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

...and Replies

...and Replies

1.

1.	The ITA issue involves a conflict of interests between staff who place great emphasis on assessment and must face criticisms of disparity in grading, and students. I submit that it is not known what students think. We have done nothing so far because we thought the issue had been settled. The aim of the article was to point out the issue is not settled.
2.	Doug Wilson is correct to note my lack of involvement in bringing back ITA: I too had believed the issue was settled once and for all.

John McBride

2.

Having written the introduction that has born the brunt of the criticisms from Geoff Harley and Doug Wilson I would like to reply to some of the points they raise.

1.	I did not claim that Dean John Thomas was solely responsible for the growing use of, and interest in, the Socratic method in the faculty. I merely stated that he was one of the major protagonists of the method. His support of the method had to be commented on in light of the facts that (i) in term assessment has been abolished in the faculty; (ii) the position of Dean has some prestige attached to it which gives disproportionate influence to the views of the incumbent.
2.	The Socratic method is by and large a new development in the teaching of law. While it has been used for some while now it has only been recently that its use has attracted much interest. Certainly, the editorial comment in a recent Gaveat on the method was the first student comment I have seen on it.
3.	On forced learning, I am well aware that the Law Faculty contains some of the laziest students in this university. But this is no excuse to adopt a forced learning approach without investigating precisely the reasons for student apathy and laziness. In his article John McBride examined some of the shortcomings of the Socratic method one of which was its failure to inculcate any sense of service - of a duty towards one's future clients. Without this wish to serve the people, an average law student has hardly got much reason to become a good lawyer. If he can cheat his tutors and later his clients isn't that easier? Isn't it easier, also, if one is not concerned with one's ability to serve the people, to do the minimum amount of work possible? While I do not put forward this political concern as the main concern involved in student apathy/laziness I do feel that it is a major one.
4.	The rest of your criticisms, where they do not actually agree with what appeared in Salient are more an indictment of the failure of the law faculty club to represent its students. If one reads your criticisms carefully it would appear that no law students have any opinion on in-term assessment or the socratic method whatsoever. This is hardly likely. Sitting still in the Salient office I seem to have learnt more about what law students gripes are than you have. Also, with reference to the Socratic mthod, you seem to ignore the fact that the people most intimidated by the Socratic method are also the least likely to complain.
5.	To say there was no time to consult students about the abolition of in-term assessment is rubbish. There was, as far as I can see, no reason at all to make the changes this year without consultation. Surely a preliminary decision could have been made in February made subject to discussion throughout this year to apply in 1976.
6.	To imply, in any way whatsoever, that finals exams measure students abilities better than in-term assessment is just not on. If anybody involved with the law faculty club-as I assume you are - had [unclear: done] some reading of the literature on the pros and cons of different forms of assessment they could not have supported the reintroduction of 100% finals exams in any course let alone a whole faculty. I suggest you get hold of the NZUSA reports on this matter and read them.

Bruce Robinson