Gender gaps in legal education: The impact of class participation assessments

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2023-10-24 DOI:10.1111/jels.12372
Kenneth Khoo, Jaclyn Neo
{"title":"Gender gaps in legal education: The impact of class participation assessments","authors":"Kenneth Khoo,&nbsp;Jaclyn Neo","doi":"10.1111/jels.12372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The gender gap is a well-studied phenomenon in education policy. Although prior research has illustrated the presence of this gap in US Law Schools, questions remain as to whether these findings are generalizable to other jurisdictions where national, cultural, historical, institutional, and societal norms are substantially different. In this article, we investigate the presence and nature of a gender gap in one of Asia's leading law schools, the National University of Singapore (“NUS Law”). Employing a novel dataset with granular data on student, instructor, course, and component characteristics, we provide evidence that the gender gap persists over numerous cohorts of students. Despite controlling for a wide range of covariates such as standardized entry scores, income proxies, and a large array of fixed effects, female students at NUS Law systemically underperform their male counterparts across numerous metrics of law school performance. To investigate potential causal mechanisms behind the gender gap, we exploit a natural experiment in which NUS Law randomly assigned first- and second-year students to a range of compulsory courses with different class participation assessment weights. We provide evidence that female students who were assigned to courses with larger class participation weights had relatively lower class participation scores when compared to their male counterparts. Our work suggests that pedagogical policy should consider the choice of assessment modes with a view to narrowing the gender gap in legal education. Our study is distinctive within existing studies on the relationship between gender and class participation in legal education as it utilizes a comprehensive dataset of student scores, instead of relying on observational studies and self-reporting surveys which are more commonly used.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"20 4","pages":"1070-1137"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12372","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12372","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The gender gap is a well-studied phenomenon in education policy. Although prior research has illustrated the presence of this gap in US Law Schools, questions remain as to whether these findings are generalizable to other jurisdictions where national, cultural, historical, institutional, and societal norms are substantially different. In this article, we investigate the presence and nature of a gender gap in one of Asia's leading law schools, the National University of Singapore (“NUS Law”). Employing a novel dataset with granular data on student, instructor, course, and component characteristics, we provide evidence that the gender gap persists over numerous cohorts of students. Despite controlling for a wide range of covariates such as standardized entry scores, income proxies, and a large array of fixed effects, female students at NUS Law systemically underperform their male counterparts across numerous metrics of law school performance. To investigate potential causal mechanisms behind the gender gap, we exploit a natural experiment in which NUS Law randomly assigned first- and second-year students to a range of compulsory courses with different class participation assessment weights. We provide evidence that female students who were assigned to courses with larger class participation weights had relatively lower class participation scores when compared to their male counterparts. Our work suggests that pedagogical policy should consider the choice of assessment modes with a view to narrowing the gender gap in legal education. Our study is distinctive within existing studies on the relationship between gender and class participation in legal education as it utilizes a comprehensive dataset of student scores, instead of relying on observational studies and self-reporting surveys which are more commonly used.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律教育中的性别差异:课堂参与评估的影响
性别差距是教育政策中一个被广泛研究的现象。尽管先前的研究已经说明了美国法学院存在这种差距,但这些发现是否可以推广到其他国家、文化、历史、制度和社会规范存在本质差异的司法管辖区,问题仍然存在。在本文中,我们调查了亚洲领先的法学院之一新加坡国立大学(“国大法学院”)性别差距的存在和本质。我们采用了一个新颖的数据集,其中包含了学生、教师、课程和组成部分特征的细粒度数据,我们提供了证据,证明性别差距在许多学生群体中仍然存在。尽管控制了广泛的协变量,如标准化入学分数、收入代理和大量固定效应,但在法学院的许多指标上,新加坡国立大学法学院的女学生总体上表现不如男学生。为了调查性别差异背后的潜在因果机制,我们利用了一个自然实验,在这个实验中,新加坡国立大学法学院随机将一年级和二年级的学生分配到一系列具有不同课堂参与评估权重的必修课程。我们提供的证据表明,与男性学生相比,被分配到班级参与权重较大的课程的女学生的班级参与分数相对较低。我们的研究表明,教学政策应考虑评估模式的选择,以缩小法律教育中的性别差距。我们的研究在现有的关于法律教育中性别与班级参与之间关系的研究中是与众不同的,因为它利用了学生分数的综合数据集,而不是依赖于更常用的观察性研究和自我报告调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Market versus policy responses to novel occupational risks Network analysis of lawyer referral markets: Evidence from Indiana Emotional bargaining after litigation: An experimental study of the Coase theorem Automating Abercrombie: Machine-learning trademark distinctiveness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1