DOCSLIB.ORG

Kaplan Law School Review for Educational Oversight by the Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kaplan Law School Review for Educational Oversight by the Quality Kaplan Law School Review for Educational Oversight by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education May 2012 Review for Educational Oversight: Kaplan Law School Key findings about Kaplan Law School As a result of its Review for Educational Oversight carried out in May 2012, the QAA review team (the team) considers that there can be confidence in how the provider manages its stated responsibilities for the standards of the awards it offers on behalf of Nottingham Trent University. The team also considers that there can be confidence in how the provider manages its [INSE Oversight: for Educational Review stated responsibilities for the quality and enhancement of the learning opportunities it offers on behalf of this awarding body. The team considers that reliance can be placed on the accuracy and completeness of the information that the provider is responsible for publishing about itself and the programmes it delivers. Good practice The team has identified the following good practice: the comprehensive and systematic way in which staff development is planned and delivered, which impacts positively upon student learning (paragraph 2.14) a well designed and exhaustive process assures the accuracy and completeness of published information (paragraph 3.6) provider] of name official full RT Recommendations The team has also identified a number of recommendations for the enhancement of the higher education provision. The team considers that it would be desirable for the provider to: involve students more formally in validation, revalidation and course modification (paragraph 2.5) consider a more systematic approach when communicating actions taken as a result of student feedback (paragraph 2.7) 1 Review for Educational Oversight: Kaplan Law School About this report This report presents the findings of the Review for Educational Oversight1 (REO) conducted by QAA at Kaplan Law School (the provider; the School). The purpose of the review is to provide public information about how the provider discharges its stated responsibilities for the management and delivery of academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities available to students. The review applies to programmes of study that the provider delivers on behalf of Nottingham Trent University. The review was carried out by [INSE Oversight: for Educational Review Dr Gillian Blunden, Dr Clive Marsland and Mr Robert Mason (reviewers), and Mr Ian Fleming (coordinator). The review team conducted the review in agreement with the provider and in accordance with the Review for Educational Oversight: Handbook.2 Evidence in support of the review included documentation supplied by the provider and awarding body and meetings with staff, students and employers. The review team also considered the provider's use of the relevant external reference points: the Academic Infrastructure and the emerging UK Quality Code for Higher Education Requirements stated by the following regulatory bodies: the Joint Academic Stage Board, the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority and the Bar Standards Board expectations and requirements expressed by sponsoring client firms. provider] of name official full RT Please note that if you are unfamiliar with any of the terms used in this report you can find them in the Glossary. The Kaplan UK Group is part of Kaplan, Inc, owned by the Washington Post Company and providing education and career services to one million students worldwide. Kaplan Law School was established in 2007 and is located in modern premises on London's South Bank at the rear of Southwark Cathedral. At the time of the review, nearly 300 students were studying at the School. The School intends to continue focusing upon providing an excellent student experience and outstanding academic support. At the time of the review, the provider offered the following higher education programmes, listed beneath their awarding body: Nottingham Trent University Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) Legal Practice Course (LPC) Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) The provider's stated responsibilities The School works with one awarding body, Nottingham Trent University, with which a formal partnership agreement has been agreed. The University, together with professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, specifies the content and intended learning outcomes of the three professional postgraduate programmes delivered by the School. 1 www.qaa.ac.uk/InstitutionReports/types-of-review/tier-4. 