University of Washington School of Law
William H. Gates HallKYUSHU UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL (HŌKADAIGAKUIN)
EXTERNAL EVALUATOR’S REPORT
Professor Veronica L. Taylor
University of Washington
June 2007

INTRODUCTION
I visited Kyushu University Law School on 30 March 2007 and 2 April
2007. I also had the honor of delivering a lecture as part of theCommencement Ceremony for entering Law School students on 1 April
2007. Before my visit I read the Report on the Implementation of the2006 Plan for the Law Faculty and Law School [Kyushu daigaku
hōgakubu/hōgakufu/hōgakukenkyūin] Heisei 18 nendo nendokeikaku
no jissekihōkokusho (hereafter ‘H 18 Implementation Report’).
I wish to record my thanks to the Dean, Professor Doi and theacademic and administrative staff and students who responded tomany questions openly discussed the achievements and challenges
facing the Law School.
This external evaluation visit was by two of the three-member
committee. We met with the Dean and academic staff, observed twoclasses in session and had an extended hearing with student
representatives from Years 1, 2 and 3. We also toured the facility andhad a detailed demonstration of the distance-learning television
conferencing equipment. We were asked to submit separate evaluation
reports.

SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS
The academic and administrative staffs at Kyushu Law School haveachieved a very high level of operation within a short space of time,-1-with limited resources. This evaluation focuses to a large extent on thequality of teaching and the educational environment in 2006-07.
I acknowledge at the outset several institutional factors that are
beyond the control of the Dean and academic staff, including:• the results of the first post-Law School Bar exam in 2006, whichyielded a much lower national pass rate than expected;• a nation-wide shortage of professors in certain fields available toteach the Law School curriculum;• the Law School curriculum design dictated by the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technology (MEXT) for the first 3 years
of Law School operation, with curricular reform becoming
possible from H. 19 onward;• Kyushu Law School’s temporary accommodation in prefabricatedbuildings that are now full to (planned) capacity for both student
study space and for classrooms;• The need to relocate the Law School, due to the Kyushu
University plan to vacate the main campus and move to a newlyestablished campus by 2018-19.
The Law School has implemented ambitious operational plans for 2005
and 2006 and has in place a very comprehensive system of selfevaluation. The quality of its planning is first-rate and reflects anenormous commitment by both academic and administrative staff.
One advantage that Kyushu has is that it is an ideal size. The enteringclass of 100 students (in 2006 about 48/53 law graduates/non-law
graduates respectively) and an academic staff of about 30 is a goodratio for both teaching and for policy implementation.
The building, study spaces and classrooms are modern, well-designed
and relatively comfortable. Students seem to get on well with one
another and to enjoy a good study environment.
The comments that follow represent comments on a successful Law
School that appears to be functioning well.

COMMENTS ON THE SELF-EVALUATION REPORT FOLLOWING THE
EXTERNAL EVALUATION MARCH/APRIL 2007
The Law School’s Self-Evaluation for H. 18 is largely favorable. I
broadly concur with the self-evaluation, given the design constraints-2-

for all Law Schools and the unexpectedly low national pass rate for the
first post-law school Bar Exam in 2006.
Below I comment only on those numbered items in the Self-Evaluation
Report that seem to require it or that were the subject of somediscussion by the External Evaluation Committee during our visit inMarch/April 2007.
I refer to the numbering in the document Heisei 18 nendo
nendokeikaku no jissekihōkokusho (Hōgakufu) (hereafter ‘H 18
Implementation Report’), using the numbers under 18 bangō.
1.

