ANU College of Law REPORT OF THE · In 2010 the ANU College of Law ... so that aspiration can move...

ANU College of LawBuilding 5, Fellows RoadThe Australian National UniversityCanberra ACT 0200 Australia

T: 02 6125 3483E: [email protected]: http://law.anu.edu.au

Dean’s Review of the ANU College of Law 2011

REPORT OF THEINTERNATIONAL REVIEW PANEL

xxxxxx


Report of the International Review Panel

May 2011

Dean’s Review of the ANU College of Law 2011 Report of the International Review Panel

Contents

I. INTRODUCTION A. Explanation — Terms of Reference 1 B. Composition of the Review Panel 2 C. Role, Scope and Purpose of the Review 3

II. STANDARDS, STRENGTHS AND ACHIEVEMENTS A. Context for this Review 3 B. Global Standing 4 C. Institutional Governance and Support 4 D. Leadership, Governance and Collaboration 4

• Institutional Leadership 4 • Individual Leadership 5 • Management Collaboration 5

E. Educational Framework 5 F. Research Excellence 6 G. Accommodation, Resources and Technology 6

III. CHALLENGES AND ASPIRATIONS A. Vision, Identity and Coherence 7 B. Teaching 7

• Pedagogical Approach 8 • Teaching Culture 8 • Use of Casuals in Tutorials 9

C. Assessment, Feedback and Student Culture 9 • A Narrow Assessment Framework 9 • Student Culture and Grading 9 • Peer Review 10

D. Use of Technology 10 • The Web Access to Teaching and Learning Environments (WATTLE) 10 • The Integrated Learning Environment (ILE) 10 • The Website 11

E. Programs and the Curriculum 11 • The LLB/JD 11 • Graduate Studies 16 • Legal Workshop 17

F. Research 20 G. Strengthening Academic Capacity 22

• Appointments Planning and Policy 22 • Enhance International Faculty and Staff 22 • Succession 23

H. Governance, Management and Administration 23 • Research 24 • Web development 24

I. Environment and Accommodation 24

IV. CONCLUSIONS 25

ANNEX 1: REVIEW SCHEDULE 29

Report of the International Review Panel 1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Explanation — Terms of Reference

In 2010 the ANU College of Law (‘the College’) marked its 50th anniversary year, an opportune time for review of the College’s achievements to date and consideration of its future goals and objectives. Dean Michael Coper of the College invited us to assist him in considering future directions, with particular regard to the following three questions:

1. Where is the ANU College of Law now? We were asked to validate the College’s self-assessment of its current achievements as the prelude for addressing the two following questions about its future.

2. Where is the ANU College of Law going? What are the possible future strategic objectives for the College and are its aspirations for national and international leadership realistic and appropriate?

3. How can the ANU College of Law get there? Finally, can the strategies, structures and mechanisms which exist now, or are being established, be validated as the best way to achieve the College’s goals, so that aspiration can move to actuality?

The Review’s primary purpose was to assist with the revision of the College’s strategic plan which, so far as is practicable, should align with that of the University, now under the leadership of an energetic new Vice-Chancellor. As requested, the main focus of our review is on education and research, although we also offer views on governance and administration as may be relevant to the third question above. Less significant to our work, but hopefully useful, are our comments on various administrative and technical issues (eg, the adequacy of current infrastructure and resources), which we were also encouraged to share.

The report which follows was only possible thanks to the remarkable support of the College’s staff, both academic and administrative, and Dean Coper himself, who proved a tireless, generous and enthusiastic host. We have also much appreciated direct and confidential contact with both undergraduate and postgraduate students. We offer our sincere appreciation to the entire College community for a week which, while intensive, has been invaluable to each of us individually. We hope that our contribution to this self-initiated ‘Dean’s Review’ will be useful and in a small way repay the benefits we have individually each received in the learning and growth experienced during our week-long visit (28 March – 1 April 2011).

2 Dean’s Review of the ANU College of Law 2011

B. Composition of the Review Panel

The Panel was composed of the following five individuals:

• Roger Burridge: Chair: former Head of the University of Warwick Law School, former Director of the UK Centre for Legal Education, and foundation member of the Governing Board of the International Association of Law Schools.

• Kim Economides: Director of the Legal Issues Centre, University of Otago Faculty of Law, former Professor of Legal Ethics and Head of the University of Exeter Law School, and previously Education Secretary to the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Legal Education & Conduct.

• Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker: Dean, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, since 2002; previous service in civil rights litigation, and in senior US Government positions, including as CIA General Counsel, and as General Counsel of the University of Wisconsin System.

• Tan Cheng Han: Dean of Law for four terms at the National University of Singapore since 2001 and a corporate and commercial lawyer at TSMP Law Corporation; appointed Senior Counsel and Specialist Judge in 2006, and is a member of the Governing Board of the International Association of Law Schools and Secretary-General of the Asian Society of International Law.

• Jeremy Webber: the Canada Research Chair in Law and Society, University of Victoria, and a recipient of the Trudeau Fellowship; served as Dean of Law, University of Sydney (1988–2002) and was previously on the Faculty of Law at McGill University.

Professors Elizabeth Parker, Roger Burridge, Jeremy Webber, Tan Cheng Han & Kim Economides


C. Role, Scope and Purpose of the Review

We understood the mandate of our Review to include all aspects of the College’s activities, with a particular focus on its research, teaching and outreach. In preparing this Report we have also been mindful of the standards, requirements and expectations demanded of our own institutions variously located in Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, the UK and the US, which we hope will provide an element of benchmarking for the Review.

More directly, our review rests upon information and activities in the following six broad areas:

• Reflection on comprehensive background reading and documentation on all aspects of the College’s activities; and the environment and regulation of legal education in Australia by the government, profession and University; the College’s mission, objectives and strategic planning; program and syllabus design; financial, library, capital and technological resources; and staff and student performance;

• Consideration of a dedicated website;

• Review of various internal or confidential background papers provided from directors of programs and centres, as well as relevant statistics, reports, standards and evaluations;

• Participation in focus groups with students and staff and meetings with directors of programs and key personnel, including new Vice-Chancellor Young;

• Observations of teaching in lectures and tutorials and demonstrations and presentations of on line learning support and content delivery; and

• Participation in various College staff and student events.

A copy of the Review Schedule is annexed at p. 29.

II. STANDARDS, STRENGTHS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

A. Context for this Review

The Panel found much to admire at the ANU College of Law, beginning with its commitment to this external review by an international panel, in our view an unprecedented initiative. Here and throughout our conversations we were also impressed with the leadership of the College’s Dean, Professor Michael Coper. In areas such as faculty hiring, support for interdisciplinary initiatives, the creation of centres, and support for a remarkable research output, the College has become an


international leader in legal education. We thus conceive the purpose of this review as an effort to help a fine institution advance to the next level of excellence, something the College itself understands will only happen with the benefit of constructive criticism.

B. Global Standing

The ANU College of Law is internationally recognised as one of the world’s finest law schools. It is home to a number of scholars who enjoy international esteem and is able to attract world-renowned scholars, researchers, lawyers and judges to participate in its activities. It has a global reputation in international public law and is establishing a distinctive profile in its research and teaching about law reform and social justice. In fact, the ANU College of Law may even enjoy a larger international than national reputation.

C. Institutional Governance and Support

The College shares the international, national and regional reputation of the ANU as a world-class university where excellence in both research and teaching have long been paramount, though the former more widely appreciated than the latter, a view reaffirmed in our visit with its new Vice-Chancellor. We found the governance, environment, resources and support systems afforded by the University to be fully supportive of the College’s activities. The College receives significant financial support, enjoys appropriate autonomy within the University’s administration and governance structures, and occupies substantial space in an enviable campus.

