Alison Bone

Developing University Managers

This article reports the results of a study of the extent of management development programmes for managers of universities. The method used was a postal survey of all UK universities, which produced a response of over 60 per cent of universities. According to the responses received, about half of UK universities provide some organised management development for their managers with the other half doing nothing to develop their managers in any systematic way. On this basis, universities provide less management development for their managers than most other UK organisations. A few universities have achieved, and some are intending to seek, the Investors in People standard. Personnel managers within the universities are convinced of the need for management development for those who manage our universities. However, lack of resources and lack of commitment from vice-chancellors and other senior academics are the main barriers to the successful implementation of systematic management development.

Sue Bloxham and Pete Boyd, Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide : Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 2007, 260 pp., £27.99, ISBN 9780-335-221073

This book, although not written for lawyers, is a very useful addition to any law teacher’s bookshelf and should be dipped into at regular intervals. Although the assessment of core subjects on UK qualifying law degrees is largely circumscribed by the statutory bodies, this book has plenty of engaging content. Part 1 consists of an introduction and two chapters dealing with the evidence base for assessment practice in higher education and the conflicting purposes of assessment. Part 2, “Dealing with Assessment”, is the meat of the book. It has chapters on teaching a module: maximising the potential of assessment; preparing students for assessment; marking; providing effective feedback; moderation: towards greater consistency in marking (written by Marion Nuttall); managing assessment in different roles; and supporting widening participation through assessment. Part 3, “Developing Assessment”, addresses planning assessment for a programme and for a module; diversifying assessment methods; computer-aided assessment (written by Sarah Chesney and Andrew Ginty); and finally professional development and assessment. The book concludes with a glossary and a comprehensive set of references. This book is intended both to inform and also to challenge the reader’s perceptions of the rationale for assessment. Despite the requirement of most new teachers in higher education to undertake some study into the challenges and opportunities of their role, assessment is often not dealt with as thoroughly as other aspects, perhaps because it is thought to be difficult to address generically with any real meaning for the subject context in which it is to be exercised. The contextual introduction is a restatement of basic principles that can be found in other texts but the authors stress the practical aspects of the subject and it is this that is the book’s main strength. As an example when discussing constructive alignment (of learning outcomes and assessment) the authors quote from Biggs1: “You wouldn’t lecture students on how to teach using small groups, and give them a written test. You would get them to participate in small groups, then run their own and see how well they did it”. The next chapter provides a number of case studies including one of a negotiation exercise using peer assessment as part of the calculation of the group mark. The moderator in the case study is uncomfortable, first because there is no video record of the final presentation which has been graded and

Reasons why law students should have access to learning law through a skills based approach

ABSTRACT The Legal Education and Training Review identified gaps in law students’ key skills development and this paper considers how skills training in three key areas of mooting, negotiation and client interviewing can be maximised so that law students have a sense of themselves as lawyer as well as law student from the beginning of their legal education. The research identifies numerous benefits to learning law through skills-based activities, but also discovers some possible apprehensions about participating from a student perspective. This paper draws on data taken from students who engaged in short-term optional courses in client interviewing, negotiation and/or mooting and considers the responses to a survey conducted prior to participation, a reflective survey post-completion and a focus group exercise. In total 64 students responded to the questionnaire. The research explores the expected and actual benefits of participating in the courses, discusses how these impact on students’ perceptions of their employability and the types of activities considered most valuable. The article considers how, in light of the research, experiential learning can be put to best use within the law curriculum.

Nelson Miller and Vickie Eggers, Teaching Law: A Framework for Instructional Mastery

as incorrect references, for example, in Chapter 12, to the “Prosecutor Fiscal Service” (p. 222) instead of “Procurator Fiscal” (although there is then a correct reference on p. 226). It may seem trivial to pick out such errors, but provision of high quality training is a message that underlies this publication, and attention to detail and accuracy is something that is drummed into trainee solicitors at all stages of their development. Despite the comments above, the book is written in clear accessible language, and offers some very practical advice about how to set up and run training, and all that entails. The bringing together into a single volume of all elements of regulation with the challenges and practicalities of training is most welcome. In addition, while it is unlikely to become a key text for legal academics, Part C (designing and delivering training) provides a refreshing alternative perspective on the planning and delivery of legal education and training and the challenges, logistical and financial, facing those delivering it. For these reasons, the book achieves its aims. What would be a valuable supplement to this publication is an online resource that updates relevant sections, as changes in regulation emerge such as the outcome of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s work-based learning pilot and as we see the development of alternative business structures. At the time of writing, the three biggest regulators, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board and the Institute of Legal Executives Professional Standards are jointly to review legal services education and training in the regulated legal sector. Progress and outcome reports on such developments would be welcome.

‘Tell me what you want, what you really, really want’: spicing up legal education in Scotland

In 1999 the Law Society of Scotland was concerned that the existing assessment of trainee solicitors might not be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that all those completing the academic, vocational and trainee stages were fit to practise and commissioned an investigation into possible alternative additional measures to assess competence. After much deliberation over alternative assessments a Test of Professional Competence was devised but after running a pilot and receiving detailed feedback it was decided not to procced with the test at that time. In 2006 the Law Society of Scotland launched its biggest ever consultation exercise on the training and standards in the profession. Over a three month period the profession, students, and the general public were invited to comment on a range of suggestions which amounted to a root and branch review. Over 15,000 invitations to contribute were sent out and there was a huge amount of information contained in the responses which were analysed and fed into a working...

The experience of external examiners 1

This article reports on the role and responsibilities of external examiners on undergraduate law degrees in the UK. It is believed to be the first qualitative national survey of external examiners as a group within the UK. The results indicate that law external examiners are predominately male, white and occupy senior posts although there are clear distinctions between ‘old’ (pre 1992) and ‘new’ (post 1992) universities. The study is significant because it throws light on differing practices across the UK in ‘old’ and ‘new’ universities in relation to number of visits, induction, perception of standards, fee structure, number and nature of tasks to be completed and (in particular) the power to change marks even if only samples have been moderated. As a result of this report there is evidence that there have been changes in practice in law schools.