(Aiming for an 80% pass rate in the new Bar Exam 2006-)

A total of 15 students graduated from Kyushu in 2006; one sat andpassed the old Bar Exam and one elected not to take the Bar. Of the
13 who took the new Bar Exam, 7 passed; the total of 8 yielded an
institutional pass rate of 57%, which was higher than the national
average. This clearly falls below Kyushu’s own stated institutional goal,
but is consistent with a national pass rate that was much lower than
expected. The teaching faculty at the Law School is now expressing
their 80% goal as a cumulative goal after the 3 attempts per student
at the Bar Exam permitted under the new law school system.
Comment: Everyone agrees that the 2007 and 2008 Bar Exams will
be difficult because they represent the first attempt by the ‘first-time’law school student cohort (which in fact includes significant numbersof students with an undergraduate law degree), as well as theunsuccessful bar candidates from 2006. That Kyushu has reframed its
goal in this way seems understandable.
The overwhelming concern of all the faculty and students I spoke within 2007 was the Bar Exam and future pass rates.
Law School admissions
Kyushu faculty is satisfied that they have been able to retain the
majority of their own good students from the law faculty as part of theadmissions test. This is significant because the kishū (prior study oflaw) exam is designed to be tough at Kyushu and so Kyushu students
are able to pass the kishū exam elsewhere and have the option ofmoving for Law School to a different institution.

-3-

We discussed the long term trajectory of law school admissions andthat the system may perhaps require some voluntary reduction inclass size by a number of institutions, but this kind of institutional redesign may not occur until the pattern of the new Bar exam emerges
fully.
4. (Legal Practice Research Fellows /hōmukenkyūin system)
The Law School and Law Faculty have established an academic status
for students wishing to continue using the Law School and university
facilities after completing Law School but before passing the Bar. This
includes access through the MyDesktop system/USB access to teachingmaterials.
Comment: Not all graduates have taken advantage of this, but it
seems as if it could be a useful and practical measure.
Comment: Dealing with non-Bar passing graduates
I am still concerned that not a great deal of thought seems to havebeen given to supporting the students who will not pass the Bar Exam.
If the initial pattern holds we could expect national pass rates of 3040% in the first few years. Even after using 3 attempts, there will be asignificant number of students who simply cannot pass the Bar. Even if
Kyushu does better than the national average it may end up with asituation where 50% of its own graduates have not passed the Bar.
(a) At Kyushu, as at other law schools in Japan, the current
assumption by the Law School academic staff seems to be that
corporations will absorb their non-Bar pass graduates. Kyushu’s
excellent internship program is partially aimed at creating ties withlocal businesses to foster these opportunities.
However, most observers acknowledge that business cannot absorb all
the non-Bar passers because this requires restructuring of corporate
recruitment and internal classification of positions as well as areexamination of large corporations’ age limits for new recruits.
(b) There still does not seem to be much institutional support in theform of career guidance or post-graduation support for non-Bar
passers. Kyushu is not alone in this respect but the problem is going tobecome more and more acute.

-4-(c) Kyushu students are still engaged in magical thinking. So in
discussion for example, they will say, “No-one wants to think about
not passing the Bar” or “If I fail I’ll open a ramen stand”.
Understandably students are very anxious about the Bar exam andpre-exam preparation. The students we spoke to reported to us thatmost students seem to be taking yobikō practice exams or using
yobikō tapes, or participating in the Shōhōkai (Kyushu alumni-led
study circle). Students believe that other Law Schools areadministering practice exams and testing students after the completionof each course and that “Kyushu is the only school that is following themanual”. Students feel disadvantaged what they perceive as Kyushu’s
compliance with the rules.
What seems to be missing here at Kyushu, as in other Japanese law
schools, is a credible narrative about what students can become after
completing law school but not taking or passing the Bar. The answer
cannot simply be “a failed lawyer” because that uses a definition oflawyer that is far too narrow. Some thought needs to be given to this.
Faculty say that they need students to be “more positive”, but
students need more positive images or narratives to imagine their
future lives as successful, legally-trained professionals. Law professors
need to provide some of these, even if Japanese government planners
and practitioners are unable to.
11. (Distance Learning)
The audio-visual system developed by Kyushu in cooperation with NTT
has enabled a richer curriculum. Established with a special competitive
start-up fund for law schools, the system links Kyushu, Kumamoto,Kagoshima and the University of the Ryukyus in a teaching consortium,
but also makes possible presentations by specialists at otheruniversities and by practitioners.
Comment: This is a truly world-class system that works as a very
flexible, responsive teaching tool. The quality is excellent and it willcontinue to be useful if faculty continue to use it actively. It would
seem to have commercial applications and the reviewers urged the
Law School to look at this as a possible revenue area.
In discussion, students positively evaluated being able to take courses
offered at other law schools in the consortium.
12 and 13 (Short-term study abroad)-5-

