Equity for All: The Need for Lecture Recordings

19/3/2019

Issue 3, Semester 1, 2019

CAM DOIG

It’s that time of year – re-litigating the Lecture Recordings DebateTM! New students, strap in: this has been going for some time.

At present, recordings of MLS classes are only made available to students who:

Are registered for Special Consideration (ongoing support);
Miss classes for more than five consecutive business days due to medical grounds or personal circumstances; or
Miss classes for five business days over a period of 1-2 weeks due to medical grounds or personal circumstances.

The University of Melbourne Student Union (UMSU), the peak representative body for all Melbourne Uni students, is campaigning for unconditional access to recordings for students.

Why? Five reasons.

First: Stigma surrounding mental health may be turning students away from requesting recordings. MLS students experience psychological distress at a far higher rate (about 30%) than the general population (about 13%). But Australian law students are reluctant to seek help: 39% would not seek professional help for depression. In a 2013 study, MLS staff and students recognised that law students under-report depression, anxiety and stress symptoms - which they are poor at acknowledging. Eligible students may not be requesting recordings, due to stigma. Making recordings accessible will de-stigmatise access to this resource, letting students choose whether to reveal their disability or personal situation at their own discretion.

Second: Working students need recordings to stay up-to-date with classes. Most postgrad coursework students work, and 43% often need to use online alternatives because of work. But many students aren't eligible for recordings. They may not control their work schedule, and must choose between class and work – despite the average Melbourne student suffering rental strain. Unconditional access to recordings supports working students, so nobody is forced to choose between work and study.

Third: Heavily-weighted assessments are the biggest contributor to distress among MLS students. Law students consider the ability to revise before assessments as the greatest advantage of online course material. Making recordings available would reduce student anxiety, especially before assessments. This reduction in stress is even stronger for EAL speakers.

Fourth: The current policy disadvantages speakers of English as an additional language (‘EAL speakers’). For EAL speakers, recordings would improve comprehension and reduce assessment stress. This is particularly true for law students, because recordings enable revision of content multiple times. Permitting access to recordings would welcome international students who are EAL speakers, and improve their perception of MLS’s support systems.

Fifth: Making recordings available will support student autonomy and mental health. A 2013 study found many MLS students feel “controlled, misunderstood and/or undersupported by both their teachers and the faculty generally.” Students believe faculty don’t make a real effort to understand students’ difficulties, and expect students “to be on campus four days per week and attend all classes”. This restrictiveness is directly related to high rates of psychological distress. Conversely, 80% of students believe recordings make learning easier: letting students revise, catch up, review difficult content, focus on listening during class, listen on evenings and weekends, and while cleaning or commuting. Making recordings available to all students lets students determine the learning style that works best for them.

To quickly rebut MLS faculty’s arguments in favour of the current policy:

First: Attendance will decrease. The educational literature considers this argument “largely unsubstantiated” and “rigid”. Use of class recordings has no impact on attendance.

Second: MLS classes are seminars, not lectures. MLS classes meet the University’s own definition of a lecture: “an instructor (lecturer) delivers information, which is often accompanied by visual aids, to a classroom of students. A lecture may involve some elements of interactivity, but this is not the substantial mode of instruction...student activity is generally limited to taking notes and/or asking the occasional, unpromoted question.” MLS faculty acknowledges the closeness of MLS classes to this description: “Some students have noted that at least some teachers are lecturing for a fair bit of class time now.” MLS classes can be accurately described as lectures.

Third: Recordings inhibit intellectual exchange. Recordings are already available to significant (though insufficient) numbers of students on the grounds listed above, so making recordings available to the whole cohort would not inhibit staff’s speech. Students are often inaudible on recordings, so lecturers must repeat questions into the microphone. Thus, recording does not deter students who fear being identified on recordings. Rather, a competitive “winners and losers” culture prevents students speaking up: only 47% of JD respondents agreed MLS encourages students to form healthy, supportive relationships with each other.

