Neoliberalism, privatisation and marketisation: The implications for legal education in England and Wales

Abstract This study discusses the impact of neoliberalism on legal education in England and Wales and the challenges and opportunities it presents. Neoliberalism is characterised by a focus on economic efficiency, competition, and individual responsibility, which can result in the commodification of education. The adoption of neoliberal policies in legal education has led to an increase in the number of law students and institutions offering legal education, with private providers playing a more prominent role. However, in light of recent developments in legal education and training, there are concerns about the equity and fairness of access to education, the quality of education provided, and the accountability of private providers. This study suggests several ways to address these challenges, such as promoting student-centred learning, incorporating vulnerability theory, and fostering student-staff partnerships and recommends a fundamental readjustment of legal education in order to equip graduates with the necessary skills and knowledge.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT:
In recent years, the influence of neoliberalism on various aspects of society, including education, has sparked significant debate and concern.This article aims to shed light on the challenges posed by neoliberalism and promotes a more balanced and equitable approach to legal education in England and Wales.Neoliberalism's marketoriented values have transformed higher education.This research examines how this shift affects access, quality and the societal role of legal education.The study serves educators, policymakers, legal professionals and students by raising wider awareness of challenges such as the commodification of legal education, erosion of public services and exacerbation of social inequalities.It advocates for legal education that not only equips students with technical skills but also nurtures critical thinking, ethical awareness and a sense of social responsibility.Ultimately, this article seeks to catalyse discussions that lead to policy changes fostering a more holistic and socially conscious legal education system.

Introduction
Neoliberalism is one of the forces that has most changed the educational landscape in this country over the last few decades.Neoliberalism as it applies to educational policy can perhaps best be defined as the idea that economic efficiency can be achieved through greater privatisation of and competition between higher education providers (Harland, 2009).Neoliberalism in higher education thus refers to the shift towards market-based policies and practices in the governance, funding, and delivery of higher education.It involves the application of economic principles to higher education, such as competition, efficiency, and consumer choice, and often results in the commodification of education.This approach is characterised by a focus on outcomes and employability, as well as the emphasis on individual responsibility for funding and career success.Supporters of neoliberalism argue that it promotes economic growth and innovation, and provides individuals with greater freedom and autonomy to pursue their own interests.It has been argued that neoliberal policies can increase efficiency and reduce costs, which can lead to higher quality goods and services for consumers.Neoliberalism has been criticised for its emphasis on market competition and profit making, which can lead to social inequality, job insecurity, and the erosion of public services.Critics argue that the focus on economic efficiency and individual responsibility ignores the broader social and political contexts that influence economic outcomes, and that neoliberal policies can exacerbate existing inequalities.
Whilst the phenomenon of neoliberalism has wide implications for UK higher education as a whole, it presents opportunities and challenges that are particular to legal education, which will form the main focus of the discussion in this paper.The adoption of neoliberal policies in the UK has had a significant impact on legal education.The massification and diversification of higher education has led to an increase in the number of law students and institutions offering legal education, with private providers playing an increasingly important role.The focus on competition and marketisation has resulted in universities being viewed as institutions that play a central role in the knowledge economy, with research and innovation becoming a key metric for assessing quality and standards in higher education.However, the push for greater privatisation and competition in legal education has also raised concerns about the equity and fairness of access to education, the quality of education provided, and the accountability of private providers.As such, it is important to examine how these neoliberal policies have affected legal education and what measures can be taken to address the challenges that arise.This article focuses on the implications of neoliberalism, privatisation and marketisation for legal education in England and Wales, where the legal system is based on the Common Law tradition, rather than the UK as a whole.Common Law is a legal system where court decisions, also known as case law or precedents, play a significant role in shaping and interpreting the law.In contrast, the Scottish legal system is based on the Civil Law tradition, which is derived from Roman Law (Slapper & Kelly, 2017).In Scotland, legislation plays a more prominent role in shaping the law, and the concept of binding precedents is not as strong as in Common Law jurisdictions.Legal education in Scotland, like in England and Wales, is not immune to the challenges posed by neoliberalism, which may lead to similar issues in both jurisdictions.However, there are key differences in how these challenges manifest and are addressed in each jurisdiction.The most significant difference is the legal system itself, as mentioned above, but the structure of legal education in Scotland is also distinct from that in England and Wales.The specific courses and pathways to legal qualification differ in the two jurisdictions.The Solicitors' Qualifying Examination (SQE), for example, is specific to England and Wales, and Scotland has its own unique routes to qualification as a solicitor or advocate.Educational policy, funding mechanisms and even the legal culture and practice in Scotland also vary significantly, all of which merit separate treatment and are beyond the scope of this study.Despite the focus of this article, it is accepted that, while there may be some unique aspects to legal education in Scotland due to its distinct legal system, the influence of neoliberalism on legal education is a shared concern that requires careful consideration and thoughtful responses from legal educators and policymakers in both jurisdictions.

