-
ACC/A27/9.3.4.2
Dublin Business School
Programmatic Review
02 May 2012
Programme Award and Title: LLB Bachelor of Laws
Provider: Dublin Business School
Award/s (including exit awards): LLB
NFQ Level: 8
ECTS: 180
Mode of attendance: Day and Evening
Mode of delivery: FT and PT
First Intake: 1 September 2012
Anticipated number of intakes per year (indicate month(s) of
intake):
One
Date and Location of event: DBS, 02 May 2012
Date of next review: To be completed by January 2015
-
DBS LLB Panel Summary The Panel recommends that HETAC validates
the current programme, now designated as Bachelor of Laws (LLB),
until the end of the current validation period (last intake
September 2014) as envisaged under the 2010 joint validation by
HETAC and the University of Wales. The Panel was cognisant of the
fact that the review was necessitated as a result of the changing
circumstances with regards to the University of Wales. This did not
provide sufficient time to undertake a substantial and thorough
review of the programme. A number of issues have been identified by
the Panel which should be addressed during the next Programmatic
Review. The Panel also notes the position of the Honourable Society
of the King’s Inns regarding their accreditation of the programme
in light of the changes wrought by the move away from the
University of Wales as a validation body for the programme. The
professionalism and enthusiasm of staff was to be commended. The
session with the students, though their numbers were down due to
exam sittings, affirmed a good academic experience from the learner
viewpoint.
SECTION TWO: EVENT DETAILS Purpose of the review: The purpose of
this review is to assess the transfer of validation of the
programme from a joint award to a HETAC validated award. The
programme in its current form underwent programmatic review in May
2010 and is validated up to, and including, a September 2014
intake. It has been agreed with HETAC that this current review is
for the purpose of transfer of validation arrangements and that the
period of validation will not be extended. Panel Membership: Dr
Barry O’Connor, Cork Institute of Technology Chair / QA Expert Dr
Fergus Ryan, Dublin Institute of Technology Subject Expert Dr Lynn
Ramsey, Letterkenny Institute of Technology Subject Expert Ms
Caroline Gill, Law Library Professional Representative Meeting with
Senior Management: Gerry Muldowney CEO, DBS Dr. Eileen
Buckley-Dhoot Director of Academic Affairs Dr. Adrian Guckian
Acting Head of School of Business and Law Stuart Garvie Academic
Registrar Meeting with Programme Team:
-
DBS Lecturing Staff Barry Halton Dr Eimear Long Maryrose Molloy
Elaine Walsh Louise Murphy Colin Dunlea Mary Gordon Ronan Cosgrove
Support Services Staff Alannah O Reilly Employer Liaison Officer
Carol Clifford Careers Officer Caitriona McGratton Education and
Welfare Officer Jane Buggle Head of Library Careers and Student
Services Documentation Submitted: Terms of Reference for the Review
Self Evaluation Report including: Module Descriptors Proposed
Course Schedule Staff CVs Tabled: Quality Assurance Handbook
Learning Resources Document
-
SECTION THREE: OUTCOMES
1. APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION Following consultation with the
senior management, programme team, support services and students of
the course, and review of the documentation provided, the panel has
produced the following recommendations. The panel recommends that
the programme should be validated as a HETAC single award from
September 2012 for the remainder of the validation period (Last
intake September 2014). 2. CONDITIONS LLB Bachelor of Laws Given
the context of the current review (transfer of the award from a
jointly-validated award to a HETAC-only award) the Panel concluded
that it was not appropriate to impose any conditions on the
continuing validation. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel would strongly
urge DBS to consider implementing the following recommendations in
advance of a de novo HETAC validation exercise in 2014.
1. Greater emphasis should be placed on developing more
analytical skills throughout the programme.
2. There is an absence of Teaching & Learning and Assessment
Strategies across the programme.
The programme and module Teaching & Learning and assessment
strategies should be specific to the Programme and the respective
modules. Currently they are only expressed in generic terms. Such
strategies need to be developed and be explicit in all aspects of
the programme. There is a need for greater diversity of
assessment.