D. Leadership, Governance and Collaboration

Legal education everywhere, but certainly in Australia, is highly competitive. As a discipline, law attracts many of the most able minds and the best law graduates are in very high demand in the professions, government and international organisations. Balancing research aspirations, professional preparation, student well-being, and community engagement with the finite resources available in most institutions requires strong leadership, clear vision and effective management. We found these present in abundance at the College.

• Institutional Leadership

The ANU College of Law provides leadership within Australian legal education in many respects. It received the top ranking in the 2010 Excellence for Research in Australia (ERA) review and attracts many of Australia’s best students, thanks in part to the strength of the College’s public policy mission. It has strong links with the judiciary and sites of government. Overall, the ANU College of Law is very well placed amongst Australian Law schools to succeed in all its activities.


• Individual Leadership

The College’s Dean, Professor Michael Coper, has been pivotal to the College’s recent development. His influence is evident in the ethos, outlook and dynamism found in the College and he is viewed with respect and affection by staff and students alike. Dean Coper has an exceptionally strong commitment and strategic ambition for the future of the College. It is rare for a law school to have a Dean who himself has an established research reputation which includes significant publications in constitutional law, and also in legal education. The College’s reputation in Australian and international legal education has been enhanced through the Dean’s efforts, notably through his service as Chair of the Council of Australian Law Deans and also as a member of the Governing Board and Vice President of the International Association of Law Schools.

• Management Collaboration

Effective management at the College is apparent from the team approach that is in evidence. The committee structure, inclusive environment and staff commitment provide a strong basis for effective organisation of, and response to, teaching and research delivery. The administrative leadership team are viewed as working collaboratively and seamlessly. The commitment to open communication and consultation was obvious and both senior and some less senior academic staff lead the College’s programs in a collegiate atmosphere with decision making which is transparent and consultative. We particularly commend the tradition of the ‘Wednesday Morning Tea’ which offers an excellent informal opportunity to celebrate success, inform colleagues of current activities and foster immediate personal communication across all levels of College leadership.

E. Educational Framework

There is much that is very right about the legal education provided at the ANU College of Law. The framework of tertiary education in Australia is robust and the University and College performance are both strong. The Dean has been in the forefront of the development of standards for Australian Law Schools adopted by the Council of Australian Law Deans. The College’s performance has been measured against these standards. Panel members with experience of standards in their own institutions recognise that the College broadly met or surpasses the standards prevailing in their own jurisdictions.

We spoke to many LLB and JD students and, while the possibility of still greater improvement exists as we discuss below, they were generally very pleased to be studying law at ANU. They praised both the quality of many full-time lecturers and the diversity of ANU course offerings, and were especially pleased with the quality of the upper-year electives. They were enthusiastic about the College’s spirit of community and collegiality, noting that, unlike some law schools, ANU has not fallen into a negatively competitive student culture. Most gratifying, they


spontaneously volunteered descriptions of the distinctive positioning of the College within Australian law schools, noting its contributions to public policy, government, and national perspective on Australian law. Obviously the distinctiveness and quality of legal education at ANU is appreciated and embraced by its students.

We did not have an opportunity to test the level of satisfaction in the coursework Masters programs, although ANU has developed significant programs in this area. We did, however, meet a number of Higher Degree by Research (HDR) students and once again found very significant satisfaction with the education at ANU: they emphasized the quality and commitment of their supervisors and we were pleased to learn of the inter-disciplinarity of their work, thanks to collaboration with various of the research centres.

Other areas deserve comment as well. The Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice appears to provide a very high quality education — remarkable for its innovation and student engagement. We were also impressed with the College’s focus on improving teaching. The numerous examples here include its careful attention to external testing and accreditation standards; seminars and meetings focused on learning and teaching; internal reviews of the LLB and JD programs; employment of tertiary educationalists and educational designers to assist in program improvement; and innovative use of visitors to the College to test and benchmark the quality of student thesis work.

Clearly the College has broadly embraced the value of continual self-reflection and external commentary on learning and teaching performance, not the least of which is its impressive willingness to expose itself to the commentary and criticism represented in this review. Our suggestions for improvement below build upon a very strong base.

F. Research Excellence

The ANU was one of only two institutions to receive a 5 rating for Law in the 2010 ERA review. This outstanding achievement shows the importance that the College places on developing research capacity, activity and publishing. Maintaining this focus will be key to ensure the College’s successful pursuit of its mission and preparation for the next ERA. Our comments here are modest only because we do not see significant room for constructive criticism.

G. Accommodation, Resources and Technology

The ANU College of Law occupies a substantial building in the midst of ANU’s beautiful campus. The Library is integral. Offices for academic and support staff are appropriate and not overcrowded. The University provides good communications and IT systems. First year students are guaranteed housing on the campus and accommodation is available for most students. The campus has excellent cultural and sporting facilities and is close to the impressive amenities, services and institutions of the city. There are, however, some shortcomings with the current space that we have noted below.


III. CHALLENGES AND ASPIRATIONS

A. Vision, Identity and Coherence

A major purpose of this Review was assisting the College to ‘re-vision’ its current Strategic Plan (2006–2012) which provides a coherent and comprehensive analysis of its educational ambition, along with goals for research opportunities, and detailed implementation proposals. The current plan’s broad scope, to some extent sharpened in the 2010–2012 update, will require careful decision making in resource allocation and prioritisation of objectives in the next strategic plan, so that the College can take maximum advantage of its strengths and opportunities for growth. In fact, we believe that the impressive progress made in responding to public, market, profession and student interests to date has actually increased the need to allocate resources and expertise more carefully. It will be important to plot the pathways and approaches for achieving strategic objectives — a responsibility which will be both delicate and demanding in the choices required.

The College has begun this process. Several examples of strategic efforts for greater programmatic distinctiveness stand out. First, the College has further embraced an ethos of law reform and social justice by appointing an inaugural Director of Law Reform and Social Justice. Already this decision has been rewarded by the valuable work initiated by the Director. The Panel strongly supports this direction, but also believes there is still further opportunity for increasing the emphasis on the Law Reform and Social Justice mission by embedding it more pervasively and thoroughly in all College activities, including its educational programs, initiatives of the Legal Workshop, and even descriptions on the College website, such as the Dean’s Welcome message.

Another example is offered by the discussion of the College’s expanding internationalisation mission which would benefit from greater integration into the curriculum. The College is actively addressing this integration challenge as it refreshes its strategic plan and the Panel was impressed with the intensive debate on ways to better internationalize the curriculum. We recognize that this topic is complex: some subjects might be displaced by further internationalisation of the curriculum if additional compulsory courses were added but over-crowding the curriculum is always a concern. Such discussions are vitally important, but must lead to realistic implementation goals, if the gap between ideals and reality is to be narrowed.

B. Teaching

We found that the ANU College of Law, despite its position in a ‘research intensive’ university setting, was admirably committed to teaching excellence. This is not a law school which has discarded concerns for teaching excellence in order to accommodate an ambitious research agenda. We recognise and strongly approve a variety of ongoing efforts to review programs, promote good teaching practices,


and adopt innovative technologies. In fact, most issues mentioned below have been recognised and are being addressed.

That said, we want to highlight the opportunities for growth and national leadership in legal education identified during our review. With attention to these matters, we believe the College can truly lay claim to being an international leader in legal education.

The suggestions which follow result from class visits, faculty discussions, and, most memorably, conversations about education at ANU with LLB and JD students themselves. To some degree, our conclusions here were also validated by the students’ self-initiated report on legal education at ANU, ‘Breaking the Frozen Sea,’ coincidentally released during the week of our visit.