Background and context
Neoliberalism is a term that encompasses a set of economic and political ideologies and policies that emerged in the late 20 th century.It advocates for the application of free-market principles to various aspects of society, emphasising limited government intervention, individualism, and the promotion of private enterprise and competition.Neoliberalism's core tenets include free markets, limited government, individualism, economic rationality, privatisation and globalisation (Wilson, 2017).The origins of neoliberalism can be traced back to the works of various economists and thinkers who sought to revive and reshape classical liberal ideas in the context of the post-World War II era.One of the key influences and events that contributed to the development of neoliberalism was the economic crisis of the 1930s, known as the Great Depression, which challenged the dominant economic theories of the time, including classical liberalism.The failure of markets to self-correct and the need for government intervention to stabilise the economy led to a reevaluation of economic thinking (Callison & Manfredi, 2019).The term "neoliberalism" itself came into common use in the 1980s and 1990s to describe the resurgence of market-oriented policies and the influence of neoliberal ideas in economic and political spheres.Today, neoliberalism is commonly used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers and reducing state influence in the economy, especially through privatisation and austerity (Boas & Gans-Morse, 2009).
The early experiments by the "Chicago Boys" in Chile and the subsequent alliance between Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom were instrumental in shaping and promoting neoliberal policies on a global scale (Guilherme & Picoli, 2021).These two cases are often cited as pivotal moments in the rise of neoliberalism as a dominant economic and political ideology.In the 1970s, a group of Chilean economists, trained at the University of Chicago and influenced by the ideas of free-market economists like Milton Friedman, returned to Chile and played a key role in advising General Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship.They implemented a series of radical neoliberal reforms, often referred to as the Chicago Boys' economic experiment, which "became the world's first test case for 'neoliberal' economics" (Bevins, 2020: 207).The Chilean experiment involved deregulating markets, privatising state-owned enterprises, opening up the economy to foreign investment, and reducing government intervention in the economy.These policies aimed to create a competitive market-oriented economy that would attract foreign capital and spur economic growth.However, the implementation of these reforms came at the expense of social welfare programs, labour rights, and income equality, leading to widespread social unrest and criticism.
Meanwhile, in the 1980s, the United States and the United Kingdom witnessed a political shift towards conservative leaders who embraced neoliberal ideas (Harvey, 2005).Ronald Reagan was elected as the President of the United States in 1980, and Margaret Thatcher became the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1979.Both leaders were strong proponents of neoliberalism and implemented policies that reflected these principles.Under Reagan's administration, the USA experienced a series of deregulatory measures, tax cuts, and reductions in social spending.These policies aimed to stimulate economic growth by empowering businesses and reducing the role of government in the economy.Thatcher's government pursued similar policies in the UK, advocating for privatisation, deregulation, and reducing the influence of trade unions.The alliance between Reagan and Thatcher further reinforced the global spread of neoliberalism (Boas & Gans-Morse, 2009).They promoted free-market principles, advocated for reduced government intervention, and emphasised the importance of individual responsibility and self-reliance.The economic policies pursued by both leaders became known as "Reaganomics" in the USA and "Thatcherism" in the UK.The impact of these early neoliberal experiments in Chile and the subsequent alliance between Reagan and Thatcher extended far beyond their respective countries.The policies they championed had a profound influence on global economic and political trends.Neoliberalism became the prevailing economic orthodoxy embraced by many governments and international organisations, leading to widespread liberalisation of markets and deregulation of industries across the world.
It is important to note that there are different interpretations and variations of neoliberalism, and its impact can vary across countries and contexts.The term is often used in a broad sense to describe a range of policies and ideologies associated with market-oriented reforms and the influence of market forces on various aspects of society but it has a number of distinct usages in different spheres: as a development model, it refers to the rejection of structuralist economics; as an ideology, it denotes a conception of freedom as an overarching social value associated with reducing state functions to those of a minimal state; and as a public policy, it involves the privatisation of public economic sectors or services, the deregulation of private corporations, sharp decrease of government budget deficits and reduction of spending on public works.
Conceptualising neoliberalism as a singular, definable, and immutable theory can be misleading and overly simplistic, neglecting the "flux and diversity" of neoliberalism (Brenner et al., 2010: 183).Neoliberalism is a complex and multifaceted ideology that takes different forms and shapes in various settings and contexts-as Peck et al. argue: "Neoliberalism has not and does not pulsate out from a single control center or heartland; it has always been relationally constituted across multiple sites and spaces of 'co-formation'" (2010: 106).While there are common core principles that underpin neoliberal thinking, its manifestations and applications can thus vary significantly depending on historical, cultural, political, and economic factors.Neoliberalism's application in different regions and countries may be influenced by factors such as historical legacies, institutional structures, political ideologies, and power dynamics.For example, neoliberal reforms in Western countries may differ from those implemented in developing nations due to varying levels of economic development, governance systems, and social priorities.Moreover, neoliberalism does not exist in isolation from other ideologies and policy frameworks.In many cases, it coexists with other economic and political approaches, leading to hybrid systems that may exhibit both neoliberal and non-neoliberal elements.The complexities and variations in the application of neoliberalism have led scholars to use terms like "varieties of neoliberalism" or "neoliberal assemblages" (Springer et al., 2016: 7) to acknowledge the diversity of neoliberal practices across different contexts.These conceptualisations recognise that neoliberalism's implementation is context-specific and that it interacts with existing social, political, and economic structures.Understanding neoliberalism as a singular, rigid theory is therefore insufficient to grasp its complexities and implications fully.Neoliberalism's diverse and context-dependent nature calls for a nuanced analysis that considers the specific historical, cultural, and political factors at play in each setting.