3. Development of oral communication and presentation skills
should be a strong feature across all
stages of the programme, particularly in light of the further
education/ career pathways to the King’s Inns. This is possible to
incorporate into the course immediately and without amending the
proposed course schedule.
4. Learning Outcomes for Continuous Assessment need to be
re-examined. The provision of repeat assessment opportunities for
significant Continuous Assessment components, , in the course of
the academic year, should be reconsidered.
5. A capstone module should be introduced into the Final year.
This is a requirement for honours
degree programmes. This would serve to demonstrate accumulated
learning across the course. The credits could be made available for
this by reducing some 15 credit modules.
6. Higher Order Learning Outcomes, appropriate to a Level 8
award, should be specified and
attained in Final Year. These are not clearly evident in the
current programme.
-
7. Stakeholder engagement needs to be formalised and put on a
more structured, evidence-based
footing within the programme. 8. As students of a Third Level
institution, the LLB students should be able to avail of other
‘non-
law’ DBS modules, perhaps as elective choices .Consideration
should be given to the sharing of modules with other academic areas
of DBS allowing to facilitate this.
SECTION FOUR: CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSAL MEETING WITH SENIOR
MANAGEMENT Following from a private panel meeting, the panel met
with the senior management of DBS. The chair asked the CEO to give
a background to the programme and how DBS had arrived at the
present juncture. A brief background to the course and its
acquisition from Portobello College was supplied by the CEO. The
CEO also outlined the relationship with the University of Wales. He
discussed how this transition was part of an overall strategy of
DBS in moving all its programmes to single award only from the
Irish validation authority, HETAC. The transition strategy for
existing students was also outlined, wherein existing students of
the programme would be given the option to stay on the current
joint award course or change to the single award option. The panel
queried if the students on the programme have been consulted. The
management group responded in the affirmative to this. The panel
was also concerned about the gap in quality assurance that would be
created by the University of Wales being removed from the
programme. The Director of Academic Affairs outlined how DBS had
traditionally operated within three sets of QA procedures and
underwent a large project to rationalise this into one set of
policies and procedures starting in 2009 with a collaborative
review with LJMU and completed with the Institutional Review in
2010. These DBS procedures now satisfy the requirements of all
three validating bodies, HETAC, University of Wales and Liverpool
John Moores University. The management team also outlined how they
had appointed an internal moderator from within Kaplan, Dr Giles
Procter, the Head of Kaplan Law School, and how Dr Procter would
support the programme team by fulfilling the function of moderator
left vacant by the University of Wales. This process would remain
in place for the foreseeable future. The Panel noted with some
concern that the previous ‘Internal Moderator’ was formally in post
for 7 years, as part of a 17 year involvement with the programme on
behalf of the University of Wales. While this position was not that
of an External Examiner, nonetheless, it is a key role in terms of
the internal Academic Quality Assurance mechanisms. DBS should take
cognisance of the relevant HETAC Guidelines on External Examiners
as they might pertain to this Internal Moderator role within the
overall DBS/KAPLAN QA structure. The panel also enquired about the
relationship with King’s Inns. The senior management group
explained that King’s Inns had been consulted about the strategy
that DBS was undertaking and have provided written confirmation
that they are happy to continue recognition of the programme should
it be a HETAC only award. This confirmation is appended to the ToR.
The issue of staff development opportunities was also raised by the
panel. The senior management group explained that funding was
available to all staff through the Schools for staff development or
via the Research Committee for more general conference attendance
etc. There is also extensive in-house training
-
provided, most recently on 1st year assessment strategies.
Compliance training on HETAC policy and procedures is currently
being arranged for all staff in the College in advance of September
2012. MEETING WITH THE PROGRAMME TEAM: The chair of the panel
firstly asked about the stakeholder analysis which had been
undertaken in advance of the validation event. While acknowledging
the efforts made to elicit responses, the panel was concerned that
four responses from stakeholders was on the low side and queried
who had been asked to respond to the questionnaire and how many.