• Pedagogical Approach

In visiting classes we noted that faculty did not always take full advantage of engaging students through use of active learning techniques. A lecture format, with some limited questioning, seemed the norm, a view confirmed in conversations with LLB and JD students, who characterized the law program as not particularly demanding in that expectations seemed weighted more to passive learning. Use of techniques designed to better engage students in active learning would seem important changes to consider. One such idea might be taking advantage of techniques employed by the Legal Workshop in creating flexible learning simulations. If these techniques could be tested and introduced into the traditional program of undergraduate legal education, significant benefits for student engagement might result. Other suggestions for possible pedagogical improvement are discussed in greater detail below.

• Teaching Culture

We applaud the increased attention to teaching reflected in several College initiatives. Seminars in teaching and efforts at peer mentoring of teaching, classroom visits, and the addition of ‘Educationalists,’ are all promising developments which we hope will continue and intensify with the goal of creating an even stronger culture of fine teaching to parallel the College’s strong support for research. We are pleased that the College recognizes that periodic teaching awards alone are not enough to achieve teaching excellence.

We also noted that faculty teaching loads were exceptionally varied, some high, others low or non-existent. This situation would benefit from review and a transparent calibration that respects the demands of teaching excellence.

In this regard, we agree with comments from some faculty that teaching should be a universal commitment for the College, including those on research appointments, who should be encouraged to contribute to undergraduate or postgraduate coursework teaching. This would emphasize the importance of teaching and the beneficial interaction between teaching and research.


• Use of Casuals in Tutorials

Conversations with students raised questions about whether the casual faculty used in tutorials were of sufficient quality and well enough prepared to ensure the highest level of student learning. Greater attention to their induction and review would seem helpful in correcting this situation. Thought might also be given to the policy of relying on so many casual tutors. Whilst there are significant budgetary advantages from the practice, in the Panel’s view, students would benefit greatly if the majority of their tutorials were led by staff with a permanent teaching commitment. Here an expanded use of PhD students might be beneficial, if carefully managed.

C. Assessment, Feedback and Student Culture

In both JD and LLB programs, particularly in electives and the Legal Workshop, we found examples of good practice and diverse approaches to assessment. Examples of good alternative approaches exist as well in several of the compulsory classes. The skills based exercises for Foundations of Australian Law and Lawyers, Justice and Ethics, and the assessed seminar presentation in Legal Theory, provide approaches that could usefully be adopted more broadly.

• A Narrow Assessment Framework

In general, formative assessment (the marking of and feedback on un-graded work) was, however, less in evidence and we conclude that greater attention to assessment and increased feedback should also be considered. The compulsory courses in the LLB and JD programs generally exhibited an unimaginative and narrow assessment framework. Whilst students have an option to submit ‘redeemable’ assessed work for many courses, there is little requirement for essays or other forms of learning evaluation in the mandatory modules. There is a prevalence of applied learning, with problem solving and evaluation too little in evidence.

The Panel also believes that there is scope for adopting a more structured approach to assessment in the compulsory courses. Requiring all students to submit assessed work, adding essays, small research exercises and problem solving projects, will encourage a more inquisitive approach to knowledge and allow for a more critical and reflective engagement with the subject.

• Student Culture and Grading

We found the students themselves to be ambivalent about the benefits of greater engagement and rigor in their learning; many reflected a distinct culture of ‘getting by.’ The results of grading were central to this discussion. One student, candidly speaking for several of her colleagues, claimed satisfaction in achieving distinction in all courses and good exam marks without attending lectures or doing any prior reading. Others, notably those responsible for the ‘Breaking the Frozen Sea’, report were strongly of a different view. The Panel concluded that it will be important to set


requirements at a more demanding and engaging level in the first year of undergraduate instruction in a way that is consistent across the student body, if student culture is to change and fully embrace a new approach.

With specific regard to grading approaches, some students with whom we had contact perceived the application of a grading ‘Bell Curve’ as a vehicle for creating more rigour. The Panel recognises this concern. Whilst we did not explore these issues deeply, sensitive that they may properly be the domain of the University, we would encourage the College to review the framework and practices of all assessment activities in the course of its LLB and JD Renewal.

• Peer Review

The College is to be congratulated for inviting this review by an international Panel. In the experience of the Panel members it is a unique initiative. We note however that in some jurisdictions, such as the UK, an element of peer review is an integral part of quality assurance. Whist it may not be a part of the Australian Higher Education environment, the Panel thinks that the involvement of peer review in program planning and course monitoring could be beneficial and is worthy of consideration.

D. Use of Technology

We were particularly impressed by the College’s emphasis upon — and success with — the introduction of new technologies. The importance of keeping abreast of the potential that new web-based knowledge and information systems can deliver, has clearly been embraced by the College, as evidenced by its five person staff in the IT and C Unit and the College Education and Innovation Support Team (CEIST). We observed the effectiveness of the CEIST team in a demonstration of two major projects.

• The Web Access to Teaching and Learning Environments (WATTLE)

The WATTLE learning management system is being introduced in the GDLP, LLB and JD programs. It provides a comprehensive platform for staff and students for all aspects of course organisation, sources and materials, learning opportunities, interactive exercises, discussion rooms, and course communication. We observed excellent examples of the capabilities and benefits it offers in a range of courses, as well as its enthusiastic reception by a number of individual academics.

• The Integrated Learning Environment (ILE)

The Professional Practice Course offered by the Legal Workshop with the support of CEIST is even further ahead of other parts of the College in its use of flexible learning techniques. One of the advantages of increasing contact between the Legal Workshop and both LLB and JD programs would be sharing expertise in the application of such new technology. We believe that ILE has great potential for supporting more interactive approaches in all undergraduate programs.


• The Website

The Panel feels that the website is insufficiently reflecting the College’s achievements and opportunities. The website may be an adequate source of the basic information necessary for prospective students, but it fails to convey the College’s mission, ethos and achievements and lacks the involvement, excitement and appeal for a wider community of staff, university officers and the broader community.

E. Programs and the Curriculum

• The LLB/JD

The LLB Curriculum Renewal Program is timely and valuable. A large number of areas have been identified for development. We agree with the analysis of challenges but feel that a realistic timetable for implementation of some specific goals is necessary. We also feel that the adoption of a stronger teaching culture in the College needs to be embraced throughout by the staff and cannot rest with the efforts of a few excellent teachers. To this end the immediate experience of students in their first year of both LLB and JD programs should provide the foundation and establish expectations.

(i) Compulsory Courses

We heard a number of concerns about the education offered in compulsory courses in the LLB and JD curriculum. Many issues identified were confirmed by the Law School Reform Report, ‘Breaking the Frozen Sea.’

Compulsory subjects at the College are generally taught in large lectures of 150 to almost 400 students, supplemented by tutorials of 20 students. Many claimed it was possible to do well in these courses without doing the reading. Course summaries and lecture notes were sufficient for marks even of a Distinction level. Lecturers described students as passive, with their attendance declining. The JD students interviewed agreed, adding that they were typically more vocal in lectures than their LLB counterparts. Lecturers were unhappy with this situation as were many students; we believe everyone would benefit if students attended lectures regularly, well-prepared and ready to engage.

The tutorials have not redeemed this situation. Full attendance does seem the norm in tutorials, the result of compulsory attendance, but participation is weak. We were told that only one quarter of the class asks questions and most students appear to attend only to obtain the correct answers to the problem questions.

Correcting this situation is highly desirable and we are encouraged that work is underway to do so. However, a comprehensive and determined approach involving all teaching staff will be needed for success. Moreover, a strategy will be needed to dramatically change the dominant existing student culture of learning.


Solving this problem involves several factors. The large size of the lectures contributes to a passive and disengaged form of learning. Next, the ability of students to replay lectures through digital capture further erodes interest in attendance. We thus believe it would be beneficial both to reduce lecture size (although we are mindful of cost and staffing implications here) and to limit access to taped lectures to those with significant, demonstrable need.