The origins of neoliberalism in UK higher education can be traced back to the broader neoliberal reforms that took place in the country during the 1980s and 1990s.The Thatcher government, in particular, implemented a series of market-oriented policies that had a profound impact on various sectors, including the Education Reform Act 1988, which created the framework for greater competition, autonomy, and accountability in universities.Prior to the 1990s, UK higher education was largely publicly funded.However, the Education Reform Act 1988 and subsequent legislation paved the way for the introduction of tuition fees, which started with the introduction of a means-tested fee in 1998 and later expanded to full tuition fees in 2006.The neoliberal ideology of market competition and consumer choice influenced the transformation of higher education into a market-driven sector.The government encouraged universities to compete for students and funding, emphasising metrics such as research performance and student satisfaction.This led to the rise of league tables, ranking systems, and increased competition between institutions.In addition, neoliberal reforms opened the doors for the expansion of private providers in higher education.The government encouraged competition by allowing private institutions to enter the market, challenging the dominance of traditional universities.The neoliberal emphasis on economic outcomes and market value also affected research funding in higher education.The introduction of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in 2008, which assesses the quality and impact of research conducted in universities, further promoted a market-oriented approach to research funding and evaluation.The influence of neoliberalism on UK higher education is an ongoing process, and its impact continues to be debated.While neoliberal policies have created opportunities, they have also raised concerns about access, equity, and the broader purpose of higher education beyond market-driven considerations, which will be considered further below.

Opportunities and challenges of neoliberalism
Neoliberalism has had a wide range of supporters and proponents, including influential economists (and nobel laureates) such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (Cahill et al., 2018).Friedman was associated with the Chicago School of Economics, which advocated for free-market policies and played a significant role in promoting neoliberal ideas during the mid-20th century, while in 1947 Hayek founded the Mont Pelerin Society, which serves as a platform for discussions and the promotion of neoliberal thought for a global network of economists, philosophers, and intellectuals.Various think tanks and policy institutes, such as the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Institute of Economic Affairs, have also been associated with neoliberal ideas.Proponents of neoliberalism believe that it promotes economic growth and innovation by creating a competitive market environment where businesses are free to compete and succeed based on their merit.They argue that the deregulation of industries and the reduction of government intervention can stimulate economic growth, create job opportunities, and enhance the standard of living for individuals.They also maintain that neoliberal policies promote entrepreneurial spirit and creativity, which can lead to new business ventures and technological innovations that ultimately benefit society.Furthermore, neoliberalism emphasises individual responsibility and accountability, encouraging individuals to take control of their own lives and pursue their interests without relying on state support.Supporters of neoliberalism argue that this enhances individual freedom and autonomy, creating a society that values personal responsibility and initiative.They also argue that the shift towards a market-oriented system can lead to greater efficiency and lower costs, which can benefit consumers by increasing the quality and affordability of goods and services.Despite these perceived benefits, neoliberalism has also faced significant criticism, perhaps most famously from Noam Chomsky, who has argued that neoliberal policies concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few, undermine democracy, and perpetuate social inequality (Chomsky, 2011).Other critics argue that the emphasis on market competition and profit making can lead to social inequality and the erosion of public services (Harvey, 2005).The neoliberal focus on economic efficiency and individual responsibility overlooks the broader social and political contexts that shape economic outcomes, and often exacerbates existing inequalities.The reduction of government intervention in the economy can also lead to job insecurity and an increased risk of economic downturns, as seen in the 2008 financial crisis.Additionally, some critics such as Wolfgang Streeck argue that neoliberal policies prioritise the interests of corporations and the wealthy over those of the general population (Streeck, 2020).The deregulation of industries and reduction of government intervention can lead to environmental degradation, exploitation of workers, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few (Piketty, 2014).Neoliberal policies can also lead to the privatisation of public goods and services, which can result in unequal access to basic needs such as healthcare and education.Fraser (2013) has criticised how neoliberalism commodifies and undermines social reproduction, exacerbates gender inequalities, and weakens the collective dimensions of feminist struggles, while Klein (2008) and (Klein, 2015) has written extensively about how neoliberal policies exploit crises and neglect environmental sustainability.Accordingly, while neoliberalism may promote economic growth and innovation, it also has significant drawbacks and has been widely criticised for its emphasis on market competition, individual responsibility, and deregulation.It is therefore essential to consider the social and political implications of neoliberal policies and to strive towards creating an economic system that is equitable, sustainable, and benefits the wellbeing of all individuals in society.
Evidence of the current government's neoliberal approach to higher education can be found in the 2011 White Paper, which sets out the main aims of its educational policy as being putting higher education on a sustainable footing, delivering a better student experience and increasing social mobility.Other symptoms of the neoliberal approach that can be seen in UK higher education include the increasing massification of higher education and diversification of the student body; the increasing connection between higher education providers and the private sector; a greater awareness of and increasing research into quality and standards in higher education; increased pressure to use resources in more effective ways; and a greater push for teaching training for academic staff (Tight, 2012).Universities are also increasingly seen as institutions that are central to the knowledge economy, as producers of the knowledge that drives economic development (Temple, 2012).Neoliberalism thus promotes the idea of treating education as a commodity and encourages market forces to shape the provision of educational services.This leads to increased competition among educational institutions, as they vie for students and funding, which can result in a focus on marketing and branding rather than educational quality.
