Lecture Notes Week 1: Topic 1 Induction and Legal Skills

In addition to the material in these notes, there is also a short induction

lecture that covers some matters on the structure of the course. The
purpose of his induction is to familiarise you with two things: Firstly, to try
to introduce you why the course has been structured as it has: to explain
the rationale for the how and why we are doing things as we are.
Secondly to introduce you to some legal skills: skills that you will need to
develop and refine throughout the semester.

Part 1: Induction - Explaining the module!

The first thing to note is that you are entering into a post graduate course
of study. Don’t underestimate that this is a challenge, intellectually and in
terms of time. If it wasn’t hard it wouldn’t be worth it, but the good news
is if you have got onto the course there is no reason at all why you cannot
be successful in your studies.

On average there will be about 100 pages of reading per week, sometimes
less. The structure of this module is closely related to and indeed the
contents are essentially determined by the accreditation requirements for
CIArb and RICS. But we do try to more than this. We will also be trying to
teach you to think like a lawyer.

1. Structure of the Module

In your timetable you will notice that each week a number of hours are
allocated on a Saturday or Sunday as teaching hours. This is simply for
work allocation purposes. You do not have to complete your studies
during those hours nor will there be any set times during the week for
compulsory classes. You can complete your studies as and when you wish
during the week.

The module is framed to help you develop both the requisite legal
knowledge and the legal skills you will require to excel. For the first 3
weeks there are seminars each week. These weeks we introduce skills and
to complete and discrete topics that are foundational. The activities you
will have to do in each seminar will be shorter and more directed. From
week 4 onwards the seminars will be bi-weekly and cover two related
topics. The seminar activities for these seminars will be problem questions
that begin relatively simply and will gradually become longer, and more
complex as you develop the skills of critical legal analysis.

2. Reading, Writing & Seminars

One of the crucial elements is accepting that law is a text based subject,
which means that there is lots of reading and writing to a high standard is
absolutely essential. You will have to develop the skills or ‘the art of legal
reasoning’: it is not an exact science. Whilst there can be right and wrong
answers, it is also important to remember that sometimes there is NOT a
clear answer. This is where you have to construct your case and put it
forward as to what you think the decision should be. In studying the law
we often construct questions exactly within this grey area, in order to test
your powers of legal argument.
The seminars are an opportunity for you to develop your skills in critical
legal analysis. You should put some time and effort into drafting your
answer to the question as set and you will get feedback on that answer.
Think of the seminars as an opportunity to practice the skills of legal
analysis and argument, as well as knowledge that you are going to be
assessed on. And yes, you are going to be essentially assessed on the
expression of your ideas in writing. So writing skills are important and are
one of the formal marking criteria.

3. Formative Feedback
This is the feedback that you have as you progress through your studies,
not the feedback on your formal assessments. Throughout your
engagement in the seminars, the answers you write and the questions
you ask, all of the staff responses are feedback. You will have both
individual and general feedback on your posts. You should read that
feedback carefully and reflect upon it in relation to both your knowledge
and the development of your skills.

4. Marking Conventions, the Assessment Process and Formative

Feedback
Many of you are familiar with the UK Higher Educational System but for
many this is the first time you have experienced studying in a UK
University. Accordingly, I thought it might be helpful to provide some
guidance to the assessment process in the UK, and outline the procedures
in place to ensure standards and constancy.

4.1 Marking Conventions

The marking conventions in British Law Schools give grades in
percentages. Do read the PG Grading grid that is available in both the
assessment support section of this module and in the course materials
page. You will see that the marking grades are as follows:
70% or above is a distinction (described as excellent or A)
60-69% is a Merit (described as very good or B)
50-59% is a pass (described as good or C)
40-49% is a pass (please note both C & D are classed as a pass)
39% or below is a fail.

