General Discussion Thread 2020-21

[TCLA Community Assistant]

Oh no, I'm so sorry! I'm completely out of the loop. I assumed students were getting the choice to be assessed either *now* through less traditional means or later next year perhaps, by the regular method. This might have something to do with the fact that one of my friends abroad is doing an online degree and her university is considering offering students a choice, but the decision-makers still appear to be quite confused about what they want to do

this is where it gets even more complicated!

Some unis are allowing students to defer core law modules to the following year. Might be a good option for some, but that means studying 140 or 160 credits next year.

The issue here is that some students are being given the option to never sit/submit their assessments for up to 50% of their modules this year, and their year average will be based on the grades from those they do sit or their “baseline” grades (whichever one is better).

 

[Alice G]

this is where it gets even more complicated!

Some unis are allowing students to defer core law modules to the following year. Might be a good option for some, but that means studying 120 or 140 credits next year.

The issue here is that some students are being given the option to never sit/submit their assessments for up to 50% of their modules this year, and their year average will be based on the grades from those they do sit or their “baseline” grades (whichever one is better).

The way I have understood this is that there is the opportunity to either sit 3/6 of modules or the full 6/6 module assessments whilst still having the no detriment policy in place in either case and where the top three marks will count if one does decide to do the full 6/6 modules anyway. am I right in thinking this @Jessica Booker? Sorry I am out of the loop with this and just want to see if I am understanding this

 

[bethbristol]

The way I have understood this is that there is the opportunity to either sit 3/6 of modules or the full 6/6 module assessments whilst still having the no detriment policy in place in either case and where the top three marks will count if one does decide to do the full 6/6 modules anyway. am I right in thinking this @Jessica Booker? Sorry I am out of the loop with this and just want to see if I am understanding this

You only have to sit 3 out of the 6 modules in order to pass the year and your year grade will be made up out of your top 3 grades and for my uni there is a no detriment policy in place but the actual way this works hasn’t been fully clarified by the law faculty as our exams work in a different way to other subjects

 

[Andre]

Anyone heard from Mayer Brown (post-tests) or BCLP re TC?

 

[Alice G]

You only have to sit 3 out of the 6 modules in order to pass the year and your year grade will be made up out of your top 3 grades and for my uni there is a no detriment policy in place but the actual way this works hasn’t been fully clarified by the law faculty as our exams work in a different way to other subjects

Ah ok I think I understand, so there is a choice to still do all 6 then and just have the top three make up the overall grade but you could also just choose three to sit and those three will form the overall grade?

 

[bethbristol]

Ah ok I think I understand, so there is a choice to still do all 6 then and just have the top three make up the overall grade but you could also just choose three to sit and those three will form the overall grade?

yes - but it’s a bit confusing regarding transcripts and what will show up (only your top 3 or everything)

 

[W]

Anyone heard from Mayer Brown (post-tests) or BCLP re TC?

Nope for BCLP

 

[E.A]

For those waiting on Baker McKenzie:

They just sent out an email explaining that they will get back to us on the 8th, not 4th, of May, but virtual assessment centres will be held on the same days as planned.

They do mention they have a high volume of applications so I am once again concerned that they put everybody who applied through to the VI stage and are starting their serious screening process now.

Some people got rejected pre- Watson test so I don't think that's the case

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

The way I have understood this is that there is the opportunity to either sit 3/6 of modules or the full 6/6 module assessments whilst still having the no detriment policy in place in either case and where the top three marks will count if one does decide to do the full 6/6 modules anyway. am I right in thinking this @Jessica Booker? Sorry I am out of the loop with this and just want to see if I am understanding this

exactly. In this situation, the university has a triple locked protection system:

1) no detriment policy - you can’t get a worse grade than what you have already achievers

2) your best three grades will result in your year average if they are higher than the grades you have previously achieved.

3) you can choose to only sit three modules out of the six, allowing you to only focus on three modules.

the bit firms have the issue with is the last point which is technically unnecessary and over the top due to 1 & 2.

