Faculty Regulations
Note: In line with our ongoing commitment to equity, inclusion, and reconciliation, these Regulations employ gender-neutral pronouns in both the English and Mi’kmaw languages.
The Studies Committee oversees the implementation of the faculty academic regulations in specific cases. The Associate Dean, Academic, is the Chair of the Studies Committee.
The academic year consists of one session of two terms* covering a period of about thirty weeks. Please consult the faculty for final confirmation of start and end dates.
*There is a third term in the summer, normally reserved for students registered in LAWS 2003 (Clinical Law) and LAWS 1001 (Deferred Criminal Justice).
Course Outlines
Instructors shall provide students with a course syllabus at or before the first meeting of the course. Syllabi should specify:
Instructors must send their/nekmewey syllabus to the Associate Dean, Academic, by the University add/drop date at the latest.
Following that date, changes to the syllabus affecting assessment components, the weight of individual assessment components, or examination requirements with a value of ten (10) percent or more must have the unanimous approval of all enrolled students.
Courses from Another Faculty for Law School Credit
In exceptional circumstances, a law student may take a university course from another faculty for credit toward their/nekmewey JD, if that course is sufficiently relevant to the student’s law program. The non-law course should be at the graduate level and may be the equivalent of no more than a total of 3 credit hours per year, as determined by the Associate Dean, Academic. The grades in non-law courses will be awarded on the basis of Pass/Fail, and a student’s average will be computed on the basis of law courses only. Non-law courses cannot be included in a student’s program to satisfy the major paper requirement. A student wishing to take a non-law course must obtain the written consent of the particular university department and arrange to have the course description sent to the Associate Dean, Academic. Normally, only 3L students may take non-law courses. (Please note that students registered in combined JD programs are governed by separate regulations.)
Auditing Courses
A 2L or 3L law student may audit some courses with the permission of the instructor and the Associate Dean's Office, if there is room in the course. The instructor may require a student to keep up with course work and may record attendance. Only one course may be taken as an audit in each of 2L and 3L. 1L students are not permitted to audit.
In most cases, only law students will be permitted to enroll in or audit law school courses. Occasionally, a professional in law or a related field may audit an upper year course with permission of the instructor and the Associate Dean's Office, if there is room in the course. 1L courses may not be audited. Students are not permitted to audit short intensive courses or clinical courses.
Students must fill out the auditing form and submit it for approval on or before the add/drop date for that term.
Pass Requirements
Maximum Duration of the JD degree
The full-time JD Program extends over three academic years (1L, 2L, and 3L, respectively). Students have up to seven years to fulfill the degree requirements.
A student who has failed the work of a year may, subject to the limitations of space, repeat the year.
A student may take a non-medical leave of absence during their/nekmewey JD. A student who, as a consequence of failed years and/or non-medical leaves of absence, has not completed the degree within seven years will be academically dismissed.
Medical Leaves
Student medical leaves must be approved by the Studies Committee in advance and are granted for one semester or academic year at a time. In exceptional circumstances, a retroactive leave may be granted. Where a student establishes, to the satisfaction of the Studies Committee, that for medical reasons, their/nekmewey ability to pursue the course is significantly hampered, the Studies Committee may grant a medical leave. At the end of a term or a year, a student on medical leave must apprise the Studies Committee of their/nekmewey situation.
A student wishing to return to law school after a medical leave must establish, to the satisfaction of the Studies Committee, their/nekmewey ability to resume their/nekmewey studies.
Medical leaves do not count toward the seven-year time limit to complete the degree.
Where the Studies Committee has received a request from a student for deferral of exams or assignments due to an ongoing medical condition or other personal circumstances, the Studies Committee may require the student to provide further medical or other documentation regarding their/nekmewey ability to continue with their/nekmewey studies, and may determine that the only appropriate accommodation is a medical withdrawal from the academic year or term.
Pass Requirements
To complete 1L, the student must have passed all required 1L courses. To complete 2L, the student must have passed all mandatory courses and have obtained a total of 29-31 hours of credit, and maintained a minimum average of 55%. To complete 3L, the student must have passed all mandatory courses and have obtained a total of 29-31 hours of credit, and maintained a minimum average of 55%.
A 1L student, in order to advance to 2L, must attain an overall weighted average of 55% and pass every subject, by regular, deferred, or supplemental examination, where applicable.
A 1L student who fails to attain the required average of 55% by regular and deferred examinations or assignments fails the year, and must repeat the year in its entirety.
A 1L student who achieves the required average of 55% by regular, deferred, or supplemental examinations or assignments, but fails one or more classes, must successfully repeat the failed classes before advancing to 2L.
A 2L student must pass all required 2L courses, by regular, deferred, or supplemental examination, where applicable, before being eligible to enrol in courses restricted to 3L students. Where a 2L student fails a required course, they/nekm may repeat the required course and simultaneously enrol in elective courses that are not restricted to 3L students, subject to the seven-year rule.
A3L student must pass all required courses, by regular, deferred, or supplemental examination, where applicable, before being eligible to graduate. Where a 3L student fails a required course, they/nekm may repeat the required course, subject to the seven-year rule. A 3L student who fails one or more elective courses may return to earn the required credits to graduate, subject to the seven-year rule.
Upper-year (2L and 3L) students are restricted to a maximum of two attempts to complete any elective course.
