La acreditación de las carreras de Derecho en la Argentina y la experiencia internacional en procesos de control de calidad educativa / Accreditation of Law Degrees in Argentina and the International Experience in Higher Educational Quality Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo de este articulo es analizar criticamente el proceso de acreditacion de las carreras de grado en Derecho en la Argentina a la luz de las experiencias internacionales. La metodologia seguida en el presente articulo es comparatista, focalizando en el analisis comparativo con jurisdicciones que cuentan con una importante experiencia en materia de acreditacion de carreras universitarias, tales como los Estados Unidos, Canada y paises europeos. Las carreras de grado en Derecho en la Argentina estan atravesando un proceso de acreditacion obligatoria. El Ministerio de Educacion ha adoptado recientemente normas y estandares para el control de la calidad que todas las facultades de Derecho deben seguir. Si bien las autoridades argentinas han adoptado el procedimiento para la evaluacion de la calidad de la educacion seguido en paises con mayor tradicion en acreditacion de carreras universitarias, la normativa ideada para la acreditacion se distancia de la experiencia internacional en ciertas cuestiones que son esenciales para asegurar la calidad del aprendizaje de los estudiantes, tales como la no exigencia del titulo maximo para el cuerpo docente, la no exigencia de contratar profesores con dedicacion de tiempo completo y la ausencia de la obligacion de adoptar un diseno curricular basado en competencias. Los estandares incluyen aspectos muy positivos, entre los que se incluyen una concepcion del Derecho tanto como disciplina profesional cuanto como disciplina autonoma dentro de las Ciencias Sociales y un rol preponderante a las actividades de investigacion de los estudiantes a lo largo de todo el plan de estudios. Ademas, los estandares exigen la formacion para la practica profesional, la cual es concebida en terminos amplios y no esta restringida a la preparacion para litigar ante las cortes. The aim of this article is to critically analyze the process of accreditation of the degrees of Law in Argentina in the light of international experiences. The methodology applied in this article is comparative, focusing on the analysis of jurisdictions which have significant experience in the certification of university programs, such as the United States, Canada, and European states. Undergraduate Law programs in Argentina are undergoing a mandatory process of accreditation. The Ministry of Education has recently issued regulations and standards for quality control, which all law schools have to abide by. Even though Argentine authorities have followed the procedure of evaluation of quality control in education applied in countries with a longer history of university program reviews, the regulations for accreditation drift away from the international experience in certain aspects which are essential to assure the quality of student learning, such as failure to require professors to have Ph.D.s, failure to demand law schools to hire full–time faculty staff, and the absence to mandate an outcome–based curriculum. The standards do have some very positive aspects. These include a conception of Law as both a professional discipline and as an independent Social Science discipline. Additionally, the standards give student research a preponderant role that goes across the whole curriculum. The standards also mandate law schools to prepare students for legal practice, which is conceived of in very broad terms and is in no way limited to preparation to litigate before the courts.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".