Urgent need to reform Norman Manley Law School

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing with reference to the article published on Wednesday, July 17, ‘Course crisis: law school ethics exam failure rate sparks outcry; students call for fee waivers, reviews’, where 113 out of 125, or 90.4 per cent of Norman Manley Law School (NMLS) students, failed the supplemental ethics, rights & obligation of the legal profession course.

This staggering failure rate is a glaring indicator of systemic issues within the institution, which cannot be attributed solely to student deficiencies. This crisis underscores serious inadequacies in the course delivery and assessment methods at NMLS. While this may be localised to the delivery of this course, it points to a deficiency in the institution’s quality assurance processes over the years, to the extent that students view this as a ‘money grab’. An institution bearing the name of a former premier and enjoying a stature befitting that position cannot be impugned by poor quality, neither in its teaching nor its students.

The said course is integral to the profession and training of its proponents. If the results are a genuine reflection of the quality of learning and the students’ inability to adequately deduce appropriate ethical and legal considerations, then the assessment process may have saved the public in some regard, but that also confirms a failure in those who taught. If 90.4 per cent of students have failed to achieve, what is needed, therefore, is a recall to remedy the situation before their reassessment.

The NMLS has a duty to provide quality education and support to its students. The current situation suggests a breach of this duty. The current failure rate at NMLS indicates that the institution is not fulfilling its contractual obligations.

The long-term impact on students who fail such a critical course is severe, affecting their graduation timelines and career prospects. The emotional and financial strain of repeated failures and additional coursework cannot be understated.

The failure rate reported is not merely an outlier; it is an anomaly that starkly contrasts with typical academic outcomes. Such an extreme percentage of failures suggests that the problem lies not with the students, but with the institution’s approach to education. Historical data and comparisons with similar courses at other law schools would likely show that NMLS’s results are far outside the norm.

It is also worth questioning the support systems available to students. Are there effective tutoring services, pastoral guidance, and academic resources? And if there are, why would this system fail to identify the likeliness of such a significant portion of enrollees failing the course?

NMLS should conduct an independent review of the course content, teaching methods, and assessment procedures to identify specific issues and areas for improvement; undertake an internal quality review to identify and focus on those areas performing significantly below the standard benchmark; investigate the factors contributing to that performance; and recommend areas for enhancement. NMLS should expand academic support services, ensure transparency in grading, and provide guidelines for assessments; and offer training for instructors to enhance their teaching methods and course delivery.

VERROL TOMLINSON