Such an excellent post, Katy! As one who teaches a core course in Torts you have hit the nail on the head- we need more incentives for folk who are interested in this area to join the academy, and imposing artificial barriers like PhD's make it so much harder.
Thank you as always. I love your passion about private law - always look forward to receiving your updates on the latest private law High Court decision.
This isn’t just a problem for Law… I’ve seen it be a big issue in all the core humanities disciplines lacking good lecturers for core subjects. They’re increasingly being taught by inexperienced PhD students in some kind of ‘*insert* studies’ sub-sub field. A few do a good enough of a job if they have an ounce of sense and recognise that a decent teacher at that introductory level brings more students into that field. Many are just bored and terrible and sloppy with academic standards. The worst twist the content into their pet perspective, actively punishing students who disagree with them.
Having said that, when you are teaching Introduction to World Politics, and some students can’t find Italy or Canada on a map or mix up Africa and South America… you’ve got a real uphill battle.
OH DEAR. Okay, I’ll be honest, geography wasn’t my best subject, and I quit it at GCSE level because I did not understand the Tyne-Wear one-way street system (having just come from Australia four weeks before, and having no idea what the Tyne-Wear was). But I *do* know where the countries in the world are.
"my role is not to give everyone all good grades, and in fact, if I did so, I would devalue the very worth of the degree."
What a magnificent statement. Not just relevant to the degree, but also to life. Sometimes the only way to truly learn is to suffer. Too many are allowed not to experience any form of hardship, and yet others, hardship is the norm, though they may not see it that way, since they rise above it, time and again.
This appears to be a quite astute analysis, unfortunately, all the starker a contrast with the rather plaintive description of the proposed solutions.
I cannot imagine (and did not as a 17 year old L1) thinking of IHL as more important or interesting than torts or corporations law but that is probably part of the reason why I went on to private practice! It probably also reflects that I had some idea what IHL was in practice.
It seems to reflect a broader trend towards superficially interesting subjects such as many of the social sciences and away from what might actually give them some meaning, private law and legal history in the context of IHL etc, history, philosophy and anthropology the old fashioned way in the case of the social sciences.
Maybe student ignorance, or perhaps I should rather say romanticism, as to actual career paths is a part of the problem, maybe student indifference is another?
As for solutions the ones you identify all appear very good but you leave unanswered the question of who should pay.
My humble suggestion would be to reorient law around an apprenticeship model for the first two years (the current JD, but perhaps scrapping the bachelor), with a solely BLL (and equity
!) theoretical component, and then offer the IHL and feminism and what not subjects in a third year for those who got so far.
Of course all this is begging the question of what a law degree should be for but I think that's a bit much for one day 😅
I am afraid that the plaintive tone of the solutions comes from a long experience of knowing that the incentives of the broader research community and the university hierarchy all lead away from recognising the problems I have identified. Since I wrote this post, I’ve witnessed a further exodus of colleagues who have left lecturing in private law to go back to practice (not at MLS, but at other universities). I can’t say I blame them at all. At least in practice, they’ll get adequate administrative support and be paid much more highly for all the work that they do. If they go to the Bar, they’ll have some control over their practices, as well.
The question of who should pay is a very good one. I do think there has to be more coordination between practitioners and academics. The firms want us to give them fully formed little lawyers without having to pay for the training. The aims of lecturers are very different, and so (particularly if we’re not black letter) are the things we teach and research. I don’t think anyone quite realises how much the incentives do not align anymore.
A happy medium seems like the ideal. It’s certainly how I try to teach: ensure I give the students the nuts and bolts of what the law is, but ask them interesting theoretical questions at intervals.
The other possibility is that the students pay. One of the problems with the system you have described is that there is a broad correlation between earnings potential and number of years a subject has been taught. The system I outlined was partly inspired by that. But another solution would be to make the core subjects twice as expensive.
So - we already have a paid degree and it bothers me. Another thing that bothers me is - we don’t get the money for the tuition students pay. Central gets it.
