Surge in demand for law degrees as A-level pupils get results

"BPP, which declined to give the number of students applying for its LL.B ‘for commercial reasons’, also reported a 97% increase in applications for its degree programmes overall, which, along with law, include business studies, nursing, and banking and finance."

Haha. Oh to be able to cross examine on these