Final Report on Student Opinion: Proposed Enrollment Expansion

October 21, 2013

 

Dear students, faculty and staff at the Queen’s University Faculty of Law, The following is the final report of student opinion regarding the proposed enrolment expansion by the 2013-2014 Strategic Planning Committee at the Queen’s University Faculty of Law. It is a summary of preliminary student opinions shared with us via e-mail and social media, a student consultation on October 8th, 2013, the results of an opinion poll, and comments shared via e-mail and through the poll after the consultation. The poll had a response rate of 313 students, or 60% of the student body of 524 JD students. 69% or 217 were against the proposal, 22% or 68 were for it, and 9%, or 28, were undecided. 112 of those students also chose to share opinions with us in the “comments” section, giving us over 21 pages of feedback through the poll. Thank you to all participants and to those who took the time to provide feedback at various stages throughout the consultation process. As such, the Queen’s Law Students Society is able to accurately assess student opinion. Students are largely against the proposal, with concerns about the school community, quality of education, student support services, and placement rate. A few students cited a conditional ‘for’ position, contingent on seeing a financial breakdown for the increased revenue. Students for the proposal cite reasons of expanded program offerings, reputation and access to legal education. This report aims to distill the feedback provided into various themes to accurately summarize the reasons for and against the proposal. For answers to some of the concerns listed, please also refer to the FAQ attached to the end of this document. This report concludes the student consultation process. The final Faculty Board vote is to be held on November 29th. The results of the student poll, while not determinative, will be used to guide and inform the votes of Faculty Board representatives. Whatever the result of that vote, the LSS will take a further active role in leading student consultation throughout the process. We are incredibly pleased with the level of engagement on this issue, and hope to see similar involvement on this and other issues, going forward. Ultimately, the Law Students’ Society represents the voice of students, and we endeavor to do that in the most transparent and democratic way. If there are any questions or concerns regarding this report, please don’t hesitate to contact myself at naheed.yaqubian@queensu.ca, or any of your elected student representatives.

Kind regards,

Naheed Yaqubian, LSS President on behalf of The Queen’s Law Students’ Society

 

Poll Results

As mentioned earlier, 28 students were undecided. Poll results were also divided by year by the LSS Elections Committee:

Yes No Undecided Total 1L 16 69 13 98 2L 31 89 10 130 3L 20 59 5 84 Other 1 - - 1 Total 68 217 28 313

In response to the question, “Do you have any other comments, concerns, or questions about this expansion?”, 112 of the 313 students that voted provided feedback, spanning 21 pages. Some are anonymously quoted below in the final report. If you would like access to the anonymized, raw data of the poll, it is available in hard copy in the LSS office. If you have any questions about the methodology of the poll, please feel free to contact Arielle Kaplan, Chair of the LSS Elections Committee, at arielle.kaplan@queensu.ca.

 

Majority Report: Against School Expansion Those who were against the proposed enrollment expansion cited four main categories of opposition, which remained largely the same before and after the student consultations. These are School Community, Quality of Education, Student Support Services and Placement Rates. School Community Concerns about the school community were frequently brought up by students, even after the October 8th consultation. Many students mentioned that they chose Queen’s Law over other schools because of the small class sizes and student support, both in first year and upper years. Academic concerns were also mentioned, such as competitiveness, “the complicating factor being that we grade on a curve.” One student mentioned that “the quality of relationships you have with your professors, with your colleagues, and opportunities to get to know each other positively” would be negatively affected by this expansion. Students thought an expansion would lead to “less time on campus, less interaction with the school, less attachment, [and] less donations in the long run. This may lead to an “increase in anonymity,” leading to a decrease in attachment to the school community from alumni, meaning “less donations in the long run.” Students who have attended schools out West, abroad and in the United States all pointed to “staggering differences” that resulted from the difference in class size. The relationships that students have with each other are also at issue. Ultimately, students felt that admitting more students “would lead to more competition and less cooperation and teamwork,” negatively affecting not only the student community, but also the quality of the academic experience. Quality of Education – Professors and Clinical Opportunities

The second most frequent concern raised was that of the quality of education at Queen’s Law. Students wanted more information about the proposed hiring of new faculty, noting that information was not provided about “who they may be, or the quality of teaching that they will provide.” Students are pessimistic about the impact

that admitting more students will have on their quality of education, particularly in upper-year classes. The opportunity to become close with professors through moots, clinical opportunities, individual study projects, and clubs is valued at Queen’s Law.

