Bar Professional Training Course students 'not up to it'
Too many people on the Bar Professional Training Course are ‘wasting their money’ because they are ‘not up to it’, the chair of the bar’s regulator declared last week.
Lady Deech, chair of the Bar Standards Board, said the BSB would press ahead with its plans to introduce aptitude and English language tests for students before they can undertake the BPTC.
Deech said: ‘There are too many people on the course who shouldn’t be there. We need to give a signal to those who aren’t up to it that they’re wasting their money.’
Deech said language is a tool of the trade at the bar, and it is wrong to ‘let people loose on the public’ if they do not have sufficient English language skills.
She said: ‘If you’re tone deaf, don’t go to music school; if you have two left feet don’t go to ballet school.’
The BSB chair said her comments were aimed not only at ensuring the quality of the profession, but also reflected the need to tackle the mismatch between the number of graduates and the pupillages available.
BSB figures showed that last year around 1,400 students undertook the bar course, while only 478 pupillages were on offer.
Deech said she was concerned about the high number of students who had spent a lot of money on training and accrued large debts, yet failed to get a job in the profession.
‘If they don’t find a satisfactory career, we’ll be gaining an army of enemies,’ she said.
Following a review of the bar’s vocational training in 2008, Derek Wood QC recommended the introduction of a compulsory aptitude test and an English language test for all students whose first language was not English or Welsh.
BPTC providers are currently piloting the aptitude test, and an application has been made to the Legal Services Board to introduce the English test.
The Law Society is considering introducing an aptitude test for students seeking to study the Legal Practice Course.
Comments
Legal Skills
Lady Deech hasn't realised that we are now dealing with the X Factor generation.
They are all claim they can sing when obviously most of them can't. If you tell them they can't sing they accuse you of being prejudiced and wrong.
If they want to spend their own money trying to get into professions that they are not cut our for then let them.
It is better they fail at the first hurdle because it will only get tougher later.
We are after all a democratic, capitalist society and you have the right to pay for your failure. When they do fail it will not of course be their fault but just a further example of prejudice against them.
All my failures are entirely my fault and I know I can't sing.
Not sure it's that simple...
...when I was on the BVC, a large amount of time was wasted every day by students who either struggled with basic legal concepts or flat out didn't speak English and couldn't understand the directions being given. The fact that these people had zero realistic chance of reaching the bar was a given, but provided scant consolation to the rest of us when the tutors spent a lot of their time trying to drag the whole group through a relatively straightforward exercise, or when paired up with someone like that in skills sessions such as conferencing, negotiation or cross-examination. Eliminating the no-hopers at the first hurdle wouldn't necessarily ease the pressure on pupillage opportunities created by oversupply, but it would have made my life a lot easier!
Bar students 'not up to it !
As an employer this is very interesting.
I will certainly be taking this into account moving forward.
The admission there are too many people on the course who shouldn’t be there says it all !
The BVC could well turn out to be a negative factor on a C.V. on the basis employers are getting offered the residue that the bar do not want !
Not really.
I still firmly believe a good pass on the course (both in its former guise as the BVC and in the new improved BPTC) is of merit. If your hypothetical BVC graduate got an Outstanding or Very Competent grade, then - far from "residue" - you'd likely be looking at an extremely strong candidate for your role.
(Indeed, to turn it around, one could just as easily argue that the paucity of pupillages on offer (caused by a steady reduction in the number of jobs available since it became obligatory for chambers to pay pupils) compared to the number of well-qualified postgraduates on the market gives employers the chance to pick up some real "bargain finds", talent that simply wouldn't have been available ten years ago.)
Simply being ACCEPTED onto the course, though, is another matter entirely. Too many students are knowingly accepted with zero chance of success - I'm guessing because of unscrupulous providers looking to rake in the fees - so there I agree with you, just having been on the BVC/BPTC means absolutely nothing. Streamlining to weed out the poor prospects might help improve that, or at least minimise the damage that's clearly been done to the reputation of the course.
But what is an employers
But what is an employers supposed to think of students that take such silly risks with their future. There is no way any child of mine would pay money for a course without a job offer. At the least I would make sure that the job prospects are solid.
Employers tend to favour candidates that show good judgment and are very responsible.
These students show that they can't assess risk and have poor judgment.
I wouldn't employ them because I want people that are good decision-makers. By that I mean people who make decisions minimizing the risk to my business.
Anyway, what are the failed lawyers actually trained to do. Outside of law they are pretty much useless.
Now who's showing poor
Now who's showing poor judgement?
Anecdotal evidence I often
Anecdotal evidence I often hear, leads me to think all these students unstintingly believe :
"become a lawyer-you`ll be rich !"
- at the risk of repetition, that is a belief peddled and nurtured by virtually every newspaper in this country. And its a lie. No other word for it now.