2 www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/informationandguidance/pages/reo-handbook.aspx. 2 Review for Educational Oversight: Kaplan Law School Recent developments The measured growth of the School since 2007 has been linked to a commitment to quality and employability, one example of which is evidenced by the BPTC students obtaining a pupilage at a rate approximately twice that of the national average. Library space is at a premium and consideration is being given to methods of providing additional accommodation. [INSE Oversight: for Educational Review Students' contribution to the review Students were invited to present a submission to the review team. The School encouraged and supported students in contributing to the review. A feedback questionnaire was produced, together with a short presentation and a poster about educational oversight. A student working group then decided to produce a video submission and a series of short presentations were filmed. Students were solely responsible for format and content. Two videos provided helpful contextual information for the team. In addition, the team met a group of eight students during the review. RT full official name of provider] of name official full RT 3 Review for Educational Oversight: Kaplan Law School Detailed findings about Kaplan Law School 1 Academic standards How effectively does the provider fulfil its responsibilities for the management of academic standards? Review for Educational Oversight: [INSE Oversight: for Educational Review 1.1 The Kaplan UK Management Board has overall responsibility for human resources, financial status, physical resources and the overall academic portfolio including standards, strategic direction/objectives and performance monitoring. In 2011, its overall UK operations were accredited by the British Accreditation Council, with the Kaplan Law School successfully undergoing its own inspection. 1.2 The School offers three postgraduate professional legal programmes, the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL), the Legal Practice Course (LPC) and the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) under a franchised partnership with Nottingham Trent University. Attainment of the Legal Practice Course or the Bar Professional Training Course, gives graduates a licence to practice. External regulation of these programmes is provided by the Joint Academic Stage Board (JASB), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) respectively. An institutional level franchise agreement with the University was approved in 2006 for a 10-year period. The University is responsible for the syllabus and assessment, while academic responsibility for the School rests with the Kaplan Dean of Law. provider] of name official full RT 1.3 The respective responsibilities for the academic standards of the professional postgraduate awards are clearly delineated and key School staff, including programme leaders, are fully aware of their responsibilities and are able to articulate them clearly. 1.4 The School operates as a Kaplan centre and has a centre manager who provides monthly feedback to the Kaplan UK Management Board. Standards for the School professional courses are set jointly by both the relevant professional statutory and regulatory body and the University. Quality assurance is the responsibility of the School course team, subject to the processes and procedures of the University. Each of the three programmes is the responsibility of a designated programme leader, with the Dean providing academic leadership across the School. Overall responsibility for the management of the School, including the employment of staff to teach on academic programmes, is held by the Centre Manager, who reports to the Kaplan UK Management Board. A University assessment tutor has been appointed with overall responsibility for the management of academic standards relating to assessments. 1.5 All quality assurance procedures for the School awards are documented and managed in accordance with the University's Academic Quality and Standards Handbook. Programme handbooks, to a University standard template, incorporating the programme specifications, professional body requirements, an assessment manual and advice on the avoidance of academic offences, such as plagiarism, are issued to all students on enrolment, and also to programme leaders. Academic staff are responsible for supporting students in the effective use of these handbooks. Programmes are managed through course committees and staff-student liaison committees and extensive cooperation between the School and University safeguards academic standards. 1.6 In December 2010, Kaplan UK established an Academic Council based on guidance set out in the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education to provide academic oversight of programmes leading to awards validated by a UK university. Its terms of reference and membership are currently 4 Review for Educational Oversight: Kaplan Law School under review with the aim of incorporating more fully the work of the School. The Council is responsible on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Graham Holdings Company 2014 Annual Report
