|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
University of Technology Sydney Law Research Series |
Last Updated: 21 April 2017
Law’s not hard; it’s just hard to get into: A study of
alternate entry students to law school
Abstract
Widening access to higher education is a challenge currently under discussion
in Australia and the United Kingdom. The increasing
number of alternate entry
programs offered by universities has made tertiary study, including law study,
more accessible. One concern
with widening access to legal education is the
ability of students entering law school through means other than very high
academic
scores to undertake a law degree successfully.
Students who
enter law school are generally referred to as “high-achievers”,
having qualified through an admission policy
based on competitive rankings. The
implementation of equitable access programs in some Australian universities has
resulted in a
number of places being made available to final year high-school
students who meet the eligibility criteria. Lowering the entry requirements
to
some courses provides opportunities for students whose circumstances have
impacted upon their ability to attain competitive ranking
scores.
The
Principals’ Recommendation Scheme (PRS) is one of these programs. The
University of Technology Sydney in New South Wales,
Australia commenced the PRS
in 2012. UTS:Law was one of the first Faculties to develop a strategy to support
these students. The
Faculty is committed to resourcing all students in their
study and, as a result, is engaged in the ongoing evaluation of the academic
and
co-curricular programs provided to students. This paper explains the
implementation of the PRS scheme and the relevant support
infrastructure
available to students. It also considers the research into student retention and
academic success and makes a preliminary
assessment that, to date, the PRS
students are succeeding in the transition from secondary education to law
school, and that the
existing infrastructure is accommodating the needs of these
students. The PRS is an alternate entry scheme that provides a model
for
consideration by other law schools, committed to widening access to legal
education.
Key words: widening participation, legal education, alternate
entry schemes
Introduction
This paper discusses a case study of the operation of a Principals’ Recommendation Scheme (PRS)[1] in the undergraduate law degree at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).[2] Its purpose is to make a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of the University and Faculty response to the introduction of the PRS. The authors’ objective is to contribute to the timely discussion surrounding student diversity and widening access to higher education.[3] It is particularly timely in the light of the commitment of the legal profession to diversity and equality within its membership.[4] Achieving greater diversity in higher education has its challenges, some of which are discussed in this paper.
One of the challenges for the federal government relates to its concern that Australian universities maintain a high international standing. The former Higher Education Minister, Kim Carr, articulated this concern as:
While we want to expand opportunities for people from working-class families, there is no excuse for people having to accept university degrees which are not internationally recognised to be amongst the best in the world.[5]
Coupled with the then federal government’s focus on the quality of tertiary education and graduates, is a level of disquiet that students, who may be offered entry to law without sufficient resources, are not able to complete their study successfully. The stimulus, therefore, for this analysis comes from an initial (and not unexpected) Faculty apprehension for the prosperity of a new cohort of students, and some questioning as to whether implementation of schemes such as the PRS may have concentrated on recruitment, but were lacking in any strategy for retention.[6] It is important for these students, as it is for all students, that the learning and co-curricular environment provides a robust foundation for students to progress. It is also vital for these and future PRS students, and for the Faculty’s reputation, that the progress of the PRS students and the effectiveness of our learning and teaching approaches to these (and all) students be monitored and evaluated. For that reason, we undertook an initial case study of the first PRS cohort in 2012, and continued to monitor the academic performance of the 2013 and 2014 students.
Methodology
This paper provides an insight into the progress of the first three intakes of the PRS students to UTS:Law between 2012 and 2014. Whilst there are many aspects to the tapestry of “progress”, we have limited the study to key indicators of retention and academic performance, based on students’ ability to maintain the standard required for the subjects within their law course.The study is restricted by the low numbers of PRS students enrolled in this three year period when compared to all undergraduate law students. The sample size is small[7] and not randomised, so the data is not statistically significant at determinable confidence levels. However, it provides some important observations and, accordingly, the paper offers these figures for illustrative purposes and to inform the discussion concerning widening access to legal education.
For the purposes of the study, progress for the 2012 PRS students includes academic performances, participation in learning and co-curricular opportunities, while progress for PRS students in 2013 and 2014 is based on academic performance.[8] This progress is confined to the grades attained by the students in core law subjects.[9] Whilst it is acknowledged that this approach provides a partial view, it has the benefit of offering an objective perspective on how these students are managing in relation to the general student body in core law subjects, which have universal delivery and assessment. Accordingly, the PRS students’ academic results for core law subjects are analysed and compared with the general cohort of undergraduate law students.
The first three cohorts of PRS students in the undergraduate law degree, a total of 71 students, between 2012 and 2014 are considered. The study focuses on the core law subjects undertaken by students during this three year period of six semesters. These subjects constitute more than 50% of core law subjects required for completion of the law degree. The study evaluates:
There are many other key aspects relating to students’ health and wellbeing that could also be considered in a study of their university experience and academic progression.[10] As an early study, qualitative observations of the first year (2012) PRS students and quantitative data from the three years (2012 to 2014) offer valuable data on the progression of these students. The University and Faculty initiatives implemented to assist all students with their transition from high school and their subsequent advancement through an undergraduate law degree are also considered in relation to the PRS students.
The introduction of the PRS within the Australian Higher Education environment and its connection to widening access to legal education is discussed in Part A of this paper. The purpose of this discussion is to provide the context for the strategy implemented by UTS:Law to work with these students and the University to provide a supportive learning environment. The University and Faculty strategy (informed by a small University grant in 2012) is explained in Part B. The grant provided the means to analyse academic and co-curricular engagement of the initial PRS students in the first year of law school. The progression of these students over the first three years of the Scheme, based on academic performance, is analysed in Part C to demonstrate their success in terms of completion of core subjects. In Part D the Scheme is contrasted with the University’s main alternate entry scheme, known as inpUTS, to inform the debate as to whether law as a course of study is difficult to complete, or just difficult to enter.