The panel was informed that 24 different stakeholders were
approached via email with the survey. The programme team mentioned
that they may alter in future the method by which the research is
carried out to ensure more engagement on behalf of the stakeholder.
The Director of Academic Affairs explained that DBS was aware of
the deficiency in evidencing stakeholder involvement and was
actively working on improving stakeholder involvement at all
levels. The panel then asked about the career opportunities for
graduates of the programme. The programme team outlined the
difference between day and evening students, wherein the evening
students were already in employment, for example, the civil service
and the Irish military. Many were also in private employment where
their employers paid for the student to undertake the degree. A
number of students have also progressed to study for the Nigerian
Bar examinations. A module - Commercial law - had been introduced
previously to meet the requirements of this. The panel was
concerned about the number of opportunities for students to deliver
oral presentations. The programme team mentioned that this
requirement was recognised and had now been incorporated into the
Tort module, Legal Skills and some seminars. The Law of Evidence
module would also have a presentation component coming on stream in
the next year. The panel also queried the absence of a capstone
module, for example, a Research Project/Dissertation module in the
final year of the degree. The panel stated that the requirements of
the King’s Inns recognition constrained the students in their
choice of modules at year 3. The programme team also mentioned that
competitor analysis also showed an absence of a project module and
that when it had been offered on the course previously, that the
update had been quite low. Instead of one capstone module, law
degrees traditionally use final year modules to bring together the
learning from the course. This was described as a capstone
strategy. Entry: The panel asked the programme team what the entry
requirements were for the course. They informed the panel that
there was a basic entry requirement for the programme and that the
average number of CAO points for entry was approx. 250 and that
this reflected demand rather than ability. They also stated that
there was no correlation between points and retention, in that
students holding lower points struggled with the course. However,
difficulty with the course is not exclusive to lower points
students only; some bright students simply were not engaged in the
course. Structure and Curriculum: The panel was interested in how
the jointly awarded programme was mapped onto the single award. The
generic HETAC Award Standards were used as a basis for this
process. The team looked at what they wanted from the programme as
a whole. These matched reasonably well with the modules as they
were, which resulted in their needing only minor amendments and a
rephrasing of the learning outcomes at module and programme level
to reflect the HETAC standards.
-
The panel queried the title of the module ‘Public International
Law and Human Rights’. The team had decided that the area of
international law was too broad to adequately cover the material
comprehensively in one module. The panel also asked about
recognition of the degree in England and Wales and in Northern
Ireland. The panel was informed that that DBS would be giving the
students the opportunity to study some English Law modules as an
‘add-on’ to the degree in order to sit for the English Bar
examinations. They were currently consulting with Dr Proctor and
developing a Special Purpose Award. Assessment: The panel was
interested in the relationship between the University of Wales
External moderator, internal moderators and external examiners. It
was explained that under HETAC exam papers are first sent to a DBS
internal moderator and then the external examiner. The external
examiner also sees a sample of annotated scripts. The difference
with the University of Wales degrees was that the External
Moderator also had an opportunity to view examination papers before
they were sent to the External Examiner. Since the position was
currently vacant, Dr Proctor had undertaken to review all exam
papers before they were sent out to External Examiners. The
verification and appeals process was also outlined. The Panel noted
the dearth of Examination Appeals that have arisen within the LLB
programme to date. Student Support and Guidance: The panel enquired
about the support that was available to students. The team
mentioned that student attendance was monitored and that students
who had regular absences are followed up with to ensure their
continued engagement with the course. The students also have the
opportunity to meet the lecturerss on a one to one basis if
necessary. The lecturers also have office hours for meetings with
students. Non-submission of assignments is also followed up in
order to continually engage with students. The online learning
resource Moodle is used by all staff to provide notes and
additional information for the module to students. It is also
possible to track participation of students on Moodle. Assignments
and results are also distributed to students on this forum. The
students also had access to an Information literacy librarian for
information on essay writing referencing etc, some of these classes
were embedded into lectures to ensure uptake. MEETING WITH
STUDENTS: The panel met with 4 students from the programme – two
day students and two evening students All of the students felt that
there were sufficient resources at DBS; however, a video link
option
might be considered by DBS in the future. The students outlined
that they had been informed of the issues concerning the University
of Wales.
