04-The Making of Aotearoa - New Zealand Lawyers - A Longitudinal Study of Law Students and Law Gra

The Law Teacher
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ralt20
The making of Aotearoa | New Zealand lawyers:

a longitudinal study of law students and law
graduates
Lynne Taylor, Natalie Baird, Ursula Cheer, Valerie Sotardi & Erik Brogt
To cite this article: Lynne Taylor, Natalie Baird, Ursula Cheer, Valerie Sotardi & Erik Brogt (2023)
The making of Aotearoa | New Zealand lawyers: a longitudinal study of law students and law
graduates, The Law Teacher, 57:3, 309-336, DOI: 10.1080/03069400.2023.2228125
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2023.2228125
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 14 Jul 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 135
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ralt20
THE LAW TEACHER
2023, VOL. 57, NO. 3, 309–336
https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2023.2228125
The making of Aotearoa | New Zealand lawyers:

a longitudinal study of law students and law graduates
a
Lynne Taylor , Natalie Bairda, Ursula Cheera, Valerie Sotardib and Erik Brogtc
a
Faculty of Law, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; bSchool of Educational Studies
and Leadership, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; cOffice of the Deputy Vice-
Chancellor (Academic), University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
From 2014 to 2019 the authors conducted a longitudinal study of a self-selected of
cohort of students enrolled in undergraduate law programmes at three New Zealand
universities. This article reports the experiences and reflections of 75 cohort members
who participated in all seven data collections. By the end of the study, most of the
cohort of 75 were engaged in legal work. Results are discussed in the light of four
factors influencing student persistence, engagement, and self-efficacy. Results provide
data on the nature of participants’ pre-university backgrounds and characteristics; the
nature of formal learning opportunities offered to them while at law school and the
frequency and ways in which they participated in those activities; their relationships
with their teachers and peers; and external events occurring while they were studying
that had an adverse impact on their studies. We cannot offer evidence as to how these
influences combined to influence the persistence, engagement or self-efficacy of
individual students or the wider cohort, but we report commonalities and trends in
responses. Also reported is data relating to the cohorts employment destinations and
experiences. Areas for further, empirical study are identified, including the need for
research on groups under-represented in this cohort.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 16 January 2023; Accepted 19 June 2023
KEYWORDS New Zealand law students; New Zealand law graduates; national longitudinal study
Introduction
Over 2014–2019 the author team conducted a six-year longitudinal study of a self-
selected cohort of Aotearoa | New Zealand law students who were enrolled at the
beginning of 2014 in first-year law programmes at the Universities of Auckland,
Canterbury and Waikato. The participating universities represent half of all New
Zealand law schools.1 We collected data from the cohort via seven online surveys across
CONTACT Lynne Taylor lynne.taylor@canterbury.ac.nz Faculty of Law, University of Canterbury,

Christchurch, New Zealand
1
The law school at the University of Auckland is Aotearoa | New Zealand’s largest law school. The University of
Waikato is one of Aotearoa | New Zealand’s newer law schools. The Universities of Auckland and Waikato are
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and repro
duction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s)
or with their consent.
310 L. TAYLOR ET AL.
each of their years at law school and for up to two years post-law school. We undertook
the longitudinal study in the absence of comprehensive, published data on the
Aotearoa | New Zealand law school experience and beyond. Our aim was to provide
a complete and novel dataset for use by law students (present and future), law teachers,
law schools, the Council of Legal Education (the regulator of Aotearoa | New Zealand
legal education) and the wider legal profession. Throughout the longitudinal study we
have used the higher education literature on student persistence, engagement and self-
efficacy to contextualise the collected data.
This article reports a subset of the data, the experiences and reflections of 75 cohort
members who were sufficiently engaged with the longitudinal study that they com
pleted all seven online surveys. The cohort shared many similarities in terms of demo
graphic backgrounds and experiences so is not necessarily representative of the wider
Aotearoa | New Zealand law student population. However, the commitment of our
cohort to the longitudinal study means that we can present their responses as they
stand and track trends and changes over time. By the time of the last data collection in
2019, most of the 75 were “successful” on several measures. Most had completed a law
degree and had entered the workforce where they were employed in work of a legal
nature. These are objective measures of success for the law schools and universities at
which cohort members were enrolled. It is likely also that many of the cohort saw their
achievements as representing “success” in subjective terms. For example, most were
engaged in work they found satisfying and enjoyable, most intended still to be engaged
in legal work in three years’ time, and most would still choose to study law if they could
go back in time.
Participants who had completed their studies by the end of the longitudinal study
had, by dint of this, exhibited the necessary degree of persistence, engagement with
their studies and self-efficacy to achieve this milestone. We present and discuss the data
provided by participants in the light of four factors identified in higher education
literature as influencing student persistence, engagement and self-efficacy: students’
pre-university backgrounds and experiences; the nature of, and frequency of students’
participation in, the formal learning opportunities on offer to them; students’ relation
ships with lecturers (teachers) and peers; and external life events occurring
while students are studying. Although we cannot report how these influences com
bined to determine persistence, engagement and self-efficacy in individual participants
or the wider cohort, we can and do report commonalities and trends in responses as
they relate to each of these influences. Law teachers and law schools may use this data
to review their practices, and/or inform future developments and research to improve
the experiences of all students.
Although results and findings are based on data collected prior to the Covid-19
pandemic, they nonetheless provide a useful point in time reference. It is also the case
that many of the cohort’s pre-university backgrounds and characteristics (such as
a realistic view of what a legal career involves, and a strong commitment to pursuing
a legal career) remain relevant influences on persistence, engagement and self-efficacy
in the post-Covid-19 learning and teaching environment.
situated in the North Island of Aotearoa | New Zealand. The law school at the University of Canterbury is one of
two law schools situated in the South Island. The participating law schools thus represent a cross-section of
Aotearoa New Zealand law schools.
THE LAW TEACHER 311
The next section describes legal education in Aotearoa | New Zealand. This is
followed by a literature review and description of the longitudinal study methodology.
Results are then presented and discussed. The final section concludes.
Legal education in Aotearoa | New Zealand

An Aotearoa | New Zealand Bachelor of Law degree is a four-year, full-time under
graduate programme of study. Many students complete a law degree concurrently with
another degree, resulting in a five- to five-and-a-half-year, full-time programme of
study. The law degrees offered at the law schools participating in this study are
approved by the New Zealand Council of Legal Education (CLE). Completion of an
approved degree is one of the requirements for admission as a Barrister and Solicitor of
the High Court of New Zealand. Only those admitted may be issued a practising
certificate by the New Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa, and only holders
of a current practising certificate may offer legal services as a lawyer.2
Students enrolled in first-year law programmes complete one prescribed CLE
course, The Legal System, and any other law courses mandated by the universities
at which they are enrolled. Students make up the balance of their first-year
programme with courses from other degree programmes. Obtaining a pass in
first-year law courses is a prerequisite to entry into second-year programmes at
one of the participating law schools (Waikato), with the other two law schools
(Auckland and Canterbury) limiting entry to a specified number of students who
are selected based on results in the first-year law courses. Students study a series
of CLE prescribed courses in their second and third years at law school: Law of
Contract, Law of Torts, Criminal Law, Public Law and Property Law (or both Land
Law and Equity/Law of Succession). To ensure consistency between law schools,3
the CLE controls the content, assessment and outcomes of the compulsory courses.
It issues course prescriptions, specifies minimum assessment requirements (includ
ing a 50% final examination), and appoints moderators to review assessment and
student results.4 Law schools must annually report pass rates and grade distribu
tions in these courses to the CLE. The compulsory courses attract large enrolments
and are taught via lectures (large classes) and tutorials (small classes). Students in
their subsequent years complete a specified number of optional courses, where
enrolment numbers range from 15 to over 200. Some “black-letter law” optional
courses (for example, Legal Ethics, Company Law, Employment Law, Commercial
Law, Family Law and the Law of Evidence) are offered every year by each of the
participating law schools. The range of other optional courses on offer at each law
school depends on the interests of teaching staff, teacher availability, student
demand, and the like. After completion of a law degree, graduates may choose
to complete the Professional Legal Studies Course, a 13-week full-time, skills-based
course. Completion of this course is a further requirement for admission as
a Barrister and Solicitor.5
2
Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (NZ), s 4 (see the definitions of “lawyer”, “legal services” and “legal work”).
3
“Twenty Sixth Report of the New Zealand Council of Legal Education to the House of Representatives” (2016) 5.
4
Professional Examination in Law Regulations 2008 (NZ).
5
Professional Legal Studies Course and Assessment Standards Regulations 2002 (NZ).
Persistence, engagement and self-efficacy