Fourth: Industry doesn’t like recordings. “[F]eedback from employers, including the legal profession, was supportive of the current policy”. The legal profession has little standing to prescribe pedagogical approaches to reduce distress among law students, graduates, or new lawyers. Australian lawyers are the profession most likely to experience depression and anxiety, and more likely to use alcohol or drugs to cope. Legal education doesn’t “weed out” uncommitted students, or teach students coping skills: unhappy students are becoming unhappy lawyers. Hopefully “employers” consulted by faculty don’t include KWM, facing the first ever WorkSafe investigation into a law firm for allegedly overworking graduates in “gruelling conditions” where grads slept under desks rather than return home.

UMSU Education is campaigning for lecture recordings throughout 2019. To support the campaign, please sign our petition: bit.ly/MLSrecordings.

To support our campaigns for student equity, visit UMSU Education at bit.ly/umsued, on Facebook, and Instagram.

Cam is a Third Year JD Student, and a former De Minimis Sub-Editor (2018)

Other articles in this issue:

Sverre Gunnersen

19/3/2019 05:35:16 pm

Let me start by saying that I support higher availability of lecture recordings, so thank you for pressing this issue again. However, I don't think the Uni is likely to adopt such a policy, and I wonder whether it might be more effective to adopt a more incremental approach, and first push to reduce the number of sick days from 5 to 1? Anyway, that's a strategic question to which there is no right answer.

In any case, you make some good points that need no response, but there are a few things you've said that I think need to be addressed.

"Eligible students may not be requesting recordings, due to stigma."

I think this needs proof. The word "may" undermines the argument.

"must choose between class and work – despite the average Melbourne student suffering rental strain. Unconditional access to recordings supports working students, so nobody is forced to choose between work and study."

I think you will have a hard time persuading the uni that this is something they need to care about. I understand there are equity issues whereby people who have to work to survive are prevented from doing the degree, but that is also an issue with any expensive product in a capitalist market. For instance BMW's are only available to people that can afford them, and just like BMW, Melbourne Uni is catering to that market. There are plenty of Uni's that cater to other markets, so that Uni has a pretty defensible position: We choose to offer a full time degree, if your life commitments prohibit you from doing a full time degree, go do a part time degree with another provider.

"Attendance will decrease. The educational literature considers this argument “largely unsubstantiated” and “rigid”. Use of class recordings has no impact on attendance."

This might be true, but seems to be contradicted by your statement that students "must choose between class and work": if they're currently choosing class over work somtimes, then surely recordings would decrease attendance by at least those that would now choose to go to work instead.

Plus there are studies that came to the exact opposite conclusion: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-018-0275-9

"Second: MLS classes are seminars, not lectures."

Sometimes, I agree. But most of the time I would say that classes are highly interactive, and certainly nothing like the 200-300 student lectures I attended at Monash. Regardless of what the MLS definition is between a Seminar and a Lecture, I think most classes are rightly characterised as seminars. Not to mention that even if that's not the case, the Uni would surely be more interested in making changes to teaching style to make them more seminar-like, rather than giving up on the seminar-style aspiration.

"The legal profession has little standing to prescribe pedagogical approaches to reduce distress among law students, graduates, or new lawyers."

You may not have noticed, but MLS can no longer claim to be a "top 10 Law School". On the ranking system they used to promote we're down to 11. At least they can still say "highest rank law school in the Southern Hemisphere", but even that's at risk because the Uni of Sydney has climbed to 13 (https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2017/law-legal-studies). Now I don't know what SLS's policy is on recordings, but my point is that potential students care about things like this, and part of that ranking system is "employer reputation". By extension, potential students drive the Uni to consider employer reputation. Employers might not have standing "to reduce distress", but they sure do have standing in the sense that potential students push this consideration.

"sickness"

You didn't specifically mention this but I think it needs to be addressed: the current policy forces sick students to come to class, which passes on sickness to others.

