The volume of assigned readings in 1L varies so widely across courses and within sections of the same course that the Faculty should establish a set of guidelines outlining the ratio between out-of-class and in-class hours that are expected of students, an SLS report submitted to Faculty Council last March argued. The 1L Program Audit, which was conducted by the SLS Curriculum Working Group, measured a number of components of 1L academic life, including the page counts of assigned readings for each course and course section.
One important finding was the significant discrepancy of the volume of assigned readings across courses. The data indicate that public law courses tend to assign many more readings than private law courses, despite the fact that these courses are worth equal numbers of credits. The average number of pages of assigned readings for first-year criminal law, for example, was nearly double the average volume of assigned readings for either tort or contract law.
In addition, the working group found the significant variation occurs not only across courses, but also between sections and small groups of the same course. In the first semester, one small group was assigned more than three times as many pages as a number of others.
Over the course of the school year, the difference between the student with the highest possible workload and the student with the lowest possible workload was 878 pages of reading, or 36.3% of the lesser value.
The working group’s report identified three potential adverse effects flowing from the inequality of workload, starting with general unfairness between students who expect to be graded on a level playing field. The working group also suggested that students with a heavier workload could be under increased stress and might suffer potential adverse mental health effects. Finally, the group indicated that students might react to unmanageable workloads by not completing their assigned readings, consequently missing out on critical learning opportunities.
The working group also surveyed last year’s 1Ls to gauge how much time they spent participating in law-related extra-curricular activities, finding that students spend a considerable number of hours per semester engaged in law-related extracurricular activities. Furthermore, 80% of respondents felt they were expected to take on these commitments, and 39% of respondents indicated that, in their view, this expectation came directly from information received from the Faculty or Administration.
The numbers reflect what most students pick up after a very short time in law school: law-related extracurricular activities may be voluntary, but students feel pressured to take on a significant number of these commitments in order to have a complete resume.
The report’s major recommendation was that the Faculty develop a set of guidelines that outline approximately how many hours of work a 1L student should spend on out-of-class work for every hour spent in class. Such guidelines could help to clarify what is expected of students in terms of readings and exam preparation, and could also establish parameters for a reasonable workload. For example, a student would be able to compare the workload of a given course section with the time expected of them for that course and determine whether or not the assigned workload is reasonable. This would provide grounds for a complaint in cases where students deem it necessary.
Because of the significant impact of law-related extra-curricular activities on students’ workloads, the working group also recommended that the Faculty take into account the average number of hours students spend participating in law-related extra-curricular activities when making changes to the 1L curriculum that may impact student workloads.
For brevity’s sake, this article provides only a brief summary of the report’s findings and recommendations. For further information or for a digital copy of the report, please contact the Students’ Law Society: [email protected].
