One of the major issues raised during the debate by many members was the academic freedom that was allowed by universities regarding the content of the four year LLB curriculum. Moteno said that it would be better if core and necessary subjects where prescribed instead of recommended.

The lack of prescribed standard textbooks across the nation for use by all universities was also raised in the debate. Moteno described it as lecturers capitalising on what can be construed as financial gain by prescribing their own textbooks, causing a major disparity between what different universities teach.

 

Naledi Ledwaba, the society’s deputy chairperson, said, “We [LLB students] are not quality.” Her argument was based on the lack of practical skills among law graduates. She argued that if there is a need for it, then there should be an additional year to the degree dedicated to practical learning.

Abel Maluleka, the secretary of BLASC, repeated Ledwaba’s sentiments as he also described how the LLB curriculum has a shortfall in practical learning. He spoke of the importance of adding modules that aid every student’s ability to apply the theoretical knowledge in practice. He suggested making the available practical modules compulsory in order to give every student an opportunity to glimpse real legal practice.

 

One major point against his argument was the input of each individual law student towards their legal studies. A minority of members argued that the LLB curriculum is adequate to produce competent lawyers, however for it to achieve this the students need to work on their own. Therefore the law faculty should not be there to “spoon feed” students but rather to provide a platform where theoretical learning is provided, followed by practical learning in articles or pupilage after the degree.