Anyway I only point all this out because I love your work and just worry that without addressing these points the argument is more easily dismissed.

Good luck fighting the good fight!

A friend

19/3/2019 05:41:34 pm

Just FYI we're at #6 in the most recent rankings - https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2019/law-legal-studies

Sverre

19/3/2019 05:44:28 pm

Hey go us! Thanks for the correction :-)

Hopefully my error doesn’t undermine my point that employers do have some amount of consideration in uni policy.

Ivory BMW

19/3/2019 09:15:06 pm

Huge issue with your comment about the Melbourne JD being the BMW of law degrees. That is exactly how to maintain societal inequalities - by ensuring that the most prestigious and highly regarded degrees (that often lead to the best jobs) are out of reach of the poor. The cohort's makeup suggests this phenomenon is working, too. If you're just accepting that as a fact of life, rather than seeing the importance of advocating against it, I think that puts into question any benevolent sentiment you may claim

Cameron Doig

19/3/2019 09:37:08 pm

Cosign

20/3/2019 12:11:31 am

“Huge issue with your comment about the Melbourne JD being the BMW of law degrees. That is exactly how to maintain societal inequalities“

I don’t understand how acknowledging a fact: how the university pitches itself, is helping maintain it. I would have thought my $120,000, and your $120,000 (whether taxpayer subsidised or not), is probably doing more to maintain it than merely stating a fact.

“If you’re just accepting that...rather than advocating against it”

Can I not do both? I can verbally advocate for greater equality while also accepting the reality of things.

But to be fair if I REALLY wanted to advocate for greater equality beyond mere words, I wouldn’t have given them $120k, so I guess you’ve got me there! Then again, we’re all guilty of that :p

20/3/2019 04:01:39 pm

"We choose to offer a full time degree, if your life commitments prohibit you from doing a full time degree, go do a part time degree with another provider."

You're not just acknowledging the fact, you're telling people to go to a less reputable university. And all this talk about $120,000 - university fees are standardised across the country for domestic students. That's how much a JD costs, not a Melbourne JD.

You can try and do both, but when you make statements like that you're doing a disservice to your claims to truly care about equity. The way to do both, in my mind, is to say "Yes this is how it is, and it fucking sucks. I will help fight that reality". Not "go do a part time degree".

21/3/2019 10:54:53 am

"You're not just acknowledging the fact, you're telling people to go to a less reputable university."

Minor point: I'm not, I'm saying the Uni has a defensible position.

I suppose that's true. It does happen that the Uni has the best reputation, and it also so happens that the Uni only caters to full time students. But you seem to be suggesting that BECAUSE the Uni has such a good reputation that they're somehow obligated to cater to students that can't do the degree full time? Not to say that's wrong, but why would the Uni's carefully cultivated reputation cause it to incur additional obligations?

Not to mention that the Uni could also argue (possibly incorrectly) that one of the reasons it has such a good reputation is as a result of not offering part time degrees or lectures online. If true (and I wouldn't know), then the demand becomes self-defeating: the very accommodations you demand might result in the Uni not having the best reputation anymore and the point becomes moot.

"And all this talk about $120,000 - university fees are standardised across the country for domestic students. That's how much a JD costs, not a Melbourne JD."

Quite right, but it's more about TO WHO you choose to give the standard cost of the JD. We could have chosen to give it to a Uni that better caters to students that can't do the degree full time, but instead we gave to MLS. In doing so we financially supported the decisions of the Uni to a massive extent that seems to me to go WAY beyond writing critical articles in De Minimis.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's as if we are saying "Look, I don't approve of your [the Uni's] decisions, BUT my self-serving desire to attend a Uni with the greatest prestige has overcome those concerns, so have my $120k."

And maybe that's true. Maybe we care enough about equity to write angry articles in De Minimis, but not enough to give our money to someone else?

Anyway, if you're prepared to break your anonymity, feel free to come find me and talk it over, because I'm still not quite sure how I feel about what obligations a private organisation has to society, but then to what extent Uni's are actually public organisations that have greater obligations.