“Even though my legal career is only

a few weeks old, it’s already

apparent the important role that

this tight-knit community plays in

the student experience.”

“We compete to volunteer to provide

legal services.”

 

In terms of research profile, students pointed out that the student body is a large source of research, with one student of the opinion that “Queen’s reduces us again to making to meaningful contribution in terms of research.” Students view Queen’s as “a preparatory school for professionals,” and are concerned that the vocational aspect of the school is getting lost amidst other concerns. One individual mentioned that “what we really need are practitioners,” and several other students agreed that practitioners are some of the best lecturers and professors at Queen’s Law. As these would “cost less than hiring new, full-time faculty,” students anticipate a higher quality of education from a broader array of choices. Students were “concerned about the impact that the proposed expansion will have on the accessibility of extra-curriculars for students in all years.” Concerns were raised about moots and clinical programs, and increasing competitiveness in access to these opportunities. There were questions about “how many clinical courses this tuition revenue will help fund,” as well as “competition.” One student was “wary that the level of competitivenesss will rise within the class itself in terms of clinics and practical experience programs, because it seems most of the additional revenue the law school will have will go towards the building and faculty costs.” Student Support Services Concern for the level of student support services remained at similar levels, both before and after the October 8th consultation. Students are incredibly pleased with the high level of student support services available, and concerned that the addition of 105 students will not allocate services where they are needed most, such as in Career Services and Education and Equity Services. Relationships with the administration are also incredibly close. “Support at Queen’s is unprecedented. Jane Emrich knows every student by name,” mentioned one individual. “More staff must be divided between more students and make it more difficult to maintain a personal connection with the entire class,” pointed out one student. The addition of more staff, although admirable in numbers alone, ultimately rose fears about being lost in bureaucracy or administration when trying to change courses or book rooms. “Helen Connop and Julie Banting will not leave their offices until they have run out of ideas of ways to help you,” mentioned one student. The “approachable and helpful” nature of Student Support Services was closely linked to a lower class size, as well as a potential decrease in “one-on-one attention.” Many students expressed concerns about not “expecting the same level of support,” which ran contrary to their reasons for choosing Queen’s Law.

“Support at Queen’s is

unprecedented. Jane Emrich knows every

student by name.”

 

Placement Rates and the Broader Legal Profession Feedback regarding student placement rates increased dramatically after the October 8th consultation meeting, with many students concerned about the growing articling crisis. “The confidence expressed by the Dean and other faculty that we can comfortably place 25, 35 more students is unfounded and to my knowledge unsupported,” mentioned one student. “Increasing enrollment is simply irresponsible.”

Concern about placement rates and the broader legal profession wove through almost every single aspect of feedback. Though “not the school’s fault,” students still felt that “the financial difficulty of the institution” will lead to “difficulty and scrutiny from the public.” “The school has yet to adequately answer [the] question regarding the excess of law students vs. [the] lack of articling spots. The answer that there are jobs in northern Ontario is inadequate: students never receive career notices for employment opportunities outside of major centres.” Another student mentioned that “more lawyers are needed in rural areas, but there has been no mention of admitting students who are more interested in rural areas.” One student pointed out that “when you flood the market, you dilute the value of your degree and your skills,” and was concerned about how this expansion, taken together with future possible expansions, would change the value of the Queen’s Law degree to the students. In the same vein, another student saw the expansion as “water[ing] down the caliber of the students graduating each year, making Queen’s Law the natural pick for mockery on the unnecessary size of graduating classes.” Students questioned the idea that Queen’s would maintain its superior placement rate in comparison to other schools. One wrote, “Even if we accept that Queen’s students are so superior to the students of other schools that [we] will all get positions, that means an extra 35 to 50 students at other schools will not. Ask yourself, is that right, either?” This extended to concerns about admissions, with one student pointing out that if they knew about the expansion, they would have gone elsewhere. From a more local perspective, there were concerns that increasing enrolment would “foster a hyper-competitive environment,” increasing stress among students who compete amongst themselves for articling positions. A student pointed out that “arguments in favour of the expansion [seem to be made in] the best interests of the school and not necessarily in the best interests of the students,” with a concern that the long-term impact of this decision is not being taken into account. “Once the number of students increases, it will never come back down.” Several students asked the school to work with LSUC and the province “to address the oversupply of lawyers in Ontario before adding more law students.”