Our first, selected model is Tinto’s interactional model of student persistence.6 Tinto
posits that a student enters university study with a particular background (family,
community, skills and abilities) and this determines their starting intentions and com
mitment to their studies. Once enrolled, the student interacts with their institution’s
academic systems (for example, interactions with faculty and receipt of academic
results) and social systems (for example, interactions with their peer group and parti
cipation in extracurricular activities). Over time, these interactions modify the student’s
intentions and commitment to their studies. Positive (or integrative) interactions rein
force persistence. Negative experiences have the reverse effect and increase the like
lihood of the student leaving university. Recent research reports that the effects of
academic and social interactions are independent so that increasing either is likely to
increase student persistence.7 Tinto also recognises that a student’s university experi
ences do not exist in isolation from their interactions with external communities (for
example, work and family). External interactions may affect a student’s integration into
academic and social systems and, in turn, their persistence. Finally, Tinto and others
have focused on how universities can adapt their systems to accommodate and reflect
the culture and background of all their students.8
Student engagement may be defined as the “time and energy students invest in
educationally purposeful activities and the effort institutions devote to using effective
educational practice”.9 Syntheses of the literature on student engagement across
a variety of different research approaches highlight several law school factors affecting
the quality of student engagement, with positive engagement fostered by students
having positive and constructive relationships with their teachers and peers, and being
encouraged to engage in deep or active learning as opposed to surface or passive
learning.10 Student engagement has been linked with outcomes other than persistence,
such as cognitive and affective development, learning, academic performance,11 and
with students’ perceptions of their readiness to transition to the workforce after
graduation.12
6
Vincent Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (2nd edn, University of
Chicago Press 1993) 114–15. Vincent Tinto, “Research and Practice of Student Retention: What Next?” (2006) 8
Journal of College Retention 1.
7
Daniel Flynn, “Baccalaureate Attainment of College Students at 4-Year Institutions as a Function of Student
Engagement Behaviors: Social and Academic Engagement Behaviors Matter” (2014) 55 Higher Education
Research 467, 487, 490.
8
Tinto, “Research and Practice of Student Retention: What Next?” (n 6) 3; Maureen Snow Andrade and others,
“The Impact of Learning on Student Persistence in Higher Education” (2022) 24 Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 316, 319.
9
George D Kuh and others, “Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and
Persistence” (2008) 79 Journal of Higher Education 540, 542. For a consideration of these factors in a legal education
context, see Amy N Farley and others, “A Deeper Look at Bar Success: The Relationship Between Law Student
Success, Academic Performance, and Student Characteristics” (2019) 16 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 605, 609.
10
Nick Zepke and Linda Leach, “Improving Student Engagement: Ten Proposals for Action” (2010) 11 Active
Learning in Higher Education 167; Katherine Wimpenny and Maggi Savin-Baden, “Alienation, Agency and
Authenticity: A Synthesis of the Literature on Student Engagement” (2013) 18 Teaching in Higher Education 311.
11
Alexander W Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (Jossey-Bass Publishers 1993) 394; Kuh and
others (n 9) 541; Jana Law-Hwa Bowden, Leonie Tickle and Kay Naumann, “The Four Pillars of Tertiary Student
Engagement and Success: A Holistic Measurement Approach” (2021) 46 Studies in Higher Education 1207, 1208.
12
Adēla Garcia-Aracil, Silvia Monteiro and Leandro Almeida, “Students’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness of
Transition to Work after Graduation” (2018) 22 Active Learning in Higher Education 49, 60–61.
THE LAW TEACHER 313
Few would quibble with the proposition that student engagement is the result of the
interplay between the students and the universities at which they are enrolled and students’
pre-university backgrounds and ongoing external interactions while they are studying.
Research into exactly how these factors interact positively or otherwise is ongoing and
has given rise to multiple and increasingly complex models. For example, Australasian
researchers Kahu and Nelson contend that student–institutional interactions lead to four
elements (self-efficacy, emotions, belonging and wellbeing) which operate at the “educa
tional interface” to increase or decrease student engagement.13 Continuing the Australasian
theme, Bowden, Tickle and Naumann define student engagement as “[a] student’s positive
social cognitive, emotional and behavioural investments made when interacting with their
tertiary institution and its focal agents (such as peers, employees and the institution
itself)”.14 They explore how these investments not only are affected by student expectations
and involvement, but are positively linked with student success (which they define as
student wellbeing, self-efficacy, transformative learning and self-esteem) and institutional
reputation.
Kahu and Bowden and others are not the only ones to report a relationship between
engagement and self-efficacy.15 The concept of self-efficacy (or self-belief in one’s
ability to perform a task) derives from social cognitive theory, a psychological perspec
tive on human behaviour. According to Bandura’s framework, individuals strive for
agency or influence over significant life events. Self-efficacy is key to an individual’s
sense of agency and is determined by the interplay between three influences (personal,
environmental and behavioural) each of which affects, and is affected by, the others.16
Schunk and DiBenedetto explain that if a student feels positive about their academic
performance (a personal factor) this influences their behaviour in terms of the effort and
persistence they devote to their studies.17 If that student then receives positive feed
back from a teacher (an environmental influence), this reinforces their positive view of
their performance and hence their self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is reported as strongly
associated with student performance,18 and as linked to student perceptions of their
employability after graduation.19
13
Ella R Kahu and Karen Nelson, “Student Engagement in the Educational Interface: Understanding the
Mechanisms of Student Success” (2018) 37 Higher Education Research & Development 58, 64; Ella Kahu,
Catherine Picton and Karen Nelson, “Pathways to Engagement: A Longitudinal Study of the First-Year Student
Experience in the Educational Interface” (2020) 79 Higher Education 657, 659.
14
Bowden, Tickle and Naumann (n 11) 1209.
15
See Matt Shin and San Bolkan, “Intellectually Stimulating Students’ Intrinsic Motivation: The Mediating
Influence of Student Engagement, Self-Efficacy and Student Academic Support” (2021) 70 Communication
Education 146; Dian-Fu Chang and Wei-Cheng Chien, “Determining the Relationship Between Academic Self-
Efficacy and Student Engagement by Meta-Analysis” in Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on
Education Reform and Modern Management (Atlantis Press 2015) 142; MG Lavasani, J Ejei and M Afsharai, “The
Relationship Between Academic Self-Efficacy and Academic Engagement with Academic Achievement” (2009)
13(3) Journal of Psychology 289.
16
Albert Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Prentice Hall 2006); Albert
Bandura, “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective” (2001) 52 Annual Review of Psychology 1; Dale
H Schunk and Maria K DiBenedetto, “Motivation and Social Cognitive Theory” (2020) 60 Contemporary
Educational Psychology, Article 101832.
17
Schunk and DiBenedetto (n 16). See also M van Dinther, F Dochy and M Segers, “Factors Affecting Students’
Self-Efficacy in Higher Education” (2011) 6 Educational Research Review 95, 96.
18
Kathryn Bartimote-Aufflick and others, “The Study, Evaluation, and Improvement of University Student Self-
Efficacy” (2016) 41 Studies in Higher Education 1918, 1923.
19
Eivis Qenani, Neal MacDougall and Carol Sexton, “An Empirical Study of Self-Perceived Employability:
Improving the Prospects for Student Employment Success in an Uncertain Environment” (2014) 15 Active
Learning in Higher Education 199, 202.
Method
We began by undertaking a literature review of empirical studies and analytical com
mentary relating to legal education. This informed the theoretical models selected to
provide context to our results and the development of a series of online surveys. We
collected data using the online survey software (Qualtrics) available to staff at the
University of Canterbury because of the ease and low cost with which we could
administer online surveys to a large sample group spread across Aotearoa | New
Zealand and analyse the group’s responses.20
At the beginning of the 2014 academic year, we arranged for staff at the participat
ing law schools to promote the study to students in their first-year classes to ensure the
largest possible sample group. The participating universities supplied 1740 first-year
student email addresses to an independent educational research consultant employed
by the author team. The consultant emailed an invitation to participate in the study to
each of the supplied addresses. Seven hundred and eighty-five students agreed to
participate in the study, and the consultant allocated each a digital identifier which was
used to invite participants to complete the first and subsequent online surveys. To
maximise the likely response rate, the consultant emailed participants an update about
the longitudinal study prepared by the author team a short time before sending each
an invitation to complete the second 2014 and subsequent surveys (surveys 2 to 7).
Participants were invited to complete a second survey in the last quarter of 2014
(survey 2), and subsequent surveys in the last quarters of 2015–2019 (surveys 3 to 7).
Participants who completed the 2017 and 2018 surveys (surveys 5 and 6) and who
reported they were in their final year of university study were asked to provide a non-
university address. The consultant then emailed invitations to this address inviting
participants to participate as graduates in the 2018 and/or 2019 surveys (surveys 6 and 7).
The author team received anonymised and collated data from the independent
consultant and could not identify any student responses. This was to ensure there was
no possibility that participation in the study could affect a student’s academic progress.
However, if survey responses showed a student was at risk in terms of their wellbeing,
provision was made for that student to be identified by the consultant and offered help.
Informed by the literature review, the first and subsequent surveys were formulated by
the author team. We formulated questions to collect data relevant to the influences
identified in our selected theoretical models as affecting persistence, engagement and
self-efficacy. The first of these is participants’ pre-university experiences and character
istics, and their expectations of their law studies. As noted above, Tinto’s model of student
persistence theorises that students’ backgrounds determine their starting intentions and
commitment to their studies.21 Students’ backgrounds affect the “interplay” between
them and the universities at which they are enrolled and how they engage with their
studies.22 Students’ self-efficacy when they begin their studies is influenced by their pre-
university behaviours and the environment(s) within which these occurred.23
The second influence is the nature of the formal learning opportunities that law
schools made available to students and the frequency with which and ways in which
students participated in these activities. We collected this data in the second and
20
Alan Bryman, Social Research Methods (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2016) 235.
21
Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (n 6) 115.
22
Kuh and others (n 9) 541–42.
23
Schunk and DiBenedetto (n 16) 3.
THE LAW TEACHER 315
subsequent surveys completed by participants still engaged in university study. Tinto