A. Widening access to legal education
Traditionally, law has been a career for “high
achievers”, lawyers being seen as successful and intelligent high-status
professionals. Students accepted into universities to study law are considered
some of the “brightest and best”. The
mark required by school
students to enter law school has consistently ranked law with medicine,
dentistry and actuarial studies as
the most difficult courses in which to obtain
entry. Under the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) driven admissions
policies,
most law schools screen out all applicants except those who have
achieved an exceptionally high ATAR on completion of their high
school
study.[11] This has resulted in a
significant under representation of low SES students in courses such as law,
medicine and architecture.[12] The
relationship between the ATAR (and earlier ranking systems) and socio-economic
status is well recognised. As a
consequence,[13] many applicants who
may in fact have the ability to complete a law degree successfully have been
excluded.
Applications to study law continue to exceed places, despite
the addition of several new law schools in NSW in the last 10 years.
Currently,
there are 12 law schools in NSW offering undergraduate law courses leading to
admission to practise as a
lawyer.[14] The growth in the number
of universities offering law courses has resulted in greater access to legal
education, together with strong
competition for students among the law
schools.
The increased number of law schools and subsequent expansion of student places in law, and the commitment to undertaking the recommendations from the Review of Australian Higher Education chaired by Professor Denise Bradley[15] (Bradley Review) (discussed below), has resulted in a more diverse law student population.[16] At the same time, the legal profession has committed to diversification both in terms of its membership and its career opportunities.[17] Notably a higher number of women[18] and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders[19] are joining the profession.
Review of Australian Higher Education
In 2009, the Federal Government announced its commitment to various recommendations made by the Bradley Review. The Bradley Review’s focus on ensuring Australia retained its position as one of the most educated and skilled labour forces in the world resulted in the opening up of universities to students who may have, in the past, not considered tertiary study as a progression from high school.
The Bradley Review determined that students from low socio-economic status (SES)[20] families were three times less likely to study at university compared to students from financially-comfortable backgrounds.[21] This finding confirmed Devlin’s 2008 research that 15% of higher education students were from low SES families, and that this percentage had been consistent for more than 15 years.[22] One of the Review’s most reported recommendations was the setting of a national target that, by 2025, at least 40% of the population between the ages of 25 and 34 will have graduated with a Bachelor Degree.[23] The Review also recommended that a national target be set to achieve an increase in higher education participation of people from low SES backgrounds, with a target of 20% of undergraduate enrolments by 2020.[24]
Under the heading of “Admission and selection processes”, the Bradley Review concluded that, “more widespread use of other approaches to selection and admission with a broader range of criteria in addition to or replacing the TER and which recognise structural disadvantage should be trialled”.[25] As part of their response to the Review, universities implemented or evaluated their widening participation strategies and devoted more time and resources to programs aimed at increasing the number of students from low SES backgrounds. As Professor Richard James observes, a university admission rank is “... not a measure of intrinsic individual intellectual ability” rather the ranking “... partly measures the cumulative advantage or disadvantage of family, school and community circumstances... a less than perfect proxy for the potential of individuals to thrive in and benefit from university study.”[26]
One of the alternate approaches adopted by some universities is the Principals’ Recommendation Scheme (PRS). The PRS is based on high school principals’ recommendations that a final year student be offered a place in a course in those cases where the student meets the PRS eligibility criteria and is unlikely to achieve the required course ATAR. The basis for the Scheme is that the principal has privileged knowledge of the student and is best positioned to know whether the student has the ability to undertake tertiary study. This is recognition, not only of a student’s ability, but also of the principal’s confidence in the student. The principal is required to assess the student’s capacity to study in a particular course, so that the recommendation is for a course that the student wishes to study, and one that the principal believes the student has the academic capability and personal attributes to complete successfully. The recommended student nominates the course they wish to study, because they are interested in the selected course, rather than deciding on a course because they achieved the mark to do so.
The PRS’ core objective is to provide a place for recent school leavers whose circumstances are such that their results may not reflect accurately their capacity to succeed with tertiary studies. Robust eligibility criteria were developed that addressed financial, health and family responsibility issues. In all cases, to be eligible for the PRS, an applicant must, at the time of the application, be in receipt of a Centrelink means-tested income support payment.[27] The offer of a place in a university course is not dependent on the recommended student achieving the score required to be admitted to the course, however, students need to achieve a predetermined score, lower than the usual one, in order to be offered a place.
In response to the Bradley Review’s Recommendations, the federal government established the Higher Educational Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) and entered into Commonwealth Compact Agreements with universities, requiring each university to establish participation targets. The Program provides funding to assist universities to reach national and institutional equity goals. One of the obvious changes resulting from HEPPP has been the increase in the number of students from diverse social, cultural and economic backgrounds.[28]
At the same time, admitting school leavers with lower ATARs to university has ignited research and discussion on attrition rates. The Grattan Institute Report, “Taking University Teaching Seriously”, argues the need to improve teaching and learning at university to cater for students with “weaker academic backgrounds”.[29] That study references the statistics that show that completion rates have a direct correlation with ATAR scores, with the higher the HSC mark, the greater chance of retention at university.[30] This is particularly relevant for research into law students, who have historically been in the top ranking group of school leavers.[31]
The UTS Strategy
UTS has an established record of providing options for “non-conventional” students, from part-time students through to those transitioning from TAFE to university.[32] The University’s commitment to non-conventional students is strengthened by the collaboration among three of the units within the University, the Equity and Diversity Unit (EDU), the Student Services Unit (SSU) and the Institute for Interactive Media and Learning (IML).
