Results for Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for Law School

Hosei University Law School

Basic Information of the Institution
Ownership: Private

Location: Tokyo, Japan

Accreditation Status
Year of the Review: 2022
Accreditation Status: accredited（Accreditation Period: April 1, 2023 – March 31, 2028）

Hosei University Law School

Certified Evaluation and Accreditationfor Hosei University Law School

The mission and purpose of Hosei University Law School (“the Law School”) are
the development of “legal professionals with strong moral values and expertise,capable of responding to the evermore complex legal issues of today’s society in a
flexible and appropriate manner, and the creative skills to shape the law throughactual cases.” The Law School also conducts its education activities in accordancewith the unique goal of Hosei University’s professional graduate schools, which is“to impart profound academic knowledge and superior skills required of highly
specialized professions.” Based on its mission and purpose, the Law School has
established two educational objectives to ensure the students: (a) thoroughly learn
the basics of the theory and practice of jurisprudence, and (b) acquire the skills toproperly apply the basics of the theory and practice of jurisprudence, and to respondflexibly and creatively to new legal issues that arise in the contemporary world, withthe aims to produce (i) civic legal professionals who provide legal counseling on
issues close to people’s everyday lives, and (ii) legal professionals with expertise on
increasingly complex corporate activities, business-to-business relationships, andinternational commerce. These goals and objectives are in line with the purpose of
the law school system, and the stated mission, purpose, and educational goals arecommunicated to teachers, staff, and students in an appropriate way.
It is commendable that to achieve the mission, purpose, and educational
goals mentioned above, the Law School offers personalized small group instruction.
Especially notable are the Learning Portfolio and Learning Chart created for firstyear students with no legal studies experience. These items serve as effective learning
management tools, helping the homeroom teacher to grasp the learning status of each
student. Also, the Law School has made various improvement efforts to better meet
student needs. One example is the syllabus format upgraded to include tips andpointers from the previous year’s students to improve course content. Also, the Law
School ensures that mandatory courses are scheduled at certain periods toaccommodate students’ self-study time.
There are a number of areas for improvement in the educational programs
and outcomes, however.
The first involves the school’s confidentiality policy for clinical course
externships. While students are asked to submit a confidentiality pledge when signing1

Hosei University Law Schoolan externship agreement with an externship provider, this requirement is not written
in the university regulations. From compliance and educational standpoints and toensure students are informed in advance, confidentiality rules should be clearly
documented even if they are general rules.
Secondly, the Seminar on Criminal Law class places so much emphasis on
preparing questions (exam answers) for criminal law and the Codes of Criminal
Procedure that the class appears to be an exam preparation course. The Law Schoolis advised to review and improve the course content.
The third area for improvement is grading. The letter grades “S” and “A”
are awarded to almost all students in some non-mandatory courses in the basic law
category, which calls into question the robustness of the Law School’s grading
process. Discussions among the teaching staff are being held to address this issue anddevelop a more stringent grading standard. Going forward, the Law School needs toconsider introducing a grading policy for courses with a small number of students aswell as formulating grading standards for all courses as soon as possible.
The fourth area for improvement is the decision-making for advancementfrom first to second year. Current advancement requirements are (a) earning a set
number of credits in the basic law category which targets first-year students, (b)meeting the grade point average (GPA) requirement, and (c) taking the Common
Achievement Test for Law Schools. Nevertheless, students who fail to meet the GPA
requirement are promoted to the next level as long as they place above a certain rank
in the Common Achievement Test, which only covers the three subjects of theConstitution, Civil Law, and Criminal Law. This creates the problem of advancing
students to the next level as long as they perform well enough in these three subjects,
even if their grades in Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure are sub-standard.
According to the Law School, the use of the Common Achievement Test score isalready under review. We advise the institution to swiftly address this issue, such as
making test results a promotion requirement independent of the GPA.
The fifth area for improvement is the process for students to inquire about
their grades. The Law School offers a grade appeal process for only some courses,and does not respond to student inquiries on how grades are awarded; it also lacks aprocess for students to reappeal the outcome of a first appeal. To ensure fairness androbustness of its grading, the Law School is advised to put in place a process toreappeal pass-fail decisions, especially for the basic law courses that determine
advancement to a higher level, and have teachers other than the course instructor
involved in the grade review process.
2

Hosei University Law School

The sixth area for improvement is the Type A entrance examination. As
the Law School does not administer an essay-style examination on the Codes of Civiland Criminal Procedure, the current examination is inadequate to determine anapplicant’s writing skills in these subjects. This area should be improved.
The seventh area for improvement concerns the role of specially appointed
instructors, a position occupied by alumni lawyers. It is important that the instructors’roles and responsibilities are clearly defined to ensure their instruction does not givethe impression of focusing too heavily on test-taking skills for the bar exam. It is
desirable for the school regulations to explicitly state that the Law School does notembrace teaching focused excessively on exam-taking skills, and that a mechanism
is in place for course instructors to advise and supervise the activities of the speciallyappointed instructors.
Aside from the issues in educational programs and outcomes, the Law
School is advised to address the age and gender imbalance and promote diversity inthe faculty organization. At present a majority of the full-time teachers are aged 60
or older and only two are women.
The Law School was denied accreditation in the AY2017 certified
evaluation and accreditation, but has subsequently been on the path of improvement,with the Professors Council Executive Branch taking leadership in making serious
efforts to rectify the issues identified. The latest review, however, still found areas
for improvement that need to be addressed. The Law School should enlist the supportof all teachers and staff involved in education to continue its improvement efforts.

3