Recommendations to make syllabuses more useful and fair
There’s a reason U of T Law syllabuses drastically vary in content and quality: there are virtually no policies or guidelines governing U of T Law syllabuses. Instructors at U of T Law have almost absolute ‘academic freedom’ to make and amend their syllabuses.
When I couldn’t find any policies or rules on U of T Law syllabuses, I inquired to the Faculty. Associate Dean, JD Program Christopher Essert said, “we don’t have any specific policies or guidelines, nor […] are faculty required to include any particular information.” However, Associate Dean Essert said he circulates “some language about things like academic integrity and student health and well-being […] that many members of the Faculty choose to include on their syllabi.”
Maybe I was “spoiled” in undergrad, but I’ve been disappointed in U of T Law syllabuses. I want U of T Law syllabuses to be better for students’ and instructors’ sake. In this article, I’m going to make some recommendations to improve syllabuses.
Recommendation 1: Provide syllabuses to students earlier
Myself and many other students were shocked to learn last year that the Academic Handbook’s “Reading Requirements” are not actually requirements but mere guidelines. When students brought to the Faculty’s attention that syllabuses assigned readings that exceeded the “Reading Requirements”, they were essentially told their only recourse was to change courses. But this is hardly a solution. For example, while in the Winter semester, there are two courses I could in theory switch into, I have no idea if either complies with the “Reading Requirements.”
Ideally, lecturers should publish their syllabuses before students submit their preferences to Cognomos so they can make informed course selections. This would help reduce course switches and the ensuing classroom disruptions through the Add/Drop period. The Students’ Law Society (SLS) does run a Syllabus Database for this purpose, but it is incomplete and future syllabuses may differ from past syllabuses.
Recommendation 2: Syllabuses should provide a list of readings by class
I have seen multiple syllabuses that are just a list of readings with no indication of which readings will be covered in each class. Generally, the instructor goes through this list in descending order—but not always. Instructors often give little notice (usually 12–48 hours) of the readings that will be covered in class.
I understand it can be hard to budget teaching time, but many law students have children, jobs and other obligations aside from law school. If instructors want students to do particular readings for a particular class, they should give students reasonable notice. It’s better for syllabuses to contain a planned list of readings by day with the understanding that it may have to be adjusted than to provide no guidance to students at the outset on when readings will be discussed.
Recommendation 3: Syllabuses should provide a curated list of readings
Assigning hundreds of pages of required readings per class is not only a ‘violation’ of the Academic Handbook’s “Reading Requirements”, but also intellectually lazy. A large portion of the value an instructor brings to a law course is curating a reading list so that students can efficiently learn the area of law. If the equation “more required readings = more student learning” were true, I could maximize student learning by ‘requiring’ students to read every case on Westlaw Canada. Instructors can include additional readings in syllabuses as suggested readings, as Professor Kenneth Jull does, instead of assigning excessive required readings.
Props to Professor Hamish Stewart for assigning excerpts from long Supreme Court of Canada cases. Boo to the instructors that assign entire Supreme Court of Canada cases only to discuss a few paragraphs.
Recommendation 4: Syllabuses should provide clear details on how students will be assessed
A law course shouldn’t be an episode of Whose Line It is Anyways? where “everything is made up and the points don’t matter.” Yet many course descriptions and syllabuses provide scant details on how students will be assessed. All but one of the U of T Law syllabuses I have read, which had essays, did not indicate the essay deadlines. In multiple courses, the Instructor did not set the essay deadlines until after the Add/Drop deadline and then set the essay deadline before the semester’s final deadline for written work.
Further, it is often unclear in syllabuses what type of essays students are expected to write. There is a wide variety of types of essays from fluffy reflections to gruelling research essays. When students inquire about the requirements for essays, they unfortunately often get contradictory answers. I don’t mean to impute any bad faith on the part of instructors; they may forget they already gave another student a different answer or, upon sound reflection, changed their mind. Putting essay requirements into syllabuses helps reduce students’ questions and sets fair and clear expectations for everyone.
Recommendation 5: Instructors shouldn’t unilaterally make material changes to syllabuses
One of the few constraints on U of T Law syllabuses is Part B, s. 1.3 of the University of Toronto Governing Council’s University Assessment and Grading Practices Policy: “after the methods of evaluation have been made known, the instructor may not change them or their relative weight without the consent of a simple majority of students attending the class […] [except] in the case of the declaration of a disruption.”
I had one U of T Law course where the Instructor unilaterally changed the relative weighting of the methods of evaluation. At the time, I was not aware of this policy. Given the lack of policies surrounding U of T Law syllabuses compared to syllabuses from the rest of the University, I wouldn’t be surprised if the instructor thought they had the power to make this unilateral change.
I suggest U of T Law extend this policy to any material changes to the syllabus. In one of my courses, after the Add/Drop deadline, the instructor unilaterally cut approximately 25 percent of the course content in the syllabus and replaced it with content vaguely related to the course title or job description but clearly in their preferred research area. I don’t think they should have been allowed to do that. There are some valid critiques of the consumer-driven model of education, but surely when students enrol in a course on ‘the law of X’, they should receive a course on ‘the law of X’ (absent extenuating circumstances).
