Counting the cost of the law degree

Two years ago we reviewed some of the developments in funding law schools’ teaching in our editorial entitled The costs of legal education. Developments since then warrant further discussion. (Editorial from the Spring 2004 issue of Directions.)

---

Popularity unrewarded

The law degree is one the fastest growing subjects in terms of popularity in higher education. In 2003 applicants were up 12.5% on 2002 according to UCAS – only medicine grew faster in popularity. The most sought after subject amongst applicants in 2003 was business and administrative studies. Law was eighth most popular overall, with more applications received in 2003 only for creative arts/design, maths/computer sciences, biology, engineering and social studies.

Law is also an attractive subject with vice chancellors, for whom it represents a popular programme that can be delivered at relatively low cost. Unlike most other degree programmes that carry professional accreditation kudos (medicine, engineering, architecture, psychology), law is conventionally taught almost exclusively in lecture and seminar. Few law schools aspire to staff student ratios that can be called tutorials. No purely undergraduate programme includes a clinical programme in its mandatory curriculum. The threshold programme to the Bar, Law Society and judiciary is usually delivered at rock bottom prices – or so we understand.

How HEFCE calculates teaching costs

The actual costs of delivery are difficult to estimate, however, and nobody really knows what it costs to teach law. Firstly, the methods for collecting data do not provide separate statistics for law. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), in its mechanisms for funding teaching in higher education, includes law in the cost centre for social studies. The UCAS method for comparing disciplines has only separated law since 2002. Secondly, whilst the HEFCE criteria determine the amount of money that universities receive for each student, the sums made available for departmental use for teaching are settled by vice chancellors. Anecdotally, funds for programmes that can be delivered cheaply, such as law, are used to maintain subjects, such as chemistry, that may struggle to pay their way.

The unsatisfactory basis for calculating teaching costs for law was almost certainly not one of the reasons that HEFCE decided last year to review the basis for funding teaching in higher education. In a year packed with reform proposals and consultation papers, HEFCE’s review of funding for undergraduate teaching was eclipsed by student fees. Its consultation document, Developing the funding method for teaching from 2004-05, covered many aspects of funding, including financing foundation degrees, widening access and improving retention.

Band funding determines the amount of money every HE institution receives based upon a sum per full time equivalent student admitted to an undergraduate programme. HEFCE is proposing that as from 2004-05 each subject will be allocated funds according to the following bands:

Price Group	Description	Cost weight	Current base price per student (2002-03)
A	the clinical stages of medicine and dentistry courses and veterinary science	4.5	£12,915
B1	high cost laboratory-based science, engineering and technology	2	£5,740
B2	other laboratory-based science, engineering and technology	1.6	n/a
C	intermediate cost subjects with a studio, laboratory or fieldwork element	1.5	£4,305
D	all other subjects (including law)	1	£2,870

Source: HEFCE Guide 02/18 and Consultation 2003/42

The consultation proposes splitting Band B, thereby releasing additional money for distribution amongst lower bands. Law would be therefore an overall winner since the base rate for all Band D subjects would increase by 9.4%.

Good news – but more money is still too little

Whilst this increase is welcome, law schools have repeatedly argued that relegation to the lowest band distorts the actual costs of delivery and inhibits development. In 1983 a Working Party of the Committee of Heads of University Law Schools (CHULS) argued that law teaching was unfairly disadvantaged (SPTL Newsletter 1984).

UKCLE recently prepared a background paper rehearsing the arguments for elevating law to Band C. The case was made at two levels. Firstly, the funding mechanism has never reflected the true costs of legal study. Legal method involves the cumulative analysis of cases and statutes (laboratory exercises) and the constant acquisition and storage of rules and judgements (raw materials). Historic processes of costing learning and teaching for law have wrongly assumed that the use of legal texts is the same as in humanities and social studies.

Secondly, best practices such as experiential and clinical learning methods, which research has shown to be most effective in law, are thwarted because of the additional costs of lower staf student ratios, scarcity of appropriate expertise, expense of practical materials and the lack of specialist facilities.

The plant and raw materials of legal study

The raw materials of law are constantly expanding, reflecting new sub-disciplines and the fragmentation of established topics; the regulation of new commercial practices, population movements, global criminal enterprises, and communication technologies; the development of European law and human rights discourse; and the increasing significance of alternative legal cultures – civil and sharia law. The sheer volume of legal authority has significantly outpaced the other subjects with which law is aggregated.

Studying law places altogether different demands upon library and other information resources. Keeping up with new legislation and court decisions spawns additional labour costs of updating loose leafed volumes, managing access (labelling, record entry, etc) and the regular expansion of shelving. The frequency with which law students require access to law databases is far in excess of most other disciplines.

The burden of these additional costs are felt unevenly between old and new universities. The recent survey of law libraries revealed a large gap between spending per law student on law materials between ‘old’ and ‘new’ universities. The median for old universities was £148; for new universities it was £101, and the difference is widening (SLS/BIALL Academic Law Library Survey 2001/2002, download from Legal Information Management vol 3 no 2). There is clear evidence that some vice chancellors are failing to appreciate the essential costs of supporting library services.

Legal research and laboratory practice

Band C subjects (for example maths, modern languages, psychology) currently include an element of laboratory practice. UKCLE argues that the case method is akin to laboratory experiments. It is essentially a process in which all students must participate, often repeating the same exercise as their peers. It requires basic supervision and guidance from experienced librarians, tutors or postgraduates teaching assistants.

Whilst all disciplines are exploring programmes that utilise experiential, problem based and reflective learning methods, law can lay claim to these being more significant than most other disciplines. Since law is in essence a ‘doing’ discipline with strong professional connotations and much exposure in popular culture, the opportunities to develop effective role plays, case studies or simulations are unmissable. Given its intrigue for students, we sometimes strive hard to make teaching dull. Recent scholarship confirms the superior effectiveness of experiential methods for deeper learning, problem solving, creative thinking and ethical understanding.

Getting more for legal education means knowing more

UKCLE believes that the case for rebanding is strong. Even if it is not achieved from the present review, law needs to build for change in the future. A stronger case can be made with better evidence. We need HESA to provide separate statistics for law. CHULS and the Society for Legal Scholars (SLS) have both argued that law should be separately designated. We also need closer monitoring of law school resources. The UK Law Schools Survey currently taking place can feed into this. Hopefully it will emulate the excellent response to the law library survey with its 83.7% response rate. We also need more research into the cost and effectiveness of experiential methods.

Ultimately however law schools may have to adopt a less complacent attitude to their teaching provision. Lecture and seminar will continue to have a place in the law school. They should do. But growing recognition of the potential for e-learning, coupled with an appreciation of the unique benefits of face-to-face experiential methods, will mean that such developments are insufficient in themselves as a basis for studying law. Nigel Savage, Chief Executive of the College of Law and HEFCE Board member, is a strong supporter of funding reform for law. If others are to be persuaded that law deserves increased teaching funds, it may be at the expense of clinging to lecture and seminar format as the exclusive teaching method. Given the strains on staff student ratios in many law schools, perhaps such incentives are necessary for law teachers to buy into more varied experiential learning methods.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010