22/02/2011. The Australian Law Students’ Association (ALSA) has strong concerns regarding some of the standards recommended for LLB and JD qualifications under the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF).
According to Vice-President (Education), Melissa Coade, “ALSA knows that the value of law degrees in an internationally competitive market depends on consistent and high standards.”
“Some of the proposed changes to the LLB and JD qualifications however do not align with the traditional tenets of what is a highly specified, vocational degree,” Ms Coade said.
ALSA believes that two matters addressed in the AQF document, due for approval by the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment in March, demand urgent reconsideration:
- the requirements for award of Bachelors (Hons) degrees (level 8 AQF) and
- the classification of the Juris Doctor as a level 9 Masters program
The concern ALSA holds regarding these two matters speak to the nature of legal education, existing burdens placed on law students and the future trajectory of law programs in Australia.
- The Award of Honours
It is ALSA’s view that the proposed AQF requirement regarding the award of Bachelors (Hons) overlooks serious matters of equity and ignores the vocational focus of a law degree.
The recommendation that, to be eligible for an Honours award, a student must undertake an additional year-long program within or following a Bachelors degree does not conform to the traditional nature of the law program. Additionally, it does not take into account the existing financial burdens that a law degree imposes on students.
“It is unnecessary to add a year-long program to the LLB in order to meet the purposes of a Level 8 qualification. The LLB does not encompass different academic disciplines, unlike other more generalist degrees; it is a highly vocational degree. In effect, law students apply the same legal and analytical skills to different areas of legal thought and practice,” Ms Coade said.
ALSA recognises that some universities in Australia have already adopted the year-long program in order for students to be eligible for the award of Honours but supports a system that embraces the year-long program as one of several existing options.
While we understand the desire to ensure that the Honours qualification is uniformly associated with a certain standard of specialist research in a given field, undergraduate legal education has unique needs which merit its own requirements for Honours admission.
The significant implications for student equity that arise must also be considered. Given the existing length, cost and intensiveness of the LLB program, it remains appropriate to use academic distinction within the Bachelors program as at least partial qualification for the grant of an Honours degree.
It is ALSA’s strong recommendation that the status quo is preserved and that an LLB (Hons) continue to be awarded in cases of academic excellence or from a shorter research undertaking as part of the final year of the LLB program.
For the benefit of graduates and employers ALSA supports the wide dissemination of a document outlining the various avenues available for students to be eligible for the award of Honours. In this way the differences between graduate achievements from institution to institution in the attainment of Honours may be clearly known.
- Classification of the Juris Doctor (JD)
ALSA holds strong concerns about the JD being classified as a Level 9 Masters program under the proposed AQF.
“The Juris Doctor has posed a real dilemma in legal education over the past few years. While ALSA recognises the virtue of crafting a distinctive legal degree for graduate entrants, we do not want to see the undergraduate LLB depreciate. The JD and the LLB are both designed to be a first law degree, and vocational qualifications for admission. Because both qualifications grant their graduates the same professional status it means there is small scope for them to be distinct from one another,” Ms Coade said.
The challenges facing ALSA on this matter go further. Two different streams of study that offer their own unique opportunities are not always clearly justified. Very often the student demographic and expectations of LLB and JD students are closely aligned.
It is unsurprising then that a fifth year LLB student enrolled in a combined program, no less qualified than a early JD student in their fifth year of tertiary education, should expect similar subject and professional opportunities available to them.
ALSA believes that given the necessary common subjects of at least the core Priestley 11, the JD as a whole cannot comfortably satisfy the requirements of the proposed Level 9 qualification.
These problems can only be addressed if the JD curriculum is amended to reflect higher learning outcomes than that of the Level 7 Bachelors Degree. The distinction between the two programs must be made clearly and in a manner that allows both qualifications to retain a unique value. ALSA regards the necessarily significant overlap in course content as the biggest problem facing the proposed classification of the JD and LLB programs.
ALSA calls on the MCTEE to review the classification of the JD as a Level 9 qualification. The uniformity inherent in the AQF document should not be championed at the expense of the nuances of modern legal education.
Conclusion
ALSA supports the AQF objectives with a view to national consistency and recognises the flow-on benefits this has for students, graduates, employers and consumers of legal services alike. ALSA holds real concerns however about the negative impact some of these reforms will have on the long-term quality and nature of legal education in Australia.
ALSA does not feel that the benefits gained from streamlining law degrees in the proposed framework overrides the concerns that have been outlined above and we ask that the MCTEE reconsider the current design of the model for legal education before approving the proposed AQF document.
ALSA has made comment in the Australian Financial Review on the proposed changes to the award of honours (18 October 2010), the organisation sits on the Law Council of Australia’s Legal Education Committee and is also a stakeholder on the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Discipline Reference Group.
We are not in support of maintaining the status quo and would like to see the elimination of Honours based on academic results alone. We understand ALSA's concerns regarding student equity and agree an additional year-long program is not the answer. Rather, we support the award of Honours as the result of a shorter research undertaking as part of the final year of the LLB program.
Media contact:
