Quality assurance and qualifying law degrees

In autumn 2002 the Bar Council and the Law Society issued a consultation on the academic stage of training for entry to the legal profession in England and Wales. UKCLE’s response (November 2002) is reproduced below – for more information on this topic see our quality mini-site.

---

The UK Centre for Legal Education is the subject centre for law, established in January 2000 as part of the Learning and Teaching Support Network funded through the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund. UKCLE supports effective practice in teaching, learning and assessment and works with law teachers at both the academic and vocational stages of legal education. The Centre provides a range of services including staff development events, publications, Web resources and funds for research and project development. It has mutually supportive relationships with the key legal education organisations, all of which are represented on its Advisory Board. Through the Learning in Law Initiative (LILI) UKCLE has contact with each UK law school and maintains a database of the interests and concerns of the LILI membership, which is used to inform UKCLE activities. Organisational changes currently being considered by the Cooke Committee on Teaching Quality Enhancement suggest that the LTSN subject centres will take on additional functions in relation to quality enhancement at departmental and institutional level in the future.

UKCLE has seen the responses from law schools and institutions to the consultation exercise circulated through the Committee of Heads of University Law Schools (CHULS). It would make the following observations in response to the questions posed in the consultation document.

Introduction

It would be helpful for all concerned if the unease about the relative quality and standards of law degree programmes and the perceived deficiencies of law graduates was founded on clear and attributable evidence. The anecdotal quality of current reports has the effect of undermining teachers, students, departments and institutions, while denying them the means to respond adequately to the concerns raised. It is therefore suggested that those involved with the delivery of legal education at all stages work together to identify key areas of concern and to institute a research programme to assess their validity. UKCLE is currently engaged in supporting a number of small scale research projects that investigate various aspects of legal education, with a view to enhancing understanding of effective processes and practices. The support and involvement of the professional bodies in developing and informing such research would be welcomed.

Clearly graduate recruiters have a key role in ensuring that selection is based on merit, and that judgements about suitability are not dictated by which institution the candidate attended. However, it may be that law schools can do more to advise their students on preparing themselves for the job market. For example, it would be worth exploring the reasons for the apparent preference for ‘old university’ graduates; assuming that it is not merely a question of prejudice, there may be factors (such as greater opportunities to engage in extra curricular activities) which enhance the CV of these graduates and make them more attractive to recruiters. If a range of desirable attributes can be identified, these can be made transparent to law schools and their students and inform strategies for preparing graduates for employment. UKCLE is currently funding a project investigating the views of law firms on the suitability of the LPC for preparing recruits for practice, and has been awarded £10,000 by the HEFCE for activity more generally in the area of employability. The Centre would be pleased to work with the professional bodies in pursuing research and development activity in this area.

Section A: Standards and content

Para. 9: We do not agree that the existence of the Benchmark statement and the Joint statement (PDF file) is confusing. The benchmark statement sets out the distinguishing features of a graduate in law (regardless of their ultimate career destination). The joint statement is concerned to identify those additional features that are required for recruits to the legal professions. In this sense, it builds upon the benchmark statement. This seems wholly sensible and appropriate.

Para. 10: The law benchmark team defined a threshold standard so that it was clear what knowledge, abilities and skills a minimally acceptable graduate would possess. However, the team also recognised that most law schools would have higher aspirations for their graduates, and an example of a ‘modal’ statement is included as an appendix to the law benchmark statement to assist law schools to identify the qualities of the ‘typical’ student. In this context any redraft of Schedule One to relate it more nearly to the benchmark statement should both define the threshold standard and also exemplify the expected achievements of the ‘typical student’, indicating clearly which elements are additional to the benchmark statement which currently applies. As indicated above, however, it is our belief that such an exercise is not necessary and that the current benchmark statement and joint statement are sufficiently clear and well understood.

Para. 12: In our view it is entirely appropriate that the knowledge which students are expected to acquire is left unspecified in the benchmark statement. As has been noted by others, law is taught in universities as an academic discipline and not as a vocational qualification. As such it is inappropriate to prescribe too severely what is taught, and we would be concerned about the impact on teaching, learning and assessment practices of any attempt to do so. The current description of the foundations of legal knowledge seem to us to indicate adequately those elements that are core to the law degree for those who wish to go on to train as lawyers.

Aside from wishing to support the academic identity of law at undergraduate level, UKCLE would argue that it is not the specification of particular areas of knowledge that is important but enabling students to learn independently and apply their knowledge in different contexts. Enabling students to acquire skills of research, analysis, synthesis and application demands room within the curriculum to employ a range of learning, teaching and assessment methods. We submit that the focus on content over process militates against the production of the type of graduates that the professions require.

Section B: Assessment

Para. 15: The professional bodies naturally have an interest in the quality assurance processes of law schools and wish to be satisfied that law students have the knowledge and skills necessary to proceed to train for practice. The offer of greater involvement in the external examining of law degrees is no doubt meant to be helpful and to foster closer partnership between university law schools and the professional bodies. However, it needs to be acknowledged that given the history and context of previous debates in this area such a suggestion is unlikely to be well received by most undergraduate providers. There is general agreement from the law school and university responses that the study of law at undergraduate level offers a liberal education in its own right and is not a vocational course of study. In this context the appropriateness of additional guidance or training for external examiners, provided by the professional bodies, is bound to be questioned if not viewed with suspicion.

We would like to champion an approach based on the exchange of ideas, approaches and practices between the academic and vocational stages of legal education with a view to fostering greater understanding and co-operation. The Vocational Teachers Forum established by UKCLE two years ago is a first step in this direction and again, we would welcome the involvement of the professional bodies in supporting, developing and promoting this type of initiative.

Para. 16: UKCLE is committed to enabling law schools to employ effective pedagogical practice, and we are therefore concerned by the suggestion that the professions should lay down basic requirements in respect of assessment, particularly since the implication is that examination is felt to be the only reliable way of assessing students. Exams have their place but to repeat what should by now be a familiar refrain, assessment must be related to desired learning outcomes. Exams will not always be the most appropriate way to test, for example, critical thinking skills. Comparing assessment practices in law with other university disciplines, for example medicine, suggests that in general undergraduate law programmes are failing to keep pace with best practice elsewhere. A reliance on traditional assessment methods, far from protecting standards, undermines the credibility of law schools that seek to demonstrate that their students have developed the range of knowledge, skills and abilities that are now acknowledged as emblematic of a graduate in law.

It should also be taken into account that an increasingly diverse student body, in addition to the implications of SENDA for learning, teaching and assessment practices, means that universities, and of course law schools, need to be thinking more, not less, creatively about the ways in which they engage with their students and make the most of their potential. We acknowledge the concern about the maintenance of standards. The rapidly changing context of higher education is a challenge for us all, and the strains on the system are clear. However, research evidence tells us that traditional, didactic approaches are not often the most appropriate means of enabling deep, meaningful learning to take place. If we are to respond professionally to the task of teaching our students we are bound to base our practices on an informed and scholarly understanding of how students learn best.

Once again, a clearer understanding of the basis of expressed concerns in relation to the reliability and validity of assessment would be helpful.

Section C: Resources

We are guided by the responses of the majority of law schools in this regard and support their view that a minimum standard might have adverse consequences for some law schools.

Section D: Alternative approach

We do not perceive a need for any kitemarking scheme. Responses indicate that the more successful law schools, judged by existing league tables, would not participate and in these circumstances the whole enterprise would lose credibility.

Last Modified: 28 July 2010