University of Washington School of Law
William H. Gates HallKYUSHU UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL (HŌKADAIGAKUIN)
EXTERNAL EVALUATOR’S REPORT
Professor Veronica L. Taylor
University of WashingtonDecember, 2005

INTRODUCTION
I visited Kyushu University Law School during October 12-14, 2005.
Before my visit I read the Report on the Implementation of the 2004
Plan for the Law Faculty and Law School [Kyushu daigaku
hōgakubu/hōgakufu/hōgakukenkyūin] Heisei 16 nendo nendokeikaku
no jissekihōkokusho: Heisei 17.8 (in Japanese) (hereafter ‘H 16
Implementation Report’).
I wish to record my thanks to Dean Ōde, Professor Doi and theacademic and administrative staff and students who responded tomany questions and volunteered very useful observations about theLaw School’s operations. I benefited from the insights of the External
Evaluation Committee Chair, Mr Motobayashi and Committee Member
Mr Furukawa. During our visit and discussion, the External Evaluation
Committee members’ views coincided on most aspects of the Law
School’s operations and trial evaluation.
During the Committee’s visit we met with Dean Ōde and academic
staff, observed a class in session and had an extended hearing withstudent representatives from Years 1, 2 and 3. We also toured thefacility and had a detailed demonstration of the distance-learning
television conferencing equipment.
At the request of the Law School, this evaluation follows thenumbering of the Law School’s Self-Evaluation Report dated 31
October 2005 [Jikotenken/hyōkahōkokusho 2005.10.31]-1-SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS
The academic and administrative staff at Kyushu Law School are to becongratulated for achieving a very high level of operation within a very
short space of time. This evaluation focuses to a large extent on thequality of teaching and the educational environment in 2004-05.
I acknowledge at the outset several institutional factors that arebeyond the control of the Dean and academic staff, including:• the first year of operation;• full-time and adjunct professors teaching to the Law School
curriculum and timetable for the first time;• the Law School curriculum design factors that are dictated by theMinistry of Education, Science and Technology (MEXT)
Despite the challenge and pressures involved in establishing a newLaw School, the professors and administrative staff in the Law School
have made a very strong start. The Law School has created anambitious operational plan for 2005 and 2006 and has in place a very
comprehensive system of self-evaluation. The quality of its planning is
first-rate and reflects an enormous commitment by both academic andadministrative staff.
The comments that follow represent constructive criticism of a very
viable Law School that appears to be functioning well.

COMMENTS ON THE SELF-EVALUATION REPORT FOLLOWING THE
EXTERNAL EVALUATION OCTOBER 2005
The Law School’s Self-Evaluation is largely favorable. I broadly concurwith the self-evaluation, given the design constraints for all Law
Schools and the fact that the results of the first post-law school Bar
Exam in 2006 is still unknown.
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 inOctober 2005.

-2-1-1-1(Setting Key Policies and Communicating these to the Law
School Community)

As the report recognizes, scheduling and securing attendance atFaculty Development (FD) meetings has been a challenge. My
impression is that the full-time academic staff are fully occupied justteaching and operating the Law School with existing resources.
However, our discussions with students and faculty showed that atKyushu – as with other Japanese law schools - there is still
considerable development needed in the area of teaching and learning.
This is important if the Law School is to develop into a legal education
institution, rather than a yobikō [cram school].
To develop a shared set of values and practices that incorporate bestpractice on legal education requires time. Scheduling FD meetingsseems to be difficult. It would be natural for professors to suffer some‘meeting fatigue’ at this point in institution building. Perhaps moving toa retreat format (gasshuku) or more importantly, bringing in expertisefrom outside the Law School – either from other Japanese Law Schools
or from international partners – could be more effective.
Involving part-time and adjunct faculty in FD, even in law schools
outside Japan, is always difficult. One method that is used elsewhere isto schedule separate days specifically for adjunct faculty to brief themon policies and practices and to offer professional development andtraining in teaching techniques (usually from an outside professional
trainer or expert).
1-2-2 (Structures for Self-Evaluation)
Student evaluation of teaching and of the educational environment is agood start, but there is still some way to go to full implementation anduse of this data. Currently the student evaluation response rate isabout 30%. In an Anglo-American law school this would be regarded
as too low to be really meaningful.
The FD meetings appear to have been used productively to discussand work on policy issues during the year such as student feedback,entrance exams, grading and curriculum.
However, relying exclusively on the FD as a coordination mechanism issomewhat risky. Most established law schools outside Japan schedule-3-

at least one or two retreats (gasshuku) per semester or per year inorder to promote deep discussion and creative solutions. Introducing
some external professional content or presenters may also be helpful.
Students who spoke with us had no criticisms of the ‘road map’guidelines on course selection and no criticisms of the Orientation.
However they did have comments about curriculum design andteaching. These were not new, but it was not clear what mechanism
the Law School academic staff is using to systematically deal withstudent questions and criticisms and report back to students on
problems that have been resolved.
1-4-2(Delivery of promised educational environment tostudents)

