There are some hurdles to achieving an internationalised law curriculum
- In jurisdictions where they are applied too prescriptively, the impact of the Priestley Eleven areas of knowledge on the law curriculum may act as a hurdle. They must be applied with a “light touch”, particularly in light of the wide range of other quality assurance mechanisms applied to universities and law schools.
- Potential over-regulation in a changed regulatory environment. Compliance with the requirements of the AQF, TEQSA and other regulators can mean that law schools are not able to develop graduates with the knowledge, skills and attributes required by employers.
- Potential under-funding of law schools to deliver best practice global legal education in a constrained funding environment will inhibit the implementation of an internationalised law curriculum. Such a curriculum will be more expensive than at present, particularly where an integration model is adopted.
- A “one-size fits all” approach to Australian education, where there is a tendency towards convergence rather than the delivery of best practice education in different ways to suit the mission and strategy of each law school, will inhibit the implementation of an internationalised law curriculum.
- The difficulty in attracting academic staff with the right qualifications and experience required to offer an internationalised law curriculum will act as a constraint across all law schools.
- Increasing, and perhaps at time unrealistic, demands from employers may push law schools to achieve unattainable goals, or discourage law schools to internationalise their curricula.
- Under-funding of key government representative agencies that enhance the position of law schools internationally, such as ILSAC, will also act as an inhibiting factor.