Another aspect of the government's neoliberal approach to higher education is the emphasis on research into quality and standards in higher education.This has led to greater scrutiny of universities and their performance.There is now a greater expectation that universities will be accountable for the quality of the education they provide, and that they will be able to demonstrate the value of their research and teaching.The impact of neoliberalism on higher education and the rise of knowledge capitalism have been noted.Olssen and Peters (2005) argue that neoliberalism has transformed universities into corporations focused on producing human capital for the knowledge economy.The tensions and contradictions inherent in this shift towards knowledge capitalism include the erosion of academic freedom and the commodification of education.Neoliberalism can influence the curriculum by prioritising subjects that are perceived to have direct economic value, such as STEM fields, while devaluing the humanities and social sciences.This can limit students' exposure to a diverse range of knowledge and perspectives.The government has, however, recognised the importance of higher education in driving innovation and economic growth, and this has led to increased investment in research and development, as well as closer collaboration between universities and business.
The neoliberal approach to higher education has also had a significant impact on the way that universities are funded (Hill & Kumar, 2011).Neoliberal policies often involve the introduction of market-oriented funding mechanisms, such as tuition fees and student loans.This can result in high levels of student debt and financial burden for students, affecting their access to education and future opportunities.Historically, the government provided the bulk of funding for higher education in the UK.However, in recent years, universities have become increasingly reliant on student fees and income from private sources, such as research contracts and donations.This has led to greater competition between universities, as they compete for students and funding.As a result, universities have become more market-driven, with a greater focus on attracting students and securing funding from the private sector.Neoliberal policies often advocate for privatisation and reduced government regulation in education.This can lead to the outsourcing of educational services to private providers and the weakening of government oversight, potentially leading to issues of accountability and quality control.The impact of these changes on higher education in the UK has been significant, with universities having to adapt to new funding models and changing expectations around research and teaching.It can be argued that neoliberalism emphasises the economic value of education, leading to a shift in educational goals towards employability and jobmarket outcomes.As a result, there may be less emphasis on the broader aims of education, such as critical thinking, social responsibility, and civic engagement.
The benefits often put forward in support of the neoliberal push for greater privatisation in higher education are usually widening access through a rapid increase in enrolment, improved quality through competition and reduced cost to the public.However, as pointed out by McCowan (2004), there are problems with all of these perceived benefits, which mean that the position is not as straightforward as it at first seems.The difficulty of paying fees, the relation of course fees to earning potential, the limited availability of scholarships and the differences between the standing of institutions are all issues that mean that private providers do not necessarily increase equity, or fairness of access and participation in higher education.Neoliberal policies can exacerbate existing educational inequalities, as they may not adequately address the needs of marginalised and disadvantaged groups.Market-driven approaches can result in differential access to quality education based on socioeconomic status, geographic location, and other factors.In this country the relative inexperience of staff, high student: staff ratio and lack of resources of the majority of private providers compared with their public sector counterparts means that quality is not necessarily improved by privatisation of higher education.Neoliberalism can influence teaching and learning practices by promoting standardised testing, performance metrics, and outcome-based evaluations.This can lead to a narrowing of the curriculum and a focus on "teaching to the test" rather than fostering critical thinking and creativity.Finally, the argument that private providers benefit the public is not necessarily borne out when one considers that in the UK the majority of private providers produce no research output while taking up public funds in the form of tax exemptions, student loans and grants.
However, it is necessary to balance out the above by pointing out the many advantages of private providers.It is rarely mentioned that, as well as widening access to higher education for students, many private providers also widen access to careers in higher education for academics who lack either doctorates or a record of research and publication.In hiring, retention and promotion of teaching staff, many private providers often value professional qualifications and industry experience at least as much as academic qualifications and a research profile.The UK could also learn a great deal from the lesson of private providers in other countries, where neither quality of teaching nor the profile of research has been sacrificed.The USA and its "Ivy League" universities provide perhaps the best example of this, but it must be noted that institutions like Harvard and Yale have the advantage of a much longer history and higher fees, as well as endowments, grants and philanthropic contributions, that private providers in the UK simply do not have available to them.The answer may be, as suggested by Carpentier (2012), diversification of income by making use of both private and public revenue streams in order to achieve the sort of sustainable higher education system envisaged by the 2011 White Paper.This potential solution to the challenges posed by neoliberalism will be considered in more detail below after first considering the particular implications of this phenomenon for legal education.

Implications for legal education
Neoliberalism and a liberal legal education are two concepts that intersect and can have significant implications for the education and practice of law.As discussed above, neoliberalism, as an economic and political ideology, emphasises free markets, individualism, and limited government intervention.In the context of education, neoliberal policies often favour market-driven values and outcomes, such as employability and economic efficiency.This can manifest in the commodification of education, the emphasis on competition and consumer choice, and the reliance on private funding and partnerships.On the other hand, a liberal legal education is rooted in the principles of intellectual exploration, critical thinking, and a broad understanding of legal theory and principles (Guth & Ashford, 2014).It places importance on developing analytical skills, ethical reasoning, and a commitment to social justice.A liberal legal education aims to cultivate well-rounded professionals who can navigate complex legal issues and contribute to the betterment of society (Bradney, 2008).The conflict between these sort of liberal educational values and neoliberalism is by no means unique to law teaching and very similar debates have been taking place in other professional fields, for similar reasons, such as education, health and engineering.
