QED LAW

Universities were asked to provide the following information:

1. For each of the years, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 (to date of this request):

(a) The number of students at the university on (i) LLB / BA Law and (ii) (if offered) GDL/CPE programmes who, to the knowledge of the university, complained to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA).

(b) The number of students on (i) LLB / BA Law and (ii) (if offered) GDL/CPE programmes whose complaints were regarded by the OIA as wholly or partly justified.

(c ) In the case of those complaints which were regarded by the OIA as wholly or partly justified please provide copies of the formal decision and recommendation(s) of the OIA.

The information provided is set out in the table below

Law student complaints - Anglia Ruskin University

2. The number of students on (i) LLB / BA Law and (ii) (if offered) GDL/CPE programmes between September 2004 and the date of this request who, having made a complaint to the university, (whether or not to the OIA), were awarded compensation by the university in respect of the complaint. And, in each case, the nature of the complaint and the amount of compensation awarded. Please provide copies of the written documents held by the university in which an offer of compensation was made to the student.

Student compensation payments

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS. For information about the next programme - click the pic.	QED LAW REVISION

–

The following request for information was made to the University:

“For each of the foundation of legal knowledge / core law subjects taught on undergraduate programmes provided by the University:

(a) the average mark attained by students sitting the first examination in each subject in the academic year 2007/8.

Please provide the information based on the actual marks attained in the respective examinations and not on ‘compensated’ or ‘capped’ marks.

Please exclude data related to resit examinations taken at a laterexam. Where, for example, the first   examination was taken in May 2008 and there was a resit examination in August 2008 the average mark
should be based on the marks attained by all students taking the exam in May, whether or not they were sitting the examination for the first time or resitting. The marks attained by students in the August resit
should not be taken into account.

(b) the percentage of students attaining an examination mark of 40 or above in the first examination for each of the subjects in the academic year 2007/8

Again, as above, please base calculations on the actual marks attained and limited to the first examination.

The information requested should be restricted to those who, by the university’s regulations, sat the examination so please exclude those who failed to attend the examination and may have been awarded a mark of zero.”

The information provided by the University is published below:

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

Please note that figures are rounded to the nearest decimal point.

:

–
Following a Freedom of Information Act request, UK universities provided data about the progression rates of first year students on law degrees.

The information requested was:

(1) The number of students enrolled on the first year of each of the university’s undergraduate law courses for the academic year 2005/6.

(2) For each of the courses, the number of students entitled to progress to the second year of the course.

The information received is displayed below:

–

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

Be careful when interpreting the data. The information requested and provided relates to progression rates; that is, the number of students enrolled on a course who, at the end of the year, were entitled to proceed to the second year.

Although failure of the end of year examination is probably the most common reason for non progression it is not the only one. Those not entitled to progress includes students who, before sitting the examinations, suspended their studies, withdrew from the course and/or transferred to another course. And, although a high rate of withdrawal or transfer might indicate a lack of satisfaction with a course, it should be borne in mind that some students leave courses for personal domestic and social reasons unrelated to the quality of the course. This is especially true of mature part time students. (For more on this see the comments by Professor Mulcahy Head of Law at Birkbeck College, University of London.)

I would like to express my gratitude to all the university staff involved in providing the information and to the freedom of information officers for their assistance - especially those who were willing to overlook my initial error in requesting the information prematurely and who held the request on file until the up to date progression information became available. I would also like to thank the Heads of School for responding with additional information and helping to put the data in context. Their comments are invaluable in interpreting the raw data.