Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 18, July 26, 1976.

Law

Law

Law Faculty

The Law Faculty Club recently organised a meeting for students to discuss course-related problems. Forty attended and most speakers expressed dissatisfaction with the present system. Reasons included workloads, assessment and the seeming point lessness of trying to get any sense out of the Department.

A senior club member said no useful impact would be made on the Department unless it could be shown that a good proportion of students support reform.

With the doubtful proposition in mind the meeting adjourned for three weeks to draft some suggestions to put before the second-year students (why not everybody?). Those proposals which met with broad assent would be taken up with the department.

Naturally not more than 20 of the 30 who turned up at the second meeting were second year students. Relatively little material had been prepared in advance and nothing much of a concrete nature was decided. Even so there was consensus on -

Student Involvement: Daunting though it is, and effort should be made to get students involved to some degree in reform. For or against, but involved. One problem is that if were not too sure why we're studying the law we're not going to be too motivated to take action on other topics we're not sure we believe in either. The meeting felt that students do care about what's going on but don't see what they can do about it. The constant pressure of case readings and opinions with finals lurking in the background seems to preclude any other constructive activity in the university environment beyond worrying about deadlines.

Assessment: The present method is unsatisfactory. Some of us favoured total internal assessment: others finals; others the right of option (what about abolishing assessment?). We want the law department to tell us again why we're stuck with the finals-only system. We want open debate on this matter. We want to know what the staff feel and why. We didn't care much for terms requirements [ unclear: eitn]

Staff-Student Relationships: [ unclear: It] was [ unclear: elt] that despite the present situation, staff and students should all be in this together. Too many of us define staff as those who suppress and/or confuse us for unknown reasons. Maybe staff have some justification in stereotyping us as stupid and/or lazy. We suggest that the barriers be dismantled and want to talk with staff about how.

Teaching: What, please, are we actually supposed to be learning here?

There have been developments. From [ unclear: cussions] with individual staff members [ unclear: apparent] some of them are concerned [ unclear: a] Professor Palmer has offered to give over [ unclear: Torts] class of Wednesday 28 July to an [ unclear: en] forum. All law students are urged to [ unclear: in] us [E006, 11 am]. Other staff [ unclear: members] will also be present to participate [ unclear: a] [ unclear: ur] is not nearly enough so Union Hall [ unclear: as] been tentatively booked for noon on [ unclear: ne] last Wednesday of the term - just in [ unclear: ase] there's more for us to talk about.

Let's not blow it!

' Socratic Sanity - '77?

1. Unconstructive pressure in one course, whether for reasons of 'filtering' or a dogmatic belief in a particular teaching 'style', can and does [ unclear: puce] adverse stress in the student which affects the work in that course, [ unclear: a en] work in other courses in which [ unclear: iously] satisfactory results were bring obtained.

2. Law is an introduction and skill not only for practice, but also for commerce, administration, and as a valuable mental framework for other social science disciplines.

Law faculty should set its standards, ther aim to have, and encourage, as many students as possible to pass.

It is the student's responsibility to find a job, whether in private practice. Government legal departments, administration, or commerce, etc.

Law passes should not be governed by the fluctuating fortunes of private firms' conveyancing.

Law skills of analysis, distinguishing, constructing and criticising legal arguments are something that needs on-going instruction - not just the Legal System "lick-anda-promise". And encouragement - not mere unconstructive criticism or abuse.

4. No discipline has one, 'received', theory. The insistence on students 'discovering' their lecturer's view of theory, and falling into line with it, offers neither time nor opportunity to theorise for oneself, and have those theories constructively argued. The non-constructive criticising acts as a "clobbering machine".

5. Lecturers are still students. Even the least knowledgeable, least sophisticated, present student has some insight to contribute. The skillful, professional teacher is the one who can create the sympathetic climate to encourage that student to make that contribution. [Education: to draw out from].

6. Finally: " Stress Teaching is Mess Teaching". Mass teaching we must put up with, both students and lecturers. Mess teaching neither of us need.

[ unclear: -] Tim Hart