Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 38, Number 26. 1975

2. An answer to John McBride's article on I.T.A. in the Law Faculty

2. An answer to John McBride's article on I.T.A. in the Law Faculty

John McBride states that the abolition of I.T.A. resulted from a failure of communication between students and staff in the Law Faculty. In fact the Student Reps on Faculty had advance warning from March 7th 1974 that a report would be presented (and consequent action would follow), after finals in 1974. If any failure of communication arose it might more properly be laid at the feet of student - law fac club communcation.

The Congrene report has been on closed reserve in the Law Library since February 1975. At the date of the Law Fac. Club AGM (March 1975) two students (myself and one other) had read it. Perhaps the majority of law students couldn't care less about ITA.

The report summarises the arguments for and against ITA as follows:

For
1.ITA tests different skills in a different way to the final exam.
2.ITA removes pressure from the end of the year.
3.ITA is at least a substitute for the finals exam.
4.The year's work should count.
5.ITA makes students work harder.
Against
1.ITA adds to student stress during the year.
2.It is hard to have confidence in ITA marks.
3.Adverse concentration on ITA work to the detriment of other work in the subject.
4.ITA affects staff's flexibility in teaching and assessment.
5.Increased faculty work load.
6.Adverse effect on staff/student relationships.
7.Statistical analysis of 1974 results shows a neglegible change in finals marks because of ITA, whether at 40% ITA (the then upper limit) or at a projected 50%.

Every student will have his own opinion about most of these arguments, however as a member of the Law Faculty Club Committee for the last two years I have had some contact with both sides of the story and venture to offer some comments.

(a) By far the strongest factor as far as the Faculty is concerned is a lack of confidence in ITA marks. As the report notes at pp7 & 8, if the bulk of the marks in an exercise are awarded for correctly identifying the issues involved then there is no way of distinguishing between the person who worked it out for himself and the person who had it pointed out to him. In an exam however you can be reasonably sure that a person has identified the issues without assistance.

This does not seem an unduly unreasonable attitude for the Faculty to take. If ITA is to count for the final mark it is not good enough to give students a guaranteed method of cheating the bulk of their marks. While it is reasonable to say that a majority should not suffer for the actions of a minority it is perhaps reasonable too to adopt a procedure that discriminates least against the honest student.

(b) In my opinion ITA has had a disasterous effect on student life in general. Work loads did increase, pressure throughout the year did increase and pressure at the end of the year did not decrease.

(c) As John points out the Faculty are prepared to do, allow ITA in subjects where individual assignments can be set. i.e. where they can be sure that work is indeed the work of the student concerned. The subjects that are doing this now are all fairly small classes, and none of them is a 'technical' legal' subject.

In a large class the setting and marking of, say, 130 different exercises is obviously beyond the Faculty's man-power resources. Also the majority of students are not happy to do original research of their own Contrary to radical belief the average student would prefer to do as little work as possible, and if he has to do anything he would sooner have it pre-digested for him

Those students who through genuine interest or natural peuersity wish to demonstrate their skills at original and exciting research are well catered for by the Law Faculty's honours programme. As yet no one has been killed in the rush to get into this programme.

page break

(d) One of the main reasons for the decision being made before students returned at the beginning of this year was that the Law Faculty had to comply with a Professorial Board directive to inform students of the assessment scheme within 2 weeks of the beginning of the academic year. Presumably the time allowed did not give sufficient time to allow for the full commentation which John McBride would have preferred.

In view of the total lack of reaction by law students it seems clear that the faculty will continue in 1976 as it has this year.

(e) Four weeks ago an S.G.M. of the Law Faculty Club was held to discuss, amongst other things, ITA. With the benefit of hindsight John McBride was conspicuous by his absence. Only 16 students attended, most of them members of the Law Fac Club committee.

Perhaps the issue is not such a 'vital' one to students as he believes. The Law Fac Club Commitee has done a good deal of work and devoted a lot of thought to the question of ITA. The general feeling is clearly that law students as a whole prefer not to have it. No substantial complaint about its abolition has been made, Mr McBride's included. But then, uninformed criticism is a lot less time consuming than going to boring old meetings, eh, John?

Doug Wilson