posits that positive student interactions (or integration) with a university’s formal
academic systems reinforce persistence.24 Participation in deep or active learning
activities is linked to positive student engagement.25 Formal learning opportunities
form part of a student’s learning environment and influence behaviour in terms of effort
and persistence, and how confident the student feels about their studies.26
The third influence was the nature of participants’ relationships with their teachers
and peers. A student’s interaction with their university’s academic systems (including
their formal interactions with their teachers) and social systems (including interactions
with their peers) influences persistence.27 The literature on student engagement links
positive and constructive relationships with teachers and peers with positive
engagement.28 Students’ relationships with their teachers and peers are a further
environmental factor influencing, and in turn influenced by, their behaviour and feel
ings of confidence about their studies.29
The fourth influence on which we collected data was external events occurring in
students’ lives outside university. External events influence persistence30 and
engagement31 and are an environmental influence affecting students’ behaviour in
terms of choice of study activities, the effort they devote to those activities, and their
feelings of confidence about their studies.32
We also collected data focusing on examples of the results of the interplay between
participants’ starting backgrounds, their subsequent interactions with the formal learn
ing opportunities on offer to them, their relationships with their teachers and peers, and
the external events occurring while they were studying. We collected data on partici
pants’ self-study practices, academic outcomes, ongoing commitment to their studies,
feelings of confidence about their studies and future employment prospects, and their
overall satisfaction with their law school experience.
As the longitudinal study extended beyond the time that many participants took to
complete their law studies, we took the opportunity to ask questions designed to
provide a cross-check on the data we collected from them as students. We asked the
post-law school cohort (graduates) to look back and reflect on their law school experi
ence. We also took the opportunity to collect novel data on how they were using their
law degrees, their employment or other destinations, their reflections on their early
career experiences, and their future career plans.
The online surveys included open and closed questions. Most questions were fixed
response closed questions to minimise participants’ survey completion time (and so
maximise response rates) and because we could easily process and analyse responses of
this nature. A series of closed questions were repeated in each survey to enable
a comparison of responses across time.33 Closed questions were supplemented with
a limited number of open questions. Open questions were employed to gauge
24
Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (n 6) 113, 114.
25
Zepke and Leach (n 10) 171.
26
27
Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (n 6) 115–16.
28
Zepke and Leach (n 10) 170–71.
29
30
31
Kuh and others (n 9) 541.
32
33
Bryman (n 20) 247–48.
participants’ feelings about a particular issue and/or where the author team was unsure
of what participants’ responses would be, such as, for example, their positive and
negative workforce experiences. Because of the limited number of open questions,
responses reported in this article were analysed by the author team to identify cate
gories. Responses were then assigned to the identified categories.
The number of study participants in the longitudinal study decreased over time as is
usual with longitudinal studies.34 One hundred and forty-six participants completed the
final survey in 2019 (survey 7). Not all participants completed every survey. As noted
above, this article reports the experiences and reflections of the 75 participants who did
complete every survey. As expected from a cohort who were sufficiently engaged with
the longitudinal project to complete every survey, their response rates to individual
questions were high. Results are presented as participants reported them.
In addition to the uniqueness of our cohort of 75 as persisting and successful
students and graduates, we acknowledge some limitations to the study and our results.
As email invitations were sent to participants’ university email addresses, subsequent
invitations only reached those who were continuing their studies at the university at
which they were enrolled in 2014. Only those graduates who provided a non-university
email address in their final year of university study were invited to complete the 2018
and 2019 surveys as graduates.
Another limitation is that the data collected is the self-reported experiences and reflec
tions of a self-selected cohort. The non-response bias is unknown. For example, we do not
know the extent to which participants (intentionally or unintentionally) provided inaccurate
or incomplete information. We do not know the extent to which their responses differ from
those of students who chose not to participate in the survey but completed a law degree
and entered the workforce. We also do not know the extent to which their responses differ
from those of students who did not complete their law studies.
We undertook the longitudinal study following protocols approved by the University
of Canterbury’s Educational Research Human Ethics Committee.
Results
Results are presented in six parts. We begin with the influences affecting persistence,
engagement and self-efficacy, that is, participants’ backgrounds and characteristics,
formal learning opportunities, relationships with teachers and peers, and external events
affecting participants’ studies. This is followed by some examples of results of the inter
play of these influences. The sixth and final part presents data relating to participants’
post-law school experiences, and their reflections, looking back, on those experiences.
By way of context, the cohort of 75 participants were all engaged in university study from
2014 to 2017 (surveys 1 to 5). Numbers still at university decreased over 2018 (n = 46) (survey
6) and 2019 (n = 16) (survey 7). Responses from the small sample group in 2019 may not
necessarily be representative. From 2017 onwards, participants still at university included
those in their final year of study: in 2017 (n = 28) (survey 5), in 2018 (n = 25) (survey 6) and in
34
Publications reporting on other aspects of the longitudinal study include Lynne Taylor and others, “The
Student Experience at New Zealand Law Schools” [2018] New Zealand Law Review 693; Valerie Sotardi and
others, “Influences on Students’ Interest in a Legal Career, Satisfaction with Law School, & Psychological
Distress: Trends in New Zealand” (2022) 56 The Law Teacher 67; Lynne Taylor and others, “What Happens after
Graduation? The Post-Law Experiences and Reflections of Aotearoa, New Zealand Law Graduates” (2023) 10
Asian Journal of Legal Education 43.
THE LAW TEACHER 317
2019 (n = 9) (survey 7). Data on participants’ post-law school experiences was collected in
2018 (n = 28) and 2019 (n = 59).
Background and characteristics

Data on participants’ demographic backgrounds and characteristics was collected at
the beginning of 2014 (survey 1), together with data on participants’ reported starting
intentions and commitment to their law studies, and how confident they felt about
undertaking those studies.
Demographic data
Participants were studying at the University of Auckland, the University of Canterbury
and the University of Waikato when the longitudinal study began. Most were enrolled
at the University of Auckland, New Zealand’s largest law school: 49% (n = 37). Just over
30% were enrolled at the University of Canterbury (n = 23) and 20% at the University
of Waikato (n = 15). As we collected results from several categories of students
(continuing students, final year students and graduates), numbers from some law
schools in some groups were too small to generate statistically robust results. For this
reason, we have not included an analysis of responses by law school. Readers inter
ested in this detail may refer to a separately published longitudinal analysis of the
responses of Auckland, Canterbury and Waikato students.35 In any event, one of the
key findings of the longitudinal study is that law students’ experiences at law school
are generally consistent across the participating law schools.36 This is not surprising
given the CLE mandated consistency in courses and outcomes over participants’ first
three years at law school.
Thirty-six per cent of participants (n = 27) were male and 64% (n = 48) were female.
The greater proportion of female participants is consistent with actual enrolments at
New Zealand law schools.37 Participants were able to select an “other, please explain”
option in relation to their gender, but none of the cohort of 75 selected this option.
In many other respects, participants had similar backgrounds. A majority (63%, (n = 47))
identified as New Zealand European | Pākehā, with 5% (n = 4) identifying as Māori38 and 1%
(n = 1) identifying as Pasifika.39 New Zealand European | Pākehā, Māori and Pasifika are
three large ethnic groups within the Aotearoa | New Zealand population, with New Zealand
European | Pākehā making up approximately 68% of the population, Māori approximately
16% and Pasifika approximately 7%.40 We have not analysed responses by ethnicity
35
See Taylor and others, “The Student Experience at New Zealand Law Schools” (n 34).
36
See Lynne Taylor and others, “The Making of Lawyers: Expectations and Experiences of First Year New Zealand
Law Students” (Ako Aotearoa 2015); Lynne Taylor and others, “The Making of Lawyers: Expectations and
Experiences of Second Year New Zealand Law Students” (Ako Aotearoa 2016); Lynne Taylor and others, “The
Making of Lawyers: Expectations and Experiences of Third Year New Zealand Law Students” (Ako Aotearoa
2017); Lynne Taylor and others, “The Making of Lawyers: Expectations and Experiences of Fourth Year New
Zealand Law Students” (Ako Aotearoa 2018); Lynne Taylor and others, The Making of Lawyers: Expectations and
Experiences of Fifth Year New Zealand Law Students and Recent New Zealand Law Graduates (Ako Aotearoa
2019); Lynne Taylor and others, The Making of Lawyers: Expectations and Experiences of Sixth Year Aotearoa |
New Zealand Law Students and Recent Law Graduates (Ako Aotearoa 2020).
37
Geoff Adlam, “Snapshot of the Profession 2019” [2019] 926 Lawtalk 27, 30.
38
Māori are the indigenous population of New Zealand.
39
Participants who identified as being Pacific Peoples, that is, of Pacific origin.
40
See <www.stats.govt.nz/news/ethnic-group-summaries-reveal-new-zealands-multicultural-make-up/> accessed
12 December 2022.
because numbers of participants in most ethnic groups except New Zealand European |
Pākehā were too small to be representative.
Just under 87% (n = 65) of participants identified as New Zealand citizens, with 12%
(n = 9) identifying as New Zealand permanent residents, and just one as an international
student.
Sixty-eight per cent (n = 51) reported that they were at high school in the year
immediately before starting university, with a further 7% (n = 5) undertaking a gap year
before commencing their university studies. Consequently, most participants were
young when the study began in 2014 with 82.7% (n = 62) aged 20 or below.
A majority were studying full-time in 2014: 88% (n = 66). This proportion increased
between 2015 and 2018, before dropping back to 85.7% (n = 12) in 2019. Most
participants (62.9% (n = 44)) were studying for a double or concurrent degree.
A Bachelor of Arts was the most popular second degree (n = 21), followed by
a Bachelor of Commerce (n = 15).
Ninety-two per cent of participants (n = 69) did not have a disability that affected
their studies.
There was more divergence in the reported highest qualification of participants’
parents. Just under 52% (n = 39) reported in 2014 that their mother’s highest qualifica
tion was a university degree or higher, with 36% (n = 27) reporting that this was so for
their father. Approximately 25% reported that their mother’s or father’s highest quali
fication was a school qualification, suggesting that a substantial minority of the cohort
were likely the first in their family to attend university. Sixty-eight per cent (n = 51)
reported that no one in their family had a law degree, making them the first in their
family to study law.
Starting commitment to studies and a legal career

