General transferable skills: a survey of practice in law schools

(Transcript of a section of the General transferable skills report 1998)

---

Overview

A survey was undertaken of providers of undergraduate and LPC/CPE courses in autumn 1996. The purpose of the survey was to gather information on the kinds of activities in which the providers of legal education were engaged and which they considered to be promoting general transferable skills.

Although not a thorough survey of all that is done in the different law schools and other institutions, it was designed to give a picture of what is done currently and to be able to identify examples of good practice for later stages of the project.

Having first attempted to map those skills which through the literature were deemed both applicable to law and non-law subjects, a list of seven core skills was produced. The main aim of the questionnaire was to ask respondents the extent to which these particular skills were addressed throughout their courses.

Respondents were also asked whether there was any law school policy specifically addressing skills training through their course. LPC respondents were very much guided by Law Society guidelines.

Respondents were nominated by their heads of department and were administered a questionnaire, typically by telephone. This provided a degree of comparability of responses. 73 institutions were contacted and 53 telephone interviews were carried out. (In some cases, there was more than one interview for an institution where it offered both the LPC and an undergraduate programme).

Clearly the results do not give a systematic picture of what law schools do, but they do provide valuable indications. By relying on a single respondent there is the danger that the views expressed are not representative of the whole institution or provide a picture which differs from the views of others.

While that is accepted, the results can still be of value. First, even if presented by the keener members of the department, they probably indicate a maximum of how far the institution has gone in addressing this issue. Secondly, the interviews did elicit some sense of how far the rest of the department followed the line presented, especially in response to certain questions. At the very least, the survey does provide a basis for raising questions about current practice.

Issues raised by the survey

What conception of skills are institutions working with?

The understanding in institutions about general transferable skills was varied. One respondent argued that the institution should not be concerned with general skills as well as legal knowledge and skills, and it not did not have the resources to do so.

This response suggests that the respondent was working with an add-on concept of skills; you do law and legal skills and general transferable skills. The traditional professional requirements have encouraged this distinction. Others share the implicit model, that general skills are implicit in legal skills and require no specific attention. There is no need to offer students an opportunity to exercise communication skills in relation to a non-legal issue or environment.

How far do law schools specifically aim to prepare students for general employment?

When asked about the careers for which their students were prepared, many law schools (32%) claimed that they were providing a general and liberal education or providing the necessary general transferable skills. They are not preparing students for the legal profession or any other profession other than through the skills they acquire.

In this context, skills were said to mean the following; being able to present, communicate, analyse and reason. All these skills they felt were applicable for a number of careers. A number of law schools (13%) specifically mentioned careers other than law which they are aware their students pursue, but they do not explicitly reflect this in their teaching methods.

There are two problems with these responses. The first is that it was not clear whether the skills were ones which were specifically developed, or whether they were simply ones which students were expected to pick up. Secondly, it is not clear that the there was a particular rationale behind the list of skills; did it relate to a perception of the needs of the employment market or other demands, or did it simply reflect the kind of list the respondent knew they ought to make in response to a question on skills?

Most institutions suggested that general employment skills were of overriding importance for the academic stage and that law was one of the most suitable subjects to develop such skills. One respondent suggested that “most skills developed on the course are transferable – we have always taught these skills but not as an explicit part of the degree”.

Legal employers are forcing change in requiring an explicit statement on skills. Institutions are aware that students need to be made aware as to how these skills can be transferred and how they relate to the employment market. However this awareness of movement in the employment market does not translate directly into a sense that the law curriculum should be changed. In part, by serving a very specific clientele, it is its demands, rather than those of the general employment market that are paramount.

Accountancy, banking, graduate management positions as well as jobs throughout various criminal justice agencies were mentioned most frequently by the respondents, but there was no evidence that any department knew precisely the sort of non-legal careers to which their students were going in the short or medium term.

One institution mentioned involving past graduates to give talks to present students and provide them with an idea of the sort of skills required for both legal and non-legal work.

The six month statistics kept by institutions reveal that few law graduates have yet chosen an alternative career. Most are in temporary employment, if not on professional courses, within six months of graduating. On the basis of this information, the incentive on law schools to focus almost exclusively on legal professions is strong.

In the survey only 32% of institutions gave any sense that the focus of learning was anything more than on legal rules and legal skills. There was evidence in only a few institutions that students were encouraged to think about how to use their skills in non-legal contexts, invariably through modules taken from different disciplines.

The focus on legal knowledge and skills might suggest that students really do not receive positive images of the non-legal careers; these are simply not an important point of reference.

Legal vocational courses and transferable skills

One provider of the LPC questioned “how far can you truly say that the LPC promotes general transferable skills rather prepares students with skills only for the legal profession, as the skills are taught and learnt solely in the context of law”. This is possibly a narrow view with a number of other LPC providers recognising the focus on skills throughout the course, specifically assessing the skill rather than the content and application of the law.

The comment by the LPC provider above may reflect the type of institution – primarily offering courses for legal practice only. Skills development on the LPC is guided very much by the Law Society.

To what extent do institutions embrace skills as part of their agenda?

Some law schools (43%) claimed to have a departmental policy on skills. More institutions (72%) clearly have explicit activities designed to promote general transferable skills; through presentations, work placements, and personal transferable skills initiatives.

