The Curriculum Committee has proposed dramatic changes to the 1L small group. They propose to reduce small group classes to one semester and to expand the role of Legal Research & Writing ("LRW") to both terms and to require a 1L moot for every student. This change will have far-reaching implications for students’ first-year learning experience.
The proposal is short on detail and provides no clear benefit to students. The committee has proposed this decision very late in the year and at a time when both students and faculty are too busy to devote significant attention to a reform of this magnitude. A fundamental change to the first year program deserves careful thought and attention. We do not believe that is possible at this time.
We believe that the full year small group benefits students. A year-long small group provides students the chance to delve deeply into one area of law on a theoretical level that would be untenable in three months. Further, long-term writing assignments offer students a chance to hone their legal writing skills in a way fundamentally different than what is taught in LRW. The Faculty is proud of its strong tradition of excellence in legal research. Neutering the small group could potentially eliminate a law student's best opportunity to work closely with an outstanding professor in an area of law for a whole year. Also, it is unclear how incoming 1Ls would adjust to delivering all 1L writing assignments in one semester. This increased workload is untested and current 1Ls have already expressed confusion as to how the faculty intends to implement this in a way that reduces, not increases, stress during an already difficult time that the first semester of 1L is. Perhaps the solution is to cut down the total number of assignments in both LRW and small group? We express concern at eliminating opportunities for students to preform high-quality legal research alongside industry leaders.
We oppose this proposal and the lack of consultation surrounding these fundamental changes. We call on Faculty Council to reject these changes until the Curriculum Committee has come up with a more comprehensive, detailed, and carefully constructed proposal and has sufficiently reached out to the student body. We firmly believe that any radical change to the JD program must involve significant community consultation and incorporate feedback from it. This rash change could deny incoming 1Ls the opportunity to engage in what we have all benefited from.
Updates
March 8, 2020
The momentum is undeniable. This level of support shows the faculty that we refuse to let the small group disappear without a fight.
8 Comments
Current 1L at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. I am not necessarily opposed to the proposed changes to the 1L curriculum; however, it is too late in the year for a suitably informed and deliberated decision to be made.
The small group was the best part of my first year. Cutting it in half makes no sense and ruins the community feel we have now. Why is this being rushed through in march?
Before implementing any change to the curriculum, the school should conduct meaningful consultation with those most affected by the curriculum change: the students. The school should also be transparent about its true reasons for seeking to implement this change.
Massive curriculum changes shouldn't be made without comprehensive consultation. The fact that the first time the student body was informed about this was less than a week prior to the town-hall demonstrates that this consultation has not happened. There are substantive issues with the proposal as well, that ought to have the opportunity to be discussed more fully.
Current 1L Given considerable student and faculty opposition, it is premature to make the proposed change; more consultation is necessary.
Full-year small group is one of the best parts of my 1L experience.
Save the small group!
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Copy link or share directly
The Curriculum Committee has proposed dramatic changes to the 1L small group. They propose to reduce small group classes to one semester and to expand the role of Legal Research & Writing ("LRW") to both terms and to require a 1L moot for every student. This change will have far-reaching implications for students’ first-year learning experience.
The proposal is short on detail and provides no clear benefit to students. The committee has proposed this decision very late in the year and at a time when both students and faculty are too busy to devote significant attention to a reform of this magnitude. A fundamental change to the first year program deserves careful thought and attention. We do not believe that is possible at this time.
We believe that the full year small group benefits students. A year-long small group provides students the chance to delve deeply into one area of law on a theoretical level that would be untenable in three months. Further, long-term writing assignments offer students a chance to hone their legal writing skills in a way fundamentally different than what is taught in LRW. The Faculty is proud of its strong tradition of excellence in legal research. Neutering the small group could potentially eliminate a law student's best opportunity to work closely with an outstanding professor in an area of law for a whole year. Also, it is unclear how incoming 1Ls would adjust to delivering all 1L writing assignments in one semester. This increased workload is untested and current 1Ls have already expressed confusion as to how the faculty intends to implement this in a way that reduces, not increases, stress during an already difficult time that the first semester of 1L is. Perhaps the solution is to cut down the total number of assignments in both LRW and small group? We express concern at eliminating opportunities for students to preform high-quality legal research alongside industry leaders.
We oppose this proposal and the lack of consultation surrounding these fundamental changes. We call on Faculty Council to reject these changes until the Curriculum Committee has come up with a more comprehensive, detailed, and carefully constructed proposal and has sufficiently reached out to the student body. We firmly believe that any radical change to the JD program must involve significant community consultation and incorporate feedback from it. This rash change could deny incoming 1Ls the opportunity to engage in what we have all benefited from.
Updates
March 8, 2020
The momentum is undeniable. This level of support shows the faculty that we refuse to let the small group disappear without a fight.
8 Comments
Not enough consultation was being done, especially with students who have the most insight on how 1L is going.
Current 1L at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. I am not necessarily opposed to the proposed changes to the 1L curriculum; however, it is too late in the year for a suitably informed and deliberated decision to be made.
The small group was the best part of my first year. Cutting it in half makes no sense and ruins the community feel we have now. Why is this being rushed through in march?
Before implementing any change to the curriculum, the school should conduct meaningful consultation with those most affected by the curriculum change: the students. The school should also be transparent about its true reasons for seeking to implement this change.
Massive curriculum changes shouldn't be made without comprehensive consultation. The fact that the first time the student body was informed about this was less than a week prior to the town-hall demonstrates that this consultation has not happened. There are substantive issues with the proposal as well, that ought to have the opportunity to be discussed more fully.
Current 1L Given considerable student and faculty opposition, it is premature to make the proposed change; more consultation is necessary.
Full-year small group is one of the best parts of my 1L experience.
Save the small group!
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 100 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
Not enough consultation was being done, especially with students who have the most insight on how 1L is going.