standard law examination question.

Question 6: Does the section on teaching, learning and assessment continue to provide the user with an appropriate indication of the types of teaching and assessment relevant to an undergraduate education in the subject area? If it does not, how might this section be improved in terms of the level of detail provided, and the types of teaching and assessment defined?

There is no separate section on teaching, learning and assessment. The statement in general is not concerned with setting out how the discipline should be taught, structured or assessed, stating that these are matters for the individual HEIs. While this position is endorsed by the UKCLE, we nevertheless feel that some more general guidance on the standards of practice that are now considered fundamental to any well run programme of study may be appropriate. For example, this might include the expectation that assessment criteria should be specified, that teaching and assessment methods are appropriate to the learning outcomes desired, and that students are provided with timely and constructive feedback. Again, this is not to dictate to law schools how they should operate but to assist them in adhering to the standards that the benchmark sets out.

As a related matter, contrary to what is stated in paragraph 1.7, it is not clear to us that there is any illustration of how the outcomes in Appendix B may be assessed.

Question 7: Does the standards section successfully articulate what is expected of a graduate in the subject area in terms of a threshold level of attainment? If it does not, what changes would you see as necessary?

The setting of the benchmark at the threshold level has been controversial in law, particularly given the generally high calibre of the students accepted onto law programmes. Many feel that the description of the ‘typical’ student is more appropriate as a benchmark.

Question 8: If the standards section includes attainment levels further to that of threshold (typical/excellent), are these successfully articulated in the revised subject benchmark statement? If they are not, what changes would you see as necessary?

In the typical statement set out in Appendix A, it is not entirely clear to us how the differentiation in standards has been made between what is required for, as an example, a single subject and a mixed degree since there are no explanatory notes about each of the categories and what they ‘typically’ represent. In general, it seems to be expected that students on mixed degree programmes simply acquire a limited knowledge of the law that is taught on the single subject degree. In our view, it would be useful to consider what should be expected when law is taught on an interdisciplinary or comparative basis, and for the benchmark statement to provide a framework for this type of approach.

Question 9: Is the content and wording of any individual section sufficiently clear to the reader? Are there any sections that would benefit from further revision to add to their clarity/interpretation?

The formatting of the document creates a couple of difficulties in interpreting the content:

1. in the text for law schools, it is unclear which are the subject specific abilities (knowledge, application and problem solving and sources and research) and which are the general transferable intellectual skills;
2. it is also not particularly easy to read across the various categories of Appendix A. The process of transferring this information from a table to a list has resulted in a few errors – in particular the text relating to ‘other key skills’ has been incorrectly transferred into each of the categories.

Question 10: How has the original subject benchmark statement been received and used by the subject community based on your own experience in your home institution/organisation?

There is very little shared understanding across the discipline of how the subject benchmark statement has been received and used. The perception of the UKCLE is that in most law schools the benchmark statement has been assimilated within programme specifications and to this extent has been useful in better articulating the learning outcomes expected and in prompting a consideration of appropriate assessment as a result. It is not known how or if the subject benchmark is used by employers of law graduates, although law is included in the Student Employability Profiles which have been compiled by The Higher Education Academy and its Subject Centres with the Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE). Each profile identifies skills that can be developed through the study of a particular discipline, based on the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) subject benchmark statements. It may be that this more ‘targeted’ explanation of the outcomes of studying a particular discipline will be of more relevance to potential employers.

Question 11: Were you aware prior to this consultation that the original subject benchmark statement was under review? Have you been directly involved in the process of review and revision?

Yes, we were aware that the benchmark statement was under review. We were contacted by a member of the review group concerning the update of footnotes referring to resources on the UKCLE website but we have had no substantive input into the process of revising the statement. It is clear that other disciplines considered the inclusion of their subject centre in the process as relevant, in several cases as a part of the review group itself. We regret that this was not the case in law, but believe it is symptomatic of an approach which has proceeded from the view that the statement required only minor updates. The omission of any consideration of the broader context of the discipline in the original statement has not been picked up by the review group, and perhaps if it had this may have been the spur for more detailed consultation with the UKCLE and others about the current complexion of the discipline and future challenges.

Question 12: Please use this space to add any further observations relating to the revised subject benchmark statement that are not covered in the questions above.

We would advocate that in the introduction to the revised benchmark statement, the group makes it clear what it saw as its task and highlights what changes have been made.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010