While the students did not think that the lack of recognition
from the University of Wales would have an impact on the quality or
attractiveness of the degree for future applicants, they had signed
up to a U of Wales degree, and expected to get this qualification.
They did comment however that the most important thing was that
they had a degree that was recognised by the King’s Inns.
The students also outlined the procedure for submission of
assignments and the provision of feedback to students. They were
happy with this process.
-
They highlighted an issue with the lack of presentation
opportunities in the course. This would be beneficial for them in
terms of their future careers and would like it to be more of a
feature of the course.
The students were satisfied with the method of assessment in the
course. They prefer to have individual assessments rather than
group work.
The students reported that lecturers were very approachable and
helpful. If students felt that they needed more information then
the lecturers were happy to point them in the right direction.
-
Objectives of Programmatic Review
1. Analyse the effectiveness and efficiency of each validated
programme, including detail of learner numbers, retention rates and
success rates
The panel was satisfied with learner numbers, retention and
success rates.
2. Review the development of the programme in the context of the
requirements of employers, industry, professional bodies, the Irish
economy and international developments
Development of the programme is strongly weighted towards King’s
Inns and Law Society requirements. It is hoped that the programme
would adequately prepare the students for entrance examinations to
either professional body. As a Level 8 degree programme, the
Learning Outcomes should reflect an appropriate breadth as should
be expected on an Honours Bachelor degree.
3. Evaluate the response of the Department to market
requirements and educational developments
The LLB programme serves an important niche, and addresses the
needs of a diverse range of students seeking a qualification in
law.
4. Evaluate the feedback mechanisms for learners and the
processes for acting on this feedback
The feedback to learners on their work seems, to the panel, to
be very satisfactory.
5. Evaluate the physical facilities and resources provided for
the provision of the programme
The panel is satisfied that the physical facilities and
resources are adequate for the provision of the programme.
6. Evaluate the formal links which have been established with
industry, business and the wider community in order to maintain the
relevance of its programme
There is a strong link between the DBS and King’s Inns.
7. Evaluate feedback from employers of the programmes’ graduates
and from those graduates
This area needs to be strengthened and put on a formal
footing.
8. Review any research activities in the field of learning under
review and their impact on teaching and learning
Evidence was not presented of significant active research,
though some staff members are developing a research profile and
pursuing publication opportunities. Some staff members are active
in professional practice.
9. Evaluate projections for the following five years in the
programme/field of learning under review
This Programmatic Review process will transition the programme
which is already in place and, as such, recommendations for changes
to the programmes will be put in place for preparation for the next
programmatic review will take place in 2014-15 as previously
expected.
-
10. Make proposals in relation to updating the programme and
modules; proposals in relation to the discontinuation of modules
and the development of new modules. The panel was satisfied with
the proposed programme and its structure. They queried the absence
of a capstone module and a project in Year 3.
HETAC’s Core Validation Policy and Criteria
1. Minimum intended programme learning outcomes and their
compliance with the relevant awards standard(s) as determined by
HETAC
More analytical Level 8 Learning Outcomes should be a feature in
the final year of the programme.
2. The prerequisite learning for participation in the programme
and any other assumptions
relating to the programme’s target learners While entry
standards may be lower than in similar programmes, other factors,
particularly within the mature/evening learner cohorts, enable
programme outcomes to be met.
3. Module learning outcomes and prerequisite requirements The
panel believes that the mapping that has taken place between the
existing and new modules has been appropriate and in line with the
general standards on assessment.
4. Programme and module assessment strategies Learning Outcomes
for Continuous Assessment need to be re-examined. The provision of
repeat assessment opportunities for significant Continuous
Assessment components should be reconsidered.
Student feedback indicates that the students are satisfied with
the way the course is assessed generally. The panel was satisfied
that the information with regards to assignments was provided to
students in a timely manner. The panel would like to see more oral
presentations being employed in the assessment strategy of some
modules as presenting is viewed as a key skill for future
careers.