Grades earned from the Queen’s International Law Program will not be included in a Dalhousie student’s overall weighted average for any purpose, including eligibility for supplemental exams.
Additional rules apply in the following specific situations:
a. Applicable only to 3L students- The University “up-and-down” Rule: A 3L student who, without recourse to supplementals, fails only one elective course and attains an average on the work of the whole year that exceeds 50% by twice as much as the failure in the one course is below 50% is permitted to graduate. This rule does not apply to mandatory courses.
b. Rule for Those with One Failure: A student in 2L or 3L who fails only one course and, without recourse to supplementals, is not eligible for or does not opt for advancement or graduation under (a) may take the course again and may write the next regular examination or assignment in the course. Where the failed course is an elective course, the student may petition the Studies Committee for permission to take a course or courses other than the one that was failed. This year counts as one of the seven years during which a student must complete the JD course to qualify for the degree. For greater certainty, the choice is between writing a supplemental exam (where eligible) or re-taking the course, but not both.
c. Supplemental Privileges – Clinical Courses
(i) For the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of these Pass Requirement rules, a failure in:
shall be deemed to be a failure in more than one course.
(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii) a student who fails LAWS 2003, LAWS 2092, LAWS 2320, or LAWS 2391 shall not be entitled to supplemental privileges.
(iii) The Studies Committee may permit supplemental privileges to a student who has failed either LAWS 2003, LAWS 2092, LAWS 2320, or LAWS 2391 where:
Deferred and Supplemental Examinations and Assignments
Regular Examinations and Assignments: Final examinations are held immediately before the December vacation and after the completion of lectures in the spring. A student who does not sit an exam or submit an assignment (whether regular, deferred, or supplemental) as scheduled, or does not complete another form of assessment as stipulated in the course syllabus, without express prior permission of the Studies Committee, will receive a grade of zero on that exam or assignment.
1. Deferred Examinations and Assignments
Students must complete assessments as scheduled unless they/nekm have express prior permission from the Studies Committee or the Student Accessibility Centre for alternate arrangements. Where it can be established that, for medical or compassionate reasons, a student's ability to write an examination is significantly hampered, the Studies Committee or the Student Accessibility Centre may allow the student to write a deferred examination. Requests for deferred exams must be made as early as possible, and before the exam is to be written. Where a student becomes ill during an exam, the student must immediately—and before the end of the exam—contact the Associate Dean's Office.
Fall deferred exams are written in the winter term, and winter deferred exams are written in the spring/summer.
Students are expected to submit assignments by the due date and time unless they/nekm have express prior permission from the Studies Committee or the Student Accessibility Centre for an extended deadline. Individual instructors and faculty members cannot grant extensions in response to individual student requests. All student requests for accommodation must be directed to the Student Accessibility Centre or the Associate Dean's Office, depending on the circumstances.
Where it can be established that due to a medical or personal emergency, a student's ability to work on a major paper or other assignment has been significantly hampered, the student may request an extension on the paper or assignment. Such a request must be made as soon as possible to the Associate Dean's Office, and in all cases before the paper or assignment is due.
2. Supplemental Examinations and Assignments
A student who attains the required average of 55% by regular and deferred examinations or assignments and who has failed not more than two courses is entitled to write supplemental examinations or to complete supplemental assignments in the courses failed. Where the course failed is a mandatory course, the student must pass the supplemental examination(s) before advancing to the next year. If a student writes a supplemental exam, only the result of the supplemental exam will be considered in determining whether the student passes or fails the course, even if the course uses other evaluative methods (such as assignments, moots, presentations).
Students permitted to write deferred examinations or complete deferred assignments will be entitled to write supplemental examinations or complete supplemental assignments should they/nekm fail the deferred exam, provided they/nekm otherwise meet the requirements for entitlement to write supplementals. Moreover, a student who encounters medical or personal difficulties in preparing for or writing a supplemental assignment may, upon petition, be granted permission to complete the course requirements by supplemental procedures at a later date.
All fall deferred and supplemental exams are written in the winter term, and all winter deferred and supplemental exams are written in the spring/summer. Deferred and supplemental assignments and papers must be completed by the date determined by the Studies Committee. Students are responsible for ascertaining from the professor the scope of the material to be covered in a deferred or supplemental exam, as deferred and supplemental exams serve different purposes and may cover different material.
Where a student fails a course and writes a supplemental examination, both the original mark in the course and the mark in the supplemental examination appear on the record. Supplemental examinations and assignments are marked “Pass” or “Fail”. A student's original mark in the course is used for all purposes connected with the computation of the average, including class standing. Marks in supplementals are used only for purposes relating to the satisfactory completion of a particular course.
Examination Regulations
Students writing examinations in the Schulich School of Law are expected to act honourably, in accordance with the spirit as well as the letter of these Regulations. Invigilation is provided primarily to assist students with problems. Where there is no invigilation, and particularly in the case of supplementals, deferred, and other examinations not written in the normal course of events, these rules apply with such variations as are practically required.
Time for Writing Examinations- All examinations in the Law School shall commence at the appointed hour and, in the absence of accommodations related to time, shall end at the appointed time. In the event of a student being late for an examination for justifiable cause, the student shall report this fact as soon as is reasonably practicable to the Associate Dean, Academic, or their/nekmewey nominee, and the Associate Dean, Academic, or their nominee, in consultation with the examiner, shall have authority to make immediate alternative arrangements for the student to sit the examination. The term “justifiable cause” includes, but is not restricted to, temporary illness, delay caused by a snowstorm, or transportation difficulties.
