Written by Skye Slatcher and Angelika Santaniello
Photography by Yuvi Chahar
It is now the latter half of Autumn Term. Course selection has closed and, for many, formative assignments have been set. Despite exam season being in the upcoming Spring Term for Law students; some students may be reflecting on their exam strategy, whether it is about adjusting for open-book exams or looking back at a closed-book exam experience.
It is undeniable that exams form an integral part of a student’s experience at university. Knowledge of the exam format and consistency in the method of assessment shape a student’s approach to academics. The very nature of exams means students may not be able to separate exam season from their academic deep dives into their subject. So, what happens when exam formats are suddenly changed?
For the LSE Law School, this happened on the first day of term when the change was announced to students with a follow-up email to students on 2 October. The change broadened the scope of assessment modes to closed-book, ‘partial open-book’ (in which students are permitted to bring a single-sided A4 sheet of paper with them into the exam), or wholly open-book.
A statement from the LSE Law School
The LSE Law School has provided The Beaver with an official statement regarding the change in exam policy: “As outlined in our email to students on 2 October, the new policy enables convenors to choose the most academically appropriate exam format to assess their course.”
“This includes, where suitable, the use of open book exams. Convenors have full freedom to choose the most appropriate exam format for their course without any direction from the Law School.”
“The Law School keeps assessment formats under continual review. In this case, specific changes were recommended to protect the integrity of the programme, and thereby the value of the LLB degree.”
The Law School added that “[i]nparticular, the decision to allow individual faculty to determine which exam format to use balances the freedom for faculty to select the exam format most academically appropriate to the course content, while retaining the principle of observed assessment, which remains integral to the value of the LLB degree. The flexibility of faculty to select the exam format reinstitutes our practice from prior to the Covid pandemic, which the Law School had used successfully for many years before that point.”
How can students handle this? The emphasis on choosing “the most academically appropriate exam format” calls into question how far the decision to change the exam policy was unilateral, and whether it involved sufficient consultation with members of the LSE Law School, namely students.
How comfortable do students feel raising concerns about the changes in exam policy?
Sam* expressed dissatisfaction about the approach the Law school had taken: “While I accept that changes can occur, such changes must be both reasonable and subject to proper consultation.”
“[S]tudents are not passive recipients but paying consumers entitled to certain standards and protections,” they added.
“There is a deeper cultural problem within the institution’s leadership; one that prioritises self-preservation [of the programme] over principle, and it urgently needs to be addressed,” they highlighted.
Exploring the “deeper cultural problem” within the structural framework of the LSE Law School raises further questions. Does delegating responsibility to course convenors – and causing a disparity in the method of assessment – truly consider the need for sensitivity towards accessibility requirements?
FOR IN PRINT: Does delegating responsibility to course convenors – and causing a disparity in the method of assessment – truly consider the need for sensitivity towards accessibility requirements?
Taylor* offered an anecdotal perspective on this matter: “As someone with diagnosed mental health issues, open-book exams are an informal, yet crucial, accessibility measure for those similar to myself [and] students with learning difficulties.”
According to Taylor, the change in exam policy is “a step back which undermines accessibility for many students and disregards important considerations of student welfare.”
They concluded that “a department as academically strong as LSE Law can, and should, find more thoughtful, future-orientated ways to uphold academic integrity without sacrificing innovation and accessibility.”
The change in exam policy requires an arguably stronger, more coherent justification: from framing a discussion around contractual obligations marking the LSE Law School experience, to concerns about student welfare.
Initial Reactions:
With this in mind, we conducted a survey asking LSE Law students for their responses to these changes. The reactions were overwhelmingly negative.
One student said that it “felt like a massive betrayal and that the Law School was purposefully being deceitful”. Others felt “shock” and “outrage” that “such a significant change was made with such a dismissive attitude”.
To many it came as a surprise that LSE would neglect to give any official notification of these changes, with students learning of the development “through the grapevine”.