Teaching instruction for academic staff on techniques for stimulating greater interaction, even in the context of large lectures (perhaps by use of ‘buzz groups,’ the use of break-out sessions and the like) might also be useful. So too, increasing the number of tutorials per lecture and using them to prompt exploration of issues, not simply answer problem questions, could help to realize the goal of stimulating more critical and reflective discussion.

One rationale offered for some of the problems of pedagogy we observed should, in our view, be re-examined. The lectures in many compulsory subjects were explained as necessarily content-driven because they were required to cover a wide swath of material to satisfy requirements under the ‘Priestley 11.’ The overarching focus on content delivery was not universal, but sufficiently pronounced to set the student culture in the compulsories and possibly more generally.

This excuse seems to us to misconstrue the requirements of the Priestley 11 and we recommend their re-examination. In the official statement of the Priestley 11, each requirement is given two alternative formulations. One contains a long list of specifically covered matters; the second stipulates a more general conception of each area. Other law schools focus on this second formulation to produce courses less focused on covering vast amounts of material, in favour of encouraging critical and reflective engagement. By focusing entirely on the first formulation of each element, ANU makes inevitable a lecturing style which conveys masses of material, but does not achieve critical engagement. Here again, a passive and disengaged culture is re-enforced in the compulsory subjects.

If the College focused instead on the second formulation, it could emphasize a blended approach. A general overview of a subject area could be presented, but in ways to allow greater intensity of engagement and discussion. Policy choices would thus be revealed, along with the theoretical or historical considerations inherent in shaping the law. Comparative approaches and prospects for future reform might be added. This might mean that some areas would not be dealt with in depth, but in our view, it is better for students to engage actively with the material being studied and to understand the underlying considerations in the law, than simply to cover masses of material.


Such an approach would also conform more closely to the College’s own commitment to ‘law reform and social justice’ so that compulsory subjects would re-enforce the scholarly values being pursued in faculty research. More importantly, we think this approach better prepares students for practice by helping them to understand subjects in a more dynamic context. They would also gain the ability to frame arguments on how the law should be developed, necessary to courts, regulatory practice, governmental work, transnational practice and the creative practice of business law.

(ii) Comparative Law Approach

The College’s strength in International Law is extensive and admired. It should remain a key dimension of both its teaching and research. We wondered, however, whether this international focus might be complemented by greater attention to the comparative dimension of international legal interaction.

Here we have in mind more than the traditional, rather narrow, meaning of comparative law, which in the past has often been identified with private-law comparisons between Common Law and Civil Law traditions. While these are important, our conception of comparative law is not heavily content-driven, but instead focuses on engagement with legal diversity and pluralism — comparisons of legal reasoning, conceptual structures and dispute institutions with different origins. It is this conceptual and institutional diversity that our students will need the skills to manage in an increasingly internationalized world.

Three options worth considering are:

a. Requiring students to take one of a cluster of courses which adopted a comparative approach (broadly conceived);

b. Transforming the requirement of International Law into a requirement that students choose one from a cluster of international and comparative courses.

c. Developing a cluster of comparative courses that are not required, but that students are strongly advised to consider in their course choices.

Greater focus on legal diversity might also open possibilities for joint teaching, guest lectures, and the like, taking advantage of the rich inter-disciplinary resources at ANU. We know that these links already exist and it would be a great benefit to demonstrate them to the LLB and JD students.

(iii) Enhancing the Critical and Contextual

The well-established culture of student disengagement has been mentioned. The following steps might be useful to change this.

a. The College should openly commit to an excellent legal education, based on a critical and policy-oriented approach to teaching law, including


the Priestley 11 compulsories. This commitment should be tied to the College’s public-policy orientation, its focus on law reform and social justice, and its emphasis upon a national and internationally comparative approach to law.

b. The College should strongly encourage, in a coordinated fashion, more critical and policy-oriented approaches in compulsory subjects across the curriculum, so that consistency in the new approach can help to displace the established culture.

c. Emphasis on the new approach should be concentrated on the first year courses so that students immediately are engaged upon entry in deep-learning which conveys the values which the College espouses; in doing so, a culture will be created which supports a re-focus of the educational program for greater involvement with the College’s social justice and law reform goals. A student pledge upon entry, committing to the values of the College, is something we also endorse.

(iv) Elective Curriculum

We found the breadth of electives excellent, although the degree of student choice is limited by the number of compulsory courses, likely more than would be the case in most North American law schools. We were also pleased by the related extra-curricular activities available to students. Although we identified many fewer concerns about the upper-year elective curriculum, we felt the following worth noting.

a. Indigenous Law

Surprisingly no course about Indigenous peoples was taught in 2010 and only one will be offered in 2011. Native Title has not been taught in either year. Given the College’s important past contributions to this field, its acknowledged leadership as Australia’s national law school, and its focus on public law, law reform and social justice, this gap is troubling. Moreover, recently advertised chairs in Aboriginal law at Sydney and Griffith, along with significant presence in the field by UNSW, UTS and UWA raises competitive concerns. We know the ANU staff member central to this area is on long-term leave, but consistent teaching in this area must nevertheless be a priority.

More positively, we noted three very valuable initiatives in this area. First, recognizing the support Indigenous students need once enrolled in law school, the College has created important support and counselling structures for their use. The staff member involved with these programs was positive about support from academic staff and reported that that the retention rate of Indigenous students is high. We were also pleased to learn that initiatives to secure scholarship support for Indigenous students are underway. Although the present incumbent did not raise this point, monitoring the demands of this role to ensure that it fits


within a normal administrative load and is adequately supported would be wise.

Second, co-location of the National Centre for Indigenous Studies and its director is a welcome development. It will provide models and mentoring for Indigenous students, and assist the College’s research presence in the field.

Third, the College’s exchange program with the University of Alabama has offered an opportunity to build a comparative approach to issues of race, including one comparative course in the LLB/JD curriculum. We were especially pleased to learn that these connections were being made, as often such exchange programs lack a substantive connection to a law school’s major focus.

While we did not inquire into this dimension, we hope that the College also encourages the inclusion of Indigenous content pervasively in mainstream courses (eg, Foundations of Australian Law, Property Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, International Law, and Discrimination Law). The College might also consider a clinic with an Indigenous focus or incorporate Indigenous examples into the flexible learning activities being developed by the Legal Workshop.

b. Clinical Programs

Enhancing existing opportunities for students to participate in clinical programs could substantially improve student experience and facilitate their greater appreciation of ethical, law reform and social justice issues. A good clinical program need not make a law school a ‘trade school.’ To our minds, clinical programs provide opportunities for law students to see the law ‘in action’ and can be a powerful learning experience; done well, they also sensitize students to issues relating to law reform and social justice. While part of the work in the clinic may involve practical aspects of lawyering, this should not be the primary focus of the clinic. Even so, some of these practical aspects such as ‘client’ interviews and legal research are important skills which are fully consistent with a liberal education.

Presently, the options for clinical work in the College are relatively modest. The Clinical Youth Program, the Community Law Clinical Program, and the International Human Rights Clinic appear to be good programs, providing an enriching experience for the students who have participated in them. Yet, unfortunately, there are currently only about 42 student places for the 3 clinical programs, so that only 12% of a cohort of 300 LLB students is able to have a clinical experience. We thus believe there is a need to expand and improve upon clinical programs and that (subject to budget constraints) consideration should be given to hiring a dedicated Director and an assistant for the clinical program, who would have some years of practice as well as a passion for


teaching. One of the key initial responsibilities will be to work closely with the decanal team and the academic educational officers to develop a proper framework for the desired objectives, outcomes, modes of learning, and assessment for the program.

c. Other Opportunities

Courses offered in the Legal Workshop were dynamic and exciting; and suggested possible benefits, if adapted to the JD and LLB curriculum, as noted earlier.