Identification of Examination Papers- Examinations in the Law School are written by exam code number only and students must not write their/nekmewe'l names or student numbers on exams or otherwise seek to indicate their/nekmewe'l authorship. Students will be provided with exam code numbers before the commencement of examinations and must record their/nekmewe'l exam code number, according to the exam software instructions.
1) It is a serious matter for a student to circumvent, either intentionally or otherwise, the anonymity of the examination process by identifying themselves on a Law School exam. An obvious case of self-identification is the placing of one’s name on the cover or on any other part of the exam paper. Self-identification may take an indirect form as where a student informs the professor after the fact that they/nekm have written something distinctive on the exam. Where a professor believes that a student has self-identified, they/nekm should report the matter to the Associate Dean, Academic. The Associate Dean, Academic, shall then refer the matter to the Studies Committee.
2) Gratuitous references in an exam answer to personal identifying information shall constitute self-identification within the meaning of these Regulations. However reliance on and reference to personal background or experience relevant to answering the question shall not constitute self-identification.
3) A student who is granted an accommodation by the Student Accessibility Centre or Studies Committee which results in an exam written at a time or in a format which might identify the student will not be found to have self-identified within the meaning of this policy.
4) Where the Studies Committee determines that a student has deliberately or carelessly self-identified on an exam, the Committee shall impose a five per cent penalty. The imposition of the penalty does not depend on finding of intent to self-identify. The fact of self-identification is sufficient to warrant the imposition of the penalty.
Use of Materials by Students -Unless otherwise specified by the instructor concerned, no printed, written, or digitally stored materials may be consulted by a student during the examination. When reference to printed, written, or digital materials by a student during the examination is permitted, the instructor or their nominee will indicate this fact to the class in advance and will list at the beginning of the exam all permitted materials. It is an academic offence to bring prohibited material into an examination, or to consult prohibited material. Students who bring prohibited material into an examination or consult prohibited material shall be referred to the Senate Discipline Committee.
Prohibited Materials -Materials not permitted for reference in an examination must be left outside the examination room but not in the hallways or lavatories in general use during the examinations.
Data Transmission Devices Prohibited -With the exception of computers being used for the purpose of writing an exam, data transmission or storage devices such as cell phones, smart phones, tablets, etc. are not permitted in the exam room.
Communication Between Students -Students shall not communicate or attempt to communicate with other students during examinations.
Noise in the Examination Room -Students are reminded that any noise is distracting to others writing an examination.
Leaving the Examination Room During Examination -A student may, with the permission of the invigilator, but only then, be permitted to leave the room and return to the examination. Only one student may be excused at a time, and, when permitted to leave, must do so as quietly as possible. The only areas considered “in bounds” for students outside the examination room are the hallways adjacent to the room, and corridors and stairways connecting student lavatories. All other areas are out of bounds, including lockers.
All examinations shall be typed unless otherwise permitted by the Studies Committee and/or the Student Accessibility Centre.
Submission of Examination at end of Examination - Students must submit their/nekmewe'l examinations promptly when the invigilator signifies that time has expired, whether the answers are completed or not. Submissions are time stamped.
Late Penalties
In order to ensure that all students are treated equally and that no student is allowed to profit from taking extra time to complete an exam, paper, or assignment, late penalties will be imposed for work that is not completed on time. The quantum of penalty imposed will vary depending on the type of assignment/exam/paper, the amount of time allotted for the student to complete the assignment/exam/paper, and the amount of time between the deadline and late submission.
For papers/assignments with deadlines set out in a course syllabus, such as a major paper, the penalty is a deduction of five percent (of the weighted value of the assignment/paper grade) per day.
For exams and take-home exams of 24 hours or less, the penalty is a deduction of five percent (of the weighted value of the exam) per hour.
For exams, or take-home exams of more than 24 hours, or in circumstances where, in the opinion of the Studies Committee, the daily or hourly rate would result in too light or too severe a penalty, the Studies Committee shall determine an appropriate penalty, proportionate to the amount of time between the deadline and the late submission.
Academic Accommodation for Students
Students seeking academic accommodation with regard to course delivery and/or evaluation, such as exam deferral and extensions to deadlines, due to barriers related to disability, religious obligations, or any characteristic under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act, must consult with the Student Accessibility Centre (SAC), as soon as possible and well before an exam is scheduled to be written or an assignment is due. To make a request students must fill out the form on the SAC website. Please note SAC deadlines set out on that site.
Students who fall ill or are in crisis should contact the Associate Dean's Office as soon as possible, and before the exam or assignment deadline in question. Please note that retroactive accommodation cannot be granted.
NOTE: Where self-disclosure or prior arrangements have not been made with the University, Dalhousie is not liable to accommodate special needs owing to a physical, intellectual, or psychological disability.
Grading Information and Evaluation
Evaluation- Courses designated as exam courses must have a final exam worth at least 60% of the total evaluation. Courses designated as major paper courses must ensure the paper comprises at least 60% of the total evaluation.