    GRAHAM HOLDINGS 2014 ANNUAL REPORT REVENUE BY PRINCIPAL OPERATIONS n EDUCATION 61% n CABLE 23% n TELEVISION BROADCASTING 10% n OTHER BUSINESSES 6% FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (in thousands, except per share amounts) 2014 2013 Change Operating revenues $ 3,535,166 $ 3,407,911 4% Income from operations $ 407,932 $ 319,169 28% Net income attributable to common shares $ 1,292,996 $ 236,010 — Diluted earnings per common share from continuing operations $ 138.88 $ 23.36 — Diluted earnings per common share $ 195.03 $ 32.05 — Dividends per common share $ 10.20 $ — — Common stockholders’ equity per share $ 541.54 $ 446.73 21% Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 6,559 7,333 –11% INCOME FROM NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE OPERATING REVENUES OPERATIONS TO COMMON SHARES ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 3,861 582 1,293 3,453 3,535 3,373 3,408 408 314 319 149 277 236 116 131 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 RETURN ON DILUTED EARNINGS PER AVERAGE COMMON COMMON SHARE FROM DILUTED EARNINGS STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY* CONTINUING OPERATIONS PER COMMON SHARE ($) ($) 46.6% 138.88 195.03 38.16 9.8% 9.0% 23.36 31.04 32.05 5.2% 17.32 4.4% 14.70 17.39 6.40 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 * Computed on a comparable basis, excluding the impact of the adjustment for pensions and other postretirement plans on average common stockholders’ equity. 2014 ANNUAL REPORT 1 To OUR SHAREHOLDERS Quite a lot happened in 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • BPTC Providers Analysis
    BPTC 2010/11 An analysis of students enrolled on the 2010/11 Bar Professional Training Course BPTC statistical report June 2012 Prepared by Bar Council Research Department 1 Tables of Contents Contents 1 BPTC Equality and Diversity Monitoring ............................................................... 6 Background and context ....................................................................................... 7 Purpose of the BPTC ............................................................................................ 7 Aims ..................................................................................................................... 8 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 8 BPTC admission requirements ............................................................................. 8 2 BPTC enrolment data ........................................................................................... 9 3 BPTC students by region of domicile .................................................................. 11 4 BPTC age of students ......................................................................................... 12 5 BPTC student disability ....................................................................................... 12 6 BPTC student gender ......................................................................................... 12 7 BPTC student ethnicity ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Report
    GRAHAM HOLDINGS GRAHAM HOLDINGS 1300 NORTH 17TH STREET p SUITE 1700 ARLINGTON p VA 22209 2016 ANNUAL REPORT 703 345 6300 p GHCO.COM REVENUE BY PRINCIPAL OPERATIONS n EDUCATION 64% n BROADCASTING 17% n OTHER BUSINESSES 19% FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (in thousands, except per share amounts) 2016 2015 Change Operating revenues $2,481,890 $2,586,114 (4%) Income (loss) from operations $ 303,534 $ (80,825) — Net income (loss) attributable to common shares $ 168,590 $ (101,286) — Diluted earnings (loss) per common share from continuing operations $ 29.80 $ (25.23) — Diluted earnings (loss) per common share $ 29.80 $ (17.87) — Dividends per common share $ 4.84 $ 9.10 (47%) Common stockholders’ equity per share $ 439.88 $ 429.15 3% Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 5,589 5,818 (4%) OPERATING REVENUES INCOME (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 2016 2,482 2016 304 2015 2,586 2015 (81) 2014 2,737 2014 233 2013 2,601 2013 149 2012 2,585 2012 (6) NET INCOME (LOSS) ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON SHARES RETURN ON AVERAGE COMMON ($ in millions) STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY* 2016 169 2016 7.5% 2015 (101) 2015 (4.1%) 2014 1,293 2014 46.6% 2013 236 2013 9.0% 2012 131 2012 5.2% DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS ($) ($) 2016 29.80 2016 29.80 2015 (25.23) 2015 (17.87) 2014 115.40 2014 195.03 2013 8.61 2013 32.05 2012 (7.17) 2012 17.39 * Computed on a comparable basis, excluding the impact of the adjustment for pensions and other postretirement plans on average common stockholders’ equity.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Revenue Generation Practices for Law Schools