We asked participants in the first 2014 survey (survey 1) what their reasons were for
enrolling in a law degree. Participants were given eight options from which to select
and could select more than one option. Overall responses indicated that it was parti
cipants’ own decision to study law, rather than because they had a family connection to
the law or because they were following a suggestion from a parent or teacher. The three
most frequently selected options indicated that participants were primarily motivated
by altruistic reasons: “I am passionate about justice and the law” was selected by 57%, “I
want to make a difference” by 57%, and “I want to help people” by 53%. More pragmatic
reasons also attracted reasonably high response rates: “It is a well-paid career” was
selected by 48%, and “It is a good, steady profession” by 44%.
A second question asked participants to select their level of interest in pursuing
a legal career on a five-point Likert scale where point one represented “no interest” and
point five represented that the participant was “very interested”. A majority (91%)
selected points four (“quite interested”) and five (“very interested”).
We asked participants to indicate their preferred career options. Participants answer
ing this question were able to select from a range of options and could select more than
one option. The most frequently selected option (72%) was working for a law firm in
private practice followed by a government position (53%), working as an in-house
lawyer for an employer that is not a law firm (32%), and working for an NGO/commu
nity-based organisation (27%).
THE LAW TEACHER 319
The final question in this section asked participants to identify the areas of law in
which they had an interest from a given list. The most popular options selected by
participants were criminal law/criminal justice, international law and public law.
Self-confidence
As a measure of participants’ self-efficacy levels at the start of their law studies, we
asked how confident they were about studying at university. A majority (56%) selected
point four representing “confident” on a five-point Likert scale. A further 12% selected
point five, indicating that they felt “very confident”. Twenty-five per cent selected the
mid-point three, and just 7% selected point two.
Formal learning opportunities

This section reports data on the frequency with which the cohort reported participating
in the formal learning opportunities on offer to them (lectures and tutorials), and the
nature of the activities in which they chose to participate.
Frequency of participation in formal learning opportunities

From 2015 onwards (surveys 3 to 7), participants were asked to report their lecture
attendance rates. As Figure 1 below shows, most participants reported high attendance
rates (81–100%) throughout their time at law school.
Data was also collected on participants’ tutorial attendance rates in 2015 (survey 3).
As with lectures, participants reported high attendance levels with 81% attending 81–
100 tutorials.
Nature of learning opportunities and choice of activities

Data collected in 2015 and 2016 (surveys 3 and 4) probed what participants regularly
did in a typical second-year law lecture in 2015 and in a large class lecture in 2016. These
were the years when participants would have been completing the large, compulsory
courses. Participants’ most frequently reported activities suggest that the primary
purpose of large lectures was information transfer. The most frequently reported
90
80
70
60
50
2015
40
2016
30 2017
20 2018
2019
10
0
81-100% 61-80% 41-60% 21-40% 0-20%
Figure 1. Survey 3 2015, survey 4 2016, survey 5 2017, survey 6 2018 and survey 7 2019: reported lecture
attendance rates (percentage).
activity in 2015 and 2016 was listening to what the lecturer had to say (83% in 2015 and
85% in 2016). Most participants also reported taking notes, with more taking notes on
an electronic device than by hand. Many reported engaging in non-class-related
activities, such as accessing the internet and contacting others. Many also reported
engaging in active learning activities, although at less frequent rates than they reported
listening and taking notes. Asking questions of the lecturer was reported by 12% in
2016 and 13% in 2016, answering questions asked by the lecturer by 24% in 2015 and
27% in 2017, participating in lecturer-directed group activities by 32% in 2015 and 29%
in 2016, and participating in lecturer-directed individual activities by 16% in 2015 and
41% in 2016.
We continued to explore the nature of participants’ experiences during face-to-face
classes as their studies progressed. In 2016 (survey 4), participants were asked what
activities they regularly engaged in during small classes. Although most reported that
they listened to what the lecturer had to say and took notes, greater numbers (when
compared to reported activities in large classes) reported engaging in active learning
activities, including asking questions of the lecturer (49%), answering questions asked
by the lecturer (62%), participating in lecturer-directed group activities (64%) and
participating in lecturer-directed individual activities (52%). A smaller number reported
regularly engaging in non-class-related activities.
Participants could only engage in interactive learning activities during classes if
teachers provided such opportunities. In 2017 (survey 5), participants were asked to
indicate on a five-point Likert scale how often interactive activities occurred in their
lectures. Participants at this stage of their law studies would have been largely enrolled
in optional courses with class numbers varying from 15 to over 200. The most frequently
selected response was “sometimes”, the midpoint selection (43%), with 33% selecting
the “often” or “very often” options, and 17% the “rarely” option. No participant selected
the “never” option. When participants were asked how often they participated in the
interactive activities that were on offer, the most frequently selected option was again
the mid-point (32%). More selected the “never” or “rarely” options (36%), than the
“often” or “very often” options (31%).
We asked participants in the 2017 survey (survey 4) to explain their reasons for
participating (or not) in interactive activities. Some gave more than one reason. Twenty
reasons were given for why participants chose to participate. “It is helpful for my
learning” or similar was the most frequent response, followed by it depending on
whether they knew the answer. Some reported that they enjoyed it. Others noted
that they preferred to contribute to smaller classes where they felt more confident.
There were 39 responses giving reasons for non-participation in interactive activities.
Not feeling comfortable was the most frequently given reason, with some explaining
they did not feel comfortable participating in large classes. A fear of getting an answer
wrong or not knowing the answer was referenced by some, with others reporting that
they did not enjoy it. Individual responses included the seating in lecture theatres not
making interaction easy, not knowing the students sitting next to them, not being given
enough time to participate, and, finally, that the given opportunities were not very
interesting and “a bit token”.
Data on participants’ experiences in tutorials was collected in 2015 (survey 3).
Supporting tutorial programmes are offered in each of the LLB compulsory courses at
the participating universities but are not consistently offered for optional courses. When
asked what activities they regularly engaged in in a second-year law tutorial, most (89%)
THE LAW TEACHER 321
reported that they listened to what the tutor had to say, but far more reported
participation in active learning activities such as asking questions of the tutor (54%),
answering questions asked by the tutor (77%), participating in tutor-directed group
activities (81%) and participating in tutor-directed individual activities (52%). Far fewer
reported engaging in non-class-related activities during tutorials.
Relationships with lecturers (teachers) and peers

