Without question, one of the primary goals, if not the main goal, of legal education is to assist students with their learning endeavors, as they prepare for their future careers.
For years, law schools have assumed that hierarchal grading is a key motivator for students and, thus, a major factor that promoted their learning capabilities.
However, according to a report published in Ohio Northern University Law Review in 2022 — and written by John Bliss, assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and an affiliate faculty member at the Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession, and David Sandomierski, an assistant professor in the Faculty of Law and teaching fellow with the Centre for Teaching and Learning at Western University — grades may not incentivize students’ efforts much, after all.
In fact, they might lead to students’ anxiety instead, thereby negatively impacting their learning capabilities.
As a result, law schools should consider other types of learning motivations, as hierarchal grading doesn’t have to be the only option.
“The image of the highly strategic law student looking to maximize grades doesn’t tell the whole story,” Sandomierski said. “Law students come to learn and are highly sensitive to the conditions that help deepen or enrich their learning.”
In all, 1,207 law students, a majority of whom were involved in J.D. programs, completed a survey in April 2020. Two months later, 335 students completed a follow-up survey. Their responses were used as the foundation of Bliss’ and Sandomierski’s findings.
According to the surveys, law students aren’t cynical, extrinsically motivated learners, as some are led to believe. Rather, they’re interested in highly meaningful learning experiences, due to their curiosity and overall thirst for knowledge — beyond what their textbooks teach them. With this in mind, Sandomierski advises students to find law professors that will provide them more meaningful learning experiences.
“While the majority of assessments at law schools might be heavily exam-based, it’s possible to seek out professors who offer alternative forms of assessments, from essays, to presentations, to reflection papers,” he stressed. “If students gravitate to an alternate form of assessments, this might help lead to a shift: from a culture of assessments toward a culture of learning for its own sake.”
At the same time, Sandomierski also urges law faculty and administrators to provide students more opportunities to deliberate about policies that influence their learning capabilities.
“While law students may have limited opportunities for formal advocacy of faculty policies, they shouldn’t underestimate the impact they can have in persuading faculty members — via their own stories and lived experiences — to consider other learning opportunities,” he said. “Students and professors likely share a commitment to the same values, regarding assessments, such as an accurate reflection of completed work, consistency, fairness and integrity. But professors may not readily notice the negative externalities that certain policies might have.”
Furthermore, Sandomierski believes law schools could implement policy reforms like a reduction in students’ workloads, so that students aren’t overwhelmed, resulting in a potential decline in their passion for law. And they can consider offering Pass/Fail/Honors grades, rather than the usual A to F grading system that most law schools presently utilize.
“While it’s unlikely that law schools will move to a Pass/Fail/Honors system, we might start to see systems that show less differentiation at the lower end of the curve, while retaining the option to distinguish at the higher ends,” he said. “This might decrease students’ anxiety and provide them an opportunity to distinguish themselves, leading to a happier medium. In turn, students will be more positive and excited about their futures.”
