What do law students say about teaching quality?

teaching stafflaw

Students on LLB and related programmes typically praise staff expertise and availability, but they ask for clearer assessment standards and consistent marking. In National Student Survey (NSS) open-text across the Teaching Staff category, sentiment is strongly positive (78.3% Positive; index +52.8). Within the Common Aggregation Hierarchy for law, students often commend staff (index +35.0) while raising concerns about Feedback as the largest assessment theme (8.9% of comments) and finding Marking criteria particularly weak (index −46.7). These sector baselines frame the analysis that follows.

How variable is teaching quality in law?

Variation in teaching approaches shapes motivation and attainment. Some lecturers use dynamic methods and deep disciplinary understanding that lift engagement and comprehension; others struggle to meet those expectations. This affects commitment and performance. With a strong sector baseline for staff-student interactions, the sharper pain points in law often sit in assessment design and expectations rather than classroom delivery. Regularly gathering and acting on student feedback helps identify where to refine practice and where to amplify what already works.

How accessible are teaching staff?

Predictable access to lecturers and tutors reduces stress and supports progression. For law cohorts grappling with complex cases and precedents, timely support matters. Where schedules and office hours are limited or unpredictable, students feel left to manage alone. Providers should maintain up-to-date office hours, offer virtual drop-ins, and set response windows that are communicated and met. These habits promote equity of access across the cohort and help students maintain momentum.

How consistent are assessment and feedback?

Inconsistent marking and opaque expectations undermine confidence. Students describe variation between markers within the same module and uncertainty about how to interpret assessment briefs. Programmes that publish exemplars, align marking criteria to learning outcomes, calibrate markers, and provide actionable feedback restore trust and make standards concrete. Dialogue with students about assessment practices, and visible changes in response to concerns, show that feedback functions as part of learning rather than as a one-way judgement.

What is the impact of online learning platforms?

Digital delivery expands flexibility but demands deliberate pedagogy. Teams invest effort to adapt materials, maintain engagement, and provide timely feedback in virtual settings. Students value structure: clear weekly expectations, accessible recordings and materials, and straightforward routes for questions. Consistent digital communication and predictable rhythms for updates and drop-ins sustain interaction where physical presence is limited.

Do supplemental materials and elective modules help?

Curated resources and well-structured elective choice deepen understanding and relevance. Case materials, legal databases, commentary, and short video explainers help students consolidate learning at their own pace. Keeping resources current and easy to navigate allows students to focus on analysis rather than wayfinding. Thoughtful elective design enables students to align study with interests and career aims while maintaining core standards.

How should staff engage and interact with students?

Interaction that prioritises analysis and application—debates, problem-based tasks, case conferences—improves comprehension and confidence. Short pulse checks and module-level feedback points help lecturers adjust delivery in real time. When students see how their input shapes teaching, belonging and participation improve.

What will enhance law education?

Prioritise assessment clarity and consistency, protect staff availability, and keep operational communications predictable. Calibrate marking, use rubrics and exemplars, and check that feedback is specific and actionable. Set and meet visible service standards for contact, and use a single source of truth for updates to reduce friction around timetabling and coursework expectations. Track sentiment and themes by cohort so teaching teams can see what changed and where to target effort next.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

Student Voice Analytics surfaces what students say about teaching interactions and assessment in one place, with drill-downs from provider to subject area and cohort. It benchmarks law against the sector tone for Teaching Staff, Assessment and Feedback, and operational delivery, so programme leaders can prioritise the next small changes that have the biggest effect. The platform provides concise, anonymised summaries for programme and departmental briefings, lets you segment by mode, campus/site and year of study, and supports like-for-like evidence of change for quality boards and external review.

Request a walkthrough

Book a Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.

• All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
• Versioned outputs with TEF-ready governance packs.
• Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.

Book a demo Prefer email? [email protected]

More posts on teaching staff:

• Should civil engineering departments change how teaching staff work with students?
• What do biosciences students say about teaching staff?
• What do NSS comments tell us about teaching staff in business and management?
• Theological education: student perspectives on teaching staff

More posts on law student views:

• Do law students need earlier, more stable timetables?
• How do law students rate course organisation and management?
• Do extracurricular activities genuinely benefit law students?
• What do law students need from career support?