Larcombe, W et al. --- "Commencing law students' interests and expectations: comparing undergraduate & graduate cohorts" [2009] LegEdDig 26; (2009) 17(2) Legal Education Digest 38

• Commencing law students’ interests and expectations: comparing undergraduate and graduate cohorts

---

Commencing law students’ interests and expectations: comparing undergraduate and graduate cohorts

W Larcombe, P Nicholson, & I Malkin

1 JALTA, 2008, pp 227–238

Recent research in higher education generally, and legal education in particular, has emphasised the importance of the ‘first year experience’ for student retention, engagement, and academic success. The Studying Law project, undertaken by the authors at the Melbourne Law School, attempts to contribute to an understanding of the relation between law students’ interests and expectations and their academic achievement.

With the transition to graduate-only entry to the Melbourne Law School in 2008, the authors were keen to explore how the interests and expectations of graduate-entry students in the Juris Doctor (JD) compared with those of undergraduate LLB students. The authors designed a 73-item questionnaire which was administered to the commencing LLB cohort in week one of semester one, 2007, and to the commencing JD cohort at the end of their orientation program in February 2008. The questionnaire elicited information regarding: (1) students’ interests in studying law, including their intended use of the degree; (2) students’ expectations of academic success, study and support; and (3) students’ academic readiness for study in law, including use of effective learning strategies.

Of the 431 students enrolled in the LLB in 2007, 415 (96 per cent) returned useable questionnaires and signed consent forms. Of the 74 students who commenced study in the JD in 2008, 72 (97 per cent) returned usable questionnaires and signed consent forms. The high response rate meant that the respondent samples were representative of the commencing cohorts in each program.

Overall, respondents in the LLB were very young (only 10 per cent were aged 20 years or more) and consisted predominantly of school leavers (74 per cent had no prior university experience). Female students (62 per cent) outnumbered male students (38 per cent). The vast majority (91 per cent of respondents) were studying combined degrees, with Commerce/Law and Arts/Law accounting for three quarters of the combined degrees. Respondents in the JD had an average age of 24 years, and female students (65 per cent) again outnumbered male students (33 per cent) (sic). The proportion of students holding Commonwealth Supported Places was comparable in each program: 64 per cent of the LLB students and 59 per cent of the JD students were classified as ‘Australian Supported’. Of the full fee paying students, 13 per cent of the LLB and 10 per cent of the JD students held international student visas.

Selection of school-leavers into the LLB was principally by Equivalent National Tertiary Entrance Rank (ENTER). In addition, 20 per cent of Commonwealth Supported Places were awarded to students who met ‘Access Melbourne’ criteria – a special entry scheme designed to redress social, educational and financial disadvantage. Selection of graduate applicants into the JD in 2008 was based on three elements: results on a Law School Admission Test (LSAT), results in all previous tertiary studies, and a personal statement of 850 words. Final-year school results were not considered. Again, 20 per cent of Commonwealth Supported Places were awarded to applicants through the Graduate Access Melbourne scheme. While all JD entrants were required to have completed the equivalent of a three-year Bachelor degree as a condition of entry, 44 per cent had completed two or more previous qualifications indicating that this cohort overall had extensive prior academic experience.

Responses of the commencing JD students’ interests and expectations (n = 72) were compared with those of the LLB cohort as a whole (n = 415) and also, where appropriate, with those of two performance subgroups within the LLB: students who received a result of 80 per cent or above in one or both of their compulsory first semester law subjects (‘high-achieving’ students, n = 48) and students who received a pass mark of 50-55 per cent in one or both of their compulsory first semester subjects (‘low-achieving’ students, n = 41). Selected comparisons are reported in relation to the three factors that were associated with academic success in the LLB cohort: students’ interests in law; their expectations of workload and support; and their ‘academic readiness’.

Students’ interests in law were investigated through a range of questions which sought information about respondents’ reasons for commencing study in law, including their career plans, and their levels of interest in common activities involved in studying law. It was anticipated that JD students would have made a more informed choice of course than LLB students on average, and that they would be more likely to plan to work in the legal profession after graduating. Both these expectations were confirmed by the findings. Students were asked to indicate their reasons for choosing to study law by selecting from eight listed options. They could select as many options as applied. ‘Other’ was also an option and space was provided for students to explain their reasons.