Relationships with lecturers
We collected data on participants’ reported interactions with their lecturers in each of
the 2015–2019 surveys (surveys 3 to 7), as a further indicator of the nature of their
integration into and engagement with the formal learning systems at the law schools at
which they were enrolled,41 and of how their learning environment might affect their
behaviour (study practices) and self-efficacy.42 As Figure 2 below illustrates, most
participants reported a range of different forms of contact with lecturers, with non-
face-to-face contact via email being the most frequently reported form of contact over
time. There was also a trend of increases in all forms of contact until 2017, after which
numbers of participants still at law school had decreased. Numbers reporting no
contact with their lecturers except through attending class peaked at 32% in 2016,
before dropping to 23% in 2017, 9% in 2018 and 3% in 2019.
Participants’ reported contact with their lecturers did not result in many feeling
that their lecturers knew them. Participants were asked how many of their lecturers
they thought knew them in the 2017–2019 surveys (surveys 5 to 7) by selecting
one of five points on a Likert scale. As Figure 3 below illustrates, many participants
70
60
50
40
2015
30
2016
20
2017
10
2018
0
Asking Via Recorded Office Email Phone Social No Other
2019
questions online lectures hours contact
after learning except
lecture platform through
attending
lectures
Figure 2. Survey 3 2015, survey 4 2016, survey 5 2017, survey 6 2018 and survey 7 2019: participants’ reported
contact with lecturers (percentage).
41
Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (n 6) 115–16; Zepke and Leach (n 10)
170–71.
42
50
45
40
35
30 2017
25
2018
20
15 2019
10
5
0
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Figure 3. Survey 5 2017, survey 6 2018 and survey 7 2019: how many of your lecturers do you think know you?
(percentage).
selected the option indicating they felt that between 0 and 20% of their lecturers
knew them.
Relationships with peers

We tracked participants’ reported contact with their peers across time in both formal
learning and social situations. In 2015 (survey 3), 35% of participants reported studying
with others, as did 43% in 2018. In 2017 and 2018 (surveys 5 and 6) we asked participants to
categorise the frequency of their interactions with their peers outside class for study-related
purposes on a five-point Likert scale. Small numbers indicated that they “never” had this
form of contact (4% in 2017 and 7% in 2018). Just over a quarter reported that they “rarely”
engaged with their peers for study-related purposes (27% in 2017 and 26% in 2018). The
most frequently selected option in 2017 was the mid-point “sometimes” (30%), with “often”
selected by 22% and “very often” by 16%. The order of selected options varied in 2018 with
28% selecting “sometimes”, 30% selecting “often” and 9% selecting “very often”.
Participants reported greater frequency of contact with their peers outside class for
social purposes. A majority selected the “often” or “very often” options on a five-point
Likert scale (58% in 2017 (survey 5) and 54% in 2018 (survey 6)). A reasonable propor
tion selected the “midpoint” option (18% in 2017 and 22% in 2018), but a sizable
minority selected the “rarely” or “never” options (24% in 2017 and 2018).
External influences
In the second 2014 survey (survey 2), participants were asked to identify the factors that
had adversely affected their studies, a factor identified in higher education literature as
affecting student persistence and engagement.43 External events also form part of
a student’s environment and so influence behaviour and self-efficacy. The most fre
quently occurring responses were used to generate a list of options from which
students could select in each of the 2015–2019 surveys (surveys 3 to 7). Participants
were able to select more than one response. The four most frequently selected
43
Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (n 6) 116; Kuh and others (n 9) 541.
THE LAW TEACHER 323
responses across all years (although the order in which they ranked varied) were
personal issues, health issues, work issues and family issues. The consistently high
ranking of “family issues” may be explained by responses to a 2017 question (survey
5) asking participants what their living arrangements had been that year, their fourth,
and for some their final, year of university study. A significant proportion (35%) were
living with their parents, while 38% were living with flatmates.
“Financial issues” was one of the lower ranked “adverse factors” affecting partici
pants’ studies each year even though participants reported, as we expected, increasing
levels of student debt across time. The most frequently reported level of debt reported
by participants in 2014 (survey 2) was between $NZ5001 and $10,000. This increased to
between $NZ40,001 and $50,000 in 2018 (survey 6).
To gauge the extent to which external and law school-related factors were adversely
affecting participants’ studies, we asked an open question of participants in 2016 (survey
4): “What factors most adversely affect your mental wellbeing on a regular basis?”
Responses were evenly split between outside factors and university/law school factors.
Assessment pressure was the most frequently cited law school-related factor, with the
next being workload and/or managing workload alongside outside responsibilities. There
was greater variety in outside factors, but not getting enough sleep or being tired was the
most frequent answer (although we accept this could be linked to what was happening
to participants at university). Other factors mentioned included family, finances, friend
ships/relationships, health, personal issues and concern about the future.
Examples
In this part we report some examples of results of the interplay between the four
influences reported above. These include participants’ reported self-study practices,
academic outcomes, feelings of confidence about their studies, ongoing commitment
to their studies and a legal career, and confidence in terms of preparedness to join the
workforce and finding employment. We also include data on participants’ overall
reported satisfaction with their law school experiences.
Self-study practices
From 2015 onwards (surveys 3 to 7), we asked participants to report the average hours
they spent on self-study for each of the law courses in which they were enrolled, as an
indicator of the time and effort they were devoting to their studies. As Figure 4 below
shows, the most frequently selected option across in 2015–2017 was between three and
five hours per week, with between six and eight hours the most frequently selected
option in 2018 and 2019 (the years when numbers of participants still at university had
decreased).
We also asked participants what activities they regularly engaged in when focusing
on their law studies outside classes across 2015–2018 (surveys 3 to 6). Participants were
provided with a list of seven options from which to select and could select more than
one option. The most frequently selected activity across time was writing up lecture
notes, but significant numbers reported they had engaged with primary materials such
as reading cases (71% in 2015; 78% in 2016; 69% in 2017; 48% in 2018) and legislation
(51 in 2015; 44% in 2016; 39% in 2017; 28% in 2018). Significant numbers also reported
reading legal texts or journal articles (43% in 2015; 55% in 2016; 63% in 2017; 40% in
2018).
40
35
30
2015
25
20 2016
15 2017
10 2018
5 2019
0
0-2 hours 3-5 hours 6-8 hours 9-10 hours More than 10
hours
Figure 4. Survey 3 2015, survey 4 2016, survey 5 2017, survey 6 2018 and survey 7 2019: average hours spent on
each enrolled course each week (percentage).
Academic outcomes
Participants’ reported grades were generally high across time. A majority
reported receiving “B” grades: 57.7% in 2016, 61.1% in 2017, 71.1% in 2018
and 54.5% in 2019. Thirty-eight per cent reported receiving “A” grades in 2016,
34.7% in 2017, 26.7% in 2018 and 45.5% in 2019. The frequency with which
participants reported receiving “A” grades exceeds what the author team under
stands to be the norm across Aotearoa | New Zealand law schools. Our under
standing is derived not only from our experiences as teachers at the University of
Canterbury, but as moderators of the assessment programmes in courses offered
at the other participating universities.
Confidence of academic success

Participants reported generally high levels of confidence in undertaking university
study in the first 2014 survey (survey 1). In this section we report participants’ responses
to questions probing their confidence levels in terms of academic outcomes across their
time at law school.
At two of the participating law schools, students face a hurdle in gaining entry
to second-year programmes in that they must rank sufficiently highly in overall
assessment results to be within the limited number who receive offers of entry
into second-year law programmes. By the time of the second 2014 survey (survey 2),
most participants expected to be admitted to second-year law, although 24%
indicated they did not know whether they would do well enough to gain entry
to second year. Those who were unsure of their performance in 2014 did none
theless gain entry to second-year law. When participants were asked how they were
finding second-year law in 2015 (survey 3), just over 81% reported that it was “ok”,
or they were having “few problems”. Just under 18% reported that they were
“overwhelmed” or finding it “difficult”, although they too persisted with their law
studies (and the longitudinal study).
Across time, as Figure 5 below illustrates, most participants were “confident” or “very
confident” across their time at university that they would pass their law courses each year.
Most also, as Figure 6 below shows, reported that their results, on average, were
about what they expected.
THE LAW TEACHER 325
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Not confident at A bit confident Neutral Confident Very confident
all
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 5. Confidence in passing law courses: survey 3 2015, survey 4 2016, survey 5 2017, survey 6 2018
(percentage).
70
60
50 2015
40 2016
30 2017
20
2018
10
2019
0
Much lower Lower than About Higher than Much higher
than expected expected expected expected than expected
Figure 6. Survey 3 2015, survey 4 2016, survey 5 2017, survey 6 2018 and survey 7 2019: did results received
reflect, on average, participants’ expectations? (percentage).
Ongoing commitment to studies and a legal career

