This month, at what was by the far most packed Faculty Council session of the year, the council voted on a series of proposals that will substantially change the first-year curriculum.
The most controversial proposal, the semesterisation of the first year curriculum, passed with a clear majority, but a more than trivial number of council members who opposed the motion or abstained from voting. The overwhelming impression in the room was that people were impressed with the Curriculum Committee process in making its proposals, and that from a faculty perspective, it had felt a like a truly consultative process.
However, Professor Arial Katz brought up the fact that at no point in the proposal or during the discussion was it made clear what proportion of those who actually teach the first-year large sections approved of semesterisation. A poll taken prior to the meeting, or even just a quick show of hands at the meeting itself, would have clarified for all those voting what those instructors thought about the changes.
The less controversial proposal involved a combination of smaller changes that, taken together, introduce a second substantial change to the first-year curriculum. The committee proposed removing Administrative Law from first-year and replacing it with three things.
The first is an extension of each semester from 12 to 13 weeks. The second is the conversion of Legal Research and Writing into a 2-credit, assignment-based course that would meet for two hours every week over a single semester. Last is the creation of a 24-hour, 2-week intensive course during the last two weeks of August on Legal Methods.
Of the components of this proposal, only this last measure proved controversial, and criticism of it focused on its scheduling rather than its proposed content. Ultimately, the proposal passed easily with very few opposed or abstaining.
The first part of the proposal, the removal of Administrative Law from the first-year curriculum, appears to have been driven by near-universal agreement amongst students and faculty. Because of Federation of Law Societies’ requirements, Administrative Law remains a mandatory course, but students are now free to take it any time during their second or third years.
Those professors who believe Administrative Law provides a necessary foundation for their courses may list it as pre- or co-requisite for registration. It was suggested in the report that more sections may be available in the fall semester than in the winter to encourage students to take the class early in their degree.
The proposals to lengthen the term by a week and expand the legal research and writing course were not met with resistance. The additional week was added to bring average instructional hours closer to those of schools considered to be peers of U of T (Osgoode, UBC, McGill and a number of top-tier American schools), while hopefully reducing pressure on students by spreading the year’s material over a greater length of time.
The expanded course was proposed in response to a perceived need for addition training in legal research and writing from both students and professors. It will be based partially on the upper-year Legal Research and Writing course.
As a result of the changes, Legal Research and Writing will be taken during the first semester, and Legal Process, Professionalism, and Ethics (LPPE) will be moved to the second semester.
Unlike the other proposals, the creation of the 2-week intensive Legal Methods course in August did create some controversy at the previous Faculty Council meeting and the recent town hall. There was no opposition to the goals of the course, but concern arose over the effectiveness of the chosen format and timing. Students and professors alike questioned the ability of a 2-week ungraded course to improve students’ skills before they begin their legal studies.
However, these concerns were overshadowed by questions about the timing of the course. The committee argued that first-year students would greatly benefit from a crash course in the basics skills needed for law school.
Many raised concerns centering on the additional economic burden that an extra two weeks of school would place on a number of students. It was argued that the course may present undue challenges to those incoming students who are relocating to the GTA, have family obligations (especially those with young children), or depend upon a full summer’s employment to finance the academic year.
The committee was aware of these concerns, but in the end decided that the benefits of the new course outweighed its costs, and made certain that the finical aid office was aware of the increased burden the course would place on incoming students.
While a number of topics were raised in discussing both proposals, a recurring theme was the issue of student wellness, and what measures would most likely reduce (or increase) stress among students. Two things became clear to me during these discussions. First, there is very obviously no consensus within the faculty about what student wellness is or how best to promote it. Second, however important student wellness is to the administration, keeping up with our peer schools is equally, if not more, important to them.
On page 16 of its report, the Curriculum Committee discusses overall student workload and notes that “…fifty hours does not strike most members of the Committee as an unreasonable demand on a first year student’s week, even bearing in mind that assignment and exam preparation and extracurricular activities represent additional claims. The Committee is also aware that, measured in annual instructional hours, our program cannot be said to be heavy in comparison to our peers.”
Pessimism aside, I see the benefits that motivate each of the proposed changes and do believe that they will make for a stronger first year curriculum (if not a less stressful one). However, I share concerns that Professor Colleen Flood presented to the Faculty Council. She noted that it is important to have a process in place to measure whether or not curriculum reforms is achieving its goals, which would include seeking input from the profession and alumni over time. Without such a process there is a risk that by frequently altering the first-year curriculum (Administrative Law was added only four years ago) we are simply “re-disorganizing rather than making actual improvements.”