Grade Equivalents- Letter grades are used for all purposes at the Law School. However, the numerical equivalent is used to determine the student’s weighted average. The numerical equivalents to the letter grades are as follows:
| Letter Grade |
Equivalent |
| A+ |
85-100 |
| A |
80-84 |
| A- |
78-79 |
| B+ |
75-77 |
| B |
70-74 |
| B- |
68-69 |
| C+ |
65-67 |
| C |
60-64 |
| D+ |
55-59 |
| D |
50-54 |
| F |
Below 50 (failure) |
| INC |
Incomplete |
| PENDING |
Awaiting Grade |
The grade INC is a transitional grade and will be replaced by a letter grade upon the student completing the requirements of the academic year.
The grade of “Pending” is a temporary grade used when a student is awaiting the outcome of an academic discipline process, or in the case of a transfer student in which a final grade has not yet been received.
Pass or Fail grades are assigned to exchange courses, supplemental examinations, and non-law courses for JD credit, as well as to some intensives and experiential law courses.
Honours/Pass/Fail grades are assigned to some experiential law courses. An Honours or Pass grade in these courses is not used in determining a student’s average, except in certain circumstances where the student would otherwise fail the year, and a Fail grade in these courses is assigned a numerical value and is used in determining a student’s average.
Subject to writing supplemental examinations, a student must attain a grade of D or better in each course, and an overall weighted average of 55%.
Non-law courses (except where students are registered in a combined degree program) are not used to determine a student’s average.
The following grade distribution scheme (i.e., the curve) has been adopted by Faculty Council. Any variation from the permissible range of marks must be approved by Faculty Council:
Permissible Grade Distribution
| A |
10-20% |
| B |
40-60% |
| A & B together |
60-75% |
| C |
15-25% |
| D |
0-15% |
| F |
0-5% |
The permissible grade distribution may be off by a percentage representing less than two students enrolled in the course. (For example, in a course of 50 students, where each student represents 2 per cent, each category may be off by less than 4 per cent, in either direction. In a course of 25 students, where each student represents 4 per cent, each category may be off by less than 8 per cent, in either direction.)
A median of 70-72 and the curve will apply to: i) exam courses, and ii) non-exam courses with an enrolment of more than sixteen students.
A median of 73-75 but no curve will apply to: i) major paper courses, and ii) non-exam courses with sixteen or fewer students.
No median or curve will apply to courses with an enrolment of six or fewer students.
Only JD students count for the calculation of the median and the grade distribution.
LAWS 1004: Legal Research and Writing has a median of 72-74. Small group 1L courses have a median of 72-74.
-
The same grade distribution scheme, and its exceptions, applies across all years of the program.
-
The Studies Committee shall perform an oversight function with respect to grades. Prior to the Faculty Council marks meeting, the Studies Committee shall be provided with a breakdown of the grades awarded in all courses and should make appropriate inquiries concerning any obvious anomalies. In the event that the Committee is not satisfied with the explanation offered by a faculty member for an apparent anomaly, the Committee should direct them to reconsider their/nekmewey marks and the Committee may bring the matter to the attention of Faculty Council.
-
A full breakdown of marks awarded in individual courses shall be available to Faculty Council at the Faculty marks meeting.
Excessive Disparity Between Sections
-
A faculty member who teaches any course in which there is an examination, must provide a draft of the examination to a colleague for vetting.
-
Before handing in their/nekmewey grades, a faculty member must provide to a colleague the best, an average, and the worst (including all failures, if any) papers and/or examinations for co-reading. (This also applies to those teaching major paper courses).
Dean’s List
The Dean’s List recognizes superior academic performance by the top 10 per cent of Dalhousie students in each year at the Schulich School of Law.
Major Paper Courses
Each 2L and 3L student must take at least one course which has been designated as a major paper course per year. During registration, students are permitted to register for a maximum of two major paper courses per year. Students may also apply to the Studies Committee for permission to take a third major paper course in a year, subject to course availability. Permission to register for a third major paper course will only be granted immediately before classes start until the end of the add/drop period.
Some courses are available on the basis of evaluation by either examination or major paper, the difference being that when the course is evaluated by examination, two credit hours are earned, and where a major paper is written, three credit hours are earned.
Major Paper Guidelines
A “major paper” is a writing requirement worth not less than 60% of the final mark awarded in a course.
No method of evaluation in any course may require a major paper unless that requirement has received the approval of Faculty Council. While this constraint could be evaded by assigning papers worth only slightly less than 60%, assigning several papers, and so on, courses should respect the spirit of Faculty Council in approving major paper courses.
1. Objective of Major Paper Requirement
The major paper requirement is intended to assist in the improvement of the legal research and writing skills the student already has. It is to be, in effect, an extension of the 1L legal writing program. The topics upon which the written assignments are undertaken should be of a type suitable for in-depth research in a limited field of inquiry and substantial input from the professor is essential.
2. Performance Expectation
The aim should be writing of publishable quality. It is to be expected that most students will not achieve such a high level of quality, just as most students will be unable to achieve an A standing in other courses. Papers should exhibit at least some level of legal analysis and not consist of a mere recitation of decisions and facts. Supervision should be sufficient to make the writing requirement a real learning experience. This necessarily involves feedback to the student during the preparation of the paper and after its completion.
The curve does not apply as a guideline in the marking of major papers, although a median grade range of 73-75 is enforced (except in courses with six or fewer students enrolled).