• Graduate studies

Graduate students at the ANU College of Law include the ‘taught LLM’ degree and three Higher Degree Research (‘HDR’) programs, namely the MPhil, SJD, and PhD, each discussed below.

We think that the proposal to form a working party to review new LLM programs and a sub-specialisation in law, governance and development are worthwhile initiatives. Among law schools in common law jurisdictions, the Australian model for taught LLM programs appears unique for its commonly ‘part-time’ structure and heavy use of intensive courses, which compress all course teaching into a short period. Such programs are marketed principally to the legal profession and generate significant revenue.

With regard to the HDR programs, the SJD differs from the PhD in that it combines LLM coursework with a thesis, although with a word requirement lower than that of the ‘dissertation only’ PhD. We were told that some SJD candidates have already completed the required coursework for the taught LLM, but wish to add a research thesis to achieve the higher degree. Some may also lack the depth of knowledge in their subjects to support a larger PhD level thesis. Students in these programs may be either full-time or part-time; but in the latter instance likely to reside outside Canberra.

During our visit we met with almost a dozen HDR students, all full-time PhD students at different stages in their program; we also received a joint written submission from five of them. We formed a very positive impression of their quality and engagement. Almost universally, the students expressed a high level of satisfaction with the quality of their supervisors and the personal support they provide; in fact, several had selected the ANU for graduate work specifically to study with their supervisors. They also described good generic University (as opposed to law school) support programs for their work, but they were eager for more proactive support for HDR students from the College itself. On their own, these full-time students have worked to build a graduate student community, doing things like organizing writing retreats with College grant support. Recently, financial support for research expenses and conference attendance has also become available to them. That said, the students felt they were not sufficiently integrated into the life of the College and they contrasted their situation with the regular seminars organized, for example, in RegNet.


They also noted that part-time PhD students were even less integrated into the community, but suggested that such students might not be interested in greater integration because of the competing demands of their professional lives.

The Panel believes that the innovations which these graduate students have begun are important to continue and that with relatively modest effort even more could be done to improve the level of their integration into the life of the College. For example, a mandatory course focusing on the development of a research agenda and strategy, research methodology, and thesis writing might be developed for all HDR students, something the students themselves suggested. This would give them in-depth and research-focused support at the commencement of their programs. It would, moreover, create a minimum residential requirement for all HDR students, something that would both build the community of HDR students and foster the integration of HDR students into the school as a whole. We note that the University of Sydney already requires three research courses — not just one — of its HDR students, and that North American HDR programs have long blended coursework and research. We recommend that ANU move in that direction as well.

The Panel also believes that the HDR programs would benefit from greater opportunity for full-time students to engage faculty intellectually and socially beyond their immediate supervisors. This may take place through presentations by a selection of established researchers in the mandatory course proposed above, informal presentations of HDR students’ research facilitated and supported by the College, the offering of additional research-oriented courses beyond the mandatory course suggested above, and regular lunch or tea sessions that afford an opportunity for HDR students to engage faculty.

In short, we believe there is an opportunity for the College to do much which would further enhance its HDR programs and also take advantage of the trend seen at other Universities where increasing structure and support is being provided for PhD students.

• Legal Workshop

The Legal Workshop (or ‘the Workshop’) is a highly innovative component of the College which has developed on-line or flexible learning programs (called the Integrated Learning Environment or ‘ILE’) and which currently supports several significant revenue generating programs. These are the Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (GDLP), a practical legal training course offered nationally to satisfy requirements for admission to legal practice; the Migration Program, offering a graduate certificate required for registration by non-lawyers as migration agents; and the Military Law Program, offering two graduate diplomas and a Masters degree program for active duty and reserve officers. The Workshop director is a member of the College Executive, and its faculty is composed of lawyers with significant practice experience whose duties are teaching intensive.


The Workshop’s pioneering efforts to build flexible learning programs have the potential to offer significant opportunities to improve the learning environment in all College programs by increasing student engagement. Importantly, these activities also offer financial opportunities for the College.

That said, the Workshop’s mission and methodology are distinct from other parts of the College. In particular its reliance on technology and, until recently, lack of time for its faculty to engage in scholarly production, have made some tension inevitable. Such tensions are inherent in the discipline of law and legal education under any circumstances since all law schools struggle in combining academic and practical approaches to the study of law. The financial importance of the Workshop to the College may further exacerbate the situation.

The Panel met with the Legal Workshop director and other Workshop staff formally and informally to explore these concerns. The Workshop’s director was particularly concerned about whether subsidization provided by the Workshop to the College and its research activities would be sustainable in the long term. While obviously important, this seemed an issue beyond our competence to evaluate and so we have focused instead on the potential for future Workshop growth and opportunities for mutual benefit in the relationship between the two components. We do see considerable untapped potential in the Workshop’s highly innovative programs and believe that this part of the College may be undervalued.

We also asked other members of the College for their views on the contribution of the Workshop to the realisation of the College’s strategic goals.

Two main points emerged as common ground:

(i) First, the Workshop makes a significant financial contribution which cross-subsidizes other College operations, yet is not itself in a position to contribute the same level of research outputs as colleagues in the remainder of the College due to its high teaching loads (on average something like 50% more than other colleagues); ironically, while the Workshop’s financial support enhances the College’s research efforts, it also dilutes them when the Workshop staff is included and measured against current ERA criteria; and

(ii) Second, everyone agreed that the Workshop should remain part of the College (although precisely how that was best achieved was a matter of some debate).

We were very heartened by the consensus around the latter point. It is clear that across the College the Workshop is seen as an integral part of the College’s teaching mission. The remaining debate concerns how its research contribution is to be encouraged and recognized. Most members of the Workshop (GDLP and Migration Law) indicated that they do have research aspirations despite their current teaching loads; in fact, only one or two colleagues wanted 'teaching


only’ positions. We therefore encourage the continuation of measures to support research by the Workshop faculty, including where possible the reduction in teaching loads. For those faculty members who do wish to maintain a greater balance in teaching, we understand that a greater weight can be attached to teaching in the agreed ‘Statement of Expectations.’

But it is also necessary that the particular contribution of the Workshop faculty is appropriately recognized. We strongly encourage efforts to broaden the ERA criteria to recognize the distinctive forms of legal research and scholarship, such as the practice- and policy-oriented research that is often published by law reform commissions, government departments, and professional associations. At any rate, these forms of publication should be given their due in ANU’s internal processes such as those relating to promotion, especially given the high quality and impact of many such publications, the prevalence of such publications for developments in many areas of law (especially practice-related areas), and the importance of such publications to ANU’s public policy focus. Scholarship in teaching, including the development of innovative forms of delivery, should also be highly valued. All these are of particular importance to the Workshop faculty, given their particular expertise in practice-related and teaching-related areas.

Other strategies to support research performance are also possible. For example, the Workshop has already established valuable potential ‘linkage partners’ in the Law Council of Australia and some state Legal Services Commissioners, which may provide the foundation for joint research projects. In addition, teaming Workshop colleagues with senior academics who have established research track records on or about legal practice, would seem promising and are already underway.

We were also enthused by suggestions to create a ‘Centre for Legal Practice and Research on the Legal Profession’ which could be combined with, or, used to ‘re-brand’, the Workshop as it now exists. Such a name change could serve as an inexpensive signal, both internally and externally, of the Workshop’s higher aspirations and also make clear its goal of moving beyond its current regional status to become an international leader in simulated learning and research to support the education of the legal profession.

While the challenge we observed and their resulting tensions between the College and the Workshop are real, we believe they are creative in nature and are being managed better, and more creatively and constructively, than elsewhere. Properly addressed, they offer the College an exciting opportunity to lead other law schools, nationally, regionally and even internationally in how best to pursue academic goals without compromising the obligation to educate the legal profession’s next generation for leadership roles within and beyond the practice of law.