“This does not seem like the

intelligent solution.”

 

Minority Report: For School Expansion 22% of the 313 students polled would welcome the idea of school expansion, for the reasons of Expanded Program Offerings, Reputation and Access to Legal Education. Expanded Program Offerings Students for the expansion strongly felt that “with more students, more can be done.” Many pointed out that the number of course offerings at Queen’s was much smaller than that of other schools such as Osgoode. The expansion was seen as “the best solution in order to bring in revenue and hire more faculty” to provide a wider range of courses. Students also expressed concerns that our small range of course offerings meant that “we could be losing valuable students” to other schools. Students pointed out that more faculty would allow for more course offerings, allow for more research assistant positions, and ultimately enhance the educational experience. Offering a broader array of courses would work well to draw new students to the school, as well as to enhance educational opportunities for students that are interested in areas of law that currently have no, or fewer, course opportunities. One student pointed out that “until something is done about the tuition freeze, this seems to be the best solution in order to bring in more revenue and hire more faculty.” Students also weighed the option of expanded program offerings against the threats facing the faculty, including the articling crisis, concluding that “until something is done about the tuition freeze, this seems to be the best solution.” Reputation

Students for the expansion thought it was “a great idea. In order to stay competitive, Queen’s Law needs the funding.” Higher enrollment levels at other schools were correlated with higher levels of student programs, leading to a better reputation. This type of growth was seen as “necessary to ensure that Queen’s maintains its reputation, going forward.”

Students expressed concern about the reputation of Queen’s Law, should it continue to stagnate. “We desperately need to keep pace in this competitive market,” brought up one student. Expanding enrollment was seen as the best way to do this, in order to broaden the number of, and reputation of faculty.

“This is the best solution.”

“This is not a hugely drastic

change.”

 

Expanded enrollment would also allow students to gain more clinical opportunities, and ultimately by enhancing the overall quality of education of each student. This would be done by “expanding upper-year course selection going forward to better compete with offerings elsewhere,” as mentioned earlier. With a modest expansion, students felt that other students were overreacting to what could be a very welcome opportunity for growth and positive change at Queen’s Law. Students also felt that the concerns about the articling placement rates were overblown in the overall scheme of things, with one student not believing that they “will slide because of our rankings.”

Access to Legal Education

Access to legal education was also cited as a reason for supporting the proposed enrollment expansion. “We are forgetting the issue of access to education,” mentioned one student, and “giving 35 more people a year the chance to pursue a legal education is a worthwhile endeavor.” The articling crisis was seen as a reflection of student entitlement, with one student mentioning that “there will always be a job available for those who put in the time and effort.”

More Information Needed

9% of students polled chose ‘undecided’ as to the question of the proposed enrollment expansion. Many of these students mentioned they may be for the proposal, but this might be contingent on seeing a financial breakdown for the increased revenue, or some form of “concrete plan.” Others thought “the law school should spend more time and effort exploring and developing other revenue options before such a significant and potentially irresponsible action is taken.” The inclusion of “documented projected success rates” for these alternatives would also help students be more comfortable making a choice. Students also wanted to explore “meaningful alternatives,” with one stating that “I don’t think it’s fair to have us make this choice without a better plan in place.” Another student pointed out that “this discussion should be about creating and developing such options, not whether or not we take the easiest, but most damaging route.” This included exploring whether or not a more modest expansion of 15 or 25 students would achieve the same economies of scale. Conclusion In sum, students were “happy that [we] have been consulted so thoroughly about the expansion.” Going forward, a student thinks “a task force made up of students and faculty” should be established to explore alternatives. Ultimately, students “hoped that the decision-makers respect the opinions of the students, and will represent us well.”

“Providing more students with a legal

education… is a benefit to society.”

