Self-assessment questions

This question is designed to ensure that you understand the PBL process and have thought about it in some depth.

If your response is along the lines of ‘I don’t know’, you might want to re-visit the videos before and think about this approach to learning before deciding whether you are suited.

A good response would explain how students identifying their own questions should help in a number of ways. This should help to ensure that students understand the questions set. That may be a matter of phrasing the question, but also that the process of discussion leading to this should help in comprehending what the question really involves and what they are trying to achieve.

Developing the question in this way should also help students understand why that question matters, so how it might apply to a particular scenario and why it is important, rather than just an abstract issue set by someone else. Very importantly, the ability to identify your own questions is an important skill to develop. In the real world, you are the one who will have to spot the issues and evaluate what you need to know to deal with them.

This is designed to help evaluate your self-awareness or ‘reflective capacity’, as this is an important part of learning at York Law School. In fact, the process that you are working through now is a ‘reflective’ exercise – helping you to think about what you are good at, what you enjoy (the two often go together), and so on.

With this question, we would hope to hear some genuine thoughts about your current strengths and weaknesses and how you might want to develop, for example. Whether your preference is for an interview – perhaps you prefer the more intimate ‘one-to-one’ discussion, or for a speech – you might like the bigger ‘stage’, or ability to control the event more than with an interview, doesn’t matter.

What we would look for is some authentic self-assessment of your abilities and preferences and (hopefully) some reflection on the reasons for your choice. Ideally, you might also have thought about whether you want (or need) to develop skills etc, so might choose a speech because you want to go ‘outside your comfort zone’ to push yourself, for example.

This question is obviously concerned with the fact that you will spend a lot of your time at York Law School working in small groups and learning collaboratively. Very importantly, it should provide the opportunity to consider the potential difficulties or downsides of this style of learning, as well as the possible benefits.

The type of response we would expect here is one that does not simply say ‘none of this would be a problem’. A good response would identify that sharing work is an integral part of the PBL process but that problems can arise when working in groups. That might include consideration of the benefits of sharing generally (such as hearing other perspectives, the results of others’ research, as well as the learning that come from explaining your own research and discussing issues).

Recognising the negative feelings that may arise where there is a sense that some are ‘free riders’ is important. Thinking about the reasons why others may appear to lack the same effort is also very important. In particular, that might help to develop ways of addressing the issue, so seeing if there are problems that individuals are facing which the rest of the group can help with, for example.

At the end of the day, this an issue you may well have to face (and it might not be possible to deal with it) and so you should think about whether you still consider the benefits to outweigh the negative feelings you may have.

This is this first of two questions which are quite different in style to the earlier ones. Questions four and five focus on critical thinking and logical reasoning skills. The important thing here is that you do not simply respond with a simple ‘’yes’ or ‘no’. PBL at York requires students to have enquiring minds and the capacity for thinking around issues to see different perspectives and arguments. Ideally, that would then be followed with a reasoned conclusion.

With this question, arguments might include that there is a need for some level of intelligence standards if evidence is to be understood and the defendant is to have a fair hearing. There might be views that particular cases (such as complex fraud) might justify such standards (or higher standards) even if that is not generally the case.

Arguments against this might include the idea that juries are supposed to be representative of the general population, not just certain (elite) groups. Questions might be raised about how ‘intelligence’ would be assessed. So, the abilities evaluated, the means for doing this, and so on. Are things like ‘emotional intelligence as, or more, important, than academic or problem-solving skills?

Whatever your overall view and reasons for that, you should be able to identify some counter-views and consider the strengths of these. 

This second critical thinking question is also a more complex one that should raise competing views.

These might include that the law and legal process is very traditional and that these traditions should be preserved unless there is a very good reason. The courts are inherently hierarchical institutions and formal dress recognises and identifies the different parties and roles, as well as the status of these.

It may also be that wearing special clothes helps to reinforce the seriousness of the setting. That might include those wearing the robes adopting their special role (and the requirements of that) as well as other parties being reminded of status, etc. On the other hand, wearing robes (and wigs) may be seen as an obsolete historical feature with no part in modern society.

The ‘majesty’ of the court may be unnecessarily (and undesirably) intimidating. People may feel happier giving honest evidence, or more a part of the process, if there is a more everyday feel to the court. That might be particularly so with cases involving children or other vulnerable people, for example. If the Supreme Court judges do not wear formal robes during hearings, why should the lower courts? Some degree of formality may be expected, such as ‘business attire’, so it needn’t be a case of allowing shorts and flip-flops.

This is a question designed to evaluate creative thinking but is as much about your response to being asked a question like this as about the substance of your answer. Students at York Law School are asked to do all sorts of things as part of their learning activities. Some of these (like deciding their PBL “Law Firm’ name and logos) have a less serious side, though there is always a reason for the task.

This helps to foster an enjoyable as well as developmental learning environment. If your response to this question is that it is ‘ridiculous’, or you see no value in it, you might want to think about whether that sort of environment is right for you.

Good answers would identify the elements of the logo etc and also the reasons for including these. That might reflect aspects of the PBL programme – maybe linked hands/arms, or other visual expression of mutual support, something representing learning the law – such as a book (there is a lot of reading), scales of justice, etc and/or maybe something depicting the City of York, or the University.

You may very well have come up with something far more original, humorous, or interesting than these ideas. The point is whether you found the question an interesting one and enjoyed coming up with your ideas.