Recruitment strategies for law degrees: is the agenda achievable?

In this article from the Spring 2004 issue of Directions Ann Holmes, then Dean of Law at Staffordshire University and Chair of the UKCLE Advisory Board, discusses the crowded agenda faced by admissions tutors.

The number of undergraduates applying to undergraduate law programmes has recently seen a significant increase, and law has been seen as a ‘cash cow’ by many universities for some years. With the removal of restrictions on maximum student numbers both pre- and post-1992 universities have seen a significant increase in applications to popular vocational disciplines, including law, and a decline in applications to other disciplines, such as science and languages. At the same time we have the widening participation agenda, the introduction of top-up fees and the debate on falling standards. How can a law school’s recruitment strategy seek to address effectively all of these issues?

Firstly, without wishing to be unduly provocative, I would suggest that there is a dichotomy emerging in some universities between the widening participation agenda and the need to ‘maintain standards’. We have seen a steady increase in the number of students gaining A grades across the board at A level. However, with the removal of the restriction on student numbers, some universities find themselves in the ‘enviable’ position of receiving 2,000-3,000 applications, of which 40% meet the standard offer, usually obtaining a majority of A grades. There is an obvious problem for these universities; how do they distinguish between these A grade students and at the same time meet the pressure of recruiting to university targets for widening participation and diversity which all universities have signed up to? We read (Guardian, November 2003) that “a cluster of the country’s elite institutions have come together to devise a strategy for discriminating between pupils receiving top grades at A level”, the plan being to introduce “ …a customised American-style test for law students”. The article goes on to describe the possible features of such a test, but also raises concerns about the creation of “a two tier ‘Ivy League’ system”.

Testing is not unheard of in the UK – there is at least one law faculty which has had a pre-entry test for entry to their undergraduate law programmes for over 20 years. Also, such examinations in the form of cognitive testing have been undertaken by universities in the USA for a considerable number of years. However, at the moment it is proposed that only a select few (the elite – in the words of the Guardian) will be party to the introduction of such tests.

The dilemma is, do such tests deter widening participation and diversity? We know from both the THES and programmes such as Radio 4’s Today programme that a number of pre-1992 universities are not meeting their widening participation targets, and have been criticised for not doing enough or moving too slowly to address this particular agenda. Indeed one Russell Group university has actually seen a decline in the admission of students from state schools. However, the widening participation agenda is far more than taking an A grade student from a state school; surely it is also about ‘value added’? This is something which is consistently ignored in the debate on widening participation, benchmarks and league tables. 70% of students from disadvantaged groups already find themselves in post-1992 universities. Many such students study part time on awards delivered in the evening. Such students are not necessarily A grade students. The current agenda will not necessarily enable them to find their way into the pre-1992 universities.

As a result of an approach by the head of one university law faculty, I undertook a quick survey to find out the views of heads of law schools to the proposals to introduce admissions tests for entry to law awards by some universities. Although the response rate was low (one would have thought that this was an area which would engender discussion), interestingly only a few heads from pre-1992 universities felt that such a test did not support the widening participation and diversity agenda and therefore should not be introduced; these heads would actually fight any attempt to introduce such tests within their own university. Unsurprisingly, those heads who responded from post-1992 universities did not have any plans to introduce such tests, which clearly would not inform any recruitment strategy in these universities. There is certainly potential for much more research to be undertaken in this area. It could be argued that an aptitude to study law, in the sense of having the appropriate cognitive skills, is more appropriate than obtaining four A grades at A level. Such an approach may be more supportive of the widening participation agenda than excellent A level results followed by a further examination.

The introduction of top-up fees may only serve to make it harder for universities to meet their widening participation targets. Whether one supports the introduction of top-up fees and whether they should be variable or one rate is not an issue for this article. However, a number of MPs have expressed concern that top-up fees may deter prospective students from low income backgrounds from entering higher education and subsequently the professions. In addition I would ask, what guarantees are in place to ensure that additional funds generated by top-up fees will be allocated to and within universities in a fair manner to support teaching, bursaries etc?

Whilst some universities may well gain significant income from the introduction of top-up fees, others will clearly lose out and will not have the resources to be able to offer the significant bursaries which some universities are proposing to offer; for example, Cambridge has suggested that it will offer bursaries of £4,000 per annum. As Peter Bradley MP stated a few weeks ago, while rich universities will become richer the poorer universities will suffer. (It should be noted that this MP was originally against the introduction of top-up fees, but subsequently changed his mind!)

It is unlikely in the short term that the introduction of top-up fees will deter students from studying law. However, it is regarded as a low cost course, and as Secretary of State Charles Clarke has suggested, such low cost courses will have to subsidise high cost subjects. Some of these subjects, such as the sciences, are already facing a recruitment crisis. MP Alan Johnson’s proposal in support of variable fees was that the introduction of top-up fees would allow disciplines facing a crisis to charge next to nothing and be cross subsidised by law students – his words! One vice chancellor (writing in the THES on 29 January 2004) has suggested that there is nothing to stop discounting taking place during clearing; market forces, targets, top-up fees, entrance examinations, widening participation – the admissions tutor’s dilemma.

Finally, the outcome of the Law Society’s Training Framework Review will have a significant impact on recruitment to undergraduate law programmes, particularly if the four year integrated/exempting model becomes more widespread. This route, whilst not avoiding tuition fees, will at least allow the student to keep the cost of becoming a solicitor to pre-2006 tuition fee level.

Even if the recruitment is achievable, what impact does it have on research, scholarship and pedagogy? And more importantly what is the student experience?

Last Modified: 4 June 2010