I think there is a real risk is degrades the meaning of the three modules you do sit, as basically you have only done 50% of the work

 

[Alice G]

yes - but it’s a bit confusing regarding transcripts and what will show up (only your top 3 or everything)

Ahh okie dokie - yeah I understand what you mean. Thanks for clarifying for me! Just wanted to fully understand the situation really.

I guess it does matter what would show on a transcript.

I understand the risk in taking all 6 and maybe having one grade showing up as not being great, even if it does not count towards the end grade. However, I would also be mindful of not doing all 6 if I am able to do so (meaning if there are no extenuating circumstances) as law firms are seeking people who are genuinely interested in their subjects and who are curious and so this might worry me from that side of things if three modules might show with no grades beside them.

I guess it does depend on whether all 6 modules would be recorded or whether each person will have just three module grades showing on their transcript irrespective of this choice. If the latter, my personal inclination would probably be to do all 6 because I would be unsure whether I could confidently select the three modules I would do best in. From experience, I have had unexpectedly better results in some modules so I would probably just do 6 if I felt I could prepare well enough to optimise my chance of the top three.

 

[Alice G]

exactly. In this situation, the university has a triple locked protection system:

1) no detriment policy - you can’t get a worse grade than what you have already achievers

2) your best three grades will result in your year average if they are higher than the grades you have previously achieved.

3) you can choose to only sit three modules out of the six, allowing you to only focus on three modules.

the bit firms have the issue with is the last point.

Ah thanks Jess - I think I understand it better now. Just been trying to piece it all together as there are so many approaches being taken and I appreciate this in itself makes it harder for recruiters and candidates alike.

 

[Charles]

Happy Monday all- has anyone heard back from Baker McKenzie yet post-VI?

Yes they sent me an email today saying that they have shifted the date of letting candidates know of their status to this Friday and the assessment centre will be online.

 

[Ifmhouse4]

I have no issue with either modules being moved to essays or to online exams like yours. Both seems reasonable to me.

What recruiters do not feel comfortable with is students being able to choose whether to not sit or submit for up to 60 credits. This seems absolutely absurd when other adjustments have already been made - in some cases, this option is alongside assessment adjustments and a no detriment policy, so basically they are getting a triple locked protection.

Oh I see! yes that is quite complicated

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

Oh I see! yes that is quite complicated

It is when you can no longer compare candidates academics. Trying to assess someone who has a 65 average across all modules sat (lets say six), versus someone with a 65 average based on a no detriment policy across 6 modules (when they actually have a 55 average), versus someone who has a 65 average based on 3 modules sat, versus someone who has a 65 average across 3 modules and based on a no detriment policy across those 3 modules (when they actually got a 55 average)...

To me, the fairest thing universities should have done was made everyone sit exams as normal, with additional reasons for "not fit to sit" policies. They could then apply the "no detriment policy" to any weighted modules towards final degree classification. For first and second years, this would have been pretty much what happens anyway, and the only people it would have impacted was finalists.

It just seems like an over complicated and lazy system, that encourages people to not sit exams, let alone take them seriously.

 

[AH9891]

Our exams will be open book and timed. So there hasn’t really been too much of a change. Yes, you can look at your book, but in reality you only have 2 h for the whole exam, so there’s still only limited time to actually look things up. Exams will still be on the original dates. If you don’t want to sit it online, you can either sit it in August hoping it will be in person then, which may not be the case and we would still have to sit it online then. I think people can also defer to next term, but you have to sit the exam eventually and that applies to all our exams. If you decide to not sit it first time around you won’t fail the exam, but if you sit it and fail then you’ve failed!

 

[tractor12]

It is when you can no longer compare candidates academics. Trying to assess someone who has a 65 average across all modules sat (lets say six), versus someone with a 65 average based on a no detriment policy across 6 modules (when they actually have a 55 average), versus someone who has a 65 average based on 3 modules sat, versus someone who has a 65 average across 3 modules and based on a no detriment policy across those 3 modules (when they actually got a 55 average)...

