HKU & sims

by Paul Maharg on May 13, 2012

A week of meetings put together by the super-organized Wilson Chow — seminars, individual meetings with staff about technology and law teaching.  Sims like those in SIMPLE don’t just drop into conventional teaching habits.  They change those habits, and student habits too.  In that sense they’re disruptive of the habitat of learning and teaching, the settled compact between students, institution and faculty.  It’s only when we consider the detail of implementation that the full scale of change becomes apparent.  The week at HKU was about exploring aspects of those changes, how they might come about, what the new roles might be, the resources required, the changed working patterns, together with the changed relations that the new methods of teaching bring about between staff, eg between technologists and academic staff.

One of the final sessions was on Standardized Clients and it was clear from responses that it generated a lot of interest among faculty.  Slides here: ‘The Standardized Client Initiative: A portrait of the outsider as teacher’.  Let’s see if HKU join the SCI community…  Meanwhile, my thanks to Wilson for looking after me so well throughout the week in HK, and to staff for giving up time to attend sessions.  Am writing this in Sydney airport waiting for the flight to Canberra, where I’ll be spending the next week with the ANU Legal Workshop team, as part of my duties as Adjunct Professor there.  Will update as we progress.

{ 0 comments }

Hong Kong U Faculty of Law: virtual & f2f sims

by Paul Maharg on May 8, 2012

I’m in Hong Kong U Faculty of Law, on an exchange scheme with Wilson Chow of the Law Faculty, funded by HKU Teaching Exchange Fellowship Scheme.  Wilson has already visited the UK, and conducted a survey of students using SIMPLE at Strathclyde, Northumbria and Glamorgan.  He presented his results at the BILETA conference, and  will be publishing them in the next year or so.  Meanwhile I’m working with staff in HKU Law Faculty to develop SIMPLE scenarios and introducing the idea of Standardized Clients.  Strangely enough, Wilson tells me, SCs are not used in medical education in HK, so there may be scope for the law school to introduce the method to the medics here — a reversal of the usual direction, where legal education has drawn much from medical educational methods.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

NTU Centre for Legal Education conference: session 2, LETR discussion

May 3, 2012

Second session — I’m presenting on this so it’ll be short…  Jane Ching opened the session, then the three of us talked to the slides, then there was an activity with coloured paper, etc — legal kindergarten in action!  I talked about the literature review largely, and where the project is at the moment.  Jane [...]

Read the full article →

NTU Centre for Legal Education conference: session 1, visions of legal education

May 3, 2012

I’m liveblogging the Nottingham Law School’s Centre for Legal Education launch conference.  Directors of the Centre are Becky Huxley-Binns, Jane Ching, my colleague on the LETR project, and Andrea Nollent, who introduced the event and Baroness Deech, who gave the first address.  The session was called Visions of Legal Education.  Ruth pointed out how critical [...]

Read the full article →

Collaboration & convergence

May 2, 2012

I shouldn’t really be, but I’m always surprised by how little inter-institutional collaboration takes place in legal education.  Here’s an example of how valuable it can be not just for the partners, but for students and regulators too.

Read the full article →

NCBE Conference reflections: the hot and the cool

April 22, 2012

First of all, a big thanks to Erica Moeser for the invitation to speak, and to Deb Martin & colleagues for all their helpful admin support.  Having just finished hosting the BILETA conference it’s fresh in my mind just how complex & time-consuming conference design & admin is. This conference has been so instructive for [...]

Read the full article →

NCBE Conference: final session

April 22, 2012

Final session I attended was a discussion session for 0-2 years Bar members and staff, in order to hear the basic issues being raised.  Key points: Administration issues.  Training of proctors — what we’d call exam invigilators (teachers noted as excellent proctors), and monitoring of proctor performance. Grading Bar exams — variability in marking.  One [...]

Read the full article →

NCBE Conference: In the Trenches: Character and Fitness Issues

April 22, 2012

Barbara D’Aquila, practitioner and member of the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners. In Minnesota Rule 5 spelled out eligibility requirements — honesty, good judgment, lawful, respectful conduct, etc.  Went at a fair pace so cdn’t really take notes.  Session was interactive: six scenarios, participants debated what they’d do, then Barbara & Emily Eschweiler (assistant director [...]

Read the full article →

Plenary: Candour in Disclosing Character and Fitness Issues

April 22, 2012

The full title of the first speaker’s session is ‘Trends in Character and Fitness from the perspective of a Seasoned Law School Administrator’ — Ann Lukingbeal, from Cornell — Asst Dean, Admin.  She pointed out that students are sanitizing their applications to law school, ie concealing negative information.  eg at Cornell the ‘Have you ever [...]

Read the full article →

Globalization Comes to Main St, USA

April 20, 2012

Alan Treleaven started us off in this session, describing the situation in British Columbia, and how the Law Society of BC dealt with the issues involved.  Useful summary of the Canadian system.  Interesting that lawyers can move between provinces (though as I understood him they can’t set up in two provinces) in their representation of [...]

Read the full article →