Professors weigh in opinions on the proposed changes to small group and LRW
On March 11, 2020, the Faculty held its penultimate Faculty Council meeting, which was well attended by Faculty. Most of the meeting discussed the proposed 1L curriculum changes.
Curriculum Committee Update
On 3 March 2020, the law school community received an email from the Curriculum Committee on a draft proposal to change the structure of the 1L program at U of T Law. In essence, the proposal, if implemented, would shorten the year-long small group into one semester and instead extend the Legal Research and Writing (LRW) course into the second semester adding a 1L moot to this class.
Professor Anthony Niblett began the discussion by relaying some thoughts from Associate Dean Albert Yoon, who was not present at Faculty Council, on the 1L Curriculum Change Student Consultation Townhall. He noted it was very well attended by faculty and students and expressed that “we [the Curriculum Committee] are not committed to any particular outcome, [and] we are genuinely seeking views of students.” Associate Dean Yoon noted two main concerns by students: (1) Process — students were concerned about the lack of student consultation from the Committee and the lack of detail in the proposal; and (2) Substance — students were concerned with the evidence supporting the proposal’s benefits, the potential impacts on mental health, and the reduced engagement due to a semsterized small group.
Both faculty and students discussed the topic in-depth. In one camp, Professors Douglas Sanderson and Larissa Katz advocated “ a trial of the proposal, to see its effects,” and then work from there. Professor Sanderson noted that “this is not going to go disastrously for students… I would feel much more comfortable if what we were talking about is just to set some metrics, run this thing for a year, see how it works, then have a discussion about it.”
Professor Katz agreed, and pointed out that previous major changes in the law school curriculum, such as the move for full-year to semestered courses for upper years in the 1970s, and 1L courses to semestered courses in the mid-2010s, faced similar debates and criticisms. Professor Katz also noted that this proposal would allow some professors interested in teaching small group but aren’t available year-round the opportunity to teach, such as Professor Gillian Hadfield.
However, Professor Martha Shaffer strongly opposed the proposal, primarily because of the process, which lacked “realistic and frank faculty consultation,” which has been key in the past. Professor Shaffer also added on to a previous speaker’s distaste for LRW, stating that “LRW is the absolute worst course we have in first year and there are serious problems with the thought that we will improve the first year by reducing the first year small group and extending the LRW course.”
Professor Denise Réaume had similar thoughts; she noted the lack of “math” that the Committee presented before reaching their conclusion. She stated that while this proposal may be beneficial, she took issue with the lack of assessment on the losses borne from the semesterization of big groups that happened a few years ago. As well, she “did not understand what pedagogical need [the proposal] was meant to respond to.” She also noted the fundamental value of small group assignments, in teaching students how to think through the process of writing. She felt a lack of information in the proposal itself to accurately predict how the proposal would play out.
Professor Réaume also commented on one of the problems with LRW, in that “it was created, not that long ago, with little to no faculty supervision” and without “any ongoing assessment of how the LRW program is doing.” She noted that the “Faculty have not been interested in the ongoing operation of the LRW program.”
Professor Kent Roach, who was not present at the meeting but had his thoughts relayed through Professor Réaume, made two points: (1) when Faculty Council made the move to semesterize the large groups, they made the very deliberate decision to keep small group full-year, and that the proposal “looks like a way to deliver on the agenda years ago”; and (2) students already face substantial pressure early on in the school year and this proposal will only make it worse.
Professor Alan Brudner agreed with Professor Réaume’s point on the value of the small group and how there was a “general consensus that small group was the jewel of our program at U of T Law” during the discussions of semesterization years ago. Professor Brudner also noted that at its current state, he already finds it hard to complete a whole course in small group, and with the proposal (which allocates 13 fewer hours for small group, from 65 to 52 hours) he “cannot imagine what rump of a course will be left.” He feels he will be forced to move from a general substantive course to one of “selected topics.”
Professor Catherine Valcke took a more neutral stance but seemed open to the proposal. She agrees that there is no doubt that the proposal’s process could have been improved, but she found the proposal attractive in “pegging LRW to a substantive course, so it is not so much in the abstract” and adding in a moot, which she recalled in her days as a law students as “one of the more formal and pedagogical experiences” in time at law school.
Terminology Changes at Graduation
Faculty Council approved a proposal to change the degree citation that recognizes students’ high academic standing on their parchment and transcript. Before the meeting, the Faculty of Law recognized students who achieved Distinction for at least two years in their law school career by including “With Honours” on their J.D. parchments. In the present grading system, “Honours” is only the second highest grade, so to remove any potential confusion, the proposal replaced “With Honours” with “With Distinction” on the U of T parchment. This change will apply to the J.D. Class of 2020 parchments.
