What's in a law degree?

Editorial from the Autumn 2002 issue of the UKCLE newsletter on the need to review the law curriculum in order to meet the widening participation agenda and other current challenges.

Law is now the most popular undergraduate subject judged by applications received this year. If widening participation was merely about getting more students registered on degrees, we could feel pretty satisfied that we were doing our bit to meet the government’s target of a 50% participation rate by 2010. However, one of the main aspirations of the widening participation agenda was to attract into higher education those who would not normally consider applying to university; specifically those without traditional entrance qualifications and those from lower social classes. The popularity and status of a law degree mean that, particularly for the ‘elite’ law schools, there was little incentive to stray too far from the traditional admissions criteria. The newer universities, which tend to be more successful at recruiting from educationally and otherwise disadvantaged sections of society, are not the primary hunting ground of the professions and find it difficult to gain credit with employers, potential students, or indeed the government for their efforts to cater to an increasingly diverse student population.

If we are to genuinely seek to widen access, not only to higher education but also to the legal professions, a radical change in attitude is called for. Policy makers need to add weight to their professed commitment to widening access by providing recognition, through additional funding, to those universities that recruit students from less privileged backgrounds. The status and contribution of these institutions needs to be promoted. In an increasingly diverse system, there should be room for institutions that fulfil different needs and interests, with each being recognised for the value added by their endeavours.

The recruitment policies of the legal professions may be harder to influence through direct intervention, but the release in August of a consultation document by the Bar Council and the Law Society on the academic stage of training does acknowledge the need to encourage access to the profession and the promotion of diversity within it, and also states that “we cannot condone a situation where some students may be arbitrarily excluded from opportunities to progress within the legal profession solely on the ground of the institution they attended”. This statement is to be welcomed, and it is to be hoped that action will be consequent upon it to open up the professions to those from less privileged social and educational backgrounds.

The widening participation policy has other consequences for the relationship between the universities and the professions. Without the resourcing to match the increase in numbers, an additional strain is placed on an educational system that some believe is already close to breaking point. This, combined with concerns about the appropriateness of diversifying (some would say relaxing) admissions criteria, raises questions about the maintenance of standards in legal education. This causes the professional bodies to become anxious about the role of the academic stage in adequately preparing the next generation of lawyers. The Quality Assurance Agency’s announcement last year that subject review was to be reformed and the degree of external scrutiny significantly reduced caused much consternation at the Bar Council. It was suggested that if higher education was not exerting sufficient regulation of quality in the professions’ view; then the professions might themselves feel obliged to take on a greater regulatory role. This unease about the stringency of quality assurance procedures is reflected in the current consultation document, which seeks views on the idea that the professions should offer guidance and even training to external examiners on qualifying law degrees. The Bar’s concern about the robustness of the undergraduate degree is echoed in the Law Society’s review of training for solicitors, which has been prompted by “widespread concern amongst the profession that, for whatever reason, the pre-admission training process, taken as a whole, is insufficiently rigorous and produces a lower standard of legal knowledge and analysis than was previously the case”.

The current consultation on the academic stage of training makes plain the concerns of both the Bar Council and the Law Society and sets out their suggestions for offsetting them. It will not surprise many that these include greater prescription of the content of the qualifying law degree. However, it will dismay not only those who object in principle to any infringement of academic freedom but also those who fear that a more prescribed curriculum will limit the opportunity to engage with a more diverse student body through imaginative and varied approaches to learning, teaching and assessment. It is to be hoped that these fears prove unjustified, and that the consultation document will provide an opportunity for law schools and the professions to work together to make positive progress in redesigning the curriculum to respond to changing times and to increase the choice available to the individual student.

A complete review of the curriculum is needed to enable students both to choose a route to suit their individual interests and also to graduate with a degree that continues to reflect achievement in areas of knowledge that are fundamental to the understanding of law. This is no easy task, and demands that law teachers discuss and plan the curriculum and have a shared idea of what they value as the fundamentals of a law degree.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010