PearceDennisCampbellEnidHardingDon, Australian Law Schools: A Discipline Assessment for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (The Pearce Report) (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1987).
3.
A recommendation or class sizes of 15:1 ratio.
4.
A recommendation of 100,000 volumes per library.
5.
The Pearce Report, above n2, 241–3.
6.
Ibid244, 246
7.
Some established schools tripled their intake.
8.
SampfordCharles, The Panic Over Numbers, in GoldringJ, New Foundations in Legal Education (1998) 70.
9.
Ibid (Sampford) 69 referring to the Pearce Report.
10.
Ibid73.
11.
Ibid73.
12.
Ibid75. See also McInnisCMarginsonS, Australian Law Schools after the 1987 Pearce Report (1994) 28.
13.
McInnisMarginson, above n12, 27
14.
Ibid 27.
15.
DeansLaw, Chapter 3, Studying Law in Australia. See similar sentiments in ALRC 89 Managing Justice [2.116].
16.
Australian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Adversarial System of Litigation — Rethinking Legal Education and Training, Issues Paper No 21 (1997) [5.15].
17.
Law Council of Australia, Blueprint for the Structure of the Legal Profession (1994). Notably, Priestley also recommended a range of skills to be included in the law courses.
18.
SimmondsR, ‘Growth Diversity and Accountability’ in GoldringJ. New Foundations in Legal Education (1998) 60.
19.
ALRC, above n1, [2.65] (emphasis added).
20.
The ALRC has noted the need for national standards and/or accreditation: ALRC, ibid [2.25].
21.
Ibid [2.78].
22.
VignaendraS, Australian Law Graduates' Career Destinations (1998) ch 4.
23.
McInnisMarginson, above n 12, ch 16.
24.
Ibid27.
25.
ChristensenSKiftS, ‘Graduate Attributes and Legal Skills: Integration or Disintegration?’ (2000) 11Legal Ed Rev207.
26.
These objectives are adapted from the comments made in GoldringJ, ‘The Future of Legal Education; Doubtful Assumptions and Unfulfilled Expectations’ and GoldringJ, ‘Tradition or Progress in Legal Scholarship and Legal Education’ in GoldringJ, New Foundations in Legal Education (1998) 27.
27.
Practical judgment is defined by Simmonds as ‘the ability to, in a stress-filled, conflicted situation where no high order rule can in real terms neatly resolve the problem, deliberate about the alternatives and make sensible and reasoned decisions’. SimmondsR, ‘Legal Education for Future Professionals’ in GoldringJ, New Foundations in Legal Education (1998) 94–6.
28.
SampfordCWoodD, ‘Theoretical Dimensions in Legal Education’ in GoldringJ, New Foundations in Legal Education (1998) 101. These authors make a case for theoretical questions to be included in the curriculum in a more prominent manner, calling in aid the Pearce observations that legal education has been too rule oriented. Arguably, introducing the additional theory into the law is contrary to the recommendations of Pearce that courses include greater skills content.
29.
Referred to as the Integration Model. TaylorL, ‘Skills: Skills-kind Inclusion and Learning in Law School’ (2001) (3) UTS Law Review85, 103–5.
30.
ALRC, Rethinking the Legal Education and Training, Issues Paper No 21 (1997) [1.23].