The highest grade possible, a distinction, is actually at 70%. Something

that is in the 50s is defined as ‘good’ and a mark in the 60s is very good.
We do not actually mark to 100%. Something that is truly outstanding will
get a mark of 75% or perhaps, at a push, 80%. So you need to appreciate
that although you get a grade in a percentage, actually the figure you are
chasing is 70% not 100%. Moreover, generally, the expression of good,
very good and excellent attracts a surprisingly low percentage. In essence
we are marking to 70% as the upper limit not 100%. I appreciate that
this seems a bit odd, but this is the standard marking convention across
UK law schools.

In the past students have expressed the sentiment feeling that a grade of
50% means that you have ‘lost’ 50% of your marks. 50-59% is classified
as ‘good.’ If you have achieved this mark you are doing well. Yes, there is
room for improvement, isn’t there always, but you are on-course for doing
well in your degree. Remember this is the first module on a 3 year
programme in the study of a discipline, which for many of you is new, so
it is unsurprising if you get a semester to become familiar with the
demands of the discipline.

Similarly, some students have expressed that they feel that they have
been deducted marks if you haven’t got over 60%. This is simply not true.
We do not apply negative marking. You get marks for what you have said.
You may have identified the correct issue, but if you have not explored
the law in sufficient depth you will not achieve the full range of marks. We
mark what you have got right.

4.2 MCQ
One thing to note is that the comments above relate to on marking
conventions for coursework. They do not apply to the MCQ that you will sit
in this semester. The marking in the MCQ will be on the basis of correct or
incorrect and you will receive a mark or partial mark for each element you
get correct, depending on the question. Thus in the MCQs it is possible to
get 100% and indeed many people do very well, helping to raise their
overall aggregate mark. The MCQ follows a different marking process than
that employed in the timed paper and the coursework.

4.3 Assessment Process

It is useful for you to be aware of the processes and procedures in place
to ensure that the creation of questions, and the marking process is
consistent, robust and adheres to national UK standards. Everything we
do is overseen by an independent external examiner. An external
examiner is a senior academic within the subject discipline at another UK
University, who is independently appointed by the University as an
external reviewer of the assessment process

The questions and marking guidance are drafted by the module co-
ordinator. The marking guidance is an outline of the issues that should be
identified by the student, it is not an exhaustive of correct answers but
guidance of issues and areas that the student should engage with. The
question and marking guidance are then internally moderated, which
amounts to a review and by an appropriate senior colleague within the
Law School (in this module David Christie). The questions and marking
outline are then sent to the external examiner for review. The external
examiner will make comments suggest improvements, etc., if appropriate.
Only once we have feedback from the external are the questions then
released to the students. So the question and marking outline have all
been reviewed by at least 2 people (one from another University), prior to
the students seeing them.

After you have submitted your coursework, the essays are distributed to
the tutors for marking by Cherie Conon (please remember although we
call them tutors, they are all lecturers in the law school and helped to
teach the course). Coursework is distributed alphabetically, but ensuring
that each group is given to a marker who was not their tutor, to help
ensure as much ‘blind’ marking as possible. The marker marks the work in
accordance with the marking outline and the PG Grading Grid (which is
available in the Assessment section of the BSM 743 Moodle page). Then a
sample of the each markers work is second marked.

Second marking is a process in which a significant sample of the scripts

are re-marked to ensure that all the 1st markers are marking in
accordance with the guidelines, and to the same consistent standards. In
this module I 2nd all of the distinctions (70%+), all of the fails (>40%),
most of the passes (40-49%), borderlines (48/49%, 58/59%, 68/69%)
and a large sample from across the grades from each marker (low 50s,
mid 50s, low 60s and mid 60s) as well. Last year, in effect this amounted
to nearly half of the submissions being 2nd marked (most Universities
including RGU follow a policy of 10% of essays should be 2nd marked).
Additionally, because of the large cohort on this module, a third person
also conducted second some marking to ensure a wider spread of views
on the appropriateness and consistency of marking. In effect, we had 350
degree marking to ensure consistency across all the markers.

