Wealthy and White: Legal Education at the Auckland Law School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in some other countries indicates that affluent, white students are overrepresented in law schools, and benefit from an environment that caters closely to their needs, while students who are not from this group are under-represented and face additional challenges that they must negotiate through their studies. Preliminary quantitative research published in 2018 suggested that high-socioeconomic background students comprised the majority of University of Auckland law students and enjoyed the greatest success in and lowest rates of attrition from the law degree. Similarly, the literature capturing qualitative and personal accounts across law schools in Aotearoa indicated that the law school environment may privilege Pākehā students from “elite” backgrounds. This research project sought to explore how socioeconomic factors impacted the experiences of individual law students during their studies at the University of Auckland. Law students in their final two years of study, and who attended decile one through four secondary schools (that is, the 40 per cent most socioeconomically deprived), were invited to participate in focus groups to discuss their experiences studying law. The purpose was to obtain qualitative data indicating the experience of students that previous research indicates are disadvantaged in the law school environment. Results indicate that the law school environment is culturally Pākehā and affluent and optimises the success of students who are from this group. Students who are not part of this cultural majority face additional challenges when trying to realise their academic potential and socially network in the law school environment, and the onus is on them to expend additional time, energy and resources to bridge these gaps. Barriers are often cultural and social rather than directly financial, although personal financial constraints appear to intersect to amplify the effect of these social and cultural inequalities. More research on the experiences of tauira Māori and students from other ethnicities is needed in this space to fully understand the law school as an institution that centres culturally Pākehā and affluent norms, behaviours and social structures. Further intersectional analysis is required. Participants’ experiences are consistent with those reported in other qualitative studies, in both Aotearoa and the comparable jurisdictions examined (Australia, Canada, England and the United States) of the lived experiences, and barriers to the academic and career success of, disadvantaged students. More normatively, the findings confirm the descriptive value of both Bourdieusian and intersectional accounts of subordination in higher education contexts, which predicted the experiences reported by focus group participants. The results demonstrate the applicability of this extensive body of literature to the domestic context of Aotearoa.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".