Aptitude tests would be a positive step for BPTC and LPC students
Young people worried about the current oversupply of Legal Practice Course graduates will no doubt be looking with interest at how the bar’s regulator is seeking to address a similar issue in its own branch of the profession.
Earlier today, the Bar Standards Board announced a new timetable for its plans to introduce an aptitude test for the Bar Profession Training Course (BPTC), to give time for the results of its second pilot to be compared with actual BPTC results. A compulsory aptitude test will not be brought in until autumn 2012.
The Law Society’s training and education committee is also currently assessing the merits of an aptitude test for students on the LPC course.
You can’t argue with the thoroughness of the way the BSB is approaching this sensitive issue. It undertook a pilot of 300 student volunteers in 2009/10, and a second one involving more than 1,600 students is now under way. The results of the test will be compared to the results of the BPTC course itself, to give the best possible picture of how effective it is in identifying which candidates are most likely to succeed.
There are concerns in some quarters that an aptitude test could filter out people from less privileged backgrounds. But I think students should be reassured by the careful way the BSB is going to analyse the effect of the test.
There is also another important safeguard, in that anything the BSB decides on will still need to be approved by the legal profession’s overarching regulator, the Legal Services Board. And there is nothing the LSB is more hot on at the moment than improving access to the profession; see, for example, its plans to make firms publish diversity data.
The BSB should be congratulated on taking the bull by the horns, and seeking to address the unfairness of a system that allows so many young people to embark on an expensive course that, in many cases, they simply do not have the acumen to pass. Its chair Baroness Deech spelt it out recently when she said that too many people are the course are ‘wasting their money’ because they are simply ‘not up to it’.
But even for the more able students, allowing so many more young people to shell out thousands for a course than there are actually training contracts or pupillages available, is unjust.
One fairer approach would be to insist that all aspiring solicitors or barristers must have a training contract or pupillage in place before they embark on the course. Another would be a test that effectively assesses students’ brain power and skills, rather than a system that sees those students with the right family connections or the right schooling get an edge over everyone else.
- See also Rachel Rothwell's news blog.
Comments
I'm sure we've been here before...
Step 1): BSB introduces aptitude test to save “would-be BPTC students from themselves”.
Step 2): OFT decides that aptitude test unlawfully limits entry into the market in legal services, and must therefore be abolished.
Step 3): Wait a few years.
Step 4): Repeat. Again and again and again.
The test for aptitude tests
I remain agnostic about aptitude tests. If they truly are good indicators of aptitude, and if they can encourage greater diversity in the profession, then there is significant merit in them especially if they inform decisions by chambers/firms (which will be the real practical test of their ultimate success).
There are, however, significant, but not impossible to meet, ifs. The Bar Standards Board’s announced delay in their potential implementation got me thinking anew about this (see Neil Rose here). As did Rachel Rothwell’s piece in the Gazette which is a somewhat premature pat on the back for the BSB. It is premature principally because we would need to know the answer to these questions if we are to be sure they have mastered their brief:
1. What data is the BSB collecting to validate aptitude tests (e..g. what data on existing characteristics and achievements are being collected)?
2. What sophistication of analysis is being undertaken to assess the tests?
3. Is the research to be subject to peer review?
4. Is the data to be made available (suitably anonymised) for others to test their analysis and to conduct further research in the area (to the benefit of all)?
5. What are the key thresholds that they expect to see passed if the test is to have succeeded?
This last one may seem overly precious but it is actually quite important: one would expect there to be some correlation between an aptitude test and performance on the BPTC but how strong does it need to be to ‘work’? How have they decided that level or are they going to rely on the level of correlation they find? And similarly, is there existing, alternative information available which would perform as good, or almost as good, a basis for deciding who has the relevant aptitude (such as degree award)?
One could think of other things which may also be important. to know what research design is used to inform the testing (for instance do they intend to compare groups who do and don’t take the tests? How are they controlling for potential biases in who do and don’t sit the test?).
It would be interesting to know now what the answers to these questions are so that, come decision day, we can judge aptitude tests on their merits.
aptitude
We have a revolution taking place that can raise standards and reduce costs. Yet our great and good, rather than re-thinking the profession, clearing the rules and regs, to ensure the benefits of the revolution are realised, seek to regulate of each practitioner's personality.
Really, these people are not just bizarre. They are out of their depth. Move aside.
Ability?
As a student currently studying the LPC, I believe that aptitude tests for admission are a good idea, particularly for students with a 2:2 degree classification who at the moment automatically qualify for a place in a number of course providing institutions despite their relatively low chances of successfully obtaining a training contract in this increasingly competitive area.