Speaking from experience
I completed the BVC 5 years ago. Even back then, there was a big difference between the number of students and the number of pupillges available. However, the figures are a touch misleading. My course provider took on a large number of foreign nationals; mainly from the sub-continent but also the Carribean, Malaysia and other countries with an historical link to the English legal system. Those foreign national students never had any intention of applying for pupillages in England; the BVC was a requirement or was favourable to become an advocate in their own country. It is not simply a case of these students being "let loose" on the (English) public and it would be interesting to know to what extent these foriegn nationals studying without the intention to practice here distort the figures presented.
Regrettably for me, by the time I had completed my degree and BVC, the legal bubble had burst (or at least deflated) and rules had changed so that chambers now needed to pay a minimum amount to the pupils they take on. This meant that chambers were reducing the number of pupillages on offer to an ever growing number of BVC students. I tried to get a pupillage but in a contracting and already competitive market, even a Very Competent grade was not enough. Not only was I competing with my year, but also the students before me who had a year or two's experience of being a paralegal or similar, and then later the fresher faced students with outstanding academic results.
Speaking for myself and my social group from the BVC, most of those from England and Wales secured pupillages. The bonus of paid pupillages meant that chambers were more focused and retained my friends that they had offered pupillages. Of those that didn't get pupillage, one became a lecturer (he didn't intend to practice law anyway), a few joined the legal departments of large companies and the rest joined law firms and have or are in the process of cross qualifying as solicitors. My friends and I had the aptitude for the course. It is simply a matter of there being too few pupillages to go around for the number of quality students completing the course.
Despite not getting pupillage I don't regret me decision to pay £10k plus to study the BVC. I am placed well enough to have a successful legal career, have greater job security than had I continued down the bar route, learnt transferable skills and more importantly for me, made a number of good friends.
Whilst the headline figures of the study might be alarming, the study should perhaps be expanded to show whether BVC/BPTC students go on to have legal careers outside of the bar, either in England or in their own countries, before branding the course a waste of money and to see whether the BPTC should look to restrict the number of students.
In terms of the risk of failing to obtain pupillage and bad decision making referenced by an employer above, the decision to choose the BVC or LPC is typically taken after just one year of studying your law degree, when students choosing to do the LPC are applying for training contracts so that their prospective employer would fund their course. It is an important decision for a 19/20 year old to make and perhaps some lack the experience at that stage to make an appropriate assessment of the risk. However, it is wrong to say that those who do appreciate the risk and make the decision to choose the BVC/BPTC have poor judgment skills. Nothing in life is a certainty and often the larger risk can bring the greater reward. Certainly those with an aptitude for the course who don't get pupillage shouldn't be considered simply as residue. Those graduates may be better considered as diamonds in the rough.
ARE THE POLICY MAKERS ON CRACK!?
Rumbole of the Bailey, T.V. dramas about Barristers with northern accents (perhaps implying that the person is from an ordinary background), Ally McBeal, Sex in the City and of course "did you call a code red?"The fantasy world that may inspire people to become a lawyer.
High street solicitors retail store opens in a town near you.
Over 80% of practising barristers went to Oxford or Cambridge Universities and a disportionate amount attended private schools. Similarly top firms of solicitors recruit privately educated people who attended a handful of universities.
New Bar Vocational Course and new LPC course.
Explosion of law degrees from the early 1990s.
The whole case resulted in 3 million pounds worth of legal fees concerning the interpretation of a simple point of contract law.
Massive oversupply of qualified people who want to practise as a barrister or solicitor.
Talk of aptitude tests for LPC and Bar courses.
DIY litigants a threat to solictors and barristers.
Talk of taking litigation and advocacy out of the reserved matters catagory thus allowing anyone to do it.
The rise of the paralegal yet no basic educational requirement to be a paralegal. Not even 4 GCSEs (grades A - C).
Paralegals are actually doing the job of solicitors for £14,000.
High street solicitors retail stores.
Pay and conditions spirraling downwards.
Cost of the LPC and Bar courses rising.
ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS STRUCTURES come into play from October 2011. Pundits predict MASSIVE REDUCTION in lawyers required. Greater emphasis on "customer service" and accountability to the consumer.
ARE THE POLICY MAKERS ON CRACK!
Baroness Deech is an academic
Baroness Deech is an academic and when I discussed with her the need to have better regulation of law degrees she was not in favour- which is a shame. The QAA already has standards for language skills but, if the Baroness is right, these have not been adequately enforced. See the following form the QAA website -
1. Academic standards - Law degrees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
1.1 Text for employers and general public
This Statement is set at the bottom of the third class honours degree. It sets out what an employer, student or funder can reasonably expect to be the minimum achievement of a graduate with an honours Bachelors degree in Law or Legal Studies.
The Statement covers all university education in law and legal studies. It is not limited to qualifying law degrees. …
Key skills
6. Communication and Literacy: Both orally and in writing, a student should demonstrate a basic ability:
• to understand and use the English language (or, where appropriate, Welsh language) proficiently in relation to legal matters;
• to present knowledge or an argument in a way which is comprehensible to others and which is directed at their concerns;
• to read and discuss legal materials which are written in technical and complex language.