    Alternative Revenue Generation Practices for Law Schools February 2013 In the following report, Hanover Research explores a range of alternative revenue generation strategies used by law schools to create additional income. By evaluating the practices utilized by law schools nationally and internationally, as well as innovative techniques used in colleges and universities, this report presents an overview of both entrepreneurial and fundraising-based revenue generation strategies. Hanover Research | February 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS INTRODUCTION Law schools have long utilized tuition and alumni donations as their primary means of revenue. However, with declining applications and enrollments, many law schools are faced with the challenge of generating additional income through non-traditional revenue streams. In this report, Hanover Research explores a range of revenue generation strategies used by law schools, as well as more broadly applicable practices utilized by four-year postsecondary institutions, including both entrepreneurial ventures and fundraising initiatives. REPORT CONTENTS Section One discusses entrepreneurial approaches to creating new revenue streams, including international partnerships, joint degree partnerships, articulation agreements, medical-legal partnerships, corporate and business partnerships, and for-profit institutional partnerships. We additionally discuss continuing legal education and other non-credit legal education programs as a means of generating revenue, and finish with a brief overview of more common sources of non-tuition income, including facilities rentals. Section Two discusses fundraising through corporate donations, private donations, and grants in order to assess the efforts of law schools in this arena. We examine corporate and private donors at select law schools and finish with a brief discussion of grant funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Futures One Success Story at a Time
    2009 BUILDING FUTURES ONE SUCCESS STORY AT A TIME KAPLAN,INC. DUCATION IS A LIFELONG JOURNEY.WEBEGINLEARNING AS CHILDREN, BUTCONTINUEFORTHERESTOFOURLIVES. WE ALWAYS SEEK NEW AREAS THAT INSPIRE US, NEW SKILLS TO MASTER AND NEW PATHS TO PURSUE. EWhile each step in the educational process is a journey toward a specific goal – completing a degree, acing a high-stakes test, earning a new credential – the sum of our learning experiences helps pave the way for new opportunities and defines who we are to our families, our co-workers and ourselves. Kaplan is a company that helps students navigate that journey, whether they are kids in school or working professionals juggling careers and families. We are a learning partner for each of our students, helping them gain the confidence and skills they need to achieve their educational and career dreams. We can all remember a time when the light bulb went off, when we had an “ah-ha” moment – when we learned something that made us feel empowered, smart, capable and ready to take on the world. They are the moments that enable us to achieve, and at Kaplan, we live for those moments. We foster them in our students each day and they are what drive the dedication and commitment of our more than 31,000 employees around the world. Talent is something that no one can afford to waste. It is the basis of individual success and our progress as a society. Our innovative programs, courses and study materials are all designed to attract motivated individuals and ensure they realize the full potential of their talents.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded the Top 100 the Seed to This End
    PROC. OF THE 11th PYTHON IN SCIENCE CONF. (SCIPY 2012) 11 A Tale of Four Libraries Alejandro Weinstein‡∗, Michael Wakin‡ F Abstract—This work describes the use some scientific Python tools to solve One of the contributions of our research is the idea of rep- information gathering problems using Reinforcement Learning. In particular, resenting the items in the datasets as vectors belonging to a we focus on the problem of designing an agent able to learn how to gather linear space. To this end, we build a Latent Semantic Analysis information in linked datasets. We use four different libraries—RL-Glue, Gensim, (LSA) [Dee90] model to project documents onto a vector space. NetworkX, and scikit-learn—during different stages of our research. We show This allows us, in addition to being able to compute similarities that, by using NumPy arrays as the default vector/matrix format, it is possible to between documents, to leverage a variety of RL techniques that integrate these libraries with minimal effort. require a vector representation. We use the Gensim library to build Index Terms—reinforcement learning, latent semantic analysis, machine learn- the LSA model. This library provides all the machinery to build, ing among other options, the LSA model. One place where Gensim shines is in its capability to handle big data sets, like the entirety of Wikipedia, that do not fit in memory. We also combine the vector Introduction representation of the items as a property of the NetworkX nodes. In addition to bringing efficient array computing and standard Finally, we also use the manifold learning capabilities of mathematical tools to Python, the NumPy/SciPy libraries provide sckit-learn, like the ISOMAP algorithm [Ten00], to perform some an ecosystem where multiple libraries can coexist and interact.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Giles Proctor Interim Head of School Kaplan Law School Palace House 3 Cathedral Street LONDON SE1 9DE