 

Frequently Asked Questions Are we looking at expanding by 35 or 50 students? What are the final numbers? At this point, it looks like the Strategic Planning Committee is reconsidering the original number of 50, to instead add 35 students to the incoming first-year class. This would add 35 students to the yearly target of 165, making each class consist of 200 students. This would add a total of 105 students to the school, making our population 625 up from around 520. (Naheed Yaqubian, LSS President) How are we going to fit these students into our classrooms? Currently, the size of our 6 small section first-year classes range from 28 to 34 students. In the larger classes with two sections, the size of those classes range from 54 to 71 students. If enrollment is increased by 35 students, the plan is to add two additional small sections and cap each small section at 25 students. Thus, in the larger classes with two sections there will be a total of 50 students. With these numbers, there would not be a problem with fitting the students in the classrooms at Macdonald Hall. However, it is important to note that for the 2014-15 transition year (and only for that school year, the first-year Property classes will have 100 students rather than 50 students. The reason is that the funds from the increased enrollment will not be readily available to fully accommodate the increased number of students until the following school-year (part of the reason being that students do not need to pay their tuition until September 1st). (Spencer Wong, 2L Faculty Board Representative) Will the quality of the relationships we have with our professors decrease due to the increase in students? The proposed expansion would see smaller first-year class sizes, with eight small sections of approximately 25 students in each. This would rectify some of the space and student-to-teacher ratio issues that are being faced by 1Ls this year. Furthermore, the addition of more full-time faculty members would mean that Queen’s Law student/teacher ratios would be kept the same or could possibly even decrease. (Ryan Wycherley, 3L Faculty Board Representative) That said, plans for popular upper-year classes (Civil Procedure, Business Associations, Evidence, Administrative Law) are still being mapped out, and we look forward to hearing the Administration’s plans for them. (Naheed Yaqubian, LSS President) How will this affect the placement rates of students at Queen’s Law? Placement rates have never been a function of the amount of students admitted into Queen’s Law, but rather the calibre of the students as well as the reputation of the school

 

academically. Maclean’s has consistently ranked Queen’s Law within the top 6 law schools over the past 5 years (and top 3 within the last 2 years), with 50% of this success being owed to Faculty Journal Citations. It is this high regard in academia coupled with the quality of our students that allows Queen’s Law to have higher placement rates than most Ontario schools, not the quantity of our students. (Christine Innes, VP Academic) Why do we have to hire faculty to teach? Why can’t we hire practitioners? While we currently hire practitioners for some courses, this is not ideal considering that most will have to come from Toronto and are travelling long distances to teach a single course during the week. Furthermore, the research that is done by full-time faculty members helps maintain the reputation of Queen’s Law, which has been reflected in MacLean’s yearly rankings. The continual growth of a healthy research environment allows Queen’s to attract top professors from Canada and around the world. (Ryan Wycherley, 3L Faculty Board Representative) Why can’t we look at other revenue sources like expanding the new undergraduate course, Law 201? The expansion of Law 201 should generate some new net revenue for the school; however, it will take at least two to three years to demonstrate that this is a secure and ongoing source of revenue. Once the Faculty can demonstrate this, it may be permitted to use some of this revenue to support the hiring of (at least) one new Faculty member. Accordingly, expanding Law 201 would not enable the Faculty to increase its numbers to its desired level in the near future. (Lisa Pincus, 2L Faculty Board Representative) How will this affect Equity and Career Services? The proposed expansion of students should allow the school to hire five new Faculty members as well as five new administrative staff (which may include Equity and Career Services staff). The school would remain committed to ensuring that the Equity and Career Services staff would have all the resources they need to continue to provide high levels of service to students. (Lisa Pincus, 2L Faculty Board Representative) How will this affect student’s access to hands-on experience like clinics and moots? An increase in faculty members is likely to increase the amount of faculty involved in the moot court program. It is also likely to expand the clinical programs currently offered through monetary support. Since there would be an additional 70 students in 2L and 3L combined, this means the ratio of applicants to placements may not change. Access to hands-on experience will not go down, but will either stay proportionally the same or will increase with a greater diversity of opportunities available. (Deepa Negandhi, 3L Faculty Board Representative)