So I think that the latter point is also a part of the problem, as central (lol) is probably paying way over market rates for socially negative "teachers" and under market rates for law (and probably engineering) professors (NB: _not_ saying that the former are paid more). Maybe an argument for independent Law faculties?
As for the paid degree, as far as I am aware the literature suggests that a significant part of the return to education is "captured" by the individual, and education is very clearly; even when free, overwhelmingly an upper middle class good.
Internationally, it "works" in syste.s like Germany where the middle class is so taxed that they can't afford anything, and, the critical part, only the "smartest" third of students are eligible for uni (same in Switzerland minus the taxing). It does not work in France where those constraints do not apply.
So I'm quite against free education.
Now you may be thinking of your own example (iirc!). I certainly could not have paid for a law degree upfront, either. But I think the Australian system does a very good job of managing this. How would you see free education as better?
Your students are lucky to have you as their teacher and guide. You raise very valid points and I think that quality teachers are sadly lacking in every discipline, academic and practical. One could add that quality students are in short supply, too.
Thank you. I have some really, really excellent students. I’ve found that most students are great, as long as you make your expectations of them very clear, and make it clear what they can expect from you too.
We are in a position of authority and it behooves us to set boundaries, while still being compassionate. But part of my role is to challenge and assess students critically, and to do so on an objective and fair basis, so that they can learn.
The main worry I have is that there’s a “credentialist” mentality sometimes - “Is this on the exam?” (only worth studying if it’s going to be assessed) and “I worked hard so I deserve good grades” (even if my paper misses the point). On one level, I understand this: the rational goal of many students will be to get good grades and get a good job. I stuffed up my Trusts exam as an undergrad, even though I worked really hard, and it was upsetting. I’m still a little sad about it, although as I’m now a world-leading Trusts law expert, I shouldn’t be! However, my role is not to give everyone all good grades, and in fact, if I did so, I would devalue the very worth of the degree.
I was the kind of student who did the extra reading and read beyond the reading guide, though. I do recall my best friend going, “Who reads that stuff?” I had to confess - ME. She is not surprised I ended up as a law prof, even if I am still a little astonished (I meant to be an advocate).
Such an excellent post, Katy! As one who teaches a core course in Torts you have hit the nail on the head- we need more incentives for folk who are interested in this area to join the academy, and imposing artificial barriers like PhD's make it so much harder.
Thank you as always. I love your passion about private law - always look forward to receiving your updates on the latest private law High Court decision.
This isn’t just a problem for Law… I’ve seen it be a big issue in all the core humanities disciplines lacking good lecturers for core subjects. They’re increasingly being taught by inexperienced PhD students in some kind of ‘*insert* studies’ sub-sub field. A few do a good enough of a job if they have an ounce of sense and recognise that a decent teacher at that introductory level brings more students into that field. Many are just bored and terrible and sloppy with academic standards. The worst twist the content into their pet perspective, actively punishing students who disagree with them.
Having said that, when you are teaching Introduction to World Politics, and some students can’t find Italy or Canada on a map or mix up Africa and South America… you’ve got a real uphill battle.
OH DEAR. Okay, I’ll be honest, geography wasn’t my best subject, and I quit it at GCSE level because I did not understand the Tyne-Wear one-way street system (having just come from Australia four weeks before, and having no idea what the Tyne-Wear was). But I *do* know where the countries in the world are.
"my role is not to give everyone all good grades, and in fact, if I did so, I would devalue the very worth of the degree."
What a magnificent statement. Not just relevant to the degree, but also to life. Sometimes the only way to truly learn is to suffer. Too many are allowed not to experience any form of hardship, and yet others, hardship is the norm, though they may not see it that way, since they rise above it, time and again.
This appears to be a quite astute analysis, unfortunately, all the starker a contrast with the rather plaintive description of the proposed solutions.
I cannot imagine (and did not as a 17 year old L1) thinking of IHL as more important or interesting than torts or corporations law but that is probably part of the reason why I went on to private practice! It probably also reflects that I had some idea what IHL was in practice.
It seems to reflect a broader trend towards superficially interesting subjects such as many of the social sciences and away from what might actually give them some meaning, private law and legal history in the context of IHL etc, history, philosophy and anthropology the old fashioned way in the case of the social sciences.