F. Research

We could not help but be impressed by the College’s recent publications record and the award of a perfect 5 for the discipline of Law at the ANU in the ERA. We understand that the University of Melbourne was the only other university to obtain a 5 in Law. We attended a celebration at the High Court of more than 60 books which faculty had published over the last three years. These spoke to a diverse audience embracing law students, legal scholars and the wider public and illustrated how well the College was able to support research excellence, but without compromising its support of student learning or public legal education. There is no doubt that both the quality and quantity of legal research produced at ANU is very high indeed, assessed against both national and international standards of research performance in Law.

It is, of course, necessary that the College not ‘rest on its laurels’ and become complacent. As with many academic units in many disciplines, the College’s success depends heavily on the continuing success of its research-intensive centres and research superstars. There is a need for the College to support structures which foster and reward fairly the research activity and opportunity for all colleagues, especially those at the start of their careers. In this way, it will be possible to ensure and plan for succession and continue to attract and retain the highest quality researchers and scholars, particularly in areas which the College seeks to ‘own’.

By virtue of geography and reputation, the College is well placed to apply, nurture or acquire the expertise needed to meet social needs through law reform at the national and international levels and to advance the international and comparative understanding of law. The following measures appear to us to be worthy of serious consideration in order to bolster and generalize the College’s already impressive research performance:

• Creating a (virtual) research school and/or amalgamation with RegNet to obtain a fair share of the National Institutes Grant (NIG);

• Engaging in a College-wide debate over how to invest strategically in new areas which not only reflect the interests, expertise and passions of current staff, but also identify significant knowledge gaps which Australian society should address through the work of its national university; this discussion might recognize the research leadership of the current centres, fostering the extension of their activities, and explore whether sufficient concentrations of interest exist to establish new centres;

• Increasing investment in research infrastructure through the College Research Support Team (CReST) and a more focused use of research assistants to support teaching staff, while allowing honours students and postgraduate researchers more opportunity to develop research skills and publish;

• Experimenting with ‘master classes’ in legal writing, grantsmanship, law reform and policy-making or innovative ‘knowledge transfer’ by College ‘superstars’ for


younger researchers and postgraduates in order to provide more opportunity for informal research training;

• Introducing interdisciplinary modules in the coursework programs as ‘bridges’ to take advantage of the potential of double degrees and lay stronger foundations for the research skills and working collaborations needed for higher degrees and interdisciplinary research projects;

• Exploring comparative and empirical legal research projects on indigenous peoples;

• Strengthening the research carried out in the Legal Workshop, through:

(i) Improving the ERA definition, criteria and assessment of ‘research quality’ so that research on or about legal practice is placed on more of a level playing field;

(ii) Creating an international, peer-reviewed journal on legal practice where latest theory, pedagogy and empirical research can be disseminated;

(iii) Organising research training for the Workshop colleagues and building even stronger links with the College’s other Centres, particularly the Law Reform and Social Justice Program, and with RegNet.

Finally, we once again encourage the College to extend due recognition to all forms of legal research, including the practice- and policy-oriented research published by law reform commissions, government departments, and professional associations, both within the ANU and within national research assessment exercises. The ANU has long been integral to policy development in Australia, possessing a privileged relationship to government, to national professional associations and to public agencies. The College has been highly innovative in anticipating, identifying and meeting emergent social and economic needs and takes seriously its obligation of being a ‘critic and conscience’ of society, in part but not exclusively through its Social Justice and Law Reform agenda. All of the College’s activities, including the Legal Workshop, lead developments and debates which redefine the roles, nature or delivery of modern lawyering. In so doing, they serve the public interest. They have also extended the boundaries and impact of legal thought at the national and international levels, and continue to attract eminent researchers, lawyers, judges and visitors from overseas.

The initiatives suggested here will, we believe, help to build an even stronger research and teaching culture in the College. In the end, it is of course the scholarship of individuals which will determine the College’s reputation and its performance in future research performance evaluations. We certainly do not mean, then, to displace individual initiative. But encouraging individual faculty to pursue scholarship also needs to be complemented by appropriate policies at the College level, which will over time shape the College’s profile. The measures itemized above will promote strong research performance. In the following section we address how academic staffing decisions might also be adjusted to that end.


G. Strengthening Academic Capacity

The College is fortunate in that ANU’s and the College’s success enables it to attract strong candidates onto its staff. Still candidate recruitment is not without its challenges. We understand there is a tendency, particularly amongst commercially trained academics, to prefer remaining closer to the international and national legal practice centres located in Sydney and Melbourne. On the other hand the College has enviable links with Government and the High Court conducive to its focus on law reform and social justice. It is for this reason also in a strong position to pursue policy oriented work, reinforced by the success of RegNet. We applaud the fact that the Dean has worked hard to ensure that staff recruitment is not left to the vagaries of advertisement and the market. A law school of ANU’s standing has many advantages but a more proactive and aggressive approach to recruiting the next generation of leading scholars and speciality subject stars is essential. As the list of recent staff appointments shows, the College has been extraordinarily successful. Notwithstanding its many achievements, reflected in its ERA success and teaching reputation, the Panel feels that the College’s continuing development may be assisted in the following ways:

• Appointments Planning and Policy

All law schools, along with other disciplines, strive to find the best scholars and research achievement or potential remains the key criterion. In recognising this and acknowledging the extreme competitiveness of the market for scholars, a medium term plan for strengthening and replenishing research should be considered and promoted. Such an approach would profit from a closer focus on the College’s mission and research profile as we advocate elsewhere. To some extent this would involve making choices about a few preferred areas for recruitment which would be promoted over time. We suggest that RegNet has achieved such a reputation and believe that it would be possible for the College to emulate this reputation in other areas. If a quest for one or two additional ‘stellar’ appointments is to be embarked upon, something the Vice-Chancellor seems also to be advocating, the Panel suggests that it would be worthwhile to have a College-wide discussion followed by a decision to privilege a few areas central to its research ambition and strategic goals.

• Enhance International Faculty and Staff

Concern for a global appreciation of law requires including scholars from other legal systems; Japanese and Indigenous law experts already have a voice in the College, but more is needed. The College has successfully recruited overseas staff throughout Asia-Pacific and beyond; developing an academy with significant international presence to re-enforce the College’s international focus should be a priority. A structured international network of ‘college cousins’, made up of law schools and individuals, such as ANJeL (http://sydney.edu.au/law/anjel/) or other such collaborations, offers a possibility which could be combined with the University’s already strong links to overseas academics.


• Succession

A more focused approach to strengthening research capacity must recognise the need for succession planning. Where does the College want to be in ten years time and how will it get there? We applaud the vision and strategic planning demonstrated by the College’s leadership, which we feel should extend to the identification of emerging appointment needs to replace key researchers and senior managers. Succession planning and strategic appointment decisions are much in evidence as shown by recent appointments at the professorial level. Such appointments offer an opportunity to establish new priorities and they should be a matter of strategic discussion among faculty.

H. Governance, Management and Administration

We have no doubt that the organisation and management structures in place in the College are appropriate and effective for the administration of its programs and activities. There is ample evidence of a collegiate and supportive environment where opportunities to grow are encouraged.

The daily work and business of the College is managed by a team that includes the Associate Dean, the Head of School and the Director of the Legal Workshop. This seems to us to be an entirely appropriate inclusion of those responsible for the key roles in the College. We have acknowledged elsewhere the strong and charismatic leadership qualities of the Dean. The College in other respects appears to have suitable and robust structures in place to oversee its operations, to delegate key responsibilities and allows for wider consultation.