Once the second marking is complete, the essays are released. Although,
you get your marks at this point formally, the marks are still provisional
until the Assessment Board meets in the summer to review all marks. In
the mean-time at the same time the marks are released a sample of the
submissions are sent to the external examiner for review. The essays that
are submitted to the externals are chosen by the same criteria as above
(all fails, all unresolved borderlines, and a sample from each grade and
each marker). They externals review the marking and the feedback. The
externals have to write a report on the teaching and assessment of the
module. If the external has any concerns about the marking they will raise
them in the report and at the Assessment Board. This is why your marks
are officially provisional until the Board meets in June).

4.4 Feedback
With your coursework (not the timed paper MCQ which is treated like an
exam) you will get formal feedback. This will consist of general feedback
on the question and individual feedback on how you performed personally.
If you have questions about your feedback, or you need clarification,
please approach the 1st marker, who wrote the feedback and will be best
placed to explain it. I will publish a list of who marked what in the
Assessment section of the Moodle page in the file ‘How to Access your
Feedback.’

Sometimes when we have queries from students about their marks or

feedback when you get into the nitty gritty of the query at the heart of the
question is a student’s desire for higher marks. This is completely
understandable. However, we do not raise marks, simply because you
think you deserve more. As previously explained the assessment process
is thorough and be assured that we have considered the merits of your
work at some length before the marks are awarded. Normally, I find that
once students calmly reflect on their feedback they can then better then
appreciate why they received the mark they did.
What should you do if you are unhappy with your mark? Read the
comments carefully, reflect on what they say and re-read your work. Read
the PG Grading Grid guidelines on criteria of attainment and most
importantly of all, reflect on your own work. If you are still unclear where
the strengths and weakness of your work lie, contact the 1st marker for
some clarification. The 1st marker should respond to you promptly, if not,
you can contact me and I will chase them on your behalf.

With the extensive review of the work that has already been undertaken,
there will be no individual reviews of the coursework, i.e., no re-marking
simply because a student asks for it because they think they deserve or
need a higher mark (there is a good chance that it has already been
second marked anyway).

If, however, you think that there has been a serious administrative or
procedural error you can appeal against the mark. For a successful appeal
you will need to demonstrate that we have made a serious error, such as
marked the wrong submission or overlooked half of the essay or you have
been penalised for going over the work limit when you have not done so,
etc. As you can imagine these situations are very rare. Please note, that
the University does not allow appeals against academic judgement (the
situation where you disagree with the marks given and think you deserve
more).

4.5 What should you do if you get below 55% overall?

I am very mindful of the 55% cut-off point for CIArb membership.
Accordingly, we carefully review both the timed paper and the coursework
where students’ marks have hovered around this boundary. I have also
reviewed the marks for overall performance and where, through the
process of aggregation of marks, a student has landed on 54% we have
review the overall performance of that student across the module, as well
as in individual components. I am very confident that the students who
fall on either side of this boundary are assessed appropriately to their
performance.

If you have an overall mark below 55% you can resit the component(s) of
the course that has drawn your marks down, for CIArb purposes. This
means that you can resit so hopefully attain the necessary marks to join
CIArb. The resit period takes place in the summer and Cherie will contact
you closer to the time.

Unfortunately, we cannot raise marks simply because your sponsor will

only pay your fees if you reach a certain grade. Whilst I and my
colleagues appreciate the commitment you have made to the course,
financially and terms of your time, we cannot, in all fairness to the other
students, give marks because of these considerations.

Finally, one further comment to make, and I do not want this to sound
harsh, but in some of the conversations I have had in the last few years,
it seems as if some students struggle with the process of feedback and
critical examination of their work. I understand that this can be personally
challenging, but if you are unwilling to engage with some honest self-
reflection, it is very difficult to learn. I and my colleagues are here to help
you through this process, but we need your positive engagement with us
to have the most effective educational experience. Further, I do
understand that some of you have become used to high levels of success
in your previous studies and professional lives, and if you have received a
mark less than you think is appropriate you are upset. Responding to this
by impugning the knowledge, skill and professionalism of the academic
staff who are trying to help you learn and develop your skill set is not the
most productive way to conduct a dialogue on your work. We want to help
you develop your knowledge and skills but to do so we need you to be
open to working with us, including accepting academic critique.