The EDU oversees the alternate pathways to university entry that have
admission criteria based on educational disadvantage. For example,
the
University’s inpUTS educational access scheme has successfully operated
for twenty years. The scheme, which provides up
to ten bonus concessional points
towards the ATAR, is available to students who have experienced long term
disadvantage impacting
on their results in school, vocational or university
education.[33] PRS law students with
an ATAR of 87 and above may also have been eligible for a place through the
inpUTS scheme.
The University’s SSU works with EDU to provide
curriculum and non-curriculum support to PRS students through individual
learning
plans, brokered referrals, mentoring and subsidised tutoring. The first
PRS students were invited to participate in individual learning
plans and case
management of their study, the results of which were published in the Transition
Support project discussed below.
The role of EDU in expanding diversity within
the University community is complemented by the work of Student Services in
providing
personal support and programs for students in achieving positive
student retention rates.[34]
Research and the development of specific approaches for transition and
retention of first year undergraduate students has been part
of the
University’s policies and strategies for several years, with a specific
program for retention and success introduced
in 2012 within the
University’s Widening Participation policy. The policy’s aim is to
“to promote retention and success of enrolled students and actively
respond to the changing needs of an increasingly diverse student
community”.[35] Complementing
the University’s Widening Participation policy is the First Year
Experience (FYE) Program, which includes the
PRS. During 2013 and 2014, IML led
the FYE Program, a systemic institutional approach to provide a cohesive and
integrated community
of practice for students’ first year of study. The
program was designed to be both embedded in the teaching and learning culture
(top-down) and embraced by academics, including casual teachers, and
professional staff (bottom-up). This approach is student-centred
and draws on
curriculum design, academic and professional staff training and University
infrastructure as captured in the FYE framework
below.[36] 
These three units at UTS operate collaboratively with each other and Faculties to ensure that the student experience, particularly in the first year of undergraduate study, is a positive one. The challenge with the participation targets required by the Bradley Report is not the increase in student numbers, but rather, in ensuring that the experience for these students is affirming and constructive, with a likely outcome that students will continue with their studies.
Law’s First Year Experience Program
In the last decade, there has been increased focus on the transition from high school to university, including journals and conferences dedicated to the first year university experience.[37] Research has been directed to the first year experience throughout the tertiary sector, addressing the high school graduate transitioning to university student across all courses, rather than in a specific discipline.[38]
Research data reports that students are generally satisfied with the transition to university experience, and less satisfied that their expectations about learning have been fully achieved.[39] Nelson, Kift and Clarke suggest that this could be resolved by targeted curriculum design and explicit communication to students about learning objectives and outcomes.[40] These strategies have been incorporated into first year teaching of law through the alignment of clear subject objectives, assessment criteria and feedback, early low risk assessment and small group teaching replacing lectures.
The Faculty’s first year program and strategy for PRS students is based on Kift’s Transition Pedagogy, through the curriculum principles of Transition, Diversity, Engagement, Assessment and Evaluation and Monitoring.[41] Of the first year curriculum principles identified by Kift, the principle of diversity recognises the expanding SES backgrounds of students, including law students:
The curriculum should acknowledge the diversity and reality of students’ backgrounds, previous experiences, and preparedness for higher education because diversity may exacerbate transition issues and few assumptions can be made about students’ entering knowledge, skills and attitudes.[42]
Kift refers to the special learning needs of students that may result from their backgrounds, including “at-risk or equity groups” and “non-traditional cohorts”.[43] The PRS students are a diverse cohort, their only common connections being their decision to study law and receipt of a Centrelink payment. The realities of these students’ backgrounds, means that, for many, there are factors external to their study, including health, finances, family responsibilities and isolation, that impact on their ability to achieve their academic potential. It is essential that, as individuals, the PRS students are supported, respected and resourced in their academic development.
PRS Students at UTS
The PRS is an extension of the UTS educational access scheme for students demonstrating financial disadvantage managed by the University’s Equity and Diversity Unit.[44] The University determined that to be offered a PRS place; students had to achieve an ATAR of 69, except in law, where students are required to score an ATAR of 80.[45] In 2012, 15% of the offers to PRS students were in law, in 2013, 26% of the offers were in law and in 2014 this percentage rose to 29% demonstrating a keen interest in law study amongst PRS eligible students.
In the second semester of 2012, the University introduced a pilot Transition
Support Project for PRS
students.[46] The Project’s
core aim was to provide PRS students with the support to ensure their retention
and success in their chosen courses.
The Project’s objectives were
to:
1. improve support for transition to university for diverse groups of
students;
2. facilitate first year students’ active engagement in
relevant transition programs; and
3. ensure tailored academic, co-curricular
and personal programs and resources are delivered to meet the needs of a diverse
student
community.
PRS students were provided with tailored information, which included an
explanation as to the structure of lectures and tutorials,
instructions
concerning assessments, advice about the need for a good balance of work and
study commitments and tips on the university
environment. The information was
provided by senior students in the role of mentors and tutors.