As part of the establishment (keisei) fund for the Law School, overseas
study opportunities were created for students for short-term visits toforeign practice and court locations. This was linked to an English
language course. In 2006-07 only 2 students were scheduled toparticipate in an England/France study tour and the English language
course component is to be reevaluated. The survey of student
intentions regarding study abroad to date suggests that only 1-2
students were indicating interest in this study opportunity in future.
Comment: This seems an extraordinarily low rate of participation fora planned, subsidized, short-term overseas study opportunity. Theremay be more happening here than is obvious to an outside observer.
The very low participation rate may be linked to anxiety about the Bar
Exam, discussed further below.
15 (Formation of practitioners; clinics and externships)
The Law School appears to be putting tremendous effort into its
externship and legal clinic programs. The Implementation report
indicates that the faculty has studied the Report of the No 2 Tokyo Bar
Association on practical legal education and conducted a Faculty
Discussion (FD) on this topic and is seeking to improve on the Law
School’s performance in practical and clinical legal education.
Comment: Of the two, externships are clearly operating very well andfaculty report that they self-evaluate their externships as being better
than those of other law schools. Students are supportive of
externships. The Law School has 70 externship locations for 2007,
which is quite an amazing accomplishment. At least one placement has
resulted in a job offer.
Students commented, however, that their externship experiences werevery different, depending on the location and even the department inwhich they were located. One problem seemed to be that there was nostandard protocol for having students in the office and so some staff
were reluctant to share confidential legal documents (This could beovercome by having the students sign a confidentiality agreement).
The students with whom we spoke seemed more satisfied in places
where there were in a real legal department and less satisfied were thelegal affairs department is just a sub-section of the company. Many
saw this as a great motivator for the rest of their study, or for a way ofgauging the atmosphere of the company (recognizing that not all-6-

companies had interesting legal matters happening during theinternship period).
By contrast, the clinic is unique to Kyushu in that it is an actual law
firm run by faculty who are also practitioners. Although it offers directclient contact, student demand is relatively low. A satellite clinic
offered over Summer at Yakushima island is also a unique andinteresting educational experience, but the student response we heard
in interviews was “It seems like a lot of work”
Comment: It would be preferable for the clinic to be more firmly
established and properly funded. The instructor/student ratio of 1:7 isideal and this seems like a perfect opportunity for students.
Unfortunately it is offered in 3rd year, when other demands on student
time are relatively low, but when anxiety about the Bar Exam is at its
peak. This seems to be the main disincentive for students.
16 (Common standards for instruction)
Through student evaluations of teaching, surveys, FD discussions andpeer observations of classes, the Law School is establishing thecontent and methods of instructions for its classes. The “MyDesktop”
system is also being used to gather that data and to make syllabi andcourse outlines transparent to all staff and students. This should assist
with coordination of course content and evaluation of effective
instructional approaches.
Ideally the MyDesktop system will be used to balance workloads andhand-in dates for assignments, if faculty are diligent about uploading
the data and checking data for other courses.
17 (Teaching methods and class sizes)
From H 19 (2007) onward the Law School has elected to increase thesize of classes for basic instructional courses to 50 and maintain thesize of advanced classes or tutorials at 25-35.
1st and 2nd year students now have more compulsory classes and theintention is to create some economy of scale for the foundationalcourses. The result is that Kyushu now has fewer credits in total thanmany other law schools but has not decreased the number of elective
courses, for which there are no minimum enrollment requirements.
Faculty are concerned that it is difficult to persuade students to takeelectives.