19/3/2019 09:56:10 pm

Stigma: The evidence cited in the article indicates that Australian law students are poor at acknowledging, self-reporting, and seeking professional help for depression and anxiety. There's no reason why requests for access to recordings would be exempt from this phenomenon.

Work: It's really important that University policy doesn't exclude working students from access to course material on an equal basis to non-working students. Telling working students "vote with your feet" is an unacceptable response to students' valid concerns about access and equity at this University.

Attendance: People already can't go because of work. They should just have access to recordings. That won't decrease attendance, because they already can't go. I also cited a national survey indicating that 43% of postgrad coursework students often need to use online alternatives because of work.

Lecture: MLS classes meet the description in the University's own policy. They're lectures.

Employers: There are crisis levels of depression and anxiety in law schools and the profession. For students, mental health issues are measurably exacerbated by inflexible course structure and content delivery. For lawyers, these issues are exacerbated by overwork and stress. Employers who engage in work practices that harm their employees' mental health are very poorly equipped to make comments on mental health interventions designed to support law students' mental health. The WorkSafe investigation into KWM for alleged overwork of grads is an example of a wider phenomenon.

Jimi

19/3/2019 06:02:17 pm

Here we go again. Besides a DM article, FB posts and covering the building in posters, what action did UMSU actually take last time it campaigned about this?

We were peppered with promises during UMSU elections and then never heard from it again.

I've seen UMSU take the exact same stance for over 3 years now with zero progress. Faculty aren't budging. Maybe it's time to try something new?

Or maybe I'm just getting old and need to accept law school is just a carousel of unchanging issues and repeated DM articles.

19/3/2019 06:09:42 pm

^ This is probably overly negative.

Progress has been made through the LSS ESJ potfolio last year making recordings (slightly) more accessible.

People involved in the UMSU campaign have made genuine efforts to break through, albeit facing a brick wall.

Was just weirded out by the absence of action last semester.

Advocado

19/3/2019 06:59:04 pm

I think the thing is that there really isnt much they can actually do. There's no 'gotcha' provision in university policy that means MLS must record seminars or even record 'lectures' if they were classified as lectures, despite how supporters sometimes present the issue. It basically comes down to the discretion of a few key people in the faculty, so what it really takes is just somebody with particularly strong advocacy skills who can convince them to change their minds.

19/3/2019 09:39:43 pm

Hey Jimi,

UMSU is meeting with the MLS faculty in the next few weeks.

Since late last year, we've collected 500 signatures from students supporting universal access to recordings, which we're going to submit to faculty along with a detailed policy paper on the lines argued in the article above.

We hope to formally raise MLS's lecture recordings as a key barrier to student equity in University boards and committees where students have formal representation.

We would welcome any additional suggestions on productive steps going into the future.

Cheers.

20/3/2019 01:03:55 am

Advocado: Disagree but get your point. I think UMSU's problem is aiming for blanket access to lecture recordings. Try to extend the special consideration recordings to appeases both sides. I do believe there is a middle ground.

Cam: Cheers.

Jimi (Continuing Above...Oops)

20/3/2019 01:10:38 am

Cam: Cheers. Frankly I think some new ideas other than signatures and stern words are needed, but I'll admit none currently come to mind. (The lecture recording panel was kinda cool though)

I do think UMSU could work more on trying to find a middle ground that faculty would be willing to work with. We all know faculty won't budge. In saying this, I do think the LSS/UMSU dual effort has benefits. UMSU pushing the main campus policy (rightly so) and the LSS working on internal special consideration policies.

I genuinely do believe there's an acceptable special consideration policy that is lax enough to not restrict access, but enough of an effort to not make skipping class to appealing.

An example I've liked the sound of is a simple doctors note or statutory declaration. It's not ideal, but it's realistic and practical.
That's the library's procedure re: lost/late books and seems to be pretty effective.