There is a need for greater diversity of assessment.
5. Teaching and learning strategies employed There is a certain
absence of a Teaching & Learning and Assessment Strategies
across the programme. Such strategies need to be developed and be
explicit in all aspects of the programme.
6. The operation of access, transfer and progression
The panel was informed that average CAO points on entry were 250
and that this reflected demand rather than ability. They also
stated that there was a correlation between points and retention,
in that students holding lower points struggled with the course.
Difficulty with the course is not exclusive to lower points
students only e.g. some students may have been sent to the college
at the behest of their parents.
7. Relevant research activities The issue of staff development
opportunities was also raised by the panel. The senior management
group explained that funding was available to all staff through the
Research
-
Committee. There is also extensive in-house training provided,
most recently on 1st Year assessment strategies.
8. Links with relevant industry and/or professional bodies The
chair of the panel asked about the stakeholder analysis which had
been undertaken in advance of the validation event. While
acknowledging the efforts made to elicit responses, the panel was
concerned that four responses from stakeholders was on the low side
and queried who had been asked to respond to the questionnaire and
how many. The panel were informed that 24 different stakeholders
were approached via email with the survey. The programme team
mentioned that they may alter in future the method by which the
research is carried out to ensure more engagement on behalf of the
stakeholder. There also exists a close relationship with King’s
Inns, the professional body which trains barristers in Ireland.
King’s Inns recognition of the degree is essential to its
provision.
9. Profile and qualifications of teaching staff There are five
full time lecturers and 3 fractional staff teaching on the course,
in addition to permanent part-time staff. The panel was impressed
by the engagement by the staff in the review process and their
‘ownership’ of the programme.
10. Level and appropriateness of resources available The panel
enquired about the support that was available to students. The team
mentioned that attendance was monitored and that students who had
regular absences were followed up to ensure their continued
engagement with the course. The students also have the opportunity
to meet the lecturers on a one-to-one basis if necessary. The
lecturers also have office hours for meetings with students.
Non-submission of assignments is also followed up in order to
continually engage with students. The online learning resource
Moodle is used by all staff to provide notes and additional
information on each module to students. It is also possible to
track participation of students on Moodle. Assignments and results
are also distributed to students on this forum. There is also an
extensive catalogue of law library resources available to the
students with a dedicated library in the Dame Street Building.
11. Benchmarking against other similar programmes
In preparation for the 2014 re-validation exercise, it is
essential that the LLB programme be adequately benchmarked against
the suite of similar degree programmes currently mapped onto the
National Framework of Qualifications.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dublin Business School
Provider Response to the Programmatic Review ‐ Report Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Incorporating Implementation Plan
This report is in response to the report of the Peer Review Group (Panel) on the Programmatic Review of the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) carried out on the 2nd of May 2012. The report includes an Implementation Plan to address the Panel’s recommendations.
DBS would like to extend our thanks to the Panel for their time devoted to reviewing this programme, the thoroughness of the review and the collegiate approach to the team meetings conducted during the Panel’s visit to DBS. DBS welcome the outcome as stated in the report:
“The Panel recommends that the programme should be validated as a HETAC single award from September 2012 for the remainder of the validation period (Last intake September 2014).”
There were no conditions of validation imposed by Panel. The Panel have made some recommendations that will enhance this programme. Some of these can be implemented immediately and some, relating to the structure of the programme will be used to inform the programmatic review in 2014, as suggested in the Panel’s report.
Implementation Plan
1. Greater emphasis should be placed on developing more analytical skills throughout the programme. In the first year, analytical skills are introduced to the learners in the Legal Skills module. The programme team will ensure that learners are aware of the need to develop and demonstrate these skills throughout the programme. The team have reviewed the module descriptors and the teaching and learning strategies contained therein to ensure that there is greater emphasis on developing more analytical skills throughout the programme and will revisit this further in advance of the next programmatic review in 2014.
