Another Year, Another Shambolic Course Selection Process
In retrospect, there were early signs that the 2020-2021 course selection would fulfill all the promise it demonstrated last year. The moment course lists were posted on June 26, something was awry: too many hours, too few hours, and no exam schedules whatsoever. Immediate contact by the Students’ Law Society (SLS) about the discrepancies brought no initial response from the administration, which was followed by a University holiday the next week. With questions left unanswered and the July 6 start of course selection looming, this did not inspire confidence.
Cognomos, the course selection system implemented by the Faculty last year and infamously “powered by Nobel Prize-winning Economics,” was fraught with challenges in its first run. Students must select twice as many courses as it is possible to take, and then rank them according to four preference categories. After the system is fed each student’s rankings, it spits out a schedule for each student on the basis of “maximizing happiness,” as it is described. Fundamentally, it is a lottery system providing the appearance of choice on the front end, but there is no guarantee that minimum credit hours will be assigned or that rankings will be meaningfully incorporated. After a rocky first year, many hoped that these fundamental issues would be addressed.
The day before the July 15 deadline for course selections, a number of courses were added. These included glaring absences in previously-released offerings, such as Criminal Procedure. While these last-minute additions suggested capacity problems, the extent of this issue was not obvious until two weeks later on July 30, when course allocations had been run.
A startling number of students (informal surveys suggesting at least 60-70) reported being placed in fewer than the minimum number of credit hours, some in as few as two courses for the entire year. In its algorithmic wisdom, Cognomos placed students in two sections of the same course, assigned overlapping courses, clogged inboxes with notifications about courses it failed to add, shunted students to the bottom of highly-ranked courses, and flagged waitlist requests without apparent cause.
Furthermore, there simply did not seem to be enough seats for students, particularly for those attending in-person. In response to the chaos, Assistant Dean Sara Faherty assured students that “this happens to dozens of students every year, and is always corrected by the end of the add/drop period,” and that “the waitlists move a lot over the summer.”
Staff worked around the clock to address issues, many of which had to be manually corrected. On the other hand, students reported that their panicked calls and emails to the administration were either ignored or substantially unhelpful. They were advised to register in courses with remaining seats, add themselves to more waitlists, or apply for exceptional credit-earning opportunities like Directed Research Projects (DRP), Supervised Upper Year Research Projects (SURYP) or journals.
None of these suggestions struck at the core issue of a systemic credit shortage. Remaining seats were largely in required courses many 3Ls had already taken, or in courses subject to conflicts with students’ already-thin schedules. 3Ls also lacked International, Comparative, and Transnational graduation requirements, despite prior assurances that they would be placed in required courses they did not receive through the allocation. As waitlists remained largely stagnant, it seemed fruitless to continue joining increasing numbers of waitlists. Meanwhile, in-person students falling short of credit minimums were inexplicably barred from available seats in remote sections.
These issues continued throughout August, with two postponements of the deadline for add/drop requests due to Cognomos improperly flagging waitlist requests. As of August 24, students were simultaneously advised to add themselves to a minimum of six waitlists and remove themselves from waitlists of courses in which they had no interest, with no acknowledgment of the diminishing returns after waitlist numbers stretched beyond course capacity.
In addition to continuing to push “flexible credit-earning opportunities” (in other words, not classes), Assistant Dean Faherty informed students that “at least one more course” would be added, and some existing courses would add additional spots, a mere two weeks before the start of the term. Students were advised to be patient.
While the SLS formally raised concerns and recommendations to the administration on September 1, the process ground on through the start of the term, through moot tryouts and the eventual posting of January intensives. Despite assurances, as of September 18, there remained students lacking sufficient credit hours. They were sent an email advising “urgent” action to remedy the issue, or they would be downgraded to half-time status. Yet the administration’s tune had not changed: look for courses with openings (regardless of interest, prior course history, or scheduling conflicts), be on five or six waitlists, apply for a DRP or SUYRP.
Course selections for the Fall were eventually closed, but perhaps the most frustrating aspect for students is how predictable these issues were. Just last year, Cognomos failed to assign many students to the credit minimum, an issue only exacerbated this year. In the midst of global border restrictions, it is to be expected that dozens of additional 3Ls with cancelled exchanges would need spaces in courses. It is additionally unsurprising that students in their final year may miss out on graduation requirements when they are not given preference over 2Ls in course selection.
Two years of chaotic, protracted course selection leave ample opportunity to question the administration’s continued dedication to a course selection system that has failed repeatedly to fulfill its most basic function. Students paying full tuition for online instruction face the further insult of having no option but to take classes in which they have no personal or career interest.
There is no doubt that this exceptional year posed exceptional problems. It remains to be seen whether the administration will prioritize student experience moving forward. Until it does, it may be difficult for the Faculty to continue to justify the JD’s $100,000 price tag.
Ultra Vires surveyed students about their Cognomos experience this year, read it here.
