or sufficient to conclude that outcome is met, what criteria will be appropriate, may prove daunting. These are critical questions especially in a society where benchmarks are hardly respected, and if at all with difficulty and at minimalist level.
But noteworthy is the absence of a criteria or process put in place to assure that the required outcomes as a result of the prescribed subjects are being achieved at any point in time.
The third observation is the absence of specific statements on teaching methods. There is a good case for encouraging, if not insisting on the use of problem based and, active learning which includes some form of the varieties of clinical legal education, and other students focused teaching methods.
In practice, key among other elements that seemed not to have enabled the attainment of the philosophy and goals of the Minimum Academic Standards is the traditional lecture type teaching method prevalent in all universities. Even the computer courses are taught through lectures in some institutions with or without computers.
A further aspect of it is the absence of connections between the course, even among the Law courses and of course exacerbated in the case of non-law courses which most students see as a nuisance rather than a new route to learning law contextually. The teachers who handle the non-law courses are domiciled outside the law faculty and have little or no particular orientation on the reason Law students are offering those non-law courses.
A fourth noticeable defect is the insular, inward looking direction of the courses in a world that is heavily globalised in all ramifications.
While it is true that most law graduates commence their professional life at the national level and deal with issues most of which may be domestic which affect matters of either private, economic, constitutional law, criminal law or administrative law in respect of the official bar, it is desirable to have robust programmes