Among the LLB cohort, certain reasons for studying law – ‘Interest and aptitude’ and ‘Social justice’ – were associated with high achievement, while others – ‘Parental advice’ – were associated with low achievement. JD students were slightly more likely than LLB students overall to select ‘Interest and aptitude’ and ‘Social justice’ as reasons for choosing to study law. Not surprisingly, the JD students were notably less likely than LLBs to nominate ‘Achieved required marks’ or ‘Parental advice’. Interestingly, JD students were also less likely than LLB students to select ‘Financial’ reasons for studying law. This suggested that the JD students were not as career oriented as we might have expected, although they had more definite career plans than the commencing LLB students. More than one third (38 per cent) of the JD students nominated ‘Don’t Know’ in response to the question ‘How long do you expect to practice law after completion?’, while 56 per cent of the LLB students selected this answer. Further, 50 percent of the JD students expected to practise law for ‘More than 5 years’ after completion, compared with only 23 per cent of the LLB students.

The JD students’ higher levels of interest in the course and in work in the legal profession was confirmed by responses to another set of questions which asked students to rate their level of interest in a range of activities involved in studying law. On a five point scale where one equals ‘Very Low’ and five equals ‘Very High’, so that three represents an ‘Intermediate’ or neutral level of interest, the means of JD students’ responses matched or exceeded those of LLB students on all but one measure. Indeed, the JD means matched or exceeded those of the LLB high achievers on 10 of the 12 measures. Given that the LLB high achievers’ levels of interest were noticeably higher than those of the LLB low achievers, the JD responses are a favourable indicator of first semester academic engagement and achievement.

Students entering both the LLB and JD programs at the Melbourne Law School have usually achieved high academic results in their previous studies. Many undergraduate students assume that they will receive similarly high marks in law despite the selective nature of the cohort, the independent learning required in tertiary study, and the demands of studying in a new discipline. We anticipated that graduate-entry (JD) students, who had extensive prior experience of university study, would have more realistic expectations than school leavers of the results they may receive in law and of the demands of the workload. We also anticipated that JD students would better understand that they would be responsible for their learning in a university context, and that they would need to be proactive in seeking support if they needed it. Findings from the survey confirmed these expectations in broad terms, although not to the degree expected.

JD students were less likely than LLBs to indicate that they would only be happy with marks in the (unlikely) 80 per cent and (extremely unlikely) 90 percent range. However, proportionally fewer JDs than LLBs would be happy with a mark in the 50 per cent or 60 per cent range – indicating that there will still be a need to explicitly discuss marking scales and average results in law with commencing graduate-entry students so as to ‘soften the ground’ before results are returned.

LLB students’ expectations of academic results were even more unrealistic when viewed in light of the amount of study they expected to undertake outside of class time. Students were asked how many hours of study per week (total for all four subjects) that they expected to undertake during semester. Faculty staff would hope that students were studying on average six hours per subject per week outside of class time (including preparation of assessment tasks) – around 24 hours per week. However, 69 per cent of the LLBs and 50 per cent of the JDs indicated that they expected to study for fewer than 16 hours per week in total.

Whether the JD students will be able to complete the amount of study they expect the course to require may be the more important issue for that cohort. JD students on average had substantially higher commitments to paid work and family care than their younger counterparts in the LLB. More than one third (39 per cent) of the JD students expected to work in paid employment for 11 or more hours per week during semester, even though they could expect that the course would demand on average 40 hours per week of their time. In addition, one in ten (10 per cent) of JD students would be caring for family members for more than 16 hours per week during semester (compared with only one per cent of LLB students).

In contrast to the JD expectations of workload and results, findings related to independent learning and responsibility for achievement indicated that prior experience of university study made little difference to the students’ perceptions. While almost all students in both cohorts agreed that they were responsible for their own learning and academic performance (97 per cent LLB and 97 per cent JD), most also agreed that, having offered them a place, the university should ensure that they received all necessary support to pass their subjects (78 per cent LLB and 82 per cent JD). Most students in both cohorts expected their subject teachers to help them if they had difficulty with any aspect of their course (90 per cent LLB and 91 per cent JD). Surprisingly, JD students were even more likely than LLB students to agree that they expected their subject teachers to contact them if it appeared that they may be having academic difficulties (76 per cent LLB and 89 per cent JD). The latter finding may be related to the high level of staff-student contact during the 2008 JD orientation and the small class sizes in that program.

We expected that graduate-entry students would rate their ‘readiness’ to undertake a range of academic tasks in law at higher levels than the LLB students. This proved to be the case, with JD students reporting equal or higher levels of confidence on all eight of the listed tasks. Graduate students on average were noticeably more confident (difference in means of 0.3 or greater) in their abilities to critically evaluate information and opinions, to write academic legal essays of up to 5,000 words, and to actively participate in class discussions and group work. The JD students’ higher levels of confidence in their ‘academic readiness’ are no doubt a result of their more extensive academic experience. For example, 72 per cent of JD students had previously written essays of 3,000 words or more, compared with only 28 per cent of the LLB students.

