Of babies and bathwater: in defence of the traditional essay

Assessment is always a hot topic in education, and has come into sharp focus recently in legal education with the introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), with increased pressures to focus on problematic modes of assessment and styles of teaching, to accommodate for more the SQE’s Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ). Presently, discussions around the benefits of authentic assessment, about assessment choice for students, as well as the importance of embedding employability skills, and risks of academic misconduct all impact the types of assessment preferred in higher education institutions at any given time. In addition, the rise of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is already significantly impacting assessment practices - at least amongst students. All of these debates seem to have coincided to question the importance of, and subsequently firmly push out of favour, ‘the traditional essay’. They are described as traditional, implying not innovative or even boring, they are lamented as not being plagiarism proof and now answerable by AI, and lesser than the more recent modes of assessment, that have value, but can equally be flashy gimics if without purpose. They are also perceived as pointless in an era of employability skills where we are required to assess students using techniques that replicate tasks they might encounter ‘in the real world’. However, we think we are in danger of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater if we are too quick to discard the traditional essay as a method of assessment in law.