-7-We observed two classes, both taught by faculty who are also
practitioners. One class was Criminal Procedure, the other was
Company Law. Both were different in style (Criminal Procedure wasmore interactive and relied on examples from a recent, well-knowncase), but both were effectively taught. Both classes covered a great
deal of material in a short space of time, so that it would have beenvery difficult for students to keep pace with the class without doing
preparatory reading. This is a reasonable expectation for graduatelevel work.
Comment: The re-design of class sizes is a sensible response to
student comments, self-evaluation and external evaluation in previous
years. It represents a more rational allocation of resources, allowing
more attention to be paid to 2nd and 3rd year students, where thepressure is greater.
Writing skills
Although writing skills are not addressed specifically in the
Implementation Plan, we were told in 2005 that that writing skills werea problem, in part because of the diverse backgrounds of thoseenrolled. Faculty now report that they have introduced supervised
writing to fro students aiming at entry to the PhD program and an
introduction to reading legal materials and that students welcome this.
18 and 22 (Tutoring system)
The tutor system has been revised to balance the workload equitably
among staff, making one professor responsible for a mixed group of 1st,
2nd and 3rd year students. This professor is also responsible forinterventions for students in difficulty or who are failing and there is an
expectation that the mixed nature of the group will make peer-to-peeradvice easier as well.
Comment: The stated position of the Law School is to create anenvironment suitable for self-study. Nevertheless, some students
reported that they would like more individual instruction and/or
tutoring. This is understandable, given the high level of anxiety abutthe Bar Exam.
20 (Grading system)-8-

From H 19 the Law School has moved to a grading curve (A 30%/B
40%/C, D) for classes of 20 or more students. This should ensure thateveryone’s expectations for grading are in line and that similar
standards are used across courses.
Comment: This change directly addresses and answers student
criticisms raised during the 2005-06 external evaluation.
Students would like to have a study week between the end of eachcourse and the beginning of the exam period, even if this means using
some of Summer and/or Spring Break. This is a reasonable request,
but it depends on whether there are physically enough weeks in theyear to accommodate it. In discussion, faculty suggested that this may
not be possible.
25 (Support staff)
The self-evaluation talked about the need to establish and rationalize
support services for the Law School.
Comment: During the external evaluation it emerged that the Law
School was established with no permanent staff and that of the 3administrative staff currently working at the Law School, one is
responsible for trouble-shooting the distance learning equipment aswell as regular administrative duties. It was suggested that the use of
MyDesktop will automate a lot of routine administrative tasks such ascourse enrollment and booking rooms in the building, for example.
While this may be true, this ratio of administrative staff to faculty andstudents is very low and clearly needs to be rethought before the Law
School moves to another location. Running a top quality law schoolwith no permanent administrative staff on site is unsustainable.
27 (Learning environment/Study rooms)
The study spaces in the Law School building, while comfortable are
now full. The students have established their own “Study Room
Environment Committee” which may in time develop into a Student
Bar Association. This is self-governance and a way for students tomonitor those parts of their study experience that are within their own
control.
Comment: Students report that the heating in the building is aproblem because it cuts out at 10pm while access to the building is-9-possible 24 hours a day and students use it at all hours prior to exams.
In discussion with the Dean the evaluators established that this is abudget constraint, which has been explained to the students. Other
students complain that the building is too hot – as a prefabricatedbuilding temperature management is an issue.
Students also complain that although their study spaces are fine, andbetter than the environment at other Law Schools, the area around the
Law School has absolutely nothing. Food becomes a problem atweekends, particularly now that some of the university cafeterias haveclosed or have reduced hours. Students were inconclusive about how
they wanted to resolve this issue.
These problems, of course, will be solved eventually with the planned
move of the Law School to the preferred location – the sharedcourt/Bar Association complex, expected to take place in 2013.
28 (Information exchange/MyDesktop system)2007 is the test year for really using all the features of the Law
School’s electronic portal, MyDesktop. The faculty expectation is that
the MyDesktop system will be the primary mode of communication
between faculty and students and among students.
Comment: This makes sense, particularly as the faculty offices arelocated in the Law Faculty Building. However, student perceptions
during our discussions were very different. Students don’t generally
understand why the MyDesktop is a compulsory, closed system thatcan only be accessed through a USB. Students would rather have asystem that is more mobile and that can be accessed through, forexample, their cell phones. The faculty explanation is that it needs tobe a closed system because it will ultimately contain much of the Law
School’s intellectual property in the form of syllabi, problems andinformation. This makes sense.
There seems to be some remaining tension, however, between
building a compulsory system and hoping that students will adopt it
voluntarily as an information exchange platform. Clearly that has not
happened so far, but it is still early days in development.
30 (Establishing a legal clinic)
See comments at 15 above- 10 -