While higher levels of confidence in ‘academic readiness’ were associated with high academic achievement in the first semester of the LLB, it does not necessarily follow that the JD students’ higher levels of academic readiness (compared with the LLB students’ levels) will correlate with higher academic achievement. However, the greater academic confidence and experience of the graduate-entry students do have implications for both first-year teaching and academic support programs, as discussed in the next section.

The present study confirmed that graduate-entry (JD) students’ interests and expectations regarding study in law differed on average from those of undergraduate (LLB) commencing students. These differences were ‘favourable’ in that they indicated a closer match between the interests and expectations of the JD students and the ‘realities’ of the degree. Indeed, on a number of measures, the JD students’ expectations and interests closely matched those of the LLB students who went on to achieve high results in their first semester studies in law.

Most notably, the JD students expressed higher levels of interest than LLB students in undertaking a law degree and in the kinds of general topics covered in day-to-day study in law. They also expressed more realistic expectations of academic results and workload, however the JD students’ comparatively high levels of commitment to paid work and family care is an issue of potential concern. While the JD students appeared to have a better understanding of the amount of independent study involved in a law degree, they may be unrealistic about their ability to manage the demands of the degree while juggling their other commitments. This issue can be taken up in transition and academic skills programs. For example, transition programs can explicitly discuss with students how to best manage the workload that the course requires, and opportunities for part-time work within the faculty can be targeted to the new cohort. Some flexibility may also be needed in relation to the forms of assessment tasks used and their submission dates – for example, take-home exams scheduled over a weekend may unduly disadvantage those in the graduate cohort with family responsibilities. Academic skills support programs in the LLB have traditionally focused on English language development and ‘Writing Essentials for Law’ but JD students in their first semester are more likely to benefit from workshops and resources on time management and efficient study strategies.

The JD students’ relatively high levels of confidence in their academic skills may explain, and to an extent even justify, their ambitious workloads and multiple commitments. JD students expressed particularly high levels of confidence (means of 4.0 and above) in their ability to critically evaluate information, to listen attentively and engage with information delivered orally, and to participate in class discussions and group work. Given that first-year subjects in the Melbourne Law School are taught in seminar style, many JD students may well find that they are better prepared for, and able to adjust more quickly to, the academic demands and the teaching-learning style of the law degree than significant numbers of LLB students. However, there will still be a need for explicit discussion with students of teachers’ expectations and perceptions of responsibility for learning and achievement, given that most JD students still believed that the university and their subject teachers should ensure they received all support needed to pass their subjects. Continued need for discussion of marking scales and interpretation of law results is also indicated.

The survey findings confirm that first-year teachers in the JD will need to take account of graduate-entry students’ higher levels of academic experience and ensure that the curriculum and learning activities are designed to provide sufficient challenge while supporting students’ transition into the new discipline and learning environment. While we found that graduate-entry students were more likely to express high levels of interest in common aspects of study in law, it is likely that their levels of frustration will be proportionally higher if first-year teaching and learning is not well matched to their interests and their skill levels. The findings also indicate that highly individualised support for academic skill development, provided on an as-needs basis, will be more appropriate than programs delivered across the cohort.

The higher levels of interest and academic skill of the commencing JD students, coupled with their more realistic expectations of success and workload, indicate that the selection process for the JD is better able than the LLB selection process to recruit a cohort of students who are well matched to the demands of the degree at the Melbourne Law School. As the findings reported above indicate, high academic achievement at school level does not guarantee strong performance in a law course. LLB students’ first semester results were associated with their commencing levels of interest in law, realistic expectations of workload and support, and self-ratings of academic ‘readiness’. The academic performance of the JD students will no doubt vary, however, their survey responses indicate that their achievement is less likely to be affected by lack of interest, unrealistic expectations of workload or inadequate academic preparation. In this respect, a personal statement of interest and a law-specific academic aptitude test appear to be valuable elements of a law selection process.

The fact that JD students’ responses on the Studying Law survey tracked most closely to the responses of high-achieving LLB students indicates that law school selection processes may be improved by attending to students’ interests and aptitude for study in law, not only previous high academic performance. Personal statements or interviews, combined with a law aptitude test, appear to have a role in this regard. The findings reported here also indicate that students commencing law with prior successful experience of university study are likely to need or benefit from different forms of academic support and first-year teaching than those suited to undergraduate commencing students.

Periodic surveys of student expectations, and of different cohorts of commencing students, enable the discussion of university learning and teaching practices, commonly undertaken as part of orientation, to be targeted to particular areas of misunderstanding. In the local environment of the Melbourne Law School and the move to graduate-entry, accurate and timely information about the different interests and expectations of the JD students, compared with LLB students, has been a valuable aid to teachers needing to adjust and respond to the new cohort. In any law school, however, current information about students’ interests, expectations and academic readiness is likely to be a valuable aid to improving the first-year experience.