At the meeting on 24 May 2013, Academic Standards Committee received the responses to the recommendations arising from the Periodic Subject Review of Law. ASC had noted that the School had raised issue with a number of the recommendations made to which the Panel Convener had conceded or provided additional contextualised commentary. It was agreed that updates on progress should be provided to ASC in November 2013:

• Recommendation 11 - resolution of the problem pertaining to the variability of marking by staff and ensure that the marking scheme was fully implemented. The School did not consider that there was a problem of undue variability or failure to implement the marking scheme fully. The Panel Convener highlighted that the recommendation was to resolve the perception of students that the marking scheme was fully implemented and that could be accomplished by presenting the evidence to allay student concerns. ASC agreed that this was a matter of perception and the School should ensure that the process was clarified to students.
• Recommendation 18 - the College of Social Sciences should consult with the School regarding resourcing the establishment of a law clinic. The School considered the provision of a law clinic worth exploring but that resource implications were significant. However, the School disagreed with the premise on which the recommendation was based: on student perception that the University of Strathclyde had a more practical approach to the teaching of law. The School considered that there was no evidence to indicate that this view was representative of students generally or the comparison was valid as the School provided many opportunities for students to practice experience of law. The Panel Convener highlighted that the recommendation was based on a factually accurate record of the Panel's discussions with students and therefore it was the Panel's responsibility to report such opinions. The recommendation was made with the intention of enhancing the School's competitiveness in the marketplace or address student misconceptions. If alternative and less resource intensive practical experience is provided and this has been highlighted to students, then the recommendation had been addressed. ASC was satisfied that this recommendation had been addressed but agreed that practice experience available to students should be clearly highlighted to students.
• Recommendation 19 - the School reviews its current provision at Levels 3 and 4 to identify opportunities to incorporate additional oral assessments. The School concluded that its current balance of oral and written assessment was appropriate and did not agree to incorporate additional oral assessments. There were robust assessment arrangements in place which involved external examiners and did not wish to create undue burdens on academic and support staff and external examiners. Final Year students also received feedback on their seminar contributions, although these were not assessed. The Panel Convener conceded that the recommendation should have referred to increasing oral presentation experience rather than assessment and that the School could consider further the issue of presentation skills.

Academic Standards Committee is asked to consider the adequacy of the updated responses and the progress made. Attention is drawn to the response to Recommendation 19. Does ASC wish to request a further progress report?

None identified.

No direct resource implications have been identified.

As outlined.

No specific implications identified, although the School should continue to embed consideration of equality and diversity in all its procedures and provision.