A few universities mentioned the challenge of developing a skills culture within their law schools. This in terms of stretching resources to provide opportunities for skills, and motivating colleagues to find the time necessary to develop these skills in their own modules. In some cases, this is as a result of university-wide initiatives.

The explanations are various. The character of the professional requirements on the various stages of legal education must have an important role. There are problems in fully embracing skills training throughout the department, especially where it is not perceived to be central to the activity of teaching. Skills pose a challenge to the traditional law department culture.

External problems such as resources were mentioned as a constraint in integrating skills into the curriculum. In many cases, there seemed to be limited evidence that some specific attempt is made to ensure students develop the skills out of these formal activities. There was little evidence of formal support for students who had problems.

In some law schools there seemed to be a fragmented approach. Issues were left to individual tutors without much attempt at co-ordination.

What kind of support is provided to students for developing skills?

All institutions recognise that students require some form of support when faced with difficulties. Support is provided through a combination of university-based initiatives, for example study skills programmes, department support, individual tutor support, peer support. All law schools have individual tutor support.

Some institutions take the view that prevention is better than cure and begin the year with a series of induction sessions followed through in an individual skills module. Others suggest that a support mechanism needs to be in place for students with learning difficulties to seek help.

This invariably takes the form of the individual tutor scheme (sometimes referred to as personal tutor scheme), which depends on tutors being vigilant and alert to the progression or lack of progression of students. It is also something that is provided on an ad hoc basis as and when the need arises.

Some contacts were unaware of the university-wide resources available for students and the question was met with a “need to find out” answer, which could indicate that much of the focus of skills support is on the skills needed to survive in university, rather than the skills needed in the outside world (though they may be connected, of course).

The structure is supportive, but very much a deficiency or safety net approach. There were examples of positive encouragement of students as a whole to develop general transferable skills in only 21% of responses.

If much of the energy goes into induction programmes and level 1 modules on legal skills, there are problems of integrating skills into the development of knowledge and competence in various specific areas and in following or monitoring the progression of students as they develop skills at different levels.

The overall picture is of very limited specific support for the development of general transferable skills as part of the law curriculum.

How far do law schools monitor achievement in skills?

To justify the commitment and effort in providing opportunities for students to develop these skills it is important to provide mechanisms by which students are made aware that these skills are transferable and to be able to articulate how and what circumstances they have demonstrated their abilities whether by virtue of the course or through extra curricular activities.

Skills do not play a significant part in the assessment of modules, and the accreditation of achievement in relation to skills was related either to dedicated modules or, in the case of one institution, to a distinct university qualification.

21% of the respondents claim that they mention to their students that the skills they are learning are transferable. A smaller number (4%) take this a stage further by introducing methods of making students articulate the skills they are acquiring, for example the passport scheme as mentioned above.

Assessment of skills within law is primarily done indirectly through the traditional methods of assessment. For example problem-solving and intellectual skills are demonstrated through exams and/or dissertations, and research skills are part of the assessment of dissertations.

A couple of institutions reported methods of assessment which identified achievement in relation to skills. The LPC courses have a strong skills assessment element. The academic law degree includes examples of assessing presentations for a dissertation.

How far are skills treated as distinct from the content of modules?

All law schools seem to integrate skills in some shape or form. 20% favoured integration of skills into substantive law courses rather than a specific skills module. A couple of institutions expressed the feeling that “we already teach or have taught these skills without actually being aware of doing so, but we are now being forced or encouraged to recognise these skills explicitly within the degree programmes”.

One department was provided with a choice from the university to either implement a specific skills module into the degree programme or integrate, explicitly and significantly to the satisfaction of the university, skills into the substantive courses. The department as a whole favoured the latter.

The move for integration often brings with it resource implications. Resources, financial and otherwise, were mentioned by a number of institutions as restricting their ability to give sufficient attention to skills learning/teaching throughout the course. The provision of traditional content-focused learning support makes less demand on staff time and this is the principal cost of teaching.

Law school strategy or individual module strategy

Respondents generally accepted that in the past skills teaching has been left to each individual course tutor to organise. The result is that development of skills is reliant up on the motivation of each tutor, and can mean that in choosing options students are able to avoid the more skills-based modules.

One institution pointed to the drawing up of a matrix system within the department, providing each subject with responsibilities for developing certain skills. This ensures the majority if not all students develop same or similar skills. Institutions have also introduced individual skills modules to run specifically throughout the first year, and some institutions look for a progression or development of these skills.

Conclusion

The various skills required by employers are not all developed by the formal law curriculum. It is legitimate to ask how far specific skills should be developed in a formal way and how far the universities simply offer facilities and activities in order to develop them, often in an extra-curricular way.

This question is a matter of academic policy and will be constrained as much by judgments about what is deemed an appropriate part of an academic curriculum as by resources.

The question of how students are made aware of the skills they are developing is separate or at least separable. Even if the development of skills is not formal and is even extra-curricular, there is an important question about how far an institution ought to go in making students aware of what they are achieving inside and outside their academic programme.

The illustrations given earlier suggest there may be a support role for institutions in the process of analysis, even if the skills are not formally part of the curriculum and are not assessed.

 

Last Modified: 30 June 2010