We were not asked to review the financial management of the College. Nevertheless, it is somewhat surprising that budget planning does not appear to feature in strategic planning, although it may be that these matters were thought to be beyond the Panel’s remit. We note that there is no-one in the higher echelons of the School with specific responsibility for finance. Whilst we do not believe accountancy, financial or business acumen is a necessary part of the College’s management, the Panel feels that there is scope for more emphasis on budgetary planning and forecasting. The College’s mission statement and strategic statements call for careful analysis of their budget implications. As we mention elsewhere, some prioritisation of objectives is likely becoming increasingly urgent. Future developments will be dependent upon ensuring that the budget can support them and identifying where existing resources should be allocated or additional income generated.

We did not familiarise ourselves with the Committee structure although it is clear, for example, that the LLB program operates within a framework of a dedicated Committee led by the Director, a small team committed to the Renewal program and regular meetings of convenors and the staff as well as subject team meetings. We understand that an Education Committee is charged with co-ordinating the work of the LLB Committee and other program committees and for aligning


University and College policies. The overall load of meetings may need to be monitored to contain the administrative burden and to maintain the balance between consultation and delegated responsibility and executive decision making.

Administrative organisation appears strong and the College employs sufficient support in most areas. The only two areas where the Panel suggest additional administrative support should be considered are:

• Research

We note elsewhere the possibility of supporting staff in preparing research proposals and advising new members of staff on funding opportunities or offering advice on managing their projects.

• Web development

We noted above the potential for developing a more interactive and engaging website for promoting the College’s work and informing students, potential staff and the wider community of the College’s development, particularly its implementation of its core values and mission.

I. Environment and Accommodation

The College, as noted, enjoys a fine campus and comfortable accommodations for academic and administrative staff. Nonetheless, the Panel found three areas in need of urgent improvement:

• There is insufficient teaching space in the immediate precinct of the College so that we understand that students must sometimes trek considerable distances for their classes. Moreover, the learning space that is used is not flexible. We note that most first-rank law schools provide the vast bulk of teaching within the law school itself, and that three of the College’s principal competitors (Melbourne, UNSW and Sydney) have new, ‘state of the art’ buildings. High-quality capacity to support teaching and research is needed if the College is to remain competitive in the Australian law school environment.

• The College does not possess good space for major public events and conferences. Such space is another common feature of first-rank law schools, given the value of maintaining close links to government and the profession. It would be highly desirable for the College to acquire such space.

• The Law Library is in urgent need of refurbishment and reconfiguration befitting diverse learning opportunities, study options, group engagements and varied communication supports. In the Panel’s view text and published works will continue to have a special relevance to the study of law and its practices. Nevertheless, data bases and on-line access allow for new priorities and the archiving of out of date case books can give way to more monographs and spaces for student interaction.


VI. CONCLUSIONS

The Panel was invited to consider three questions, to which we now return.

1. Where is the ANU College of Law now? We were asked to validate the College’s self-assessment of its current achievements as the prelude for addressing the two following questions about its future.

We have found the College’s self-assessment to be thorough, perceptive and open. Its achievements to date are impressive and its international reputation as a leading law school for research and legal education is fully deserved.

2. Where is the ANU College of Law going? What are the possible future strategic objectives for the College and are its aspirations for national and international leadership realistic and appropriate?

In the Panel’s view there is ample evidence of strategic thinking and implementation. It has already achieved national leadership amongst law schools and enjoys a strong international reputation.

We have seen the College’s Strategic Plan 2006–2010, updated in 2008 and revised again in January 2010. We endorse the analysis, proposals and goals these contain. Since 2006 there has been significant and ongoing progress, including:

a. the establishment of the LLB curriculum renewal program

b. the introduction of the JD program

c. the introduction of the post of Director of Law Reform and Social Justice

d. the simulated learning environment for the GDLP

e. the expansion of the HDR program

f. increased professional short course activity.

These are important achievements and demonstrate the College’s success in strategic planning and effective implementation.

The College’s aspirations to develop further its commitment to law reform and social justice will provide a distinctive and important profile for future development. If they are forcefully pursued and promoted, the College’s national and international status will grow.

3. How can the ANU College of Law get there? Finally, can the strategies, structures and mechanisms which exist now, or are being established, be validated as the best way to achieve the College’s goals, so that aspiration can move to actuality?


Whilst the College should be confident in its continuing progress, as we have described above, the Panel feels that there are some areas of its strategic thinking and operations that could benefit from further attention. Most of our suggestions for developing and implementing the College’s strategies are reaffirmations of challenges that the College has already identified.

Overall the Panel feels that there is a need for sharpening the College’s focus and concentrating its efforts more closely around its declared mission. In summary we feel that the following issues that we have addressed above are priorities for consideration:

a. Increased emphasis upon the College’s commitment to law reform and social justice across programs, the curriculum, short courses and outreach.

b. The intensification of efforts to develop more interaction and critical enquiry in compulsory courses generally and the first year in particular, concentrating upon:

• Greater interactive techniques in lectures and tutorials

• Less focus on content-delivery and more focus on critical engagement with the law

• More collaborative learning amongst students

• Alternative approaches to assessment

• Increased feedback including exams

• Expansion of clinical courses

c. Further support for research in the College by:

• Clarification of the research strategy to identify priorities and support research clusters, whilst continuing support for individuals

• The achievement of appropriate support from the National Institutes Grant

• Increased administrative assistance for the preparation of research proposals

• Greater involvement of leading researchers in supporting younger researchers

• Careful identification of areas for new staff appointments in furtherance of research strategy

d. The further integration of the Legal Workshop into the LLB, JD and LLM programs. The College has already identified opportunities to address:

• Rollout of the simulated learning environment into undergraduate courses

• Incorporation of law reform and social justice themes in GDLP

• Adoption of research plans for Workshop staff


e. The adoption of tighter objectives in the implementation of strategies, such as:

• Budgetary forecasting

• Prioritisation of the College’s activities for resource allocation and to inform the appointments strategy

• Prioritisation and timing of goals of LLB Renewal Program

The Panel has already noted the competitive environment of legal education nationally and internationally. The ANU College of Law has established a strong reputation for excellence in research and teaching. In the Panel’s view, based upon the evidence before it, the College is well placed to achieve further success and to perform well amongst other leading international law schools. We are grateful for the courtesy and openness afforded us by staff and students. The Panel hopes that this Review will assist the College’s continuing progress and would encourage other law schools to consider following the College’s example by inviting peer international evaluation.

Roger Burridge Kim Economides Elizabeth Parker Tan Cheng Han Jeremy Webber

May 2011

xxxxxx

ANNEX 1 29

Sun, 27 Mar Wed, 30 Mar Thu, 31 Mar Fri, 1 Apr

am:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:30pm:30pm:30pm:30

ANU College of Law - Dean's International Review

Mon, 28 Mar Tue, 29 Mar

Weekly Schedule

Dinner(Chairman & Yip)

Meetings with individual staff

(Minter Ellison Room)

Meeting with College Executive


College Book Celebration(The High Court)

Integrated Learning Project Demonstration


Vice-Chancellor Strategic Plan Presentation to College Staff (Sparke Helmore Law

Theatre 2)

Orientation

Meet College Executive (Minter Ellison Room)

Introduction to New Vice-Chancellor

(VC's Office)



Dinner with select stakeholders

(The Ottoman Restaurant)

Free time for reviewer discussions

Law Students Reform Group: Presentation

(Staff Library)

Law Students Reform Group: Report Launch

(College Lawns)



Online Learning Showcase

(Staff Library)

1

Meet Staff at Morning Tea (Staff Library)

11

12 Student & Staff BBQ (College Lawns)

Executive Briefing(Minter Ellison Room)

9

7

4

6

5

8

Staff Morning Tea(Staff Library)

