During my own studies at the UvA in the early 2000s, the curriculum consisted solely of legal subjects. Philosophy of law and sociology of law, those were the wild excursions in an otherwise somewhat one-sided curriculum, private law, criminal law, administrative law and, as a variation over the years, criminal law II, administrative law II, enfin, you get the idea.
I did get the chance during my master's to participate in the Law Clinic, a project in which students were allowed to work on existing cases. For instance, I helped write another 100-page report for the Akzo Nobel case (C-550/07 a true competition law classic). Our contribution to the plea ended up being just one sentence: 'there is no further international law argument to be derived beyond what has already been concluded on the basis of EU law'. But it indeed came from us as students.
During the Law Clinic, me and my fellow students worked intensively together in small groups, and our lecturers had thought that a session on giving feedback and communication skills would be useful. That way, at the last minute of my education, I still got some training in soft skills. These three training sessions, together 12 hours, have always stuck with me as one of the most interesting parts of my studies. Of course, when you immerse someone in property law I, II and III for four years, any variation is like a drop of water in a desert. But I sincerely think that this part of the study in itself made a deep impression.
Where exactly that was in it I don't remember very well. For instance, after a considerable period of intense collaboration, we had to describe each other as a cartoon character. Not a harmless assignment. While my fellow student described me as the second elephant in the line of Jungle Book (who gives wise advice to the elephant in front and wants to stay in his shadow), my group-mate was described as a cross between Aunt Sidonia and Olive. This was less appreciated by the person in question, perhaps also because it was a very apt description.
I was explained that the other person's reaction may have been influenced by what that person experienced yesterday, something I did not have a good overview of at the time. We were taught about giving feedback, and that the 'feedback sandwich' is not a good idea (I like your hat, your face is ugly but you have beautiful shoes).
As a lecturer at Radboud University, I got involved in the design of the honours programme Law in Action where attention to soft skills forms about half of the programme. On the contrary, skills training is also incorporated into the legal components of the programme, as these legal components are offered in the form of simulations of legal practice. As an assessment, students write reflection papers on what they have learned and experienced during the programme. If this is somewhat uncomfortable at first, students really appreciate the focus on personal and professional skills, just as I did during my own studies.
For example, we very practically built in a lawyer-client conversation through a phone call. The client, played by my Romanian colleague, wanted answers to questions about his residence permit. The students started a story with sentences like: 'it looks like the IND wrongly assumes a reading of EU law and comes to a restriction of the right to work pending...' upon which my colleague interrupted the students and shouted in poor Dutch: 'I don't understand, so I can stay here in the Netherlands?' Valuable lesson, which the students will surely also learn in practice, but I'm guessing they won't soon forget.
It is not about the specific lesson of 'communicating with the client'. It is about the fact that within a safe environment, a student is given the opportunity to think about later professional practice, and perhaps become a better lawyer as a result, or come to the conclusion that the legal profession does not attract as much as first thought. Or that good cooperation with colleagues requires reflection on one's own role. And it is mainly about paying attention to the person behind the student, which is not unimportant at a time when the professional role this student will later fulfil is in many cases no longer clearly defined. Something about the future skills people think they are going to need, thinking skills, digital skills, and there they are: intrapersonal skills and interpersonal skills.
The shame of such a programme is that it is only available to a few, already high-performing students. This is precisely why I strongly support the broad introduction of a PPO curricula. In recent years, I have been working hard for this partly as theme leader of educational development and innovation at the TLC.
Now is the time to take a new step in my own development, with my transfer to Wageningen University. This is therefore my last column. It has been my sincere honour to be able to participate in the development of our students and building Teaching and Learning Centre.