Having reported initial data on participants’ starting commitment to their law studies and
a legal career in 2014 (survey 1), and data on the nature of participants’ law school
experiences, we now report responses to several repeated questions measuring whether
participants’ strong starting commitments altered across their time at law school.
The question asking participants what their reasons were for studying law in 2014
(survey 1) was repeated in 2016 (survey 4) when most would have been at the mid-point
of their university studies. An altruistic reason, “I am passionate about law and justice”,
remained the most frequently selected option (58.7%). Whereas altruistic reasons made
up the top three selections in 2014, a pragmatic reason, “It is a well-paid career”, moved
into second place (57.3%) in 2016. Altruistic reasons still ranked highly: “I want to help
people” and “I want to make a difference” ranked equal third in 2016 (52%), closely
followed by a pragmatic choice, “It is a good, steady profession” (48%).
A second repeated question asked across 2015–2019 (surveys 3 to 7) asked parti
cipants to select their level of interest in pursuing a legal career on a five-point Likert
scale where point one represented “no interest” and point five represented extreme
interest. As Figure 7 below illustrates, the high level of interest that participants
60
50 2014
40 2015
30 2016
20
2017
10
2018
0
Not interested A bit Neutral Quite Very 2019
interested interested interested
Figure 7. Survey 1 2014, survey 3 2015, survey 4 2016, survey 5 2017, survey 6 2018 and survey 7 2019: how
interested are you at this stage of your studies in pursuing a legal career? (percentage).
reported at the beginning of their studies was replicated across the duration of their
university studies.
We also tracked participants’ preferred legal career options across 2015–2019 (sur
veys 3 to 7). Participants answering this question were able to select from a range of
options and could select more than one option. Participants’ most frequently selected
choice in 2014 (survey 1), working for a law firm in private practice, remained the most
frequently selected option across participants’ time at law school. Approximately 70%
of participants selected this option over time. As was also the case in the survey 1
responses, this option was followed by a government position, working as an in-house
lawyer for an employer that is not a law firm, and working for an NGO/community-
based organisation.
A final question repeated across 2015–2019 (surveys 3 to 7) asked participants to
identify the areas of law in which they had an interest from a given list. Over partici
pants’ time at university there was a shift in preferred options from the public/interna
tional law options they most frequently selected in 2014 (survey 1) to areas of private
practice, although criminal law remained a popular choice for a longer period. The top
choice in 2014, criminal/criminal justice, remained the top choice in 2015 (survey 3) and
2016 (survey 4) but was overtaken by company/commercial in 2017 (survey 5). By 2018
(survey 6) and 2019 (survey 7), company/commercial law, employment law and intel
lectual property were the top three choices.
Employment arrangements and preparedness to join the workforce

We asked participants who identified as being in their final year at law school across
2017–2019 (surveys 5 to 7) a series of questions about their post-law school employ
ment plans and expectations. Twenty-eight students completed this section in 2017
(survey 5), 25 in 2018 (survey 6) and nine in 2019 (survey 7). Their combined responses
are summarised below.
The first question we asked was whether they had employment arranged for after
they left law school. A minority reported having employment arranged: 38% reported
that they had law-related employment arranged, and 5% indicated they had non-law-
related employment arranged. The majority (57%) indicated they did not have employ
ment arranged. Participants supplied this data in the last quarter of the year, a relatively
short time before they would have anticipated completing their university studies.
Those who reported having arranged law-related employment were asked the nature
THE LAW TEACHER 327
of their employment. Seventy-one per cent reported they had employment arranged
with a law firm, 7% were starting a government position, 7% had work arranged as an
in-house lawyer with an employer that was not a law firm, 3% with an NGO/community-
based organisation, and 13% selected the “other” category.
Thirty-four participants answered a question directed at those who had indicated
they had no employment arranged. They were asked how confident they felt about
obtaining employment and could select from five options on a Likert scale ranging from
“not confident at all” to “very confident”. The most frequently selected option (38%) was
the “not confident at all” option, with 29% selecting the “a bit confident” option, 24%
the “neutral” option, and 9% the “confident” option.
All participants were asked to respond to a question asking how prepared they felt to
join the workforce. Students’ perceptions of readiness to join the workforce are linked to
positive student engagement44 and self-efficacy.45 Participants were given five responses
to choose from on a Likert scale ranging from “not prepared at all” to “very prepared”.
Fourteen per cent selected the “not prepared at all” option, 30% the “a bit prepared
option”, 14% the “neutral” option, 30% the “prepared” option and 12% the “very pre
pared” option. Overall, 42% felt “prepared” or “very prepared” to join the workforce.
Satisfaction with law school experience

We collected data on participants’ overall assessment of their law school experience
each year that they were at university. As Figure 8 below shows, most participants
reported themselves “satisfied” with their law school experience across time.
Graduates
In the 2018 and 2019 surveys (surveys 6 and 7) we collected data from those who had
completed their LLB degree. Twenty-eight participants had completed their law studies
at the time of the 2018 survey, and 59 at the time of the 2019 survey. We present data
on how they were using their law degrees (or not), including their employment
80.00%
70.00%
60.00% 2014
50.00% 2015
40.00% 2016
30.00%
2017
20.00%
2018
10.00%
0.00% 2019
Very Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very
dissatisfied satisfied
Figure 8. Survey 2 2014, survey 3 2015, survey 4 2016, survey 5 2017, survey 6 2018 and survey 7 2019:
satisfaction with law school experience (percentage).
44
Garcia-Aracil, Monteiro and Almeida (n 12).
45
Bartimote-Aufflick and others (n 18).
destinations and workplace experiences. We also present data on their future career
plans, and on the results of a subset of questions designed to provide a cross-check on
the data collected from them as students and relating to their law school experiences.
Employment destinations
By the time of the 2019 survey (survey 7), almost all graduates reported that they were
employed (91.5%). Consistent with their expressed intentions throughout their time at
law school, a majority (56%) reported they were employed by a law firm, 28% by
a government department, with 17% selecting the “other” option. Those who selected
the “other” option described their employer/employment as bank, company that sells
power tools, landscaping company, professional services firm, casual researcher, immi
gration adviser and self-employed.46
We asked those who were engaged in law-related work in 2019 (survey 7) to describe
the nature of their job/work. Sixty-one per cent indicated that they were employed in
a law firm and of these, 15% described their work as “solicitor” or “law clerk”. Others
were more specific. A further 15% were engaged in corporate/commercial work, with
10% working in dispute resolution/litigation, 4% in criminal defence work, 4% in
employment law, 4% in banking/financial services and 2% in each of construction
law, public/constitutional, tax, Treaty of Waitangi settlements and family law. The
most frequently reported area of speciality, company/commercial law, was consistent
with the area of law most participants indicated they were interested in at the end of
their law studies.
Responses to a question asking participants in 2019 (survey 7) how frequently they
used their law degree in their employment confirmed that most were using their degree
at least some of the time. A majority (46%) reported that they used their degree “all the
time”, 17% reported using it 75% of the time, 20% used their law degree 50% of the
time, 7% used it 25% of the time and 9% used their law degree “not at all”.
Reflections on early career workplace experiences

There was a degree of synergy between participants’ reported reasons for studying law
while students and the responses given by the 53 employed graduates who responded to
an open question in the 2019 survey (survey 7) asking them what they found most
fulfilling about their work. Participants’ responses clustered around themes, but the most
frequently given response referenced the working with and helping clients, with a further
two referencing they felt they were making a difference. A small number reported
themselves fulfilled by their pay rate or by the fact that they now had an income.
A second open question asked participants who were employed to describe the
culture of their workplace, with “culture” defined as “how employees interact with each
other and management”. Most responses were very positive such as, for example:
“amazing”, “amicable”, “friendly”, “inclusive”, “positive”, “encouraging”, “social”,
“great”, “helpful”, “supportive”, “tight-knit”, “collaborative”, “caring”, “good” and
“relaxed”. Two responses were mixed, describing a collegial working environment,
but also an expectation of what one described as “unnecessary expectations to stay
late”. There were four negative responses: “very hierarchical”, “competitive”, “can be
snarky and elitist” and “Awful. I have been stood over and abused on more than one
46
Two other participants referred to their employer by name. We have not included these because of the
possibility that some readers may be able to identify the participants.
THE LAW TEACHER 329
occasion by colleagues with no acknowledgement from management or attempt to fix

the situation”. It was not possible to ascertain whether the negative responses were
from participants engaged in law-related work and, if they were, the nature of the
employer.
Future career plans

Overall, a high proportion were pursuing or intending to engage in a legal career, as
many had indicated they intended throughout their time at university. Eighty-one
per cent reported in 2019 (survey 7) that they had completed or intended to complete
the Professional Legal Studies Course, a prerequisite for admission as a Barrister and
Solicitor in New Zealand.
We also asked participants a series of reflective questions in 2019 (survey 7) focusing
on their future employment and/or career plans. The first of these was an open
question: “Where do you see yourself three years from now?”. A majority (64%) indi
cated they would still be working in the law. A number indicated they intended to be
employed but did not specify the type of work they saw themselves doing, so it is
possible that some in this group were also intending to pursue a legal career. A minority
(9%) specified an option that was not law related.
Reflections on law school