As part of
the Project’s evaluation, the academic success of all the PRS students
across the University was analysed, with the
positive result that 91.4% of
students passed[47] their subjects
in first year. Based on the evaluation, in 2013 and 2014, the University
provided support to the PRS students through
targeted activities at Orientation
and ongoing support services from tutors and mentors and by connecting students
with their faculty’s
First Year Experience coordinator. Further analysis
in 2013 and 2014 showed a success rate for PRS students of 91.2% and
92.8%.[48]
Entry to Law
The established Faculty strategy for first year law students has been informed by, and further developed through, the University’s FYE Program (discussed above). The Program’s strategy encompasses curricular and co-curricular programs and activities, with the common objective of facilitating the transition from high school to tertiary study. Curricular strategies include small group teaching, committed first year teaching academics, early low risk assessment and feedback, introduction to legal skills, such as research and problem-solving, and a focus on academic literacies, reflective practice and self-management skills. Co-curricular strategies include Law Orientation, the peer mentoring program for all first year students, academic mentoring for students “at-risk”[49] and workshops in case note writing, problem-solving and exam preparation. These programs and activities are available for all students, and engagement in the activity does not distinguish students as being part of a particular cohort, the basis being that good practice in supporting PRS and other alternate entry students, results in good practice for all first year students.
One of the initial challenges with planning for PRS students was whether, by
providing additional support, these students would be
“labelled” and
either view themselves, or be viewed, as different or less capable. The Faculty
adopted an approach based
on student confidentiality, with communications being
maintained on an individual, rather than a collective, basis and student consent
being obtained prior to the Faculty disclosing a student’s PRS entry to
teaching staff. This approach was in contrast to the
University’s program
of providing PRS students collectively with a separate Orientation program in
addition to the first year
student Orientation.
A conservative approach to
PRS student support was undertaken, with a strategy based on communication and
connection. This strategy
included:
Underpinning our strategy was the recognised need that students have a responsibility to develop as adult learners. We considered the approach to be a shared responsibility, described by Devlin as ”a joint venture”[50] in transitioning from secondary education to first year university, with the aim that as the students progressed, Faculty input would decrease.
Study of first (2012) PRS students
In 2012, of the 14 law students, three students were enrolled in a Bachelor of Laws (four years of fulltime study) and the remaining 11 students were enrolled in combined law courses (five years of fulltime study). Six PRS students commenced their law subjects in the first semester of 2012. The remaining eight students, in accordance with their course structure, commenced their law subjects in second semester.
In order to monitor the academic progression and first year experience of PRS students, including the effect of University and Faculty resources, we successfully applied for a small grant as part of the University’s institutional-wide First Year Experience strategy.
The aims of our project titled, Monitoring and Resourcing of Principals’ Recommendation Scheme (PRS) students to maximise their academic outcomes and their first year experience, were to:
1. monitor the Faculty’s PRS students to assess whether they require further resources and support, and if so, can we assist/support further to what we do now?;
2. monitor and evaluate the progression of PRS students during their study of first year law subjects; and
3. assess the effectiveness of the resources and support for PRS students.
Using Kift’s Transition Pedagogy principles[51], the study focused on the three principles of transition[52], engagement[53] and monitoring and evaluation,[54] whilst acknowledging that the set of principles includes six interconnected aspects.
As part of the evaluation of the project, the following data relating to the PRS students was collected:
As a general finding, based on all law subjects undertaken by the 2012 PRS students, the pass rate was 93.6%. PRS students’ results were generally very positive, as compared with first year students generally, with overall:
The study also considered tutorial attendance records and student engagement in co-curricular opportunities. In those classes where records were kept, the majority of PRS law students had excellent attendance. There was a clear correlation between the students who achieved strong results and attendance.
Seven of the students had registered for the Brennan Justice and Leadership Program, a co-curriculum program[55] offering students an opportunity to strengthen their justice consciousness, leadership and sense of service through volunteering and discussion with personal reflection on social justice issues. Participation in the Program is an indication of the PRS students’ engagement in the student experience offered by the Faculty.
After consulting with the Faculty’s director of
students[56], three students were
invited to join the academic mentoring program, a tailored program matching an
academic with the student, to
provide a contact person to support and guide
students who have been identified as potentially benefiting from such a
connection.
In order to develop a successful and sustained Faculty approach
to the future PRS students, one intended objectives of the project
was to track
and evaluate the academic results achieved by this first cohort of PRS students,
Of the 14 commencing 2012 PRS students,
two discontinued their law study, one
transferring to another course and the other withdrawing from UTS. Using data
from students’
transcripts, subject attendance records and assessment
marks, we concluded that the 12 remaining PRS students successfully completed
their first year of law study with high attendances and a solid engagement with
co-curricular activities.
2013 and 2014 PRS students
The Faculty continued to track the PRS students, focusing on academic
performance and retention as part of the University’s
ongoing Widening
Participation strategy. In 2013, 23 students commenced their law study under the
PRS. This was almost double the
number of 2012 students. Of the 23 students, 19
enrolled in a double degree. The pass rate for the 2013 law students was 93.7%.
In
2014, 34 students commenced their law study under the PRS, a significant
increase from 2013. Of the 34 students, 29 enrolled in a
double degree. The pass
rate for the 2014 law students was
93.9%.[57]
C. The first
three years of PRS
There are now three years of law study undertaken by
PRS students. All undergraduate law
degrees, whether stand-alone or
combined, have a recommended progression for students to follow. PRS students
are undertaking a variety
of double degrees, combined with law as well as a
smaller cohort who are studying a stand-alone law degree. During the
first three years of law study, the majority of core law subjects are taught,
with most students taking electives in the
later stage of their study.
Generally, core subjects are considered to be more challenging than
elective subjects, with the majority of students achieving higher marks
in their elective subjects than in core subjects. As PRS students are passing
the core subjects, it is expected that these students will not have
difficulty with their electives and could possibly achieve higher marks in these
subjects. The 2012, 2013 and 2014 results for the core subjects show that the
academic performance of the PRS students is encouraging, with the
majority of these students passing their law subjects and with a credit average
in some subjects.