One respondent’s tone was entirely different: “I was happy. I think it’s ridiculous they were open-book in the first place. We all know everyone just cheats their way through.”
Tackling Potential AI Concerns
Considering the rise of the use of generative AI, it is prudent to understand how students say they are using it, as it may have been a motivating factor for the change in exam format. Answers were mixed.
One person noted: “I don’t use AI whatsoever, but if others do, and find it helpful, I don’t see why the Law School should take issue with that.”
They added, “In recognising the subjectivity of intelligence, and the plurality of methods to pursue amassing knowledge, why should an educational institution prevent its students from utilising all means available to them [to] learn?”
Another respondent shared an interesting contribution: “My highest marks in second year remained the modules where I did the most independent essay drafting.”
A preference for open-book exams:
On the one hand, a respondent supporting the change said that “everyone is just mad that they actually have to study now.”
Conversely, closed-book exams were described as “an ineffective way to assess a person’s knowledge”, with some saying that it is not a test of understanding or reasoning but of memory. Others described it as “archaic” or “ableist” to assume everyone can learn and revise in the same way for a closed-book exam.
Most other top global universities have open book exams. Some have said that the impact of this is that LSE Law students’ grades are lower in comparison making the application process for training contracts and pupillage more difficult.
Third is that closed book exams do not prepare you for legal practice, where you are not constantly tested on your memory.
So, is the new ‘partial open-book’ exam a fair compromise?
One replied that it is “absolute nonsense”; another called it a “slap in the face for those who prefer open book exams”. Some highlighted that one single sheet of A4 feels insufficient – “a better compromise would have been 5 double-sided sheets, or even 3 if they’re feeling tight.”
Some however have suggested that, while not ideal, it might be the best middle ground right now: “I may venture to say that it could enhance the learning experience even. No need to memorise everything while – perhaps paternally – forcing us not to rely on our notes too much”.
The Impact on the Studying Experience:
For some modules to have gone from dissertations to single-sided, A4-sheet exams so quickly is shocking to many students.
In light of the changes, students’ approaches to studying have changed.
One said, “I now focus on rote learning and memorisation of the principles instead of deeply and critically engaging with the substantive content and forming my own views on it.”
One person even said that they try to memorise ahead of each seminar now, because they know they can’t rely on the notes so much.
Students shared their concerns around the exam changes. In particular, respondents said that for third-years, each exam season has followed a different format. They emphasised their feeling that this makes it nearly impossible to use the previous years to reflect and improve. Furthermore, they said there is a lack of clarity around whether marking standards will be adjusted to account for the closed-book nature of the exams.
One student summarised their thoughts: “The outcome will be more rote learning, less critical thinking, and therefore worse quality [academic performance].”
Reactions to Teaching Staff Responses:
To our question about whether they were satisfied with their professors’ responses, most gave the same answer: No.
One said “most teachers were incredibly dismissive, saying they ‘didn’t understand’ [students’] fixation on exam format. This is a ridiculous thing to say when it should be well-known that students frequently act so as to maximise their exam performance.”
This respondent added that students “are under more pressure to do so in order to secure training contracts and mini pupillages in the current economy.”
Another was not satisfied with potentially AI-related factors for the change, arguing that “professors need to recognise that there is no way of avoiding the infiltration of AI but, as entirely AI-generated essay plans are often of poorer quality, they can just give a lower grade and discourage students from solely relying on AI.”
Concerns about the change in exam policy exceed mere speculation: students are questioning the very “integrity” and “value” of their programme. What we can learn from responses to the change in exam programme is the need to push the “continual review” of it. Affecting a degree focused heavily on analytical skills, critical thinking, strong argument, and textual interpretation, it appears that the changes required a stronger justification.
Will students’ worries be remedied, or is the case closed for the LSE Law School?
The Beaver contacted LSE Media Relations for a comment. LSE Media Relations have stated that no further comment will be provided.
*Names have been changed to preserve anonymity.