As most participants had experience of a workplace culture, they were able to provide
a comparative perspective to a question asking them to look back and describe the
culture of the law school that they attended. “Culture” was defined as “how students
and staff interact with each other”. Positive descriptions outnumbered negative ones,
but not by a large margin. Positive descriptions frequently referenced the positive
relationships they had enjoyed (“students were willing to work together”, “lecturers
and most students were supportive”, “collaborative and generally people willing to
help”, “helping each other” and “people supported each other”). There was a clear trend
in the negative responses with many referring to the “cliquey” nature of law school.
Small numbers described the culture as “stressful”, “elitist” or “competitive”.
We asked graduates a further open question in 2019 (survey 7): “Looking back, what
could your law school have done to improve your student experience?” Responses were
clustered around three key themes. The first was that law schools should provide
students with more information about life after law school, including job opportunities.
Related to the first was a request for more practically based content, assessment and
skills. Building better connections between students was requested by some, and
others suggested that nothing needed to be done. Other responses given by small
numbers included more support for mature students, more assistance with assess
ments, listening to student concerns, making a greater contribution to the student
body, and making law school “not so pressured”.
We also asked participants in 2019 (survey 7) whether they would choose to study
law if they could go back in time. Participants were able to select from five options on
a Likert scale. The majority (52%) selected the “definitely yes” option, 29% opted for
“probably yes”, 9% were “not sure”, 7% selected the “probably not” option and 3% the
“definitely not” option.
Finally, we asked graduates to look back and assess how satisfied they were with
their law school experience in 2019 (survey 7). Results did not change markedly from
participants’ responses to this question as students. Just over 20% reported themselves
“very satisfied”, 53% were “satisfied”, 16% were “neutral” and 10% were “dissatisfied”.
Discussion
At the outset, we remind readers that the cohort of 75 whose experiences and reflec
tions are reported in this article share many demographic similarities and so are not
necessarily representative of the wider Aotearoa | New Zealand law student population.
Additionally, although the factors identified in higher education literature as influen
cing student persistence, engagement and self-efficacy provide context to participants’
reported law school experiences, we cannot offer evidence of the interplay of these
factors within individuals or the wider cohort. Nevertheless, our results as they relate to
these influences and examples of the interplay of these influences provide law teachers
and law schools with data that permits a more nuanced assessment of the cohort’s law
school experiences. Our results also highlight several areas for future research.
Background experiences and context

Tinto theorises that students’ backgrounds in terms of family, community, skills and
abilities determine their starting intentions and commitment to their studies.47
Students’ backgrounds and characteristics also influence how they engage with the
institutions at which they are enrolled.48 Students’ confidence levels at the beginning of
their studies are influenced by their by pre-university learning environments (such as
feedback received from their high school teachers) and behaviours (such as their effort
and persistence in terms of study practices).49
The cohort of 75 had attained the qualifications necessary to study at university, as
had all students enrolled in first-year law programmes at the participating universities.
Their demographic backgrounds were largely similar. A majority were female (this is
consistent with actual enrolments at Aotearoa | New Zealand law schools), had enrolled
at law school soon after leaving high school, and identified as New Zealand European |
Pākehā. Most had no family connection to the legal community, and a substantial
minority were likely to have been the first in their family to undertake university study.
We have no data explaining how these demographic similarities contributed to the
strong commitment to the study of law and a legal career that so many of the cohort
reported at the beginning of 2014 (survey 1). We speculate that it is not unlikely that
a cohort of committed students would investigate what the study of law and a legal
career might look like before enrolling at law school, although our study did not reveal
how or where participants gained such information. A majority reported that the
decision to study law was largely their own, but we did not explore why they concluded
that the study of law and a legal career was likely the right choice for them. Many
reported that their reasons for studying law were a mix of the altruistic (“I want to help
others”) and pragmatic (“It is a well-paid career”), but these reasons also match other
career options such as medicine. We suggest that further empirical research to identify
the answers to these unknowns is a priority for Aotearoa | New Zealand law schools to
47
48
Kuh and others (n 9) 541.
49
THE LAW TEACHER 331
ensure that all prospective students, including those with backgrounds different from
our cohort, can access accurate information about the study of law and legal careers.
Although such information might “put off” some prospective students, equally it might
attract others who would otherwise have been unaware that a law degree and legal
career were realistic and suitable options for them.
Most participants not only were committed to their law studies and a legal career but
were confident or very confident about studying at university at the beginning of their
studies in 2014 (survey 1). We have no evidence as to how and why their pre-university
learning and other environments and behaviours influenced their reported confidence
in undertaking university study. We see further research to identify pre-university
experiences and behaviours that positively influence self-efficacy as an additional
priority for law schools, as such information would assist in the provision and/or design
of transition to study and first-year programmes.
Formal learning opportunities

Formal learning opportunities form a part of what Tinto describes as the academic
system with which students’ interact and where positive interactions reinforce
persistence.50 Formal learning opportunities may (or may not) provide opportunities
encouraging positive engagement, such as participation in active learning activities.
A student’s formal learning environment influences behaviour in terms of time, effort
and choice of study activities, and self-efficacy.51
We cannot offer evidence on the extent to which, on either an individual or
a collective basis, participants’ reported frequency, and nature, of participation in formal
learning opportunities was influenced by their backgrounds and characteristics, the
nature of those opportunities and/or their relationships with their teachers and peers.
We can say that, overall, the cohort largely reported frequent participation or high rates
of lecture and tutorial attendance across time. As our data collection was pre-Covid,
lecture and/or tutorial recordings would not have been universally available, so atten
dance rates would also have been regular across a semester.
When viewed through a student engagement lens, the available evidence as to the
nature of the formal educational opportunities on offer to participants is mixed.52
Participants’ responses suggest opportunities to engage in activities consistent with
active learning, a factor identified in higher education literature as linked with positive
student engagement,53 was a feature of the tutorial programmes supporting the
compulsory courses in the LLB degree. Participants also reported active learning oppor
tunities occurring during lectures in smaller, optional courses. However, the frequency
with which participants reported listening to what the teacher had to say and taking
notes in large lectures suggests that the primary purpose of large lectures was informa
tion transfer, ie passive learning. We also note that not all the cohort participated in the
active learning opportunities that were on offer in lectures. Just over half of the cohort
gave reasons for not participating, such as, for example, feeling uncomfortable in
speaking in front of large numbers of their peers. This is useful data for law teachers
50
51
52
Zepke and Leach (n 10).
53
ibid.
to consider when reviewing the appropriateness of the active learning opportunities

they offer to the wider student body, and how they might better prepare and encou
rage all students to engage in such activities.
Relationships with teacher and peers

Tinto’s model of student persistence theorises that a student who has positive interac
tions with their teachers and peers is more likely to be well integrated with an institu
tion’s academic and social systems, factors which in turn positively reinforce
persistence.54 Student engagement is fostered by students having positive and con
structive relationships with their teachers and peers.55 A student’s relationships with
others influences, and is influenced by, their behaviour and self-efficacy.56
Participants’ reported high levels of lecture and tutorial attendance would likely have
provided regular opportunities to interact with both their lecturers and peers. However,
many reported little face-to-face contact with their lecturers outside formal learning
opportunities and that few of their lecturers knew them. Participants reported more
frequent social rather than study-related out of class interactions with their peers.
A majority reported that they had social contact with their peers “often” or “very often”
in 2017 and 2018. Although positive descriptions provided by graduates of their law
school culture exceeded negative descriptions by a small margin, a consistent theme in
the negative responses was the “cliquey” nature of the student body. These mixed results
mean that relationships with teachers or peers may well have had positive effects on
persistence, engagement and self-efficacy for some cohort members more than others.
External events
Participants reported a range of external factors that adversely affected their studies, but
a majority nonetheless completed their law studies and embarked on a legal career. Cohort
members appeared largely fortunate in avoiding significant external life events that pre
vented them from persisting and/or engaging with their studies, and/or which negatively
affected their study practices and confidence to the point where they could not continue.
Examples
The cohort’s responses to questions about their pre-university backgrounds and experi
ences indicated that they were largely primed and confident to undertake university
study for a law degree. They were fortunate in avoiding adverse external life events that
prevented them from completing their studies. We can surmise that participants inter
acted with law schools’ academic and social systems (using a persistence lens)57 and/or
engaged with the law schools at which they were enrolled (using an engagement
lens)58 in a manner that facilitated (or at least did not prevent) their academic success
as indicated by their largely high reported grades. We can also surmise that the law
school environment (formal learning opportunities, feedback and interactions with
54
55
Zepke and Leach (n 10) 170–71.
56
57
58
Zepke and Leach (n 10).
THE LAW TEACHER 333
others) also influenced their behaviour (effort and choice of activities) and self-efficacy
in a manner such as to facilitate or permit this academic success.59 We can offer no
evidence as to the interplay between pre-university and subsequent law school experi
ences and external events, and/or the significance of any of these influences, on the
persistence, engagement and self-efficacy of individual students or the wider cohort.
Nevertheless, we can offer data on what many in the cohort reported as results of the
interplay of these influences.
Participants most frequently indicated that they were spending between three and
five hours of self-study on each of their law courses each week. This is less than the law
schools and universities at which they were enrolled would expect,60 but indicates that
the cohort was largely devoting the time and effort to their studies necessary for them
to progress through law school and for many to achieve high grades in relation to their
peers. The good grades (and so positive feedback) that many consistently reported
achieving across their time at law school likely reinforced the adequacy of their study
practices.
Participants’ self-study practices were likely also influenced by the formal learning
opportunities provided to them and their relationships with teachers and peers. As
noted above, these were somewhat variable. A gap between a theoretical ideal and
reality is not unexpected and has been reported in one large, although dated, empirical
study of Aotearoa | New Zealand university student engagement.61 The reality is that
law schools are constrained in the learning opportunities they can provide to students.
Law schools are limited by the physical and technological facilities available at the
universities within which they sit, and a range of other factors including government
funding, and university-imposed targets relating to student enrolments and financial
performance. Although these constraints may limit what law teachers and law schools
may do, it does not prevent them from reviewing the learning and relationship devel
opment opportunities they provide to their students and seeking to measure the
impact of any changes that they make. The feedback provided by participants on
what law schools might do to improve the student experience is a useful starting
point such as, for example, more contact with lecturers, more support from lecturers
around assessment, a greater emphasis on practical skills, more information on life after
law school, and better connections with each other.
The interplay between participants’ background characteristics and experiences,
external events, and law school experiences (including their experiences of formal
learning opportunities and their relationships with their teachers and peers) did not
significantly alter their reported reasons for studying law, or their intended legal careers.
Notably, their expectations of a legal career and their ultimate employment destina
tions were consistent with the reality of legal work in Aotearoa | New Zealand. The New
Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa reports that a majority of its members
work in private legal practice.62 Pragmatically, the areas of law in which participants
indicated they were most interested shifted over time to reflect the reality of private
legal practice where company/commercial law is one of the most practised areas of
59
60
For example, based on the hours of learning (on which funding received by universities is based), self-study of
between eight and nine hours per course per week would be expected.
61
Keith Comer and Erik Brogt, “Student Engagement in Relation to Their Field of Study” in Ali Radloff (ed),
Student Engagement in New Zealand Universities (Australian Council of Educational Research 2011) 17–18.
62
Louise Brooks and Marianne Burt, “2022 Snapshot of the Profession” [2022] 952 Law Talk | Kōrero Mō Te Ture 6, 12.
law.63 We can offer no evidence as to the particular information or experiences influen