The tension with liberal legal education arises when neoliberalism's emphasis on marketoriented values and outcomes starts to shape the priorities and structure of law schools.There are concerns that the neoliberal agenda may prioritise the needs of the market and employers over the broader goals of a liberal legal education, such as fostering a deep understanding of legal principles, promoting social justice, and cultivating a sense of professional responsibility.Neoliberal influences can be seen in various aspects of legal education, such as the increasing reliance on tuition fees, the push for vocational training and skills-based education, and the pressure to produce graduates who are immediately employable.These influences can potentially limit the scope of legal education, narrow the focus to technical skills, and undermine the critical and reflective aspects that are fundamental to a liberal legal education.To maintain the integrity of a liberal legal education in the face of neoliberal pressures, it is essential for legal educators and institutions to critically engage with the impact of neoliberalism and actively resist its potential negative effects.This may involve incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives, promoting critical thinking and ethical reasoning, fostering a sense of social responsibility, and creating spaces for intellectual exploration and debate.Ultimately, a liberal legal education should strive to strike a balance between preparing students for the demands of the legal profession and equipping them with the broader skills, knowledge, and values necessary to contribute to a just and democratic society.By navigating the tensions between neoliberalism and a liberal legal education, legal educators can play a crucial role in shaping the future of legal practice and promoting the ideals of justice, fairness, and equality.
Neoliberalism has had a significant impact on legal education in recent years, particularly in England and Wales with the introduction of the SQE in 2021.The SQE represents a shift towards a more market-driven approach to legal education, with a focus on outcomes-based assessment and the standardisation of legal education.Critics argue that the SQE, with its emphasis on multiple-choice testing and a narrow focus on technical legal skills, neglects the broader social, ethical, and political aspects of legal practice (Roper et al., 2020).The SQE's focus on outcomesbased assessment ignores the benefits of process-based learning, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and legal reasoning, which are essential to effective legal practice.Furthermore, the introduction of the SQE has been criticised for its potential impact on social mobility in the legal profession (Harris et al., 2021).With the high cost of legal education, many students from disadvantaged backgrounds may be deterred from pursuing a career in law.The SQE's emphasis on technical legal skills over more generalist legal knowledge may also disadvantage those who have not had access to the same level of legal education as their peers (Morrison & Guth, 2021).Supporters of the SQE argue that it will increase access to the legal profession by providing a more flexible, cost-effective route to qualification, and will improve standards of legal education by ensuring that all students meet a consistent standard of competence.Since it is still very much in its early days, it remains to be seen how the SQE will impact the legal profession in practice, and whether it will address or exacerbate existing inequalities in the profession.
The SQE is seemingly designed to create a more market-driven approach to legal education, where providers compete for students and students compete for jobs.This shift towards a more market-based approach can, however, potentially be seen as just one part of a worrying move away from the traditional focus on academic excellence and professionalism in legal education.The introduction of the SQE may only be one symptom of wider neoliberal influences in legal education and there is a need to critically examine and challenge these influences to ensure that legal education remains accessible and relevant to all students.Other evidence of neoliberalism in this sphere is the increasing emphasis on the commercialisation of legal education, with many law schools in the UK and elsewhere now relying primarily on tuition fees and corporate partnerships for funding.This has led to concerns that law schools are prioritising the needs of employers over those of students and society more broadly (Jones, 2018).Additionally, the growing trend towards the use of adjunct faculty and casualised teaching contracts in legal education can be seen as another manifestation of neoliberalism in the sector, with universities prioritising financial efficiency over the welfare and job security of their teaching staff.All of this highlights the challenges of neoliberalism in law schools and suggests that a shift towards a more humanistic approach to legal education may be necessary to ensure the provision of high-quality legal services and address the broader social and political issues facing the legal profession.The remainder of this article will explore the main challenges of neoliberalism and strategies for responding to these challenges, first in the context of higher education as a whole and then, informed by this, in the specific context of legal education.

Meeting the main challenges in higher education
As discussed above, over the past few decades, the UK's education system has experienced profound changes, largely in response to the forces of neoliberalism and globalisation.Neoliberalism, which espouses greater privatisation and competition in education, has gained significant traction in recent years.The emphasis on market-based solutions to education is in line with the broader trend of globalisation and internationalisation, which refers to the economic, political, and social pressures that are driving higher education institutions towards greater international collaboration (Altbach & Knight, 2007).These developments have had far-reaching consequences for legal education in the UK.The legal profession has traditionally been steeped in tradition and resistant to change, but neoliberalism and globalisation have challenged this status quo.The emphasis on competition and the marketisation of legal education has led to increased pressure on law schools to deliver courses that are more relevant to the needs of the market, such as commercial law and intellectual property law.This has also led to greater scrutiny of the role of law schools in society, with some critics arguing that legal education has become too focused on producing graduates who are trained for corporate law firms and not enough on producing graduates who are equipped to serve the needs of the wider society.Given these trends, it is clear that legal education in the UK faces significant challenges in the years ahead.The marketisation of education has placed greater emphasis on the value of legal qualifications as a commodity, leading to increased competition and a "race to the bottom" in terms of price.The rise of globalisation and internationalisation has also led to increased competition from overseas institutions, with many UK law schools now facing real competition from prestigious institutions in the US and other countries.In this context, it is essential for law schools in the UK to adapt and innovate to meet the changing needs of students and the legal profession.This will be considered further in the next section, but it is instructive first to look at lessons learned from meeting the main challenges of neoliberalism in the wider context of higher education.
