By Nathaniel Crawford, Second Year, Law
Voltaire once argued, ‘let all laws be clear, uniform and precise, for interpreting laws is almost always to corrupt them’. Upon entering Bristol University’s Law school, budding young lawyers are taught the value of these principles in ensuring the predictability of the rule of law. Despite this, law students are forced to contend with a marking criteria absent of uniformity, clarity and precision. This begs the question: is it time to change the law school marking criteria?
Academics continuously expound the virtue of ‘critical analysis’ yet fail to incorporate a clear definition of this technique into the marking criteria. To achieve first-class marks, law students are required to engage ‘fully and critically with material, providing excellent evaluation and critique’. Despite this, students are continuously left feedback consisting of the line, ‘could use more critical analysis’ Instead of evaluating students’ use of critical analysis, examiners commonly instruct students to include a greater use of critique in their 1,000-word essays. Whilst this would undoubtedly result in a more exciting essay, this is likely an unachievable benchmark for undergraduate students constrained by such a limited word count. In addition to this, these vague comments provide students with no clear explanation of what the
marker expects them to do.
Students report an equal absence of examiners’ uniform application of the marking
criteria. In response to a recent survey, one law student stated, ‘it seems marking is
an act of instinct and not based on a clear, robust system. Clearly, students do not
know precisely what teachers want’. Ambiguous criteria such as the requirement that students display ‘strong awareness of relevant connections between issues and
significance of these’ are open to wide interpretation by examiners. Whilst the
subject of law is predicated on argument, which is itself highly subjective, the
adoption of this non-uniform approach in marking is dangerous and leaves students without a measure from which they can analyse why certain techniques worked in one assessment and failed in another.
Moreover, student’s inability to challenge academic opinion raises concerns over the precise nature of the marking criteria. The inability to challenge academic opinion prevents students from fully understanding the feedback process. Criterion such as, ‘Communicates knowledge, understanding and ideas very effectively and eloquently’ leaves students confused when they receive feedback to the contrary and are unable to challenge it. Despite tutors’ arguments that students should not be able to challenge academic opinion due to the overwhelming volume of complaints examiners would receive, this response flies directly in the face of the principles of the free transfer of ideas so closely connected with academia. For an institution which teaches students the value of the appeal procedure, surely it is only logical to allow students to appeal their marks, ensuring the precision of the marking criteria is upheld where examiners may have made mistakes?
President John F Kennedy once argued that the ‘goal of education was the
advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth’. Despite this, these
principles remain a misnomer for law students at Bristol. The law school is regarded as the 8th best in the UK. One crucial reason for this is the hard work and tenacity of its students. To reach its full potential, the school may look to adopt a different marking criterion or reform the existing model to further guide students in their attempts to improve their work.
