> Mark. Interesting point of view.  In my opinion, a marking mechanism 
> ultimately reflects the type of professional a society is willing to 
> praise. The central question here is how to define 'competence' and more 
> precisely, 'law student's competence'.
>
> If we apply what sometime A. Einstain said, 'I do not remember formula, if 
> I need one i pick it up from a book' (my translation), to a legal 
> argument, would law schools be prepared to accept that it is not precise 
> citations but logical and philosophical argumentation what they should be 
> preparing and rewarding their students for?
>
> A world that is reaching total control, requires lawyers who can think and 
> fligh for the ethics of law after all. I do not think you will find them 
> in the high street. Similar people sent Socrates to death.
>
> Best, Andy
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Cowling, Mark" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Law Society and alternatives to exams
>
>
> When people are thinking about this issue I would be interested in the
> question of the marking of degrees. Many degrees are not assessing a
> competence standard but are simply assessing students against a set of
> measures so they can be graded from fail through to four possible grades
> of First. In my experience students can achieve (for example) a 2.1
> standard by somewhat different routes: some will know more about one
> area than another, some will have flashes of originality counterbalanced
> by mistakes, or an extensive knowledge of the literature marred by a
> perverse interpretation of it etc etc. The finals of a Law degree
> presumably double as tests of competence and ways of grading students
> from fail to first.
>
> I think that a lot of staff would be happy to see a variety of methods
> of assessment across a spread of modules, but alarmed by the idea that
> they had to provide several different alternatives in each piece of
> summative assessment.
>
>
>
> Dr Mark Cowling
>
> Reader in Criminology
>
> SSSL, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA Tel +44 (0)1642
> 342338; SSSL Office 342315; Fax: 342399
>
> Home: 8, Thackeray Grove, Linthorpe, Middlesbrough TS5 7QX +44 (0)1642
> 281927
>
> This message has been produced using voice dictation software.  If it is
> mad or insulting this is probably the result of my faulty proofreading.
> Try substituting another word which sounds similar, or possibly the
> opposite!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katya Hosking
> Sent: 07 December 2007 10:58
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Law Society and alternatives to exams
>
> Hi all,
>
> I know things always end up more complex in practice, but I've tried to
> think this issue through
> and I just can't see how they can refuse alternative assessment
> (including shorter or untimed exams)
> as a reasonable adjustment on the grounds of professional standards.
> Here's my reasoning - am I
> going wrong somewhere?
>
> Paragraph 5.73 of the DDA Post-16 Code of Practice says, "The
> requirement for students studying for
> a law degree to demonstrate a particular standard of knowledge of
> certain areas of law in order to
> obtain the degree is a competence standard."
> 5.74 then says, "A requirement that a person completes a test in a
> certain time period is not a
> competence standard unless the competence being tested is the ability to
> do something within a
> limited time period."
> Finally, it's clear that reasonable adjustments must be made to the
> means of assessing whether
> someone has a particular level of competence.
>
> Putting these together surely shows that requiring some limited time
> exams could only be justified
> if there is a genuine competence standard for a law degree that involves
> completing tasks in a
> particular time period.  I can't see anything in the Joint Statement
> which suggests there's such a
> competence standard.  (In addition, I think the example in 5.73 suggests
> that the possibility of
> testing knowledge of certain areas of law in different ways was seen as
> a good illustration of the
> distinction between the competence standard itself and the means of
> assessing it.)
>
> The only other reason I can imagine for saying that exams are necessary
> for assessing the relevant
> knowledge and skills is to guard against plagiarism: but that's a very
> different argument from
> saying timed assessment tasks are necessary.  If the worry is
> plagiarism, shorter exams - perhaps on
> different days - might be a way to tackle it.
>
> I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts, because it's not only in
> relation to professional
> standards that this argument around exams comes up!
>
> All the best,
> Katya
>
> ____________________________________________
> Katya Hosking  (029) 2087 9218
> Accessible Curriculum Officer
> Registry, Cardiff University
> 30-36 Newport Road, Cardiff CF24 0DE
> www.cardiff.ac.uk/learning/themes/access/index.html
>
>
>>>> Paul Hubert <[log in to unmask]> 06/12/2007 17:27:37 >>>
> If I may quote the Law Society website:
>
> "The Joint Statement on Qualifying Law Degrees (PDF 75K), prepared
> jointly by the Law Society and
> the Bar Council, sets out the conditions a law degree course must meet
> in order to be termed a
> 'qualifying law degree'; the latest version was approved by the Lord
> Chancellor recently, and came
> into effect for all law degrees commenced after 1 September 2001."
>
> You can find the statement at
> http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/becomingacademicjointst
> ate.pdf. It doesn't say
> 'there must be exams'. However I think the issue might be whether a
> student can demonstrate the
> required knowledge and skills without any assessments in timed
> conditions (i.e. exams and in-class
> tests). There is a tension over this. However we are currently looking
> at this issue too, after a
> recommendation on disability grounds of alternative assessments in all
> subjects.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul
>
> (Student Advisor, Kent Law School)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Silver, Liz
> Sent: 06 December 2007 17:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Law Society and alternatives to exams
>
> Hiya,
>
> Wondered if anyone has come across this issue... one of our students
> doing an undergraduate LLB Law
> course really needs an alternative assessment method to three hour
> exams. Due to her condition she
> cannot sit for that long and giving her rest breaks etc does not resolve
> the issues for her. There
> is a possibility she could do some shorter exams, and there is going to
> be more discussion on that
> option.  But the School are saying that the Law Society insist that
> there have to be exams for the
> degree to be recognised as a qualification on the way to becoming a
> solicitor etc. Words such as
> 'professional standards etc are being used.
> I have already talked about the DDA and reasonable adjustments etc etc
> and discussion is at a very
> early stage. but if anyone has come across this or a similar situation
> please do let me know. It
> would be very useful to be able to cite any precedents.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Liz
>
> Liz Silver
> Disability Officer
> Student Support Services
> Nottingham Trent University
> Working Monday to Thursday
> Phone: 0115 848 4495
> Minicom: 18001 0115 848 4495
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private
> and confidential
> information.  If you are not the intended addressee, please take no
> action based on it nor show a
> copy to anyone.  In this case, please reply to this email to highlight
> the error.  Opinions and
> information in this email that do not relate to the official business of
> Nottingham Trent University
> shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University.
> Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email
> and any attachments are
> virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the
> email and its attachments are
> actually virus free.  This is in keeping with good computing practice.
>