The results of all core law subjects undertaken by all
undergraduate students, including PRS students, in 2012, 2013 and 2014 were
collated and the average marks calculated for the PRS and undergraduate
students.[58]Graph 1 shows
the variation between the two cohorts. Although the average mark for the PRS
students is lower than the average mark
for all undergraduates, the PRS students
are progressing academically and, in some subjects, individual PRS
students achieved higher marks than the undergraduate average.
Graph 1.
Average marks of non-PRS undergraduates and PRS students in core law
subjects.
From these statistics, an
important factor emerged. As shown in Graph 2, there is a discernible difference
between the PRS students
who achieved an ATAR of 87 and above (Group 1) and
those who achieved an ATAR of between 80 and 86.95 (Group 2). In all but two of
the core subjects over the three year period, the Group 2 average was below the
Group 1 average. This is relevant to the discussion as to whether an
ATAR of less than 87 should be offered for entry into law.
Graph 2.
Average marks of Group 1 and Group 2 PRS students in core law
subjects.
Finally, Graph 3 below
demonstrates the combined overall grades for all PRS students (Groups 1 and 2)
in comparison to the non-PRS
undergraduates enrolled in the core law subjects
with a breakdown of the overall grades comparing the PRS students in Group 1 to
those in Group 2. It is noteworthy that Group 1 students are either equalling,
or are within 0.2%, of the average mark of the non-PRS
undergraduates.
Graph 3. Average marks of PRS students as a cohort,
Group 1 and Group 2 PRS students and non-PRS undergraduates in core law
subjects.
The initial data on academic performance, showing a difference between the average marks of Groups 1 and 2, requires continued monitoring and evaluation. Early analysis and evaluation of these results for the first three years of the PRS demonstrates the majority of PRS students are succeeding in their law studies. Overall, the PRS law students are performing at a similar level to the PRS students across the University with a retention rate above 90%.[59]
The challenge that students will progress with their studies and continue to meet the participation targets set by the Bradley Review has, in this early stage, been met and there are promising signs for the future. However, it is essential that universities continue to monitor and evaluate the academic progress of students who undertake courses at a lower entry level to the main cohort. It is also imperative that feedback from PRS students as to their academic study and their experience as a university student be welcomed and considered.
The relevance of the above analysis serves as a comparison to the alternate entry for inpUTS students. The inpUTS educational access scheme is the major alternate entry pathway for students who meet the eligibility criteria discussed earlier in this paper. Of the 71 PRS students who commenced law between 2012 and 2014, 70% may have been eligible for an inpUTS offer as they achieved an ATAR score within 10 points of the entry score for their nominated course.
Of the 2012 PRS intake, students with an ATAR of 87 or above (Group 1) achieved a higher average mark in five of the six first year core subjects compared to students with an ATAR between 80 to 86.95 (Group 2). In 2013, with two cohorts of PRS students, those in Group 1 achieved a higher average mark in the entire nine core subjects than those students in Group 2. In 2014, with three cohorts of PRS students, Group 1 students achieved a higher average mark in 11 out of 13 core subjects than Group 2 students. These figures confirm that overall the students with the higher ATARs are achieving the higher grades. However, the fact that in two subjects, Group 2 students achieved higher average grades should not be lost in the analysis. Due to the very small numbers within the PRS cohort, the inclusion of results from particular students has a high impact on the average results. Given the University and Faculty support afforded to all students, the initial concern within the Faculty as to whether students with significantly lower ATARs than the usual cohort would progress academically has, in the main, been unwarranted.
A more nuanced research question resulting from the analysis is: how are the PRS students, who would not have received a place as an inpUTS student, performing academically? In comparing the ATARs of the PRS students, it is interesting to note that only 30% of the cohort required their school principals’ recommendation of a place in law. The PRS can be seen as a safety net, a “just in case”, to cover the situation where the ATAR might be such that more than the 10 bonus points are needed to reach the ATAR determined for the desired law degree.
In the first year that the PRS was offered, principals were limited to two recommendations. The number of recommendations that principals generally could make was later increased to four. As the objective of the PRS is to widen access to low SES students, a more effective method to achieve this is to allow principals to nominate as many students as they can identify as having the potential to successfully undertake tertiary study rather than restrict them to a maximum number of nominations. This limitation has been addressed and, in the 2015 admissions period the process was applicant driven with no quota per school. Schools determined how many applicants were endorsed and how they were scaled.
An examination of the retention and success rates of the PRS students from 2012 to 2014 is consistent with the retention and success rates of the inpUTS students. A possible explanation of this is that, although some PRS students have lower ATARS, and in some instances significantly lower ATARS, the combination of the privileged knowledge of the school identifying potential together with the opportunity to study the desired course diminishes the risk that the PRS will not progress successfully in that course.
Conclusion
If universities are to sustain their role in the education and development of school-leavers as they transition to the workforce, then they must be willing and equipped to embrace a diverse student population. The following words of Brenda Cherednichenko, immediate past President of the Australian Council of Deans of Education, are as relevant for the legal profession as they are for the teaching profession:
Our teaching workforce is strengthened by the teenage carer of a chronically ill single mother, the indigenous student from a rural area, the recently settled refugees from Afghanistan and the child whose parents battle to make sure their children attend school every day.[60]
This paper has provided an early overview of the implementation of the PRS in an Australian law school. It has reported on the success of the first, second and third cohort of PRS students undertaking a law degree at UTS. The results, although from a small number, offer a message that students can undertake the study of law successfully without having met the exceptionally high ATAR required to undertake a law degree.