To me, the fairest thing universities should have done was made everyone sit exams as normal, with additional reasons for "not fit to sit" policies. They could then apply the "no detriment policy" to any weighted modules towards final degree classification. For first and second years, this would have been pretty much what happens anyway, and the only people it would have impacted was finalists.

It just seems like an over complicated and lazy system, that encourages people to not sit exams, let alone take them seriously.

I think the idea behind it is that everyone is in one way or another being affected by what is happening, there would be an overload of students insisting they were not "fit to sit" their exams (even if they were exaggerating). There was also a lot of pressure from students for universities to adopt a transparent policy that addressed their concerns especially after one university implemented the no detriment policy - it led to many universities to quickly follow suit.

I do agree the policy in place encourages laziness and it means that those who have actually performed well could see their mark undermined. I think regardless of the policy it should have been made the same across universities as it seems those who have a less lenient policy will be disadvantaged.

 

[TChopeful2021]

It is when you can no longer compare candidates academics. Trying to assess someone who has a 65 average across all modules sat (lets say six), versus someone with a 65 average based on a no detriment policy across 6 modules (when they actually have a 55 average), versus someone who has a 65 average based on 3 modules sat, versus someone who has a 65 average across 3 modules and based on a no detriment policy across those 3 modules (when they actually got a 55 average)...

To me, the fairest thing universities should have done was made everyone sit exams as normal, with additional reasons for "not fit to sit" policies. They could then apply the "no detriment policy" to any weighted modules towards final degree classification. For first and second years, this would have been pretty much what happens anyway, and the only people it would have impacted was finalists.

It just seems like an over complicated and lazy system, that encourages people to not sit exams, let alone take them seriously.

It might be too soon to tell but from your experience, how do you think law firms will respond to this? Will firms take into consideration the different examination methods and policies across universities when assessing applications? I'm curious to know whether these information are easily accessible to law firms, and even if they are, how much weight should actually be placed on them.

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

Our exams will be open book and timed. So there hasn’t really been too much of a change. Yes, you can look at your book, but in reality you only have 2 h for the whole exam, so there’s still only limited time to actually look things up. Exams will still be on the original dates. If you don’t want to sit it online, you can either sit it in August hoping it will be in person then, which may not be the case and we would still have to sit it online then. I think people can also defer to next term, but you have to sit the exam eventually and that applies to all our exams. If you decide to not sit it first time around you won’t fail the exam, but if you sit it and fail then you’ve failed!

to me, this is one of the fairest systems.

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

I think the idea behind it is that everyone is in one way or another being affected by what is happening, there would be an overload of students insisting they were not "fit to sit" their exams (even if they were exaggerating). There was also a lot of pressure from students for universities to adopt a transparent policy that addressed their concerns especially after one university implemented the no detriment policy - it led to many universities to quickly follow suit.

I do agree the policy in place encourages laziness and it means that those who have actually performed well could see their mark undermined. I think regardless of the policy it should have been made the same across universities as it seems those who have a less lenient policy will be disadvantaged.

there is a slight risk, that those with the most lenient systems undermine how their students’ results are viewed though. Students might get good grades, but if they are seen as another form of grade inflation, that won’t be a good thing.

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

It might be too soon to tell but from your experience, how do you think law firms will respond to this? Will firms take into consideration the different examination methods and policies across universities when assessing applications? I'm curious to know whether these information are easily accessible to law firms, and even if they are, how much weight should actually be placed on them.

they have never considered how modules were assessed, so I don’t think this is important.

What is important is if candidates are having to put in up to 50% of the effort (eg 60 credits vs 120 credits) that other candidates are putting in.

Firms won’t have the time or effort to consider policies/weighting etc, especially where many of them are optional. The only thing they can consider is how many credits an individual sat in one year.

For me, I’d rather see a candidate get a relatively stable 60 across 6 modules, rather than 70 across 3. I suspect many recruiters will feel the same.