34 (Student evaluations of teaching)This year student evaluations of teaching were conducted during classtime and yielded an 83.7% response rate. This is a significant
improvement over previous response rates and represents useful data.
Comment: In discussion, students agreed that the interactive
method works well in most classes and that students prepare fordiscussion and are ready to answer questions. There are some classes
where the method is less necessary and students would be happier toproceed without discussion, particularly in technical fields where they
have very little contextual knowledge.
35 (Faculty Development)This year the Implementation Report suggests that Faculty
Development (FD) meetings are proceeding well.
Comment: In discussion, our interviewees said that the turnout by
faculty has been good and includes all those people whose attendanceis necessary. By contrast, the Nichibenren trial evaluation said thethere needs to be more faculty discussion and that most of theimpetus for reform is coming from a small implementation group andnot from the whole faculty. This is probably true, but is also a realistic
picture of how universities operate.
As I look at the monthly FD topics for H. 18, it seems that they arefocused on details, data and procedures, with one useful exception
being reflections on faculty visits to observe each others’ classes. I
suspect that some of these sessions took the form of ‘reporting back’
rather than deep exchanges or discussions of difficult issues.
What is missing here is an injection of broader perspectives andbackground research information about teaching and learning. My
suggestion from the last evaluation report was to invite some outside
speakers or facilitators and to consider a 2-3 day retreat (gasshuku) topursue some topics in depth.
38 (Student files and tutors)
There is considerable emphasis on recording information (grades,
queries, advice given) on a central file for each student to allow
different instructors to see how an individual student is progressing.
Professors are also using the questions raised with them during office- 11 -

hours as the basis for FD discussions about issues that may extend
more broadly into the student body.
Comment: Comprehensive student files seem a useful approach,provided that individual privacy can be guaranteed.
Students would like the tutor system to continue after the semester(presumably after they receive the results of their tests). The student
perception is still that office hours and tutor time is insufficient and nottimetabled as effectively as it could be.
44 and 45 (International exchanges and overseas study
opportunities)
Comment: See comment 12 above.

CONCLUSION
Given its geographic location and the constraints of its campus,
Kyushu has made a spectacularly good start as a Law School. The
quality of both the students and the academic staff seem high.
The Dean and key professors and administrative staff responsible forplanning are talented and dedicated. The planning and execution of
the curriculum seem carefully thought-out and sustainable.
Kyushu’s physical facilities are very good. Its video-conference-linked
teaching is innovative and clearly stimulating for both professors andstudents. Its collaboration with three other regional law schools is also
practical and innovative.
The faculty seem to have made very thoughtful responsive to student
criticisms and requests in preceding years and have also come up witha balanced approach to using limited resources for strongest outcomes.
Most of the challenges for Kyushu Law School at present are externallydriven, such as:• Student and professor anxiety about the content and pass rate of
the Bar Exam in 2007 and beyond;• The choice of external evaluation system and meeting thoseevaluation criteria;• Professors’ heavy teaching loads and existing responsibilities to the
Law Faculty;- 12 -

••The need to move location before Kyushu University vacates its
main campus;
Insufficient university budget for necessary expenditures (eg Law
School administrative staff; building expenses) and for discretionary
expenditures.

Internally generated challenges are gradually being addressed, forexample:• Professor’s unfamiliarity with the newer theory and practice ofteaching;• The gap between student expectations of the curriculum and what
is possible to deliver under the current budget and the MEXT designfor Law Schools, at least in their first three years of operation.
Given the effort that Kyushu Law School teaching and administrative
staff have put into their self-evaluation process, Kyushu Law Schoolshows every sign of becoming a successful Law School of high quality
and I wish them well as they work towards this goal.
Veronica L Taylor
Dan Fenno Henderson Professor of Law
Director, Asian Law Center
University of Washington School of Law
June 2007- 13 -