Clare

20/3/2019 10:28:12 am

Firstly, UMSU, GSA and the LSS Equity Portfolio's advocacy on this issue has been invaluable. Thank you for all efforts to keep up the momentum and improve student equity. I thought I'd take the opportunity to share the work done by the LLSN in this space because it is but one example of an approach taken by a student group, lessons from which are useful to the campaign as a whole and future students who take up the challenge.

Universal access / Adjusting Special Consideration: LLSN's policy has been to grant access to recordings if a students misses just ONE day of class (with evidence) rather than grant universal access. We have put this to MLS a number of times and it has been flatly rejected just the same as the universal access option. The key reason given is usually resourcing - it is administratively onerous to process individual applications and money will need to be spent. I don't find that a compelling argument but it nonetheless needs to be addressed by those who take up this cause. In this respect, tweaking Special Con can be as a big an ask as granting universal access.

Stern words / petitions / different approaches: last year the LLSN conducted a survey of over 130 JD students resulting in some compelling stats: 30% of students who missed a class reported that they never caught up, 18% of students said they took actions to catch up on missed material (e.g. getting notes from other students) but this was actually detrimental to their learning and 91% of students reported attending class while sick (read our full report here: https://www.laterlaw.com/lecture-recordings). I took this report to MLS but nothing came of it. I'm sharing it here because the statistics are compelling and could be used by current/future campaigners, and because it is an example of an approach that did not work, at least not on its own.

'Avocado's suggestion that it comes down to changing the minds of a small number of individuals might sound cynical but, after my experience, I tend to agree. And that task likely entails a collective effort from multiple student groups engaged in a diverse array of approaches that will put pressure on MLS, from meetings with faculty behind closed doors, to relentlessly raising the issue in committee meetings and in DM, to petitions, to building an evidence base like what I tried to do through the LLSN, to publicly and loudly condemning MLS vis-a-vis student wellbeing.

20/3/2019 06:41:46 pm

Clare I thought that survey was fantastic and the results were even more stark than I had expected. Disappointing to hear about the outcome.

22/3/2019 10:26:02 am

Thanks Jimmi. And I agree with your doctor's note idea like what they have at the library. Seems like the closest thing to sickleave in a workplace.

Legal Eagle

19/3/2019 09:19:00 pm

We're law students. What about some good old fashioned legal action? Surely there's some basis, not least in the (binding) university policies.

Lss cynic

20/3/2019 09:47:55 am

You got to remember... LSS and UMSU exist for one reason...

PAD resume of people who get 'elected' (trade spots between themselves, get their friends inside LSS to tell them which seats they can run unopposed for, its a scam, notice how there are never election just people are 'announced' as winning their spots in uncontested races? Sounds like whacky mix of hitler's north korea to me.)

and give lss 'DIRECTORS' (they actually call themselves 'the directors' and talk about themselves in third person) special DIRECTOR PRIVILEGE as they get access to STAFF KITCHEN on level 2 and use huge lss office to do study in WHEN NORMAL STUDENTS ARE EXILED TO THE 'INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ZONE' ON LEVEL 3-5!

Why do LSS directors need their own kitchen? is normal student kitchen not good enough for them? maybe that is why they dont FIGHT faculty for us because they are too COMFY with DIRECTOR PRIVILEGE

fight BACK against lss !

Ex-lss, ex-student

20/3/2019 01:51:09 pm

I was on the committee for three years and held a directors position, and this comment is wildly misinformed and inaccurate.

1. Positions which were elected unopposed were genuinely elected unopposed. There is no big conspiracy, its just that no other student ran for that role. The Secretary is the only person who knows the state of the applications before applications close, and are themselves subject to greater directors duties than others by virtue of their role. Do you really think they are running around telling people which positions don't have many applications? I have not seen that once in my time on committee.

2. I don't know if you live under a rock, but there ARE elections for contested positions. Every single year. A non-LSS member is the Returning Officer and faculty help verify the votes.