One advantage that Kyushu has is that it is an ideal size. The enteringclass of 100 students and an academic staff of about 30 is a good ratio
for both teaching and for policy implementation.
The building, study spaces and classrooms are modern, well-designedand comfortable. Students seem to get on well with one another andto enjoy a good study environment.
Both academic staff and students commented extensively on thechallenges in this area, some of which are design features of law
schools generally and some of which are within Kyushu Law School’scontrol. Specifically:•Some students complain that there is no rational reason for limiting
students to 38 credits. Some students would like to take morecourses and feel that they have the capacity to do this. Our
understanding is that this rule is a design feature decided by MEXT.

•Students also asked why it is not possible to audit courses beyond
the 38 credit limit, particularly where the course in question does
not have 35 students enrolled. Our understanding is that this rule isa design feature decided by MEXT.

•There is some student resistance to the 35 student limit in classes.
Many students (and professors) would prefer lecture-style classes inwhich information is presented systematically, particularly at firstyear level.

-4-Part of the dissatisfaction with the 35 student class size seems to bethat professors are supposed to use an interactive teaching method,
but in short classes, this is typically just questions to a small numberof students in the class. Students argue that this kind of teaching
could easily be done in a class of 50, 60 or 70.
The core issue here seems to be that there has not been enough time
for professors to really think about and practice interactive teaching in
the real sense. The problem is compounded by a lack of local models
of how to do this, although we were told that there is some exchangeof ideas on teaching with other parts of campus.
Students commented that because of the diversity of backgrounds, notall students respond well to ‘socratic method’. Students would like
professors to work more on a range of methods of instruction.
Students gave examples of questions asked by professors in the wrong
sequence (i.e. very complex questions first, rather thanstraightforward questions that would build student confidence) and theneed to create a classroom environment in which students feel
comfortable asking questions of professors. Students commented thatpractitioners gave good classes, but these were sometimes toopractical, while the professors gave classes that were too theoretical.
What the students want is something in between.
A few professors are clearly creative teachers who use a range oftechniques that are common in the U.S. but most understand‘interactive’ as ‘socratic method’ or simply asking questions. Students
commented that they do not see a great deal of difference between
the teaching methods they experienced as law undergraduates andwhat they are seeing at Kyushu Law School.
More work is needed here to deepen professors’ understanding andexperience of a range of teaching techniques. Meanwhile, until theresults of the first Bar exam are known, student anxiety will continueto build and students will continue to ask for lecture-style instruction.
It will be a challenge to resist shifting to a yobikō [cram school] styleof instruction (These comments also apply to 6-1-2).
A further issue is class management. Students would prefer to havethe class outline and hand-out material for each class in advance.
Some classes would probably also benefit from a class email-list or
electronic discussion list or class web-site, of the kind that arecommonly used to manage classes in Anglo-American law schools.

-5-Students reported that the double-tutor system is working reasonably
well, with at least one professor being available to answer students’questions or give guidance about course selection.
The library system seems to be working well but it would be desirable
to have a better library on the premises of the Law School, evenalthough students have access to the Law Faculty library.
According to some students, office hours are not working completelyeffectively. Professors’ offices are located in the Law Faculty building
which is some distance away. Not all professors (particularly part-time
lecturers or adjunct professors) are available regularly and their officehours duration is not uniform. The result is that students tend to rush
to ask questions after class.
The kenkyūin system established to help students bridge the period
between graduation and passing the Bar Exam seems reasonable.
However, I was concerned that not a great deal of thought seems tohave been given to supporting the students who will not pass the Bar
Exam if the pass rate is capped at 50-70%.
The current assumption by the Law School academic staff seems to bethat corporations will absorb their non-Bar pass graduates. Theinternship program is partially aimed at creating ties with local
businesses to foster these opportunities. However, not much
institutional support in the form of career guidance or post-graduation
support for non-Bar pass graduates seems to be planned at this stage.
I suggest that this may become an issue after 2006.
The television conference classes with Kagoshima and Kumamoto
Universities appear to be working extremely well and the technicalsystem that Kyushu has devised for this with a commercial technology
provided is outstanding. This system is superior to any that I haveseen to date inside or outside Japan.
The lack of student interest in classes taught in English and in study
opportunities at exchange universities is unfortunate, but this patternis the same as for other Law Schools in Japan at present. The situation
may improve after the Bar Exam results are known and the Law
School system settles down.