The criteria of (a) Research; (b) Organization: Logic/Coherence; (c) Analysis-Insight-Synthesis; (d) Literary Style; and (e) Originality are adopted explicitly for the evaluation of major papers. The definition of these criteria and the alphabetical grade equivalents and weights assigned to them are set out in the following table.
a) Research involves the ability to find, select and use effectively all primary materials (case, statutes, regulations) and secondary sources (books or articles) relevant to the topic. In many courses, a comparative analysis of material from other jurisdictions (e.g. Britain and the United States) may be appropriate or even essential. Students should not rely exclusively on secondary sources, but should read the original text of major cases and statutes referred to in the literature. Research materials should include, where appropriate, non-legal sources. Empirical research by students ought to be encouraged.
The table (see below) adopts the following descriptors for research (horizontal axis):
-
Outstanding - as defined above
-
Thorough- no important area of research has been missed but there are a few loose ends or other sources that ought to have been explored.
-
Not quite thorough - an important area of research has been missed or there are both loose ends and other sources to be explored.
-
Serious but Unsuccessful canvass of sources contains the failings of (iii) only more so.
-
Mere attempt to consider sources - distinguishable from (iv) as being cursory rather than serious in considering main sources or there are clear errors in research, e.g. student fails to check for appeals of relevant decisions, and bases much of the analysis on a court of appeal case that has been reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
-
No serious research effort - self explanatory.
b) Organization: Logic/Coherence relates to the logical and coherent presentation of the subject matter, so that it is readily intelligible to the reader.
The introduction should assist the reader by providing both a clear statement of the problem that the student has chosen to analyze, the goal they/nekm seek to achieve, and a brief overview of the subjects they/nekm intend to discuss. The conclusion should play a similar role at the end of the paper, except that it should also summarize the student's conclusions. Topics should appear in a logical sequence. Legal and factual material that provides the foundation for discussion of a particular issue should be set out before that issue is reached. The student should use headings to structure the paper and indicate when they/nekm move to a new topic or subtopic. There should also be transitional text to justify the shift to a new topic, explain its connection to issues previously discussed, and the like.
The table adopts the following descriptors for Organization (vertical axis):
- Excellent Organization
-
Well organized: A few minor flaws, but generally good logical flow
-
Moderate Disorganization: Disorganized throughout, but paper is generally intelligible
-
Substantial Disorganization: paper hard to follow
-
Incoherent: Disorganization is so great that paper is unintelligible
c) Analysis-Insight-Synthesis: These criteria relate to the evaluation of the student's ability to understand and utilize effectively the materials that they/nekm have found through research. They/nekm require an understanding of the subject matter that goes beyond the ability to merely recite the rationales of cases, the conclusions reached by other authorities, or bare statistics.
Analysis relates to the student's detailed use of cases, statutes, and secondary sources within the paper to explore particular issues that they/nekm have identified. Good analysis will assist the reader to achieve a sophisticated understanding of the issues and relevant legal authorities without the need to read all the various sources that the student has identified through research. The student should provide a factual background adequate to permit the reader to understand the context in which legal problems arise. The student should describe relevant legal material (cases/statutes) and important policy analysis (for example, Law Reform Commission materials) in sufficient detail to provide the reader with a clear view of any legal controversies that exist and reasoning that has been put forward to support the various positions. There are a wide variety of analytical weaknesses that may be displayed by students. Examples include missing a relevant issue or legal argument, identifying legal problems but not exploring available legal principles that may have a bearing on potential solutions, or stating the conclusions of cases significant to analysis of an issue without setting out the reasoning that the court used to justify its conclusions.
“Insight” involves an in-depth understanding of the fundamental issues. Good “Synthesis”, which usually demonstrates this understanding, reflects the ability of the student to integrate the diverse material that they/nekm have found into a conceptual framework that is clearly explained to the reader. Insight and synthesis would probably show up in a strong statement of thematic material at the outset, its use as an organizing device in the paper, and a serious attempt in the conclusion either to determine whether the initial hypothesis had been proven or to assess the conceptual apparatus for its explanatory power. Weak insight and synthesis may be demonstrated by a student's failure to integrate relevant authorities for some or all of the paper.
A better paper will draw inferences from the digested material as to the present state and future development of the law in the area researched, as well as formulating recommendations for legal changes that might improve the situation and serve appropriate policy goals. Good analysis without much insight or synthesis may be average depending on the complexity or the novelty of the topic or research method. For instance, good analysis of an original topic (see Originality, below) may be as much as can be expected and should be rewarded highly. The same quality of analysis of a topic on which there is already a body of published critical writing that provides a framework or platform for the student's paper would have to show its own insight and synthesis to rate equally highly. A paper that sets out numerous cases or articles or otherwise merely describes the results of the student's research efforts, however extensive, without attempting to extract common principles or create an analytical basis is likely to be judged as poor.
The table adopts the following descriptors for analysis-insight-synthesis (vertically within each box in the table):
-
Poor
d) Literary Style: This criterion relates to the paper’s linguistic style. Most Dalhousie law students do a competent job with grammar and spelling, and many have excellent literary style. The stylistic problems present in papers are of two sorts. Legal writing should be formal but clear and straightforward. Some students tend to be too colloquial, using slang or contractions such as “won’t”. Other students try too hard to be formal, producing convoluted sentences, making excessive use of the passive voice, and the like.