3. It is not just the LSS (let alone somehow you thinking its just 'directors') who have access to the level 2 kitchen. It is for both journals, GLSA and other societies. The reason we have access to that kitchen is because we all run so many events that we need somewhere to store and prepare food and drinks for STUDENTS.

Please just bother to talk to anyone on the LSS. They take their directors duties very seriously and comments like this genuinely piss me off as someone who, in my time at UoM, saw so many amazing, kind, principled students give up their time and do so much for the MLS community.

Anon

19/3/2019 09:47:00 pm

You are sitting a full time university degree. You should 100% be expected to attend every single class, unless you have some pressing medical issue that needs to be addressed. Oxford University is one of the best university's in the word, and it has a strict policy against work during school terms.

Realist

19/3/2019 09:49:10 pm

You knew seminars won't recorded when you signed up. If you don't like it, there are plenty of law schools in Victoria that will cater to your desires.

Equity?

19/3/2019 10:34:00 pm

As a person who believes that the policy to access lecture recordings should be relaxed, there are two (additional) arguments I would like to raise against having lecture recordings for all.

First: Lecture recordings for all is not 'equitable' as many people claim.
Making lecture recordings available for everyone because people need to work does not level the playing field. All it does is raise the general standards. Sure, people working may be able to catch up with class by listening to the recordings in the evenings. But, being the keen beans that law students are, students with no other responsibilities will only be listening to the recordings over and over again. As a person working two days a week and with a side business of my own, I'm more concerned about how making lecture recordings would just push the bell curve up.

Second: You would not only lose attendance in classes, the current culture of the law school will be impacted.
One of the aspects of MLS I enjoy the most is the fact that we have a vibrant culture, we have tons of interesting seminars during lunchtime and in the evenings, we have competitions going on, and people are involved in student organisations. If we were to make lecture recordings available, disincentivising physical presence in the law school, participation in all these activities will inevitably be severely impacted.

On a final note, I believe this is an ongoing debate that has not been completely resolved within the student body in law school. As such, it actually bothers me that there are stances being taken "representing the student body" demanding lecture recordings to the MLS faculty. Has there been an unbiased effort to measure the stance of the law school student body?

20/3/2019 10:50:39 am

Lecture recordings for all is not 'equitable' as many people claim. Making lecture recordings available for everyone because people need to work does not level the playing field. All it does is raise the general standards': I agree but you seem to only care about the bell curve and grades. I also engaged in paid employment during the JD but what really bothers me is that if I miss a class I am being denied content. This doesn't just sound in grades but my overall learning and personal satisfaction with what I get out of the course. If greater access to recordings means more privileged students can listen to lectures multiple times then so be it because at least I got the chance to listen to the lecture at all.

In answer to your question 'Has there been an unbiased effort to measure the stance of the law school student body?' may I point you to the LLSN's survey from 2018.

While the LLSN does support an expansion of access to class recordings and is therefore biased, the survey nonetheless invited students to say whether they agreed with this or not. The report shows, 'When asked if they agreed with LLSN’s suggested class recording policy, 72% of respondents said yes and 13% said maybe. However, 94% of respondents support access to lecture recordings in some form.' Read the full report here: https://www.laterlaw.com/lecture-recordings

Npj

20/3/2019 09:57:51 pm

Wondered why this lad added me on FB.

To all those saying "new year same debate," this is something of the curse of the 3 year degree, without people sticking around, we don't see the incremental changes.

When I started this in 2016, we didn't have lectures recorded. At all. Now they are almost recorded in line with policy.

More students are aware and our new, merciful ruler is quite open to talking with students, much more so than previous monarchs of the Pelham castle.

One thing that I have always brought up is that it's just uncompetitive in the market. The other law school (and there is only one) records lectures. I have had prospective students turn tail on me at numerous open days when the law school's policy is brought to light. In order to best nurture our students, shouldn't we fill the the seats with the most capable minds?

Comments are closed.

Equity for All: The Need for Lecture Recordings

Archives