Our guest post author today is Sarah, a senior lecturer in law at a Russell Group university. In this post, she reflects on the most impressive submission she’s read in years, and why it still wasn’t the right kind of success.
I read a stunning piece of work last week. Crisp issue spotting, clean structure, accurate authorities, and a conclusion that flowed as naturally as a tide chart. It was, quite simply, one of the best answers to a law problem question I’ve marked in a while.
And I failed the student.
Not because it wasn’t good enough in substance. It was exceptional. But because it wasn’t theirs.
When I called the student in for a chat, I began as I always do when something sits oddly on the page: with questions. “Tell me how you approached the authorities.” “Which case did you find hardest to apply, and why?” “Where did you disagree with the commentary you cited?” The answers came haltingly. English is not this student’s first language; that’s something I know well from seminars and emails. Eventually, with a mixture of embarrassment and relief, they told me they had used “UKEssays.com assignment help service”. I knew these services existed but this is the first time in my teaching career that I’ve come face-to-face with a student who has used one.
I’ll be honest: my first feeling was sadness. Sadness that the student thought outsourcing the writing was the best or only option. Sadness that I hadn’t spotted, sooner, how much support they needed. Then a slightly contradictory feeling followed: admiration. Because the answer they submitted – whoever wrote it – was a superb model of how to tackle a law problem question. Clear IRAC structure, sharp distinctions drawn between superficially similar precedents, respectful treatment of counter-arguments, tidy signposting, the lot.
Here is the thing I wish more students heard plainly: a model can be a powerful learning tool, if you use it to learn. Although our university doesn’t allow use of such a company, if this student had taken that commissioned answer, read it closely, checked the sources, and then put it away and written their own response from scratch – using the model as scaffolding rather than a substitute – the outcome would have been different. They would not only have stayed within the bounds of academic integrity (at least in my opinion); they would also have learned far more, and I would have been thrilled to credit that growth.
After the marking was complete (and after gently dealing with the integrity issue through the proper channels), I took an unusual step: I handed a copy of that answer – redacted and anonymised – to the class as a model. Why? Because it did so many things right that are teachable.
It showed how to:
identify the decisive issue early, without waffling
marshal authority with purpose, not as a shopping list
signpost analysis so the reader never gets lost
reserve space for counter-arguments and answer them with respect
conclude cleanly, linking back to the opening issue
I told the group, very explicitly, that a model is a tool, not a shortcut. Read it. Dissect it. Compare it with your own work. Then write your own answer, in your own voice, with your own reasoning. If you can’t explain a case aloud without looking at your notes, you don’t understand it well enough to rely on it in writing.
To my students working in a second (or third) language: I see you. Writing in a foreign language is hard. Legal writing, which is precision work with words, can feel brutal. It is not my decision who is admitted into our programmes, including students who arrive with far less English than they need to thrive. But once you are in my classroom, I take you as I find you. I cannot fix structural issues in admissions policy, but I will do my best to support you.
That support starts with an invitation: speak up early if you’re struggling. Tell me if the reading takes you three times as long as your classmates. Tell me if you can follow the analysis in seminar but freeze when a blank page stares back. I can help – by sharing model answers, by giving you outlines that show how to organise a response, by recommending the language support services the university provides, and by meeting to workshop a paragraph or two together. None of that is cheating. It’s learning.
Some practical ways to turn models into mastery:
Reverse-outline the model. After reading a model answer, write a one-page outline of its structure in your own words. Don’t copy sentences; capture the moves. “Issue X; rule Y; apply rule to facts A/B; distinguish case C; conclude in light of D.”
Trace the sources. Find every case and academic article the model cites. Read at least the headnote or relevant extracts. Ask yourself: would I have chosen the same authority? Why?
Close the document and write cold. Put the model away. On a fresh page, write your own answer to a similar (not identical) problem. If you feel your brain reaching for exact phrasing, stop and re-explain the idea aloud first.
Practice the IRAC micro-cycle. For each sub-issue, do a neat mini IRAC: state the issue, state the rule/authority, apply it precisely to these facts, conclude. Avoid generalities (“the courts consider fairness”); be concrete (“in X v Y the court weighed Z; here, unlike X, the claimant did/ didn’t do… ”).
Get feedback on small pieces. Bring me a paragraph. Bring me two. We’ll refine clarity and accuracy before you scale up to a full answer.
Mind your referencing. If you are learning the language and the law simultaneously, let the reference guides do some heavy lifting. Accurate citations are an easy way to bank marks and build credibility.
I want to be crystal clear about integrity. Commissioning an assignment and submitting it as your own work is not permitted here, even when the service markets itself as “help” or “model writing.” Our rules are not there to catch you out; they exist to ensure that your degree reflects your learning. When I pick up a script with your name on it, I am not only assessing your analysis. I’m extending trust that the words are yours. That trust matters – in law school and in legal practice.
At the same time, I’ll own my part. If you needed more help than I realised, that’s feedback for me. I can build in more exemplars. I can normalise asking for language support. I can design staged assessments (plans, partial drafts, oral explanations) that reward process, not just final polish. And I can keep reminding you that struggling is not a moral failure; it’s a signal to reach out.
So here is my standing offer:
I’m happy to hand out model answers – mine or excellent student scripts with permission – after assessments are marked.
I’ll run short clinics on structuring a problem question answer, especially for those working in another language.
I’ll look at outlines and small sections in office hours and give targeted feedback.
If you tell me, “I can follow the cases but I can’t find the words,” we will work on the words together.
And if you’re not in my class, you don’t have this level of support from your lecturer and you feel that your only choice is a model answer service like “UKEssays.com”, then please, please, please – use the answer that you receive to learn, and make the final walk your own. Otherwise you’re just flushing your £27,750 that you paid for your learning experience down the drain.