Because most students are competent in terms of literary style, this criterion is used to make adjustments in the grades produced by the table set out below only in extreme cases. The professor may increase or reduce the alphabetical grade produced by the table set out below by one grade level for exceptionally strong or exceptionally weak literary style as described below:
Descriptors for literary style:
Excellent: Literary style is significantly above the norm for Dalhousie law students. Raise table mark by one alphabetic grade level, e.g. B to B+.
Average: Literary style is consistent with that demonstrated by the majority of Dalhousie law students, e.g. some stylistic weaknesses but basically competent. No change in table grade.
Weak: Student's literary style falls significantly below the norm for Dalhousie law students and demonstrates serious, persistent weaknesses in grammar, spelling, and/or style. Reduce table mark by one alphabetic grade level, e.g. B to C+.
e) Originality: A highly prized, all-too-rare quality that cannot be easily defined, is used in the table to raise the alphabetical grade that would have been assigned otherwise by a maximum of two grade levels. A paper may demonstrate good “analysis-synthesis” but still be lacking in originality. There are two different kinds of originality: topic originality and substantive originality.
The first sort of originality relates to the topic itself. This kind of originality exists when the student selects a topic where no research has been previously undertaken in Canada (e.g. there are no Canadian secondary sources that deal with the issue that the student has selected). There may or may not be articles or books that have been published on the topic in foreign jurisdictions (e.g. the United States or Britain), but even when such foreign sources do exist, a significant degree of creativity and extrapolation is required on the part of a student who undertakes to write on a topic where no previous Canadian research is available to help with all or part of the topic. This kind of originality may exist in major papers that display weaknesses in other areas. Indeed, some kinds of analytical or organizational problems may be attributable precisely to the fact that the student is working in an area where no guidance is available from previous research carried out by more experienced scholars. The professor may recognize this kind of originality relating to topic by increasing the alphabetic grade produced by the table above by one level (e.g. from a B to a B+).
The second kind of originality may appear in the way the research is approached, or in the understanding that the writer has gained of the topic and is able to convey to the reader, or in the form of new and convincing insights that are unique to the student author. This kind of originality, which is the hallmark of a paper of “publishable quality,” is not mere novelty, although in other contexts the word may have that meaning: the new position advocated by the student must be credible, as well as novel. A major paper may demonstrate this kind of originality, even though the topic has been previously considered by other researchers in Canada. Originality of this kind will normally be associated with good “insight- synthesis- analysis.” The professor may recognize this kind of substantive originality by increasing the alphabetical grade produced by the table by either one or two levels, depending on the extent of the originality demonstrated by the paper (e.g. from a B+ to an A, or from a B+ to an A+ grade).
The cumulative effect of increases for originality is restricted to a jump of two grade levels. In other words, a professor cannot award a student an originality increase of three grade levels by accumulating an award of one grade level for topic originality, and two grade levels for substantive originality.
Major Paper Guidelines Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
Serious but unsuccessful canvass of sources
|
Mere attempt to consider sources
|
No serious research effort
|
Organizational/Logical Flow
|
Analysis Insight-Synthesis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Substantial Disorganization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raise table mark by one alphabetic grade level, e.g. B to B+
|
|
|
|
No change in table grade level as determined above
|
|
|
|
Reduce table mark by one alphabetic grade level, e.g. B to B-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raise table mark by one or two alphabetic grade levels e.g. B+ to A-, or A- or B+ to A.
|
5. Guidelines for Major Paper Courses
- Major papers are a minimum of 25 pages, double-spaced.
- A paper of a general descriptive nature will not meet the standards.
- A major paper topic must be suitable for in-depth research with legal emphasis in a limited field of inquiry.
- The supervisor/professor should approve the topic and the outline or draft of the paper.
- Faculty members should make themselves available to meet with students to discuss the graded papers.
- At each stage of the supervision of a major paper, both the supervising faculty member and the student should pay explicit attention to each of the criteria relevant to the evaluation of the paper.
- Copies of the major paper guidelines should be made available to students.
Appeals Process
The following Appeal Regulations, passed by Faculty Council in October 1980 and amended March 1987, March, 2001 and May, 2006, are now in effect. This process prevails over any other grade appeals process in force at Dalhousie University, including but not limited to the 'Reassessment of a Final Grade Process' administered by the Registrar's Office.
The Studies Committee, chaired by the Associate Dean, Academic, is delegated by Faculty Council to perform an oversight role in administering the Appeal Regulations. In these regulations, reference to the Associate Dean, Academic, may include a person who, in the particular circumstances, has been designated by the Associate Dean, Academic, to act in their/nekmewey stead.
Note:?There are several procedures in place at the Schulich School of Law to ensure fairness in evaluation and consistency in grading. All exam questions are vetted by a faculty member with experience teaching in the same area. Selected exams (including all failures) are co-read after marking is complete, but before the marks are submitted and approved. Because of these checks, the Appeal Regulations do not provide for appeals which amount merely to seeking a second opinion. Students bear the burden of establishing the elements of an appeal. No appeal can be based upon the fact that a grade was lowered by the Studies Committee or Faculty Council in order to comply with the Grade Distribution rules.
A student who believes there is an error in a grade received in a course or in a component of a course should discuss the grade informally with the faculty member responsible.
A faculty member who, as a result of the informal review, acknowledges that an error in grading exists must, within five working days of the informal review, inform the Studies Committee in writing of the nature of the error, and should indicate how the error should be rectified.