Maybe student ignorance, or perhaps I should rather say romanticism, as to actual career paths is a part of the problem, maybe student indifference is another?
As for solutions the ones you identify all appear very good but you leave unanswered the question of who should pay.
My humble suggestion would be to reorient law around an apprenticeship model for the first two years (the current JD, but perhaps scrapping the bachelor), with a solely BLL (and equity
!) theoretical component, and then offer the IHL and feminism and what not subjects in a third year for those who got so far.
Of course all this is begging the question of what a law degree should be for but I think that's a bit much for one day 😅
I am afraid that the plaintive tone of the solutions comes from a long experience of knowing that the incentives of the broader research community and the university hierarchy all lead away from recognising the problems I have identified. Since I wrote this post, I’ve witnessed a further exodus of colleagues who have left lecturing in private law to go back to practice (not at MLS, but at other universities). I can’t say I blame them at all. At least in practice, they’ll get adequate administrative support and be paid much more highly for all the work that they do. If they go to the Bar, they’ll have some control over their practices, as well.
The question of who should pay is a very good one. I do think there has to be more coordination between practitioners and academics. The firms want us to give them fully formed little lawyers without having to pay for the training. The aims of lecturers are very different, and so (particularly if we’re not black letter) are the things we teach and research. I don’t think anyone quite realises how much the incentives do not align anymore.
A happy medium seems like the ideal. It’s certainly how I try to teach: ensure I give the students the nuts and bolts of what the law is, but ask them interesting theoretical questions at intervals.
The other possibility is that the students pay. One of the problems with the system you have described is that there is a broad correlation between earnings potential and number of years a subject has been taught. The system I outlined was partly inspired by that. But another solution would be to make the core subjects twice as expensive.
So - we already have a paid degree and it bothers me. Another thing that bothers me is - we don’t get the money for the tuition students pay. Central gets it.
So I think that the latter point is also a part of the problem, as central (lol) is probably paying way over market rates for socially negative "teachers" and under market rates for law (and probably engineering) professors (NB: _not_ saying that the former are paid more). Maybe an argument for independent Law faculties?
As for the paid degree, as far as I am aware the literature suggests that a significant part of the return to education is "captured" by the individual, and education is very clearly; even when free, overwhelmingly an upper middle class good.
Internationally, it "works" in syste.s like Germany where the middle class is so taxed that they can't afford anything, and, the critical part, only the "smartest" third of students are eligible for uni (same in Switzerland minus the taxing). It does not work in France where those constraints do not apply.
So I'm quite against free education.
Now you may be thinking of your own example (iirc!). I certainly could not have paid for a law degree upfront, either. But I think the Australian system does a very good job of managing this. How would you see free education as better?
Your students are lucky to have you as their teacher and guide. You raise very valid points and I think that quality teachers are sadly lacking in every discipline, academic and practical. One could add that quality students are in short supply, too.
Thank you. I have some really, really excellent students. I’ve found that most students are great, as long as you make your expectations of them very clear, and make it clear what they can expect from you too.
We are in a position of authority and it behooves us to set boundaries, while still being compassionate. But part of my role is to challenge and assess students critically, and to do so on an objective and fair basis, so that they can learn.
The main worry I have is that there’s a “credentialist” mentality sometimes - “Is this on the exam?” (only worth studying if it’s going to be assessed) and “I worked hard so I deserve good grades” (even if my paper misses the point). On one level, I understand this: the rational goal of many students will be to get good grades and get a good job. I stuffed up my Trusts exam as an undergrad, even though I worked really hard, and it was upsetting. I’m still a little sad about it, although as I’m now a world-leading Trusts law expert, I shouldn’t be! However, my role is not to give everyone all good grades, and in fact, if I did so, I would devalue the very worth of the degree.
I was the kind of student who did the extra reading and read beyond the reading guide, though. I do recall my best friend going, “Who reads that stuff?” I had to confess - ME. She is not surprised I ended up as a law prof, even if I am still a little astonished (I meant to be an advocate).
Very nicely put Katy. Gail