There is no evidence in this study that PRS students, in general, require any additional support services where there is a well-designed and comprehensive program in place that assists all students in their transition to tertiary study. The challenge is to ensure that PRS students are aware of, and able to access, support services on offer and that tailored resources, such as academic mentoring, subject tutoring and contact with Faculty staff, are available if required by individual students.
Other factors such as student retention, ongoing study support resources, future employment and the impact on funding more university places need to be considered in future research. The role of high schools as a partner in identifying and recommending students for specific courses and the effect on student optimism, self-esteem and commitment also requires further discussion.
These early days for further diversity in the law student population are obviously important for these pioneer students, but also for subsequent PRS cohorts. The significance of the introduction of the PRS to UTS:Law extends beyond the individual student to demonstrate that law is not just the domain of high ATAR achievers. While law schools are aware that many of their graduates will not practise law as a legal practitioner, the entry into the profession by graduates with different backgrounds will impact on the profession in terms of the lived experience and diversity of its members. Diversity among law students should result in a more diverse legal profession that is more representative of the community.
Based on the theory that embedding support for PRS students results in good practice for all first year students, UTS:Law has a commitment to retention and success of all students. It was of particular importance that students, who may be viewed as “disadvantaged” in terms of their ability to study law, were monitored to assess whether this assumption was valid, and if so, how the students could be supported in their first year of law.
Engaging first year students through a curriculum and co-curriculum focus partnered with student support has, to date, resulted in a successful transition to law study for the vast majority of domestic students, including PRS students. The PRS students will continue to be tracked until completion of their studies. At that point, the completion results should be assessed against the federal government’s Department of Education’s figures for completion rates of domestic bachelor students.[61]
Given the recent establishment of the Scheme, the data as to study progression and retention is limited. Qualitative and quantitative data relating to the academic and personal experience of PRS students is in its early days, and requires ongoing review. However, the success to date of the PRS students indicates that the PRS is a beneficial scheme to incorporate as part of a widening participation policy and is worthy of consideration by other law schools committed to increasing access to legal education.
The increasing diversity of the law student population, including PRS students, leads to the question of what is the impact of alternate entry students on legal education and the profession? While this study cannot critically evaluate the wider issue as to whether the traditional practice of restricting law places to the top scoring final year students is valid, it does raise questions that test this established approach to the selection of law students.
[1] In 2015 this scheme changed to
the UAC (Universities Admission Centre) Schools’ Recommendation Scheme
(SRS).
[2] UTS is a city-based
university of technology in Sydney in the state of New South
Wales.
[3] In the United Kingdom,
for example, see Trevor Gale and Stephen Parker, Widening Participation
in Australian Higher Education (Report submitted to the Higher
Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Office for Fair Access
(OFFA), England) August
2013, available at
http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/src/crefi/documents/widening-participation.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015); Alan
Milburn, Higher Education: The Fair Access
Challenge (Report prepared by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty
Commission, June 2013), available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206994/FINAL_Higher_Education_-_The_Fair_Access_Challenge.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[4] In
the United Kingdom, for example, see Law Society, “Diversity profile of
the profession: a short synopsis” April 2014,
available at
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/articles/diversity-in-the-profession/
(accessed 25 June 2015).
In Australia, for example, see Law Council of
Australia, Diversity and Equality Charter, available at
http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/Diversity_and_Equality_Charter.pdf.
Law Council of Australia, “Legal profession commits to diversity and
equality” Media Release 11 May 2015, available at
http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/1520_-- (accessed 25 June
2015).
[5] Kim Carr, former Higher
Education Minister, reported by Joanna Mather, “Unis put on notice about
accepting low-scoring students”
The Australian Financial Review
(online), 3 July 2013
http://trkd.tools.afr.com/p/national/unis_put_on_notice_over_accepting_f60ko11Bg61qn9WCfEavVN
(accessed 25
June 2015).
[6] For
example, see John Ross, ”Bradley targets threatened by high drop-out rates
among disadvantaged students” The Australian (online), 14 September
2011 quoting Richard James, pro vice-chancellor at the University of Melbourne,
who indicated the Higher Education
Participation and Partnerships Program (which
includes responses such as the PRS) had given universities “serious
incentives”
to work on outreach, recruitment and support. James was
further quoted in the article saying ’’But the incentives for
retention are weaker”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/bradley-targets-threatened-by-high-drop-out-rates-among-disadvantaged-students/story-e6frgcjx-1226136074420
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[7] The
percentage of PRS students within the undergraduate law student body consisted
of 1% in 2012, 3% in 2013 and 4% in
2014.
[8] In 2012, as a result of a
small University one year grant, the authors were able to gather a greater
diversity of data in that year
than in 2013 and 2014. The grant provided for a
research assistant to collect data as to class attendance and co-curricular
participation
for the 2012 PRS students.
[9] The core law subjects are
compulsory subjects that all law schools must provide within a primary law
degree. The areas of knowledge
that must be covered are prescribed in the
Legal Profession Admission Rules 2005 (NSW), Schedule 5. These
areas of knowledge are known as the Priestley 11 knowledge areas, named after
Justice Priestley, former
New South Wales Court of Appeal judge and chair of the
Committee, who determined the compulsory subjects for an Australian law degree.
The 11 areas of knowledge are: Criminal Law and Procedure, Torts, Contracts,
Property, Equity, Company Law, Administrative Law,
Federal and State
Constitutional Law , Civil Procedure, Evidence; and Professional Conduct
(including basic Trust
Accounting).
