Stephen Vasciannie LAST WEEK'S column on 'Two Degrees of Law' prompted no small number of responses to me, with some persons pointing out the relevance of the discussion to themselves, and with others wondering why I had strayed so far from the beaten track (at a time when they are so many Seagaristic paths to follow). One intriguing response implied that people with PhDs presume that they are academically superior to those without, and that somehow my discussion was within that stream of thought.
Perhaps that response was presented tongue in cheek, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I should indicate that my purpose was simply to set out points concerning the differences between the PhD and the American degree of Juris Doctor. In that same spirit, there are some other degree-related and assessment issues that fall for consideration today.
The University of the West Indies has traditionally followed the English system in its award of degrees. Hence, the well-known B.A. and M.A. degrees, represent specific levels of attainment within the academic hierarchy in the humanities, while the B.Sc. and M.Sc. are counterpart degrees in the Pure and Applied Sciences and the Social Sciences. In some disciplines, such as education, there are particular classifications, such as the B.Ed and M.Ed in education, or the LL.B and LL.M in law. Similarly, the M.B.A. is well-known in the Caribbean and elsewhere.
THE PHD
On the research track at the post-graduate level, candidates may read for an M.Phil degree. And, in most cases, the highest formal level of attainment for a research degree -- is reflected in the award of the PhD.
Oxford System
But, though we rely on the English system, some English institutions have their own peculiarities. Take the case of Oxford. If you take an Oxford degree, a B.A., and you stay alive for something like five years, then, upon payment of a fee of something like five pounds, you will automatically be given an M.A. This is called a degree of accumulation, and was probably based, originally, on the snooty notion that an Oxford degree and five years of living is equivalent to an M.A. degree at other universities.
DYSLEXIC
The Oxford approach may simply be regarded as a quaint legacy from the past, but administrators everywhere should note that an Oxford M.A. does not reflect an additional course of study following the B.A. And Oxford goes on: the BCL, which formally means Bachelor of Civil Law, is one of the most highly rated Masters degrees in the common law world. So when you meet a chap with M.A., BCL, you should note that his classification is dyslexic.
Again, the Oxford first degree in law is not called the LL.B (as is the case in most other institutions). Rather, it is described as the B.A. in Jurisprudence. Also, the B.Phil, which denotes Bachelor of Philosophy, is a very competitive Masters degree at Oxford, equivalent at very least to the M.Phil degree elsewhere. The typical Oxford view is that the cognoscenti will know these things, so it does not matter that the Oxford stream is following in a direction which differs from others.
Different methods of classification assume prominence in the post-university phase. Thus, for instance, in professional life, a fellowship at one of the Royal Colleges of learning or in an equivalent academy is a mark of recognition for distinguished work. In law, within our jurisdiction, the title of preference is, of course, that of Queen's Counsel (or Q.C.), offered in recognition of professional attainment in the courts.
Queen's Counsel
The Jamaican Bar Association ruminates from time to time about the title of Q.C. On one view, the name should be changed, not just because a rose by any other name will smell as sweet, but, more importantly, because the title connotes the type of imperial associations that we should be prepared to abandon. This view, incidentally, was given a fillip a few months ago when the English poet, Benjamin Zephaniah, refused the British national honour of M.B.E. essentially because he had no interest in being part of the British Empire.
The foregoing view on the Q.C. question could probably lead to a change in the title -- to, say, Senior Counsel -- but this would not be sufficient for some. For, another view is that the whole system of distinguishing between QCs and others is unnecessary. On this view, prospective clients will be able to identify the most successful and/or intellectually adept lawyers without the aid of a title, so no harm will be done in throwing out the status of Q.C. altogether. In support of this perspective, too, is the idea that it should not be for the State to determine -- whether directly or indirectly -- which lawyers are more distinguished than their peers.
PROFESSIONAL
The jury is still out on the question of QCs. The arguments noted above have some force, but, on the other hand, professionals usually wish to have some method of recognising the enhanced status of some of their colleagues, and of motivating aspirants to seniority. Also, one suspects that with respect to persons now holding QCs, it would be confiscatory to remove a title which, in principle, leads not only to standing in the community but to higher fees.
Above 75%!
Finally, on the business of assessment, the UWI usually follows the English marking scheme for grading papers. There is currently some slight turbulence on this point as the UWI has moved to introduce the Grade Point Average (GPA) system that has long prevailed in the USA. The introduction of the GPA scheme has again prompted the question as to why 70% should be the starting point for an "A", and at the other end, why persons should obtain a pass after garnering only 40%.
SCALE
On the question of "A"s, the English approach is based on the assumption that no essay is perfect, and that as you approach perfection it must become increasingly difficult to reach 100%. It usually assumes, too, that even the strongest undergraduate will not obtain more than 80% because, almost by definition, even the best undergraduate will not have the level of intellectual and stylistic sophistication to reach perfection. In practice, then, there is a scale that ends at about 80%, and as long as everyone understands this, no real harm is done.
But note the qualification. An American university administrator -- accustomed to a more generous hand in awarding marks at the upper end -- may not realise that 75% in a history essay is close to the pinnacle of achievement. So, the scale must be explained. Remember, too, that we are applying the English system: if students are given grades of 90% or more in the humanities, English university administrators could well assume that people are "giving away" marks at the UWI, a conclusion that would certainly not redound to the benefit of our students.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law and Head, Department of Government, UWI. He is also a consultant in the Attorney-General's Chambers.