-6-4-1-1 (Professional development opportunities for academic staff)
The utility of the FD forum for bringing academic staff skills to the nextlevel is discussed at 1-1-1 above.
Students commented that there is a problem with the amount ofhomework and pre-reading assigned for each class. There is also someanxiety about the pre-test results. This anxiety is unlikely to diminish
until the actual Bar Exam results are known in 2006.
6-1-1 (Suitability and range of choice of courses)
Some students would like to have the opportunity to take courses in
addition to the 38 credit limit, or to audit courses in their final year.
They would also like more flexibility in the sequence of courses so thatthey can leave time in the final semester of their final year for Bar
exam preparation. We discussed these issues with the Dean andacademic staff, who were sympathetic. However, it would appear thatmost of these restrictions come from the MEXT design for Law Schools
rather than from Kyushu itself.
Some students commented that the course offerings in business law
are rather few in number and that this is rather unfortunate for thestudents who want to follow a corporate track after graduation.
Students also commented that the courses outside the areas examinedon the Bar exam (sentaku kamoku) are relatively few in number, withthe exception of labor law. They would prefer a broader selection ofelective courses.
At first glance the 4 model sequences for course selection (civil,criminal, public interest and corporate) seemed to cover rather anarrow range of potential work opportunities for law graduates.
However, the Dean and academic staff explained that these are simply
broad guidance for course selection. They seem to be functioning
relatively well.
We were told that students have created their own benkyōkai study
groups to which they invite professors, and which the Law Schoolsupports. This seems to be a very healthy development and signals amature approach to study by the students. This is also consistent withKyushu Law School’s philosophy of self-study [jigaku jishū].

-7-

We were told that writing skills are a problem and that there is asignificant spread in writing ability among students, in part because of
the diverse backgrounds of those enrolled. At present there is no roomin the curriculum to do writing instruction as such. Some courses do
assign papers, but students commented that they need more feedbackon their writing, not simply a grade. The External Evaluation
Committee suggested that this is something that could be developed
voluntarily or outside the credit-bearing curriculum. We also suggested
that this is a good opportunity to build teamwork exercises and havestudents work together to critique each other’s work.
In relation to their experience of the pre-test, students commented
that their classes do not really emphasize outcomes sufficiently. They
would like to have more focus on practice answers and outputs thatwill help them pass the Bar exam.
6-1-4 (Applied Courses)
The Law School appears to be putting tremendous effort into its
externship and legal clinic programs and from what we could gauge,
both seem to be operating very well, with strong citizen demand forthe clinic.
9-1-1 and 9-1-2 (Grading)Students we met with were quite vocal about grading. The issues are
the same as those identified in the Self-Evaluation: there are
discrepancies in grades awarded by different professors; students areunclear about the criteria for grading and there is general anxiety
about the accuracy of the grading system following the pre-test. The
latter anxiety may settle after the first Bar Exam results in 2006 when
there is a better sense of how the grading system translated into Bar
Exam performance.
It would be advisable to also think more comprehensively about grade
appeal systems and at least insist that professors meet with students
who are querying grades. At present this seems to be done in writing,which is not ideal and not conducive to building trust in the gradingsystem.

CONCLUSION-8-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.
Dean Ōde is an energetic and visionary leader and the key professors
and administrative staff responsible for planning are talented anddedicated. The planning and execution of the curriculum seem
carefully thought-out and sustainable.
Kyushu’s physical facilities are very good. Its television-linked teachingis innovative and clearly stimulating for both professors and students.
Its collaboration with Kumamoto and Kagoshima University Law
Schools is also practical and innovative.
The challenges that the Law School faces at this point are universal
ones, such as:• Student and professor anxiety about the content and pass rate of
the Bar Exam in 2006;• Professors’ heavy teaching loads;• Professor’s unfamiliarity with the newer theory and practice ofteaching;• A 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, it seems very likely tome that the issues raised by students and the External Evaluators in2005 will be addressed and resolved. It may take a little time for theteaching culture to settle down and develop, but this is also normal for
an institutional reform of this magnitude.
Kyushu Law School shows every sign of becoming a successful Law
School of high quality and I wish them well as they work towards thisgoal.
Veronica L Taylor
Henry M. Jackson Professor of Law
Director, Asian Law Center
University of Washington
School of Law-9-