[10] The wellbeing
issues for university students and law students in particular, have been well
documented. For example, see Catherine
M. Leahy, Ray
F. Peterson, Ian
G. Wilson, Jonathan
W. Newbury, Anne
L. Tonkin and Deborah
Turnbull, “Distress levels and self-reported treatment rates for
medicine, law, psychology and mechanical engineering tertiary students:
cross-sectional study” Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry Jul 2010, Vol. 44, No. 7: 608–615; Norm Kelk et al,
Courting the Blues: Attitudes Towards Depression in Australian Law Students
and Lawyers, (2009) Brain & Mind Research Institute Monograph, available
at
http://www.cald.asn.au/docs/Law%20Report%20Website%20version%204%20May%2009.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015); Wendy Larcombe, Sue Finch, Rachel Sore, Christina M.
Murray, Sandra Kentish, Raoul A. Mulder, Parshia Lee-Stecum,
Chi Baik, Orania
Tokatlidis and David A. Williams, “Prevalence and socio-demographic
correlates of psychological distress among
students at an Australian
university” (2014) Studies in Higher Education,
10.1080/03075079.2014.966072.
[11]
The Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) is the primary criterion for entry
into most undergraduate-entry university programs
in Australia. The ATAR is used
by institutions (either on its own or in conjunction with other selection
criteria) to rank applicants
for selection into courses. It was introduced from
2009 and replaces the Universities Admission Index, Equivalent National Tertiary
Entrance Rank and Tertiary Entrance Rank. In 2014 the ATAR for combined law at
the University of Sydney and the University of New
South Wales was 99.7 and for
UTS:Law LLB 98.55 placing these courses in the top 10 ATAR cut off scores across
all degrees (UTS combined
law degrees ranged from ATAR 97 to 98).This data is
limited to courses that do not use a combination of ATAR and additional
selection
criteria.
[12] Richard
James, “Social equity in a mass, globalised higher education environment:
the unresolved issue of widening access to
university” (Lecture delivered
at Faculty of Education Dean’s Lecture Series 2007, University of
Melbourne, 18 September
2007), available at
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/james_docs/Richard%20James,%20Dean's%20Lecture%20Series%20Sept2007.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[13] For
example, see Nigel Palmer, Emmaline Bexley and Richard James, “Selection
and Participation in Higher Education: University
selection in support of
student success and diversity of participation” (2011) Centre for the
Study of Higher Education, Melbourne,
Victoria, March 2011, available at
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/james_docs/Selection_and_Participation_in_Higher_Education.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015); Richard Teese, “Structural inequality in
Australian education: Vertical and lateral stratification
of opportunity”
International Studies in Educational Inequality: Theory and Policy
2007, 374-396.
[14] The NSW law
schools are listed in the Legal Profession Admission Rules (2005) NSW
Schedule 2.
[15] Denise Bradley,
Peter Noonan and Helen Nugent, Review of Australian higher education: final
report Australian Capital Territory: DEEWR, 2008, available at
http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/44384 (accessed 25 June
2015).
[16] Bob Birrell and
Daniel Edwards noted that “To achieve an increase on this scale will
require the recruitment of young people
from social strata hitherto largely
excluded from university attendance” in “The Bradley Review and
access to higher
education in Australia” Australian Universities
Review 51.1 (2009): 4-13, p. 8, available at
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ842021.pdf (accessed 25 June
2015).
[17] Law Council of
Australia, Diversity and Equality Charter, Supra n
4.
[18]For example, see Urbis,
2014 Law Society National Profile Final Report prepared for the Law
Society of New South Wales, April 2014, pp. 4-5, available at
http://www.lawsociety.com.au/cs/groups/public/documents/internetcontent/1005660.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[19]
Ibid., p.16.
[20] In some of the
literature, these students are referred to as
LSES.
[21] It was
found that 15% of students from low SES backgrounds accessed higher education
compared to 25% of the general population Supra n. 15 at p. 10.
[22] Marcia Devlin,
“Bridging socio-cultural incongruity: conceptualising the success of
students from low socio-economic status
backgrounds in Australian higher
education” Studies in Higher Education 2011, pp. 1-11.
[23] Recommendation 2.
Supra n. 15 at p. xviii.
[24] Ibid. Recommendation 4,
xviii. It should be noted, however, that the Review of the Demand Driven Funding
System Report (The Kemp-Norton
Report) (2014) recommended that ‘There
should be no higher education attainment targets’ and ‘The
government should
not set enrolment share targets for low socio-economic status
students.’ Xiii, available at
http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review_of_the_demand_driven_funding_system_report_for_the_website.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[25]Supra n. 15 at
p. xvi.
[26] Supra n. 12,
at p. 12.
[27] A Centrelink
payment is a financial benefit paid by the federal government to a recipient who
meets the criteria for that benefit.
[28]Department of Education and
Training 2012 Appendix 2-Equity Groups, available at
http://docs.education.gov.au/node/33859 (accessed
25 June
2015).
[29] Andrew Norton,
“Taking University Teaching Seriously” (2013) Grattan Institute, p.
6, available at
http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/191_Taking-Teaching-Seriously.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[30]
Ibid.
[31] For example, Devlin
notes that James, Krause and Jenkins (2010) found that low SES first-year
students disclosed that they found
the adjustment to university teaching and the
content more difficult than their peers, supra n. 22 at p.
3.
[32] The New South Wales
Institute of Technology, the predecessor of UTS, initially offered a law degree
on a part time basis only.
[33]
For further information about the inpUTS educational access scheme, see
http://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/undergraduate/essential-information/educational-access-schemes/inputs-10-points (accessed 25 June 2015).
Other universities also offer similar schemes, for example, the University of
Sydney has the Broadway Scheme and the University
of New South Wales has the
UNSW ACCESS Scheme.