    Dr Giles Proctor Interim Head of School Kaplan Law School Palace House 3 Cathedral Street LONDON SE1 9DE 23 July 2014 Dear Dr Proctor, Annual Letter I enclose the OIA Annual Letter for 2013. No complaints were received between the school joining the OIA Scheme in September 2013 and the end of the year. Explanatory notes and relevant definitions are set out in the Annexe. A copy of this letter will be published on the OIA website, together with letters to all other Scheme members, later this month. I hope this is helpful. Yours sincerely, Rob Behrens Independent Adjudicator & Chief Executive Page 1 of 4 ‘for students in higher education’ Registered & Postal Address: Third Floor, Kings Reach, 38-50 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3AA, United Kingdom www.oiahe.org.uk [email protected] Tel: 0118 959 9813 Independent Adjudicator & Chief Executive – Robert Behrens The OIA is a charity, registered in England & Wales under number 1141289, and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales under number 4823842. Annexe E XPLANATORY N OTES Note 1 Under Scheme Rule 4 the OIA has the discretion, exceptionally, to review complaints even where the internal complaints procedures have not been exhausted. For statistical purposes, we treat such complainants as having exhausted the relevant procedures. Note 2 Student numbers were obtained from Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) - www.hesa.ac.uk. 2009/2010 HESA figures were used to assign universities to the relevant OIA subscription band in 2012 and 2010/2011 figures in 2013. Note 3 The heading ‘Complaints received at the OIA in 2013’ includes all complaints where the OIA Complaint Form was received at the OIA during 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • GDL Comparison Table
    Sheet1 GDL comparison table Fees (for 2014/15, part Entry requirements ** / Institution No of places (FT • PT) time figures are per year Modes of assessment Also offers LPC? notes unless otherwise stated) Aberystwyth University www.aber.ac.uk Unlimited FT: £5,250 Exams and coursework. No Normally minimum lower 2:2 degree or equivalent. Other applicants may be considered. Birmingham City University www.bcu.ac.uk 50 • 35 FT: £5,000 • PT [first year]: Exams and coursework. Yes. Students completing the Normally minimum 2:2 degree or £2,500 (home/EU) • FT: £10,500 GDL first time and performing equivalent. Other applicants may (overseas) well are guaranteed a place and be considered. Non-native get up to a 10% fees discount. English speakers: IELTS 6.5 or above. Bournemouth University www.bournemouth.ac.uk 15-20 • 5 FT + PT [for two years]: £7,000 Assignments throughout the Yes. Students completing the Good honours degree or (home/EU/Channel Islands) • FT: course and end-of year exams GDL are guaranteed a place and overseas equivalent. Non-native £11,000 PT: £5,500 annually and some exams in January. get a 20% fees discount, plus a English speakers: IELTS 6.5 or (overseas) 5% discount for fees paid in full above. by enrolment date. BPP Birmingham www.bpplawschool.com FT + PT [for two years]: £8,080 BPP Bristol www.bpplawschool.com FT + PT [for two years]: £8,080 Minimum 2:2 (hons) degree or equivalent. Priority given to BPP Cambridge applicants who place BPP as their www.bpplawschool.com FT + PT [for two years]: £8,080 English legal systems multiple first choice.
    [Show full text]
  • View Annual Report
    2012 ANNUAL REPORT 1150 15TH STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20071 (202) 334-6000 WASHPOSTCO.COM // CORPORATE DIRECTORY // BOARD OF DIRECTORS Donald E. Graham (3, 4) Dave Goldberg (3) G. Richard Wagoner, Jr. (1) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer, SurveyMonkey Retired Chairman of the Board and Chief Lee C. Bollinger (2) Anne M. Mulcahy (2, 4) Executive Officer, General Motors Corporation President, Columbia University Retired Chairman of the Board and Chief Katharine Weymouth (3) Christopher C. Davis (1, 3, 4) Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation Chief Executive Officer, Washington Post Media Publisher, The Washington Post Chairman, Davis Selected Advisers, LP Ronald L. Olson (4) (2, 3, 4) Partner, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Barry Diller Committees of the Board of Directors Chairman and Senior Executive, IAC Larry D. Thompson (2) (1) Audit Committee Chairman and Senior Executive, Expedia, Inc. Retired Senior Vice President, (2) Compensation Committee Chairman and Senior Executive, TripAdvisor, Inc. General Counsel and Secretary, PepsiCo (3) Finance Committee Thomas S. Gayner (1, 3) (4) Executive Committee President and Chief Investment Officer, Markel Corporation OTHER COMPANY OFFICERS Veronica Dillon Rima Calderon Anthony Lyddane Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Vice President–Communications and Vice President–Tax Secretary External Relations Daniel J. Lynch Hal S. Jones Wallace R. Cooney Vice President and Treasurer Senior Vice President–Finance Vice President–Finance REVENUE BY PRINCIPAL OPERATIONS Nicole M. Maddrey Chief Financial Officer Chief Accounting Officer Vice President, Deputy General Counsel Ann L. McDaniel Denise Demeter and Assistant Secretary Senior Vice President Vice President–Human Resources Pinkie Dent Mayfield Vijay Ravindran Stacey Halota Vice President–Corporate Solutions Senior Vice President Vice President–Information Security and Privacy Assistant Treasurer n EDUCATION 55% Chief Digital Officer Jocelyn E.
