In a personal opinion piece (”The marks of ‘surface learning”’) Rob Turrell makes certain allegations and claims about the system of higher education in this country, students’ use of the right of access to information, and teaching and learning in the faculty of law at the University of Cape Town (UCT).
His personal account, which purports to be of general significance, must be corrected by the facts, which I set out below — an opportunity not afforded to me in advance of last week’s publication. I will not react to every statement made, for there is internal contradiction and inaccuracy in what was published. Instead I will sketch generally the quality-assurance system at place in the faculty, and deal with the legal situation surrounding access to information and examinations.
Among the measures of the quality of a faculty of law are the extent and effectiveness of its social engagement, the success that its graduates achieve in a variety of careers, both within and outside the legal profession, and in postgraduate study locally and abroad, and the assessments of its peers nationally and internationally. On all these grounds we have reason to believe that we are doing a very good job, in often trying circumstances.
For example, many of our graduates have acted as researchers to the justices of the Constitutional Court over the past decade, highly sought-after positions. Among our academic staff, who must be the ultimate guarantors of quality, all those who applied for accreditation to the National Research Foundation when the system was extended to law in 2002 were rated as internationally significant researchers. Our record of effective participation in an extensive range of public policy initiatives is widely acknowledged.
As for the quality of teaching and learning in particular, we set great store by the learning of skills and as critical and contextual an approach to law as is possible. The various curricula offered towards the LLB degree ensure that none of our graduates leaves without significant exposure to non-law subjects, as we believe that rounded people make good lawyers and citizens.
We place an increasingly heavy emphasis on a broad range of skills training — reading, writing, computer literacy, mooting, drafting and numeracy. In this regard we have initiated what has become a national pilot project for teaching: ”quantitative literacy for lawyers”. The skills competence is tested in an integrative assessment project in the final year. Furthermore, we offer new law students the services of a writing centre, extensive tutorials and a mentorship scheme.
From 2005 all law students will be expected to participate in socially responsive activities — such as legal aid, street law, or the work of various research groups — whether in the faculty or outside, as a period of unremunerated community service will be a requirement for qualification. Together with the wide range of eminent visitors to the faculty, most of whom lecture to students, our LLB graduates have had a critical and socially contextual education offered to them.
Methods of assessment vary widely, but every compulsory course in the LLB degree requires students to do a year’s work for between 20% and 40% of their overall assessment.
Students have been identified by an anonymous number for written exams since 1993. The extensive system of external examiners, which has been in place for decades, is not intended to ”double mark” every script, but rather to regulate the quality and fairness of the exam paper/s, to sample the marked scripts, to re-mark borderline cases (pass/fails, those hovering between first- and second-class passes and so forth), to be present at oral exams (administered to remove doubts about a student’s knowledge) and to report to the faculty on the quality of the process. (This latter aspect is outline in the Guidelines for Examiners — supplied to all examiners.)
The external examination system is regulated at a central level within the university. The quality of our undertaking is thus externally assessed on a continuous basis. In addition, in preparation for the national system of quality assurance in higher education, all aspects of our LLB were subjected to rigorous independent review four months ago, a process that has culminated in a highly satisfactory quality-assessment report.
Let me now deal briefly with the issue of students’ access to exam scripts. This is a contested area in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, which is itself a thoroughly laudable attempt to ensure a degree of openness in the exercise of power in this country.
UCT is fully committed to its obligations under this Act, and has held a number of training and awareness sessions with academic and administrative staff. Turrell’s first application (of May 2002) was indeed unprecedented, but after some consultation he was provided with copies of all the scripts that he requested, and this was repeated after the next set of exams.
The university’s discretion to decide each case on its merits must be preserved, and any examining authority would be entitled by law and good practice to refuse access, based on Section 44(2) of the Act. The faculty policy of providing students with an opportunity to discuss their exam performance with the lecturer concerned on the basis of their script remains in place as the means most students prefer for learning from their errors.
None of this suggests that we are complacent, or that the system cannot be improved. Committees with student representation exist within the faculty constantly to attend to the quality of what we do.
Finally, as a matter of public record, I should point out two facts in closing: Turrell quotes an e-mail (from me to him): ”Requests for the marking of copies will be considered as they arise …” This is misleading — it read ”making” in the original; and he was a student of this faculty for three years from 2000 to 2002 but did not graduate.
Hugh Corder is dean of law at the University of Cape Town