2. There is an absence of Teaching & Learning and Assessment Strategies across the programme. The programme and module Teaching & Learning and assessment strategies should be specific to the Programme and the respective modules. Currently they are only expressed in generic terms. Such strategies need to be developed and be explicit in all aspects of the programme. There is a need for greater diversity of assessment. The School of Law has been integrated recently as part of a new School of Business and Law. Most of the programmes in the School of Business and Law are due to be programmatically reviewed over the
-
coming academic year (2012‐13). In preparation for this the School is currently reviewing its overall Teaching, Learning and Assessment Strategy. The teaching, learning and assessment strategies for this specific programme will be more clearly structured as a coherent strategy within the programme and between the levels. The strategies will be specific to the programme and to the individual modules, will provide for greater diversity of assessment, will be more clearly articulated and will demonstrate compatibility with the overall strategy of the School. 3. Development of oral communication and presentation skills should be a strong feature across all stages of the programme, particularly in light of the further education/ career pathways to the King’s Inns. This is possible to incorporate into the course immediately and without amending the proposed course schedule.
This will be addressed immediately. The programme team agrees with the Panel regarding the importance of developing these key transferrable skills and have implemented the following changes to ensure learners have an opportunity to develop these skills:
In first year, it is proposed to introduce a debate into the module Criminal Law – which will be introduced in the format of a formative, non‐credit bearing assessment. This will give the learners an opportunity to experiment and develop their presentation style early in the programme. In order to measure the development of these skills, the first year module Legal Systems contains an oral presentation as part of its summative assessment.
In second year, the learners will undertake an oral presentation in the Tort module and in the final stage of the programme, those learners taking the Law of Evidence module are also required to make an oral presentation which is assessed.
The programme team will continue to explore opportunities for further development of communication and presentation skills throughout the programme.
4. Learning Outcomes for Continuous Assessment need to be re‐examined. The provision of repeat assessment opportunities for significant Continuous Assessment components should be reconsidered. The programme team will re‐examine the learning outcomes for continuous assessment and will ensure that the match between the learning outcomes and their associated assessment instruments is more carefully considered at the next review, and that clear constructive alignment between learning outcomes and assessment will be set out appropriately. The programme team will be careful to ensure the revised assessment strategies are applied across this programme to assess the revised learning outcomes in continuous assessments and examinations.
DBS provide a reassessment opportunity for any failed component of a module where that module has been failed overall. This includes reassessment opportunities for failed elements of continuous assessment.
-
5. A capstone module should be introduced into the Final year. This is a requirement for honours degree programmes. This would serve to demonstrate accumulated learning across the course. The credits could be made available for this by reducing some 15 credit modules.
Currently the programme does not have a capstone module in the final year. As with most law programmes it is expected that learners will use the knowledge, knowhow and skill, and competence acquired in the programme in all of their final year options. The team acknowledge the requirement of a more clearly defined capstone strategy and this will be addressed prior to the next programmatic review.
6. Higher Order Learning Outcomes, appropriate to a Level 8 award, should be specified and attained in Final Year. These are not clearly evident in the current programme. The programme team will review all of the programme and module learning outcomes in preparation for the programmatic review in 2014.
7. Stakeholder engagement needs to be formalised and put on a more structured, evidence‐based footing within the programme. Each School has recently developed a formal stakeholder database which includes employers. In addition the Employer Liaison Offices undertakes surveys which give employers the opportunity to provide detailed feedback on the proposed course structure and the content of a programme being reviewed. In preparation for the next review the Employer Liaison Officer will work more closely with the School and the programme team in formally capturing feedback from employers as part of the School’s on‐going engagement with employers and other stakeholders.
8. As students of a Third Level institution, the LLB students should be able to avail of other ‘non‐law’ DBS modules, perhaps as elective choices .Consideration should be given to the sharing of modules with other academic areas of DBS allowing to facilitate this. As part of the overall strategy within the School of Business and Law, the structure and design of the LLB will be reviewed during the next programmatic review. This review will consider a move away from the current 15 ECTS module structure to a structure that is more compatible with the integration of modules from areas such as business and arts into the programme. The School welcomes this strategy as it is agreed that this increased selection of modules would be of benefit to the learners. However professional recognition will be an important consideration in determining the structure of the LLB.