Upon receipt of such notification from a faculty member, the Studies Committee shall review the written explanation and shall decide whether amending the grade is appropriate in the circumstances.
B. Formal Request for an Appeal
General (Applicable to All Formal Appeals)
- Any student who is considering launching a formal appeal is strongly encouraged first:
a) to go through the informal review outlined above; and
b) to speak with the Associate Dean, Academic, to ensure that the student has a clear understanding of the substantive and procedural requirements for a formal appeal.
-
There are two types of formal appeal available under these regulations:
a) Appeals based on a demonstrable error in grading (“Part I appeals”); and
b) Appeals relating to unfairness, impropriety, or incompetence (“Part II appeals”).
-
Any formal Request for an Appeal shall be made by letter to the Associate Dean, Academic.
a) in the case of a final grade received in a winter term course or on a supplemental or deferred exam written during the spring/summer by a student who is returning to the Schulich School of Law the following September, not later than 15 working days following the first day of classes that September; or
b) in all other cases, not later than 15 working days after the final grade is made available through the University online distribution system
a) the Appeal Regulations stipulate a time period for a student, faculty member, or Appeal Board to take any action, and
b) in the opinion of the Associate Dean, Academic, circumstances exist that would justify an extension of that time period and the extension could be granted without imposing an undue burden on other parties the Associate Dean, Academic, may, upon written request, grant an extension.
Part I Appeal: Demonstrable Error in Grading
-
A student, having received the final grade in a course, may request a formal appeal of the grade given in any written component of the course, including the result of a deferred or supplemental examination, on the basis that an error has been made in grading.
-
An error in grading must be a demonstrable error, as opposed to a general sense that the exam or assignment deserved a higher grade. Example: Where a student can demonstrate, prima facie, that their/nekmewey answer accorded with the faculty member’s marking guide but the faculty member gave insufficient credit for it, an error in grading may be alleged.
-
A Request for an Appeal under this Part shall contain the following information:
a) The student’s name and exam code number;
b) The name of the course and of the faculty member(s) who taught and/or evaluated it;
c) A reasonable explanation of the nature of the error in grading which the student believes affected the mark received; and
d) A copy of the assignment or exam.
-
Where the appeal involves an exam, paper, or assignment not already in the possession of the office of the Associate Dean, Academic, the student shall ensure that the Request for an Appeal is accompanied by the exam, paper, or assignment originally submitted by the student.
-
Upon receipt of a Request for an Appeal under this Part, the Studies Committee shall
a) where the Studies Committee is of the opinion that the student has not, prima facie, demonstrated an error in grading in accordance with section 2, notify the student that the appeal has been terminated; or
b) where the Studies Committee is of the opinion that the student has, prima facie, demonstrated an error in grading in accordance with section 2, permit the appeal to proceed.
-
Where the Studies Committee permits an appeal to proceed further, the Associate Dean, Academic, shall
a) notify the student involved; and
b) forward to the faculty member who assigned the grade in question the student's Request for an Appeal.
-
Within ten (10) working days of receiving the Request for an Appeal under section 6(b), the faculty member shall
a) advise the Associate Dean, Academic, whether the faculty member agrees that an error in grading occurred and shall recommend to the Studies Committee that
1. the grade or mark remain unchanged,
2. the grade or mark be lowered, and by how much, or
3. the grade or mark be increased and by how much;
b) give the reasons for their/nekmewey recommendation; and
c) indicate the mode of grading used for the exam, assignment or paper in question.
-
Where in the opinion of the Associate Dean, Academic, it is impossible or impractical to obtain the recommendation of the faculty member referred to in section 7 within a time frame that would not prejudice the student, the Studies Committee may forward the appeal directly to an Appeal Board constituted in accordance with section 11.
-
The Studies Committee shall review the recommendation received from the faculty member under Section 7 and where the faculty member recommends raising the grade in the same amount requested by the student in their/nekmewey Request for an Appeal, the Studies Committee may
a) make the recommended change in the grade, or
b) forward the matter to an Appeal Board constituted in accordance with section 11.
-
Where the Studies Committee does not change the grade or forward the matter in accordance with subsection 9, the Studies Committee shall forward the faculty member's recommendation to the student making the appeal. Within five (5) working days of receiving the faculty member's recommendation, the student shall notify the Associate Dean, Academic, in writing as to whether or not they/nekm intend to continue with the appeal.
-
Where, in accordance with section 10, the student notifies the Associate Dean, Academic, of their/nekmewey intention to continue with the appeal, the Associate Dean, Academic, shall appoint two faculty members, preferably with expertise in the subject, as an Appeal Board, to review the grade assigned and to determine whether an error has been made in evaluating the student's work.
-
The Associate Dean, Academic, shall provide the Appeal Board with the following:
a) the student's Request for Appeal;
b) the recommendation of the faculty member provided under section 7;
c) the exam, paper, or assignment being appealed; and
d) copies of exams, paper, or assignments from the same class that
1. received a grade five or more marks higher than that obtained by the student making the appeal,
2. received a grade five or more marks lower than that obtained by the student making the appeal, and
3. received the highest grade in the class.
-
Where the exam, paper, or assignment under appeal offered choice as to questions or topics, care should be taken to ensure that as far as possible the papers chosen for comparison reflect similar choices.