8

9

10

Law Reform & Social Justice


2

3 Student Focus Group(Minter Ellison Room)

Informal Welcome Dinner

(Boffins Restaurant)RegNet Conference

Dinner(The Boathouse

Restaurant)

Student Focus Group(Minter Ellison Room)

Informal lunch & wash-up with College Executive(Minter Ellison Room)



PhD Student Focus Group (Staff Library)

Informal lunch with Staff(The Gods Café -

Arts Centre)

Internationalisation Round Table(Moot Court)

Informal lunch with staff(Staff Library)

30 ANNEX 1


Sunday, 27 March 2011

am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:30pm:30pm:30pm:30

4

3

8

9

5

6 Informal Welcome Dinner(Boffins Restaurant at University House)

Attending: Roger Burridge, Kim Economides, Elizabeth Parker, Jeremy Webber, Robert Parker, Judith Jones,Michael Coper, Stephen Bottomley, Fiona Wheeler, Gary Tamsitt, Alison Daun7

8

Daily Schedule

2

12

1

9

10

11

ANNEX 1 31

am:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45

pm

:15

:30

:45

pm

:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:30pm:30pm:30pm:30


Daily Schedule

3

8

9

10

Student Focus Group (1st, 2nd & Final Years) (Minter Ellison Room)Attendees include: Jacqueline Yates, Siying Zhu, Talitha Shim, Jimmy Bai

Student Focus Group (3rd & 4th Years) (Room 104)Attendees include: Alice Crawford, Rob Anderson, Brody Warren, Sam Wall, Lycia Hayes, Picorelli Pal, Anika Kwaja, Vina Oktavia, David Rowe

Monday, 28 March 2011

Meet Staff at Morning Tea (Staff Library)

Executive Briefing(Minter Ellison Room)

Meet College Executive (Minter Ellison Room)

Orientation

7

8

9

RegNet Conference Dinner(The Boathouse Restaurant)

Taxi pick-up from University House at 6:15pm

2

4

5

6


Student Focus Group (JD Students)(Minter Ellison Room)

Attendees include: Caroline Compton, Nicholas Lim, Robert Atcheson, Vas Withanage, Brodie Buckland, Natasha Purvis, Thomas Crouch, Tatiana Stotz, Barry Welsby

11

12

1

Student & Staff BBQ (College Lawns)

32 ANNEX 1

am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30 Daniel Stewart (Law School)

:45 Cameron Roles (Law School)

am:15:30 Simon Rice (Director, Law Reform & Social Justice)

:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm Don Anton (Law School)

:15:30:45pm Peter Sutherland & Tony Foley (Clinical Programs)

:15:30:45 Mark Nolan (Director, Higher Degree Research)

pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:30pm:30pm:30pm:30


Daily Schedule

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

8

11

12

1

Jill McKeough (Dean of Law, UTS Law School, Chair, Council of Australian Law Deans)

Peter Cane (Director, Research)

Law Students Reform Group: Presentation (Staff Library)

Attending: Penny Oakes (Dean of Students), Melanie Poole, Christopher Patz, Lucinda Shannon, Stefanie Schweiger, Zhemin Tan, Sarah Jewell, Fern Cadman, Annan Boag, College Staff

Law Students Reform Group: Report Launch(College Lawns)

Launcher: Penny OakesFurther remarks: Marie Jepson

Kim Rubenstein (Director, Centre for International and Public Law)

7 Dinner with select stakeholders(The Ottoman Restaurant)

Attending: Michael Coper, Stephen Bottomley, Fiona Wheeler, Gary Tamsitt, Alison Daun,Jill McKeough (Chair, Council of Australian Law Deans), Tim Bugg (Chair, International Legal Services Advisory Council), Ian Govey (CEO, Australian

Government Solicitor), Richard Refshauge (Justice of the ACT Supreme Court)Pick-up from University House at 6:45pm by College Executive

8

9

4

5

6


PhD Student Focus Group (Staff Library)

Student attendees include: Harriet Gray, Helen McGowan, Fanny Thornton, Robin Gibson, Alison McLennan, Michael Phillis, Rebecca Monson, Brad Jessup

Gary Tamsitt (Director, Legal Workshop)

Meetings with individual staff(Minter Ellison Room)

2

9

10

Anne McNaughton & Craig Collins (Directors, JD Program)

Molly O'Brien (Director, Teaching & Learning)

Meetings with individual staff(Minter Ellison Room)3

ANNEX 1 33


Wednesday, 30 March 2011

am:15:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:30pm:30pm:30pm:30

Daily Schedule

8

9

10

Staff Morning Tea(Staff Library)

Law Reform & Social Justice(Minter Ellison Room)

Attending: Michael Coper, Stephen Bottomley, Fiona Wheeler, Gary Tamsitt, Simon Rice

11

12

1

2

7

8

9

3

4

5

6


Online Learning Showcase(Staff Library)

Presenters: Alex Knight, Aliya Steed, Alex Bruce, Liz Keogh, Ilona van Galen, Margie Rowe

Informal lunch with Staff(The Gods Café - Arts Centre)

Attending: Michael Coper, Hitoshi Nasu, Margie Rowe, Pauline Ridge, Dominique Dalla-Pozza, Katie Young, Elizabeth Lee

Introduction to New Vice-Chancellor(VC's Office)

Internationalisation Round Table(Moot Court)

Attending: Gillian Triggs (Dean of Sydney Law School), Michael Coper, Stephen Bottomley, Fiona Wheeler, Gary Tamsitt, Gregor Urbas, JP Fonteyne, Vivien Holmes, Daniel Fitzpatrick, Hitoshi Nasu, Jane Stapleton, Tom Faunce, Tony Connolly, Peter Cane,

Don Anton, Katie Young, Matthew Zagor, Kim Rubenstein, Moeen Cheema, Don Rothwell

34 ANNEX 1

am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45 (Minter Ellison Room) (Room 104)pm:15:30

pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm

:30

pm

:30pm:30pm:30

12

1

8

9

10

11

5

Meeting with College Executive(Minter Ellison Room)

6

Vivien Holmes (Legal Workshop) Margaret Thornton (ARC Professorial Fellow)

4

:45Miriam Gani (Sub-Dean, LLB & JD)

2

3

Vice-Chancellor Strategic Plan Presentation to College Staff(Sparke Helmore 2 Law Theatre)

7

8

9

Tom Faunce (Future Fellow)

Tim Bonyhady (Director, Australian Centre for Environmental Law)

Asmi Wood (Director, Indigenous Student Support Scheme)

College Book Celebration(The High Court of Australia)

Presenter: Justice Annabelle Bennett (Federal Court of Australia)Chair: Dean Michael Coper

Response: Prof Peter Cane (Director, Research)

Dinner(Chairman & Yip)


Don Rothwell (Director, LLM Program)

Tony Connolly (Director, LLB Program)


Daily Schedule

Informal lunch with staff(Staff Library)

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Integrated Learning Project Demonstration(Minter Ellison Room)

Presenters: Gary Tamsitt (Director, Legal Workshop), Aliya Steed, Margie Rowe

ANNEX 1 35


Friday, 1 April 2011

am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45am:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:15:30:45pm:30pm:30pm:30pm:30

Daily Schedule

8

9

10

11

12 Informal lunch & wash-up with College Executive(Minter Ellison Room)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

xxxxxx

ANU College of LawBuilding 5, Fellows RoadThe Australian National UniversityCanberra ACT 0200 Australia

T: 02 6125 3483E: [email protected]: http://law.anu.edu.au


REPORT OF THEINTERNATIONAL REVIEW PANEL

Date post:	05-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doquynh
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

ANU College of Law REPORT OF THE · In 2010 the ANU College of Law ... so that aspiration can move...

Documents