-
23
ProposedProgrammeSchedule Name of Provider:
Dublin Business School
Programme Title (i.e. Named Award):
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Award Title6 (HETAC Named Award):
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Stage Exit Award Title3
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Modes of Delivery (FT/PT): FT/PT
Award Class4 Award NFQ level
Award EQF Level Stage (1,2,3,4,…, or
Award Stage): Stage NFQ Level2
Stage EQF
Level2
Stage Credit
(ECTS)
Date
Effective
ISCED
Subject
code
Major 8 1 6
60 September
2012
Module Title
(Up to 70 characters including spaces)
Semester no
where
applicable.
(Semester 1
or Semester2)
Module
ECTS
Credit
Number5
Total Student Effort Module (hours) Allocation Of Marks (from the
module assessment strategy)
Status
NFQ
Level1
where
specified
Total
Hours
Contact
Hours
Hours of
Independent
Work
C.A.
%
Proj.
%
Prac.
%
Exam.
%
Contract Law M 6 15
375 100 275 100
Constitutional Law M 6 15
375 100 275 25 75
Criminal Law M 6 15
375 100 275 25 75
Legal Systems M 6 10
250 50 200 50 50
Legal Skills M 6 5
125 50 75 100
Special Regulations (Up to 280 characters)
-
24
Name of Provider:
Dublin Business School
Programme Title (i.e. Named Award):
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Award Title6 (HETAC Named Award):
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Stage Exit Award Title3
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Modes of Delivery (FT/PT): FT/PT
Award Class4 Award NFQ level
Award EQF Level Stage (1,2,3,4,…, or
Award Stage): Stage NFQ Level2
Stage EQF
Level2
Stage Credit
(ECTS)
Date
Effective
ISCED
Subject
code
Major 8 2 7
60 September
2012
Module Title
(Up to 70 characters including spaces)
Semester no
where
applicable.
(Semester 1
or Semester2)
Module
ECTS
Credit
Number5
Total Student Effort Module (hours) Allocation Of Marks (from the
module assessment strategy)
Status
NFQ
Level1
where
specified
Total
Hours
Contact
Hours
Hours of
Independent
Work
C.A.
%
Proj.
%
Prac.
%
Exam.
%
Law of Tort M 7 15
375 100 275 50 50
European Union Law M 7
15 375 100 275
100
Law of Real Property M 7
15 375 100 275 25
75
Company Law M 7 15 375
100 275 25 75
Special Regulations (Up to 280 characters)
Name of Provider:
Dublin Business School
Programme Title (i.e. Named Award):
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
-
25
Award Title6 (HETAC Named Award):
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Stage Exit Award Title3
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Modes of Delivery (FT/PT): FT/PT
Award Class4 Award NFQ level
Award EQF Level Stage (1,2,3,4,…, or
Award Stage): Stage NFQ Level2
Stage EQF
Level2
Stage Credit
(ECTS)
Date
Effective
ISCED
Subject
code
Major 8 Award 8
60 September
2012
Module Title
(Up to 70 characters including spaces)
Semester no
where
applicable.
(Semester 1
or Semester2)
Module
ECTS
Credit
Number5
Total Student Effort Module (hours) Allocation Of Marks (from the
module assessment strategy)
Status
NFQ
Level1
where
specified
Total
Hours
Contact
Hours
Hours of
Independent
Work
C.A.
%
Proj.
%
Prac.
%
Exam.
%
Law of Equity and Trusts
E 8 15 375 100 275
100
Administrative Law E 8 15
375 100 275 25 75
Law of Evidence E 8 15
375 100 275 25 75
Jurisprudence E 8 15 375
100 275 25 75
Commercial Law E 8 15
375 100 275 25 75
Family Law E 8 15 375
100 275 25 75
Medical Law and Ethics E
8 15 375 100 275 25
75
Employment Law E 8 15
375 100 275 25 75
Media Law E 8 15 375
100 275 25 75
Public International Law and Human
Rights E 8 15 375 100
275 100
Special Regulations (Up to 280 characters)