    [Show full text]
  • Graduate Destinations 2009
    Graduate Destinations 2009 2009AS039.indd 1 03/09/2009 09:48 University of Exeter Graduate Destinations 2009 The University of Exeter has an excellent reputation with graduate recruiters and our students and graduates compete very successfully in the employment market. Many employers target the University when recruiting new graduates. On the following pages you will find The Careers and Employment Service details of the destinations of graduates organises a comprehensive programme from the University of Exeter who of internship and placement opportunities completed courses in 2008*. The available for students studying both at our Destinations of Leavers in Higher campuses in Exeter and at our Cornwall Education (DLHE) survey from which the Campus, near Falmouth. There are also information is taken was conducted six many opportunities to meet graduate months after the students had graduated recruiters at our Careers Fairs, employer and the survey showed that 92 per presentations and our innovative Virtual cent** of Exeter’s first-degree graduates Careers Fair. were in employment or further study. The Careers and Employment Service Graduates from the University of Exeter also works very closely with the Students’ are very employable and go into a wide Guild on two important initiatives, The variety of occupations when they finish Exeter Award and The Works. The their studies. This is reflected in the Exeter Award gives recognition for hundreds of different jobs listed in this participation in ‘employability’ activities booklet and is partly because Exeter such as volunteering or interview training offers an exceptionally wide range of and The Works is a jobshop, staffed by opportunities for its students to gain students, with plenty of vacancies for part the skills employers want.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Provision of Independent Criminal Advocacy 6
    Independent criminal advocacy in England and Wales Annexes May 2014 Independent criminal advocacy in England and Wales - Annexes Contents Annex A – List of organisations and individuals 3 Annex B – Terms of Reference of the review of the provision of independent criminal advocacy 6 Annex C – Advocacy training 7 Annex D – A defendant’s journey through the Criminal Justice System 13 Annex E - Non-Traditional Models for Providing Advocacy Services 14 Annex F – International comparisons 17 1 Independent criminal advocacy in England and Wales - Annexes 2 Independent criminal advocacy in England and Wales - Annexes Annex A – List of organisations and individuals Reference Group Richard Atkinson Gennaro Baffa The Hon. Mr Justice Sweeney Mark Wall QC Courts Fiona Abbott (Youth Panel Chairman) and colleagues, Wimbledon Youth Court HHJ Atherton and colleagues, Manchester Crown Court HHJ Davis QC and colleagues, Birmingham Crown Court HHJ Ford QC and colleagues, Bristol Crown Court HHJ McCreath and colleagues, Southwark Crown Court HHJ Radford and colleagues, Snaresbrook Crown Court HHJ Rees and colleagues, Cardiff Crown Court Senior District Judge Riddle, Chief Magistrate and colleagues, Westminster Magistrates’ Court HHJ Stockdale QC and colleagues, Manchester Crown Court Judiciary Magistrates’ Association Council of Circuit Judges The Rt Hon Lady Justice Hallett DBE, Vice President of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal The Rt Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom The Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson,
    [Show full text]
  • Next Phase Pedagogy Reform for the Twenty-First Century Legal Education
    Florida A&M University College of Law Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law Journal Publications Faculty Works 2013 Next Phase Pedagogy Reform for the Twenty-First Century Legal Education: Delivering Competent Lawyers for a Consumer-Driven Market Ann Marie Cavazos [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-research Part of the Legal Education Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Ann Marie Cavazos, Next Phase Pedagogy Reform for the Twenty-First Century Legal Education: Delivering Competent Lawyers for a Consumer-Driven Market, 45 Conn. L. Rev. 1113 (2013) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 45 MAY 2013 NUMBER 4 Article Next Phase Pedagogy Reform for the Twenty-First Century Legal Education: Delivering Competent Lawyers for a Consumer-Driven Market ANN MARIE CAVAZOS Abstract The underpinningsfor law school training has or, I submit, soon will be, outstripped by real world requirements dictated by the demands of the legal profession marketplace. This Article is designed to add to the discourse relating to the question of what law schools supply and what law practice requires-aparadigm shift in the methodology of implementing legal education. The Article begins by reporting on the state of the law schoolprocess and how it has evolvedfrom an apprenticeship,replete with on-the-job training,to an intellectual exercise that is somewhat removed from the requirementsfor becoming competent legal professionals.
    [Show full text]