cing participants’ commitment to and/or understanding of legal and/or other careers
and identify this as another area for further research to inform the careers information
that law schools provide to their students and how this information is delivered.
Notwithstanding participants’ ongoing commitment to a legal career, their appar
ently accurate understanding of the nature of legal work available in Aotearoa | New
Zealand, and their reported successes and confidence in achieving successful academic
outcomes, only a minority, albeit a substantial minority (42%) of final year students felt
“prepared” or “very prepared” to join the workforce. For the majority who did not feel as
prepared, their responses were likely coloured by the fact that they did not have
employment arranged for after they left law school and were not very confident that
they would be able to obtain employment. A dip in the confidence of some final year
university students in terms of their future employment prospects has been reported in
one European study.64 However, a finding showing that over half of final year partici
pants lacked confidence in their preparedness to join the workforce provides evidence
that law schools should investigate the level of support that students require and
review the formal learning opportunities and/or the directed support they provide to
students about job opportunities and transitioning to the workforce. That a significant
proportion of our persisting and committed cohort lacked confidence about their future
employment opportunities in their final year at law school points to a likelihood of
replication in the wider student body.
Graduates
The data on participants’ post-law school experiences offers novel information on the
utility of a law degree, and the extent to which participants’ expectations of a legal
career were met. Most who responded as graduates had obtained employment,
reported largely positive workplace experiences, and were using their law degree in
their work at least some of the time. A significant minority indicated in their responses
to the reflective “looking back” question that their law school could have provided more
practically based content, assessment and skills, but there was no consistent criticism of
the knowledge and skills they obtained at law school. We also note the generally
positive overall law school satisfaction rates reported by participants as students and
graduates.
Although participants’ personal characteristics no doubt played a significant role in
them obtaining employment, their completion of a law degree was also likely
a requirement, if not a prerequisite, for much of the work in which they were engaged.
Their employment destinations and areas of specialisation were largely consistent with
what many had anticipated throughout their time at law school. Although the data was
collected in the first few months of participants’ post-law school experiences, most were
satisfied with their choice of a legal career and intended to pursue this for the near
future. Most participants appeared to be well served by the completion of a law degree.
63
Adlam (n 37) 39; Brooks and Burt (n 62) 11–12.
64
Qenani, MacDougall and Sexton (n 19) 202.
THE LAW TEACHER 335
Conclusion
This article presented an analysis of the responses of a self-selected cohort of 75
students enrolled at three Aotearoa | New Zealand law schools who participated in
every data collection in a longitudinal study running across 2014–2019. The cohort is
unique in several respects but represents a constituent body within the larger law
student population. Data was presented and discussed in the light of four influences
identified as relevant to three theoretical models seeking to explain student persis
tence, engagement and self-efficacy in a higher education context. The four influences
are pre-university background and characteristics, the formal learning opportunities
provided by law schools and the frequency and way in which participants partook in
those opportunities, participants’ relationships with their lecturers and peers, and
external events occurring in participants’ lives during the time that they were studying.
Data was also presented on participants’ workplace experiences after graduation.
Most of the cohort began their law studies with backgrounds and characteristics that
were predictive of persistence, positive student engagement and self-confidence.
Participants reported frequent participation in the formal learning opportunities on
offer to them, although the nature of those opportunities and the type of activities in
which they elected to participate were variable, as were their reported relationships
with their lecturers and peers. Most of the cohort were fortunate in avoiding significant
and adverse life events outside law school that might have prevented them completing
their studies.
In terms of Tinto’s model of student persistence, participants’ pre-university back
grounds largely resulted in a cohort with the skills, intention and commitment to
succeed in their law studies and to then pursue a legal career. This and their subsequent
interactions (or integration) with their law school’s academic and social systems (and
absence of significant external events affecting their ability to study) resulted in the
persistence of most to completion of a law degree. Using a student engagement lens,
the combination of students’ backgrounds and characteristics, the time and effort that
they and law schools devoted to providing and participating in educational activities
(and the absence of significant external events) resulted in not only persistence but
successful academic outcomes for many. The formal learning opportunities and stu
dents’ relationships with their teachers and peers formed part of the learning environ
ment which influenced, and was in turn influenced by, participants’ study behaviours
and self-efficacy.
We cannot offer data on how these four influences combined to influence
persistence, engagement and confidence in individual students or the larger
cohort. Nevertheless, our results enable a more nuanced assessment of the
practices of law teachers and law schools, and have identified areas for further
investigation, such as, for example, how prospective students obtain information
about (and their suitability for) the study of law, and how law schools might
support final year law students in their transition to the workforce.
As we noted at the outset, most of the cohort completed a law degree and
then embarked on a law-related employment that they found satisfying and
enjoyable. Their experiences largely represent a success story, not just for the
students, but for the law schools and universities they attended and the legal
profession (for which the cohort represents the future). However, the similarity of
the participants in this study and their subsequent law school and workplace
experiences is also a limitation. We did not capture representative experiences of

those with differing demographic backgrounds, including minority students (par
ticularly Māori and Pasifika students who are identified as priority learners by the
government and participating universities), students with disabilities, mature
students, rainbow students and students who do not intend to pursue
a traditional legal career. We have also not captured representative experiences
of those with varying levels of commitment to completing their studies and/or
a legal career. We simply do not know whether these and other constituent
groups within the student bodies of Aotearoa | New Zealand law schools have
similar experiences and outcomes before, during and after their law school
experience and, if not, what law schools might do to appropriately respond.
This remains a significant gap in the Aotearoa | New Zealand legal education
literature (and legal education literature generally) and is a further important
area for further empirical investigation.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge, with thanks, funding support received from Ako Aotearoa, the assistance provided by
Dr Elizabeth Gordon, and the work of our research assistant, Olivia Mackintosh.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Ako Aotearoa.
ORCID
Lynne Taylor http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4197-8799

04-The Making of Aotearoa - New Zealand Lawyers - A Longitudinal Study of Law Students and Law Gra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04-The Making of Aotearoa - New Zealand Lawyers - A Longitudinal Study of Law Students and Law Gra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Law Teacher

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ralt20

The making of Aotearoa | New Zealand lawyers:

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2023.2228125

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 14 Jul 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 135

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The making of Aotearoa | New Zealand lawyers:

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 16 January 2023; Accepted 19 June 2023

CONTACT Lynne Taylor lynne.taylor@canterbury.ac.nz Faculty of Law, University of Canterbury,

Legal education in Aotearoa | New Zealand

Persistence, engagement and self-efficacy

subsequent surveys completed by participants still engaged in university study. Tinto

Background and characteristics

Starting commitment to studies and a legal career

Formal learning opportunities

Frequency of participation in formal learning opportunities

Nature of learning opportunities and choice of activities

Relationships with lecturers (teachers) and peers

Relationships with peers

Confidence of academic success

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Ongoing commitment to studies and a legal career

Employment arrangements and preparedness to join the workforce

Satisfaction with law school experience

Reflections on early career workplace experiences

occasion by colleagues with no acknowledgement from management or attempt to fix

Future career plans

Reflections on law school

Background experiences and context

Formal learning opportunities

to consider when reviewing the appropriateness of the active learning opportunities

Relationships with teacher and peers

law.63 We can offer no evidence as to the particular information or experiences influen­

experiences is also a limitation. We did not capture representative experiences of

You might also like

law.63 We can offer no evidence as to the particular information or experiences influen