The Shift in Monash Law's Teaching Model
Monash University's Faculty of Law, one of Australia's largest with over 4,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students, has introduced significant changes to its teaching structure. Starting this year as part of a two-year trial running through 2027, the faculty has eliminated traditional tutorials in core law units for senior students. These small-group sessions, typically limited to around 30 students, have been replaced by larger 'active learning seminars' accommodating up to 120 participants. The move aims to foster more interactive environments but has sparked widespread debate among students who report a tangible reduction in personalized interaction with educators.
The announcement came via email from Executive Dean Professor Steven Vaughan and Associate Dean Heli Askola last November, catching many off guard. Student organizations, including the Monash Law Students' Society (LSS) and the Monash Student Association (MSA), were not consulted beforehand. This lack of input has fueled perceptions that the decision prioritizes operational efficiencies over student needs in a faculty already grappling with high enrollment numbers.
Understanding the New Active Learning Seminars
Active learning seminars represent a pedagogical shift emphasizing student-led activities such as group discussions, problem-solving exercises, and peer teaching within larger cohorts. Proponents argue this model extends active learning beyond the traditional three weeks embedded in old tutorials to the full 12-week semester. Monash spokesperson emphasized that face-to-face teaching hours remain unchanged, with the addition of 17 new academics this year to support the transition.
In practice, however, students describe a different reality. Fourth-year law student Zoe Wilkinson, pursuing a double degree in law and global studies, now attends just one three-hour seminar per week per subject, with no accompanying lectures or tutorials. This consolidation means less frequent opportunities to clarify complex legal concepts like statutory interpretation or case analysis, which traditionally thrived in smaller settings.
Student Reactions: A Wave of Discontent
The response from Monash law students has been vocal and unified. A survey by the LSS garnered 881 responses from honours students, with 95 percent opposing the removal of tutorials. Respondents highlighted sentiments like paying over $2,000 per unit for shared classes of 80 or more peers. Attendance has reportedly plummeted nine weeks into the semester, as disengaged students skip recorded lectures and skip now-less-interactive seminars.
MSA President Leroy Van Schellebeck described the changes as a 'degree-factory move,' pointing to the irony of unchanged high fees amid reduced perceived value. Double-degree students Remus Brasier and Esha Serai noted growing unease about preparation for legal practice, with Serai stressing tutorials' role as the 'most effective and practical part' of the degree. A Change.org petition launched in October 2025 to retain tutorials has amassed over 500 signatures, arguing that large seminars cannot replicate the feedback and depth of smaller groups.
The Cost Conundrum: Fees Versus Contact Hours
Domestic undergraduate law students under Commonwealth Supported Places (CSP) pay approximately $16,300 annually for full-time study, while international students face fees around $48,700 per year. Critics question why these substantial sums—equating to over $200,000 for a full degree—have not adjusted downward despite the structural shifts. Van Schellebeck argues the university seeks to maximize international enrollments without proportional staffing investments.
This comes amid broader financial pressures on Australian universities, including provincial funding reductions cited in faculty communications. Yet, Monash maintains investments in teaching innovation justify the model, denying any net loss in contact time. Students counter that quality trumps quantity, with larger classes diluting individualized support essential for mastering nuanced legal reasoning.
For deeper insights into the financial backdrop, see this detailed report from The Age.
Why Tutorials Matter in Legal Education
Tutorials have long been the cornerstone of Australian legal education, particularly in problem-based learning. In small groups, students dissect hypotheticals, debate precedents, and receive tailored feedback—skills pivotal for bar admission and solicitor practice. Law, unlike rote subjects, demands articulation, ethical analysis, and application under pressure, best honed interactively.
Research underscores small-group efficacy: a Norwegian study linked larger classes to lower exam scores, while elite programs like Oxford's tutorials (two students) or Yale Law sections (36 average) prioritize intimacy for depth. At Monash, replacing these with 120-student seminars risks superficial engagement, where quieter voices or complex queries go unaddressed, potentially widening achievement gaps.
Stakeholder Perspectives and Negotiations
Professor Steven Vaughan, an internationally recognized legal educator formerly at University College London, defends the trial as enhancing active learning across the curriculum. The LSS letter to Vaughan and Askola proposes reverting to lectures, workshops, and tutorials, positioning the latter as irreplaceable. Ongoing talks this week could shape the trial's second year.
Broader commentary, such as from the Institute of Public Affairs, warns against 'fast-food education,' where cost efficiencies erode rigour. Campus Review labeled the dean's parallel advice capping paid work at 10 hours weekly as 'tone deaf,' alienating working students further. Check Campus Review's coverage for more on these reactions.
Broader Trends in Australian Higher Education
Monash's experiment mirrors sector-wide pressures: post-pandemic funding shortfalls, international student visa caps, and job cuts totaling 2,400 positions nationwide. Universities like UTS slashed 167 courses and 134 jobs, while ANU faces crowded tutorials amid budget woes. Larger classes and online shifts reduce costs but challenge engagement, as noted in Productivity Commission inquiries.
- Increased reliance on casual staff for scalability
- Decline in Australian unis' QS rankings (70% dropped recently)
- Push for 'flexible' models amid enrollment volatility
These trends prioritize access over excellence, prompting calls for policy reforms to stabilize funding.
Potential Impacts on Academic Performance and Careers
Reduced tutor access could hinder moot court prep, clerkship readiness, and bar exam success, where practical skills dominate. Graduates may enter a competitive market—oversupplied with lawyers—less 'tooled up,' per Brasier. Monash Law's THE ranking (fifth nationally) risks erosion if disengagement persists.
Equity concerns loom for non-traditional students, including those with disabilities or from regional areas, who rely on structured support. Long-term, alumni networks may question degree value, affecting recruitment by top firms like Allens or King & Wood Mallesons.
Solutions and Alternatives for Students
Amid uncertainty, proactive steps include:
- Joining LSS/MSA advocacy for trial reversal
- Leveraging peer study groups or student-led tutorials via LSS programs
- Seeking supplemental resources like Monash's clinical legal education or external PLT courses
- Exploring transfers to tutorial-heavy programs at Melbourne or Sydney Law Schools
Universities could pilot hybrid models, investing savings in AI-assisted feedback or expanded clinics. For now, students are urged to document experiences for negotiations.
Explore perspectives via the student petition.
Photo by Natalie Parham on Unsplash
Looking Ahead: Trial Outcomes and Reforms
As the trial progresses, metrics like attendance, grades, and satisfaction will decide permanence. If backlash intensifies—echoing Melbourne Uni's lecture scandals—reversal seems plausible. Nationally, restoring tutorial funding could counter 'degree-factory' critiques, ensuring law programs produce adept professionals.
Monash Law remains a powerhouse, but reclaiming small-group intimacy could safeguard its edge. Students, stay engaged; the future of legal education depends on it.