Student Participation in Legal Education in Germany and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Germany, the possibilities of students to participate in and contribute to legal education are generally quite limited. Compared to the legal education systems in the USA and Canada, the course of studies is rather theoretical and quite anonymous. Communication between students, faculty staff and deans is rare, and classes are fairly big. As to the abstractness of the curriculum, several changes have been made to improve the situation. For example, a reform in 2003 was supposed to increase foreign language competence and provide for more specialization and practical relevance. However, the system can still (or again) be considered to be “under construction”. Many important skills are not being taught, and the awareness of the international, social and cultural contexts is largely neglected or lacking reference to the subject matter. There is an ongoing debate about further changes to the legal educational systems especially about the adoption of the Bologna Process. While some consider it inapplicable to the German system, others have already started transferring it at their university. Several federal states have meanwhile started endorsing a basic reform. However the next rulings will not be until 2011. Presently scholars, policy-makers in the field of education and economists face the challenge of devising strategies for legal education that meet the needs and interests of all “stakeholders” while being compatible with the traditional German system. Students are curious and concerned about the future of their curriculum. Their means of participation include a) passively evaluating teachings, b) actively engaging in a student parliament or self-governed student councils of a special field (so-called Fachschaften) and c) actively involving in student organizations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".