[34] For
further information about the University’s retention and success program,
see http://www.equity.uts.edu.au/access/studying/strategy/retention.html
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[35]
UTS: Equity and Diversity Retention and Success at
http://www.equity.uts.edu.au/access/studying/strategy/retention.html (accessed
25 June 2015).
[36] Kathy Egea,
“Engaging transition a whole of UTS approach to support undergraduate
students in their first year of university
learning” (Presentation given
at the UTS Teaching and Learning Forum, 14 November 2012, p. 3), available at
http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/scholarship-research/forum/forum12/KathyEgeaEngagingTransition.pdf (accessed
25 June 2015).
[37] For example,
see The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education at
https://fyhejournal.com/ (accessed 25 June 2015);
International First Year
Higher Education Conferences and the FYHE Centre at http://fyhe.com.au/
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[38]
Sally Kift, “The next, great first year challenge: Sustaining,
coordinating and embedding coherent institution– wide
approaches to enact
the FYE as “everybody’s business” (Conference paper delivered
at the First Year in Higher Education
Conference, An Apple for the learner:
Celebrating the First Year Experience, Hobart, 30 June 2008), available at
http://fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers08/presentation%20files/FYHE%20Keynote%20-%20Kift.pdf (accessed
25 June 2015); Karen J. Nelson, Margot E. Duncan and John A Clarke,
”Student success: the identification and support
of first year university
students at risk of attrition” Studies in Learning, Evaluation,
Innovation and Development (2009) 6 (1), 1-15; Sheila Scutter, Ann Luzeckyj,
Karen Burke da Silva, Edward Palmer and Russell Brinkworth, ”What do
commencing
undergraduate students expect from first year university?
“The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education
2(1) Feb, 2011.
[39] Karen
Nelson, Sally Kift and John Clarke, ”Expectations and realities for first
year students at an Australian University”
(Conference paper delivered at
the First Year in Higher Education Conference, An Apple for the learner:
Celebrating the First Year
Experience, Hobart, 30 June 2008), available at
http://fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers08/presentation%20files/FYHE%20Keynote%20-%20Kift.pdf (accessed
25 June 2015).
[40]
Ibid.
[41] Sally Kift,
Articulating transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first year
learning experience in Australian Higher Education (2009) Final report for
ALTC Senior Fellowship Program, p. 2, available at
http://fyhe.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Kift-Sally-ALTC-Senior-Fellowship-Report-Sep-092.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[42]
Sally Kift, “First year curriculum principles: Briefing for institutional
learning & teaching leaders”, Australian
Learning & Teaching
Council, p. 1, available at
http://fyhe.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/6FYCPrinciplesforLTmanagers_12Nov09.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[43]
Sally Kift, “First year curriculum principles: First year teacher,
Australian Learning & Teaching Council“, p. 1,
available at
http://fyhe.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/4FYCPrinciplesFirstYearTeacher_2Nov09.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[44]
Applications for 2015 were managed through the Universities Admissions Centre,
the core body that manages tertiary offers to applicants
in New South Wales and
the Australian Capital
Territory.
[45] This was at the
instigation of the Faculty.
[46]
The Law Faculty support commenced in the first semester of 2012 (February to
June).
[47] Passed means achieved
a mark of 50 or above. The data does not separate marks into grades.
[48]
[49] The Law Mentoring Programs
commenced in 2010 to facilitate effective and empathetic guidance and advising
of students, enabling participation
and the opportunity to achieve success in
their courses as well as influencing the overall academic, social and cultural
experience
of higher education. The Programs were based on the needs identified
by Susan Knights, “Supporting the First Year Experience
at UTS”, a
report for the Institute for Interactive Media & Learning, UTS, December
2009. The Programs’ focus on
engagement and supporting all students, not
just those at risk: Alongside the peer mentoring was a staff mentoring program
for students
identified as being potentially at risk. To ensure the PRS students
were provided with sufficient support they were all considered
for nomination
into the staff mentoring
program.
[50] Supra n. 22
at p. 7.
[51] Supra n.
41.
[52] The transition from high
school to law school can be challenging because of the introduction of legal
concepts and skills and substantial
reading. PRS students were monitored to
assess whether special support was needed to assist in the transition from high
school to
university. Ibid. p.
40.
[53] Gathering narratives
from students about their transition from school to university and their level
of engagement as a first year
student provides a basis from which resources and
strategies can be measured. Ibid. p. 41.
[54] Monitoring of student
progression and evaluation of specific programs, such as staff mentoring,
enables the Faculty to assess the
effectiveness of resources and strategies.
Ibid.
[55] The Program is named
after Sir Gerard Brennan, former Chief Justice of the High Court and Chancellor
of UTS, well known for his excellence
in leadership, his life-long career in the
service of others and his commitment to
justice.
[56] The Faculty’s
director of students is responsible for mentoring programs, orientation and
students matters such as progression.
[57]
[58] The results were
investigated through four cohorts: Non-PRS undergraduates; PRS students; PRS
students with an ATAR of 87 and above;
and PRS students with an ATAR of less
than 87.
[59]
[60] Brenda
Cherednichenko,”ATAR tells the score but not the full score” The
Sydney Morning Herald (online), 31 January 2013.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/atar-tells-the-score-but-not-full-story-20130130-2dl3r.html
(accessed 25 June 2015).
[61]
Department of Education, Commonwealth of Australia, “Completion Rates of
Domestic Bachelor Students: A Cohort Analysis”
(2014), available at
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/completion_rates_of_domestic_bachelor_students_-_a_cohort_analysis_1.pdf
(accessed 25 June 2015).
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTSLRS/2016/30.html