Law Students, Law Schools and Their Graduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legal profession is often discussed but seldom studied empirically. This study collected survey data from students and alumni from five law schools representing a range of Canadian legal institutions that differ, inter alia, in their admissions policies. This article presents an overview of our findings.One research question concerned the degree to which the population of law students and lawyers has changed (and is still changing), especially in regard to the participation by members of groups that had not previously attended law school or become lawyers. Our evidence suggests that most groups have significantly increased their participation as legal professionals, with the exception of members from lower socio-economic groups who have no made significant gains.Admission processes have played a part in making legal education more accessible. In addition, we examined the impact of many factors - from the atmosphere in law schools to special support programs - on different aspects of legal education, including the likelihood of success. Special attention was paid to the experience of Aboriginal law students in the five law schools. In addition, numerous other aspects of legal education and the legal system are studied, including life and career satisfaction and attitudes toward the legal system, as experienced and perceived by students and alumni of the five law schools. Age (or experience) and the specific law school attended appear to have significant impacts on how the legal system is perceived.The conclusion discusses some implications of the changes (and opening) of the legal system, including the need to address issues of real or perceived barriers to access to the legal profession.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".