As mentioned above, Olssen and Peters (2005) argue that neoliberalism has transformed universities into corporations focused on producing human capital for the knowledge economy.They call for critical engagement with neoliberalism and the development of alternative approaches to higher education that favour social justice and democratic values because, by understanding the neoliberal ideology and its impact on higher education, stakeholders in higher education can better address the challenges and work towards creating more equitable and sustainable systems.Their recommendations for doing this include developing alternative models of education that place a premium on critical thinking, democratic citizenship, and social responsibility; encouraging more collaboration and cooperation between universities and communities, businesses, and government agencies; promoting the use of new technologies and pedagogical innovations to enhance learning and make education more accessible and affordable, resisting the commodification of knowledge and the commercialisation of higher education and reaffirming the importance of academic freedom, critical inquiry, and the pursuit of truth in the face of neoliberal pressures to conform to market demands.Jones (2013) has made similar recommendations for how higher education institutions and policymakers can resist the neoliberal agenda and restore the value of higher education as a public good.Giroux (2010) argues that higher education has become increasingly influenced by the neoliberal economic paradigm, which emphasises the commodification of education and the reduction of learning to the acquisition of marketable skills.This commodification of education has led to a narrow focus on efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and productivity, which has in turn eroded the traditional goals of higher education, such as fostering critical thinking, creativity, and civic engagement.He provides recommendations for resisting the neoliberal agenda and creating a more democratic and socially just system by proposing a "bare pedagogy" approach to higher education, which emphasises critical thinking, dialogue, and a commitment to social justice and democratic values.A commitment to such a pedagogy is necessary in his view for the preservation of higher education as a democratic public sphere where critical thought and debate are encouraged and valued.Ingleby (2015) has also argued that there is a need to reclaim the moral dimension of teaching and to create spaces within higher education where critical thinking and intellectual engagement can flourish.Bamberger et al. (2019) argue that there is a need for a critical understanding of the connection between neoliberalism and internationalisation of higher education.In their view neoliberal policies promote internationalisation for economic gains and competition, and create a hierarchy of universities based on their ability to attract international students and engage in research commercialisation.This leads to the commodification of education and the exploitation of staff and students.They suggest that an alternative model of internationalisation, based on collaboration and solidarity, can challenge neoliberalism and promote social justice in higher education and call for a rethinking of internationalisation as a means to foster intercultural understanding and global citizenship.They argue that we need to reframe internationalisation in higher education to be more critical and to support the development of alternative models of internationalisation that prioritise social justice, democratic education, and cultural diversity.They also suggest that universities need to develop alternative models of leadership and governance that focus on the wellbeing of all stakeholders, including students, staff, and faculty.Finally, Bamberger et al. argue that there is a need for a global movement to challenge neoliberalism and its impact on higher education, and to promote alternative visions of education that are more equitable and democratic.Their recommendations and alternative models provide a framework for addressing the challenges of neoliberalism in higher education and promoting a more democratic and equitable higher education system.Burke (2013) agrees that a more democratic and inclusive approach to higher education is needed-one that recognises diverse forms of knowledge and values and promotes the right to education for all.
The literature discussed above highlights several challenges of neoliberalism in higher education, including the commodification of education, inequality, casualisation of the work force, standardisation of education at the expense of creativity, and reduction of public funding.Arguably, the neoliberal agenda in higher education has led to a shift from education as a public good to education as a private commodity, and has resulted in the creation of an academic culture that favours competition, standardisation, and marketisation over critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration.Academic commentary has identified how neoliberalism has impacted education, including the increased commodification and marketisation of knowledge, as well as the ways in which neoliberal policies have led to increased precariousness and inequality for students and faculty.Various recommendations for addressing these challenges have been put forward, including a focus on promoting critical pedagogies, fostering a more democratic and inclusive education system, and rethinking the role and value of higher education in society.This underscores the need for continued critical engagement with neoliberalism and a commitment to promoting social justice and equity in higher education and thus provides a strong imperative for educators to consider these issues in their own disciplinary context.

Meeting the main challenges in legal education
Legal education has undergone significant changes in recent years, driven by the challenges posed by neoliberalism.The rise of neoliberalism has placed greater emphasis on market-oriented values and practices in education, resulting in increased commodification, competition, and pressure to produce graduates who are ready for the market.In response, legal educators have explored various approaches to meet these challenges.The need for legal educators to critically engage with the impact of neoliberalism on legal education and to develop new strategies that emphasise the values of social justice, diversity, and inclusion has been highlighted above.The importance of acknowledging the role of affect, vulnerability, and emotions in legal education, promoting student-staff partnerships, and adopting a more holistic approach that prioritises student wellbeing has also been touched upon and this will be discussed further below.
One solution to the challenges of neoliberalism is to promote student-centred teaching methods that encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration.For example, Hudson (2021) argues that law schools face a choice between two futures-one in which they remain mired in traditional ways of thinking and teaching, and one in which they embrace innovation and new ways of teaching and learning.One way of addressing this is the proposal of Eslava (2020) for a shift in focus from merely transmitting legal doctrines to a more comprehensive and critical approach that takes into account the historical and social context of the law and its impact on people's lives.This approach can help to challenge dominant power structures and enable students to think more critically about law and its role in society, which is particularly important in the current neoliberal climate that favours market values and individualism over social justice and collective action.Taking this further, Coyle and Gibbons-Jones (2022) suggest that traditional teaching methods, which focus on the transmission of information, can hinder students' learning and growth.They argue that instead, a more studentcentred approach that encourages experimentation and allows for failure can be more effective in supporting students' growth and wellbeing.This approach can be seen as a response to the neoliberal emphasis on employability and career success at the expense of individual wellbeing.