However, I must express my unease at the statement in this article that there are concerns that an aptitude test could filter out people from less privileged backgrounds. Am I just being naive in thinking that the legal profession has moved on from this attitude? Any aptitude test should be based on ABILITY and not on financial capacity. I fail to see the connection between the two.
Well it depends on the
Well it depends on the questions.
Middle class backgrounds could provide an advantage depending on what the questions assume the students know.
My middle class background was instrumental in obtaining a training contract. The questions I was asked at interview lended themselves perfectly to the education I had received from my parents.
All this is academic though; anyone with any commercial sense would avoid law altogether.
The cost of training in no longer commensurate with the returns.
Spot on.
Spot on.
Load of rubbish
I love apptitude tests and I always score very highly on them. Verbal and inductive reasoning tests are my favourite, and I even do them in my spare time just for fun. I got a 2:2, passed the LPC and I am currently working in a bogstandard rubbish paralegal job. I've failed to get a training contract and I'm currently doing a second degree so I can change my career.
Law is rubbish, and the returns don't justify the amount of money spent on training. The LPC is a money making scheme and sheer and utter waste of time. There are too many talented graduates who are wasting their lives trying to go down the law route. Too many wasted talents who failed to get training contracts and are now stuck in low paid jobs.
ABS are going to kill and de proffessionalise the lower end of the legal market. Tesco's law is going to change the proffesion.
Tuition fees are going up, and anyone who chooses to spend that much money on law and does the LPC without having a training contract in place would be mad and crazy! If despite the warning people still choose to study law, they should go down the ILEX route.
Ever considered that your
Ever considered that your inability, after at least four years of higher education, to spell profession might have impeded your chances of being admitted to a profession at the core of which is precise language usage? Is your degree from a worthwhile university, I wonder?
Aptitude tests
That reply says so much - 'worthwhile university'. Back to the good old days - Oxbridge top of the tree, 'public school preferred'; tough on those of a modest background who went to a less prestigious unioversity.
Anti-Snobbery?
At what point did we start pretending that all universities are of equal standard? They aren't. We all know they aren't. When we start pretending that a 2:1 from a top 10 university is worse than a first from a former polytechnic, we've really lost the plot.
Although, it's lovely to see the old 'Some universities aren't very good? You must have gone to Oxbridge' argument being trotted out.
Your english is not great
Your english is not great either by the way; your first sentence is too long.
For a start any graduate that
For a start any graduate that self-funds the LPC is not talented (if they were talented they would have secured sponsorship) Self-funding the LPC is nothing more than a vanity project; similar to those that self-publish their own books which no one buys apart from family members.
Therefore by definition those that self-fund the LPC are not talented graduates.
Secondly I'm really surprised that you managed to get a paralegal job with a 2:2.
Graduates with 2:2 law degrees are usually unemployable.
In this respect you have actually done really well.
Maybe. If you want to work in the City.
Self-funding is less desirable, for sure. But plenty of high-street firms and firms that specialise in legal aid do take on trainees but aren't in a position to fund their education.
If you want to be a commercial lawyer in the City, you'll need a TC long before you start the LPC. But that's far from the only route to get one.
The classification of degree
The classification of degree you obtain and whether you secure LPC funding usually correlates with:
(i) attending a good school, with strong support systems;
(ii) having the right connections; and / or
(iii) working in the legal profession for a few years prior to the law degree/ LPC.
I know a lot of people who did not do especially well academically, but grew immensely once they hit the job market. Had they hit the job market first, they would have stood a better chance of obtaining better grades and grant funding.
Graduates with a 2:2 are not unemployable. However they do need to work much harder at the beginning of their careers to prove their worth. If you are reading some of these posts and are loosing heart, don't despair.
For a start any graduate that
For a start any graduate that self-funds the LPC is not talented (if they were talented they would have secured sponsorship) Self-funding the LPC is nothing more than a vanity project; similar to those that self-publish their own books which no one buys apart from family members.
Therefore by definition those that self-fund the LPC are not talented graduates.
Secondly I'm really surprised that you managed to get a paralegal job with a 2:2.
Graduates with 2:2 law degrees are usually unemployable.
In this respect you have actually done really well.
1. It doesn't matter about
1. It doesn't matter about university (uneeeeeeee!)
2. It doesn't matter about a veritable basket of grade inflated GCSE's.
3. One needs to take off about 9 points for those who have been at private school (so 3 A Level grade A's = 3 Grade D's from the state system.