-
Where the student is appealing the grade(s) received on only one or several of the questions on the exam or assignment, as far as possible, the grade variations set out in subsection 12(d) should relate to the question or questions under appeal.
-
The members of the Appeal Board shall independently review the grade assigned to determine whether, in their/nekmewey opinion, an error has been made in grading the work of the student in the context of the mode of grading and the grades assigned the other students whose work is being used for comparison.
-
The members of the Appeal Board, after completing their/nekmewe'l independent review, shall meet and determine whether:
a) the mark should remain unchanged;
b) the mark should be lowered, and by how much; or
c) the mark should be increased and by how much.
-
The Appeal Board shall report its decision, with reasons, to the office of the Associate Dean, Academic, within 15 working days of its appointment.
-
Where the Appeal Board is unanimous that there was an error in grading, the mark under review shall be changed in accordance with the recommendation of the Appeal Board. Otherwise, the grade shall remain unchanged.
-
The office of the Associate Dean, Academic, shall provide a copy of the decision of the Appeal Board to the student and faculty member involved in the appeal.
Part II Appeals: Unfairness, impropriety, or incompetence
-
A student, having received the final grade in a course, may seek a formal appeal of
a) the grade for any unwritten component of the course, or
b) any other aspect of the evaluation method(s) used in the course,
c) on the basis that there was material unfairness or impropriety in the manner in which the evaluation was conducted or that the evaluation was not conducted by a competent evaluator.
-
An appeal brought under this Part will only be successful if the student can demonstrate material unfairness, impropriety, or incompetence; this Part does not provide for an appeal based solely on a difference of opinion between the student and faculty member as to the mode of evaluation or the grade assigned to the student.
-
The Request for an Appeal under this Part shall contain the following information:
a) the student's name and exam code number;
b) the name of the course and of the faculty member(s) who taught and/or evaluated it;
c) full explanation of the nature of the unfairness, impropriety, or incompetence being alleged; and
d) where relevant, a copy of the assignment, paper, or exam.
-
Where the appeal involves an exam, paper, or assignment not already in the possession of the office of the Associate Dean, Academic, the student shall ensure that the Request for an Appeal is accompanied by the exam, paper, or assignment originally submitted by the student.
-
Upon receipt of a Request for an Appeal under this Part, the Studies Committee shall
a) where the Studies Committee is of the opinion that the student has not, prima facie, demonstrated material unfairness, impropriety or incompetence in accordance with section 2, notify the student that the appeal has been terminated; or
b) where the Studies Committee is of the opinion that the student has, prima facie, demonstrated material unfairness, impropriety or incompetence in accordance with section 2, permit the appeal to proceed.
-
Where the Studies Committee permits an appeal to proceed under this Part, the Associate Dean, Academic, shall
a) notify the student involved; and
b) forward to the faculty member who assigned the grade in question the student's Request for an Appeal.
-
Within ten (10) working days of receiving the Request for an Appeal under section 5(b), the faculty member shall provide to the Associate Dean, Academic, a response to the Request for Appeal.
-
Where in the opinion of the Associate Dean, Academic, it is impossible or impractical to obtain the response of the faculty member referred to in section 6 within a time frame that would not prejudice the student, the Studies Committee may decide the appeal.
-
The office of the Associate Dean, Academic, shall forward the faculty member's response to the student making the appeal.
-
Within five (5) working days of receiving the faculty member's response under section 7, the student shall notify the Associate Dean, Academic, in writing as to whether or not the student intends to continue with the appeal, and if so, whether the student wishes to participate in an oral hearing.
-
Where an appeal is to proceed by way of oral hearing, the office of the Associate Dean, Academic, shall, within reason, attempt to set the hearing date at a time that is convenient to all parties. In no event shall the oral hearing be scheduled more than 60 working days after an oral hearing is requested under section 10.
-
Where the appeal is not to proceed by way of oral hearing, the student shall, within ten (10) working days of receiving the faculty member's response under section 7, provide to the Associate Dean, Academic, a written reply to the faculty member's response.
-
Where an appeal is not to proceed by way of oral hearing, the office of the Associate Dean, Academic, shall forward to the Studies Committee the Request for an Appeal, the faculty member's response received under section 7, and the student's reply received under section 12, and the appeal shall be decided by the Studies Committee.
-
Once a formal appeal has been decided under this Part, the Studies Committee shall provide the student and the faculty member involved with a written decision, including the reasons for its decision.
C. Reconsideration of a Studies Committee Decision
-
Where a student has received a decision of the Studies Committee made under these Appeal Regulations, the student may request a reconsideration of that decision where the student has new information that
a) was not and could not reasonably have been available to the student at the time of the appeal; and
b) is sufficient to persuade the Studies Committee to change the decision.
-
A request for reconsideration must be made as soon as possible after the further information becomes available.
-
Where the Studies Committee is of the opinion that the student has met the requirements set out in subsections 1(a) and 1(b), the Studies Committee shall reconsider the matter and shall communicate the new decision in writing to the student and any others who might be affected by the decision.
Except to the extent that the decision made under these Appeal Regulations may be appealed to the Senate Appeals Committee,
(a) a decision of an Appeal Board is final; and
(b) subject to the section on reconsideration, any decision of the Studies Committee is final.
E. Appeals to Senate Appeals Committee