Another solution is to foster student-staff partnerships that create safe spaces for dialogue in higher education and centre the voices and experiences of marginalised communities.For instance, Memon and Jivraj (2020) provide examples of initiatives, such as student-led reading groups and staff-student committees, which have been effective in decolonising the curriculum and creating a more inclusive educational environment.This approach highlights the need for decolonising higher education and creating more inclusive and equitable spaces in legal education.Memon and Jivraj suggest that a more decolonised approach to teaching requires a collaborative effort between students and staff, where they work together to create spaces that prioritise trust, courage, and open communication.This solution challenges the neoliberal focus on competition and marketisation in legal education and emphasises the importance of community and collective action in creating more just and equitable educational environments.By embracing these values, it is suggested, legal education institutions can work towards addressing the power imbalances and inequalities created by neoliberal policies in higher education.
An alternative approach is to embrace vulnerability theory and promote the idea that vulnerability is a strength that should be recognised and supported in legal education.Vulnerability theory acknowledges that all individuals are inherently vulnerable, and societal structures and institutions can exacerbate this vulnerability (Lieberwitz, 2021).Morrison and Guth (2021) argue that vulnerability theory provides a useful framework for understanding the impact of neoliberalism on legal education and suggests that legal educators should embrace vulnerability as a means of promoting social justice and improving student outcomes.Serafim (2021) argues that vulnerability theory can be used to challenge the traditional "banking" model of legal education, which emphasises authority and control and in which students are treated as passive recipients of knowledge transferred to them by their teachers.Harris et al. (2021) explored the impact of vulnerability theory on the criminal defence profession and argue that legal education must take into account the emotional demands of criminal defence work.The attraction of vulnerability theory as a response to neoliberalism is that it is an approach that values vulnerability and humanity, rather than marketisation and competition, and promotes the wellbeing and development of staff and students, as well as social justice and inclusion.By embracing vulnerability and care, law schools can potentially create a more supportive and inclusive learning environment that promotes academic excellence and personal growth.
In addition, it seems necessary to re-examine the purpose of law schools and explore alternative models that prioritise social justice and community engagement.Roper et al. (2020) argue that the focus on market-driven models of education has led to the marginalisation of critical legal education and an over-emphasis on skills training.They suggest that legal education should not only encourage critical thinking, practical skills, and professional ethics, but also provide students with a broader understanding of the social and political context of the law.Roper et al. propose various strategies to achieve these goals, such as incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives, encouraging student engagement with the community, and rethinking the traditional law school curriculum.Leighton (2021) discusses the potential benefits and drawbacks of the SQE, including its potential impact on diversity and access to the profession, as mentioned above, and also considers the implications of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for legal education and the profession as a whole.Ultimately, Leighton argues that neoliberal policies and practices have led to a marketisation of legal education, which has resulted in issues such as increased student debt, casualisation of academic labour, and a focus on employability skills over broader intellectual development.However, to address this there are opportunities for innovation and improvement, particularly in the areas of diversity, technology, and experiential learning.Some of these have already been discussed above, such as a focus on decolonisation, community engagement and inclusion of marginalised perspectives in the curriculum.Furthermore, it is important to address the challenges of the precarious nature of academic work and prioritise the wellbeing of legal academics.Ferris (2021) explores how the modern UK university has created an environment that fosters a heightened sense of vulnerability among legal academics through the casualisation of academic labour, the proliferation of performance metrics and targets, and the commodification of education.He argues that this vulnerability is a product of neoliberalism, which places marketisation, competition, and efficiency above the welfare of staff and students.Ferris proposes several strategies for addressing this issue, including the creation of a more supportive and inclusive work environment, the establishment of meaningful channels for staff participation and representation, and the promotion of collective bargaining and unionisation.Blackham (2020) also highlights the impact of the neoliberal agenda on the working conditions of academic staff in legal education.She mentions the rise of precarious employment, the use of casual academic staff, and the consequent erosion of job security, career advancement, and fair pay.Blackham argues that these neoliberal policies are detrimental to the quality of legal education, as they lead to an over-reliance on casual academic staff who may lack the necessary expertise and experience, and calls for legal education institutions to adopt fairer employment policies that value the contributions of academic staff and provide better job security and opportunities for career advancement.This is a compelling argument, since greater recognition and support for those in academic work seems to be vital in order to promote a more sustainable and inclusive legal education system.
It is also worth revisiting the suggestions of Carpentier (2012), Olssen and Peters (2005) and others in relation to collaboration and diversification, as mentioned above, in the specific context of legal education.One potential policy response to the challenges of privatisation in legal education is to encourage greater cooperation between private providers and public universities.Collaboration can help ensure that all institutions have access to the necessary resources and expertise.This can include sharing services such as libraries, laboratories, and research facilities.Institutions can also come together for the development of joint research projects and programmes, which can help promote innovation and improve the quality of education by investing in research and scholarship, enhancing student support services, and improving the assessment and feedback process.Another useful collaborative strategy would be to forge stronger links with the legal profession and industry through initiatives such as internships, work placements, and mentorship programmes, which provide students with practical experience and exposure to the demands of legal practice.Such initiatives would help to bridge the gap between academia and industry, giving students a more realistic understanding of the legal profession and better preparing them for the challenges of a career in law.Finally, institutions can work together with policymakers and stakeholders to advocate for policies that position education as a public good.This can include advocating for increased public funding for higher education and for a regulatory framework that promotes equity and accessibility for all students.Institutions can also advocate for policies that promote diversity and inclusivity in higher education, such as strategies to address the under-representation of certain groups in legal education.By working with policymakers and stakeholders in this way, institutions can help ensure that policies are developed with the interests of students and the wider society in mind, rather than solely for economic gain.By taking these steps, the sector can address the challenges of neoliberalism and continue to provide high-quality legal education to students from all backgrounds.
Finally, meeting the challenges of neoliberalism in law schools involves creating a more inclusive and diverse legal education system that recognises the importance of emotional intelligence and, in particular, the role of emotions in clinical legal education.The affective domain involves the study of how emotions are expressed, learned, arise, experienced, influenced by and influence behaviour (Maharg & Maughan, 2011).Maughan (2011) has argued that taking emotion into account is critical for the teaching process but the affective domain has been largely ignored in legal education, especially at the curriculum design level.The significance of this is that unless law teachers engage with the motivations and emotional experiences of their students, they will not care about what they are learning and its consequences.Engaging well with affect in legal education can therefore have a positive impact on students' behaviour and performance, while ignoring the affective domain risks students losing both confidence and interest in their studies.There is a case for rethinking curriculum design in light of this and there are a number of ways of embedding affect in the curriculum.For example, Tsaoussi (2020) refers to good classroom management to create a safe and supportive environment for students, particularly when it comes to negotiation.More generally, therefore, affect may be embedded in the curriculum by creating more space for student dialogue and creativity.
In light of this it is notable that Jones (2018) critiques the 2013 Legal Education and Training Review's (LETR) treatment of affective learning and calls for a more nuanced understanding of the role of emotions in legal education.She examines the LETR's recommendations for promoting affective outcomes in legal education, such as incorporating mindfulness and resilience training into the curriculum, and argues that these recommendations do not go far enough in addressing systemic issues in the legal profession.Jones suggests that instead of focusing on individual characteristics and skills, legal education should address the broader social and economic contexts in which the legal profession operates.Taking this further, Seear et al. (2019) argue that the current neoliberal focus on technical skills and outcomes-based education neglects the role of emotions in legal practice and the importance of emotional intelligence in building meaningful relationships with clients and colleagues.Their study discusses the role of emotions in clinical legal education and presents the results of an international workshop for legal educators.This workshop brought together legal educators from different countries and explored various approaches to incorporating emotions into clinical legal education, including roleplay exercises, reflective writing, and mindfulness practices.By incorporating emotions in clinical legal education in this way, legal educators can help to prepare students for the emotional demands of legal practice and promote more empathetic and effective legal representation.
In summary, the various solutions discussed above demonstrate the need for a fundamental shift in the way legal education is approached in the face of neoliberal challenges.The impact of neoliberalism on legal education has for example resulted in increased commodification and pressure to produce graduates who are ready for the market.Legal educators have responded to these challenges by exploring approaches that emphasise the values of social justice, diversity, and inclusion and promote student wellbeing.There is a need for law schools to critically engage with the impact of neoliberalism on legal education and develop new strategies that prioritise these values.By doing so, legal educators can create a more inclusive and diverse legal education system that recognises the importance of emotional intelligence and the role of emotions in law teaching.In this way, legal education has a key role in promoting a more just and equitable society.

Conclusion
This study has highlighted a variety of challenges facing legal education in the context of neoliberalism.These challenges include the increasing emphasis on the marketisation and commodification of legal education, the impact of neoliberal policies on academic staff and their working conditions, and the need to decolonise legal education and promote diversity and inclusion.This study also suggests several ways to address these challenges, such as promoting student-centred learning, incorporating vulnerability theory, and fostering student-staff partnerships.Additionally, there is a need for a shift towards a more critical and reflexive approach to legal education that encourages students to think beyond the confines of the legal profession and engage with wider social, political, and ethical issues.Ultimately, it is hoped that this study provides a valuable insight into the complex and evolving landscape of legal education and offers practical recommendations for how legal educators can navigate the challenges of neoliberalism and promote a more inclusive, ethical, and socially responsible legal education.
Based on the preceding discussion, there are several potential recommendations for addressing the challenges of neoliberalism in legal education.Firstly, legal educators must recognise the impact of neoliberalism on legal education and actively resist its negative effects.This includes fostering critical thinking, encouraging collaboration, and valuing vulnerability and affective learning.Additionally, it is necessary to move beyond the traditional banking model of legal education and adopt more experiential and clinical teaching methods.It is also crucial to promote the wellbeing of students and academics, particularly in the face of precarious employment and increasing pressures to produce marketable graduates.This includes promoting growth and resilience, creating safe spaces for vulnerability and discussion, and offering support for mental health and wellbeing.Finally, there is a need for ongoing reflection and dialogue about the purpose and goals of legal education.This includes exploring new approaches to legal education that prioritise social justice and equity, rather than perpetuating existing power imbalances.It also involves reimagining the role of legal education in society and developing curricula that prepare graduates for a rapidly changing world.
Overall, this study suggests that there is a need for a fundamental readjustment of legal education in light of the challenges posed by neoliberalism.By encouraging critical thinking, wellbeing, and social justice, legal educators can equip graduates with the skills and knowledge necessary to address complex legal issues and contribute to a more just and equitable society.In this context, it is crucial for institutions to consider the implications of these findings for the future of legal education.What changes are needed to develop legal curricula that address the challenges of neoliberalism?How can we ensure that legal education is inclusive and equitable?What new approaches can be developed to prioritise the wellbeing of students?These are some of the questions that need to be addressed by legal educators and policymakers in their own institutional contexts as they seek to navigate the complex challenges of neoliberalism in legal education.