Lessons Learned from the LLB National Review

1. Lessons Learned from the LLB National Review DALEEN MILLARD 4 JULY 2019

3. IN THIS PRESENTATION: • Complaints from the judiciary and profession about law graduates • General concerns with the 4 year LLB degree. • LLB summit (29 May 2013). • Qualification Standard for LLB. • SER submission • Site visit by peers. • Interim findings and opportunity to respond. • Final outcome: Accreditation / Notice on intention to withdraw / withdrawal.

4. Complaints from the judiciary and profession about law graduates. • PAIN • In-service training is part of ‘becoming a lawyer” BUT • complaints from the profession: graduates are incapable of performing certain tasks and are under-prepared by the time they enter the profession. • GAIN • Shortcomings pertaining to academic literacies MUST be addressed at university level, this must be evident from the curriculum. • We cannot ignore this reality. • Remaining difficulty: quality of professional training!

5. General concerns with the 4 year LLB degree. • PAIN: • Refinement does not take place over four years, the degree teaches the basics and leaves no room for specialisation, refinement and maturity, let alone subjects that may enrich a law curriculum. • GAIN: • Deep reflection on horizontal and vertical articulation, scaffolding and ensuring that the core curriculum equips students to build upon their LLB degree. • Remaining difficulties: What is core? What will an extra year look like? On-time completion vs leave with nothing…

6. LLB summit (29 May 2013). • PAIN • Objective: open discussion between the profession, law deans and senior professors about legal training in South Africa. • Representation: Law Society and Bar Association, not public sector and judiciary. • GAIN • A forum for open discussion • Changing profession, new challenges • Remaining difficulties:No input from public sector, commerce, Universities not involved in training at the Bar or side-bar

7. Qualification Standard for LLB • PAIN • Consensus on the standard! • Core minimum subjects, graduate attributes. • Lack of empirical evidence, e.g. graduates perform poorly because… • GAIN • A standard for all! • Remaining difficulties: Contextualise the standard within a particular university’s institutional culture, e.g. contact tuition v correspondence. Cannot “cookie cutter” Faculties.

8. SER submission • PAIN: • Self-evaluation report required every academic staff member to reflect on current practices spanning the entire value chain in higher education from registration to graduation. • Objectivity vs defensiveness • Ownership, responsibility • GAIN: • Evidence-based, no sweeping statements • Improvement as-you-go, critical reflection on standard operating procedures within the context of the university. • CONCERN: Glossing over deficiencies, “GHOST-WRITING OF EVIDENCE, Panels did not pay sufficient attention to the SER’s

9. Site visit by peers. • PAIN • A major spit and polish, leaving no stone unturned. • Evidence! • Policies, procedures. • A view from the outside in… • GAIN • Clearing the cobwebs • Good habits: gathering and storing of information, paper trail. • Shared responsibility • CONCERN: Consistency, 17 Faculties, 17 panels! Subjectivity due to varied levels of expertise.

10. Interim findings and opportunity to respond. • PAIN: • Contextualising criticism. • Defensiveness, missing the point • Public knowledge, media reaction • Unpacking criticism • GAIN: • Second (third?) round of deep reflection • Engage with LLB standard and SER, additional evidence • CONCERN: Reputational damage, disclosure to the media first and not to Faculties, litigious atmosphere.

11. Improvement plans. • PAIN • More work! • Timelines • Internal procedures • That which cannot be changed • Vague conditions • Lack of information from the CHE, unequal treatment of Faculties • GAIN • WITHIN UNIVERSITIES: Incredible support from management teams and support units, e.g. formalising new courses, additional academic posts, reflection on the value added by law faculties, ownership by Faculty staff, pulling together. • CONCERN: Inconsistencies between Faculties, already implemented (UJ) vs mere plans

12. Final outcome: Accreditation / Notice on intention to withdraw / withdrawal • PAIN: • Manner in which information was shared in the media • Panic, rumours • GAIN: • Accreditation! • CONCERN: To date the process appears to be ‘punitive’ instead of developmental (Prof Mpedi)

13. IN RETROSPECT: MAIN POINTS OF CRITICISM

14. 1. LACK OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

15. 2. No review of private universities • Highly problematic, litigation due to graduates from private universities who may not be admitted as attorneys

16. 3. Final recommendations: • Final report made no mention of the fact that Faculties have already implemented measures to address issues. This creates the impression that the findings of 2 ½ years ago apply to current courses and is misleading and damaging to Faculties. • 5-year degree? With NO additional recommendations.

17. ThankYou!