4.3. So it doesn't matter about a veritable basket of grade inflated 'Advanced' Levels.
5. It makes not an iota about the grade of Legal Plagiarist Course (LPC) mark you get (they are unfailable unlike the old LSF.
6. All that matters is ability to think outside the system and interpersonal skills....
@Load of rubbish: "...I love
@Load of rubbish:
"...I love apptitude tests and I always score very highly on them...."
Verbal ... reasoning tests are my favourite ... ABS are going to kill and de proffessionalise the lower end of the legal market. Tesco's law is going to change the proffesion...
Mmmmmm true verbal reasoning is apparently not a bad idea..
The Wrong Kind of People
I've managed small law firms for 15 years now and am constantly dismayed by the young people trying to get into this profession (and yes - far too many don't even have a sound command of their own language, which surely should be non-negotiable). The law is full of intelligent people with good academics who haven't an ounce of commercial, pragmatic common sense. They think that practice is about the delivery of legal services but that is only half the story. They struggle with the fundamental fact that it has to be first and foremost about making money. No business can ever survive without profits.
The delivery of high quality legal services is a means to an end, not the end in itself.
The result is thousands of small, inefficient firms with marginal profitability, aging partners for whom a decent exit route is looking nigh-impossible, and a risk:reward scenario that will never attract new capable young lawyers to partnership or shareholding.
A sound aptitude test that was capable of selecting candidates more suited to this sector would be a big step forward. The big firms seem able to find the cream; the rest need to find a way.
And I do agree that the LPC is just a money-making business, offered far too freely to anyone that will pay.
Yes this has precisely nailed
Yes this has precisely nailed the two problems with the practice of law.
The first is the total intellectual unsuitability of many young people to be solicitors. They are, however, encouraged to try so that the "course providers" can continue to make huge amounts of money. The Law Society can hardly be held blameless for allowing this situation to develop.
The second is the absolute uncommerciality of many mature practitioners. The difficulty here is that when they first qualified the profession was protected by scale fees and the like from having to be commercial, so the point of law was the delivery of good legal services to the client and the fees came automatically. This has been compounded by the view of the Law Society and enforced by the SRA that there cannot be any variation in quality but there can in fees. In other words there cannot be a true market in legal services. The profession has polarised into the totally commercial (and sod the quality) at one end and the non-commercial but the cliebt comes first at the other, with many shades in between.
The advent of ABS's is likely to tilt the balance more towards the totally commercial and sod the client. No doubt a proper balance will be achieved eventually but considerable damage will be done in the meantime with the profession picking up the cost probably.
I have to say that it
I have to say that it should'nt matter what university you came from. My university was a former polytechnic and has now got a glowing reputation. I achieved a first which I only got through hard work and dedication to my course. I have since started the LPC and I am friends with students who have 2:1's from 'worthwhile universities' and I am happy to say that so far I have managed to achieve higher marks then them in the exams we have undertaken.
It has nothing to do with what university your from. Hard work, realising the skills needed for practical application and not giving up when things get tough is what is needed.
Too many chips on shoulders,
Too many chips on shoulders, I think. Can't spot any comments here associating 'worthwhile' with pre-92, not ex-poly etc. 'Worthwhile' in the context of the original comment was a university which enabled a student to progress through three years of study without, I presume, anyone ever correcting a basic spelling error. 'Proffesion' is mispelled that way throughout the post, so not a mere slip of the keyboard.
Closed door
A third in Politics from a former poly did not prevent me from becoming a solicitor with over 27 years experience.Why should even a 2.2 in law no longer be good enough or is the legal profession only now open to those from backgrounds which enabled them to get into a "decent" university?
This is yet another barrier
This is yet another barrier being concorted. The entry rules into legal professision as they are akin to a restraint to trade. For example how many elctricians are there in Engalnd and Wales?. They all have to compete for customers or clients. The more there are Lawyers to give advise the lower the fees paid for such services. The winner will be the clients. Look at the USA. Once you pass the academic stage, you are qualified to practise. Does this make the US lawyers to be "not up to it" Those that joined the profession many years ago now believe aptitude tests will reduce the numbers. They crossed the river via the bridge, the others following on their footsteps must now swim! An amptitude test will not often be the best measure of a prospective law practitioner. By the way, the modern psychometrically drilled students will pass it droves. Then what? Those determined to be lawyers will also qualify abroad i.e. in EU countries and come back to practice in the UK. Students paying fees to do LPC or BPTC have made a choice and they should not be condemed but commended.
Intellectual ability needed
Intellectual ability needed in law?
Nowadays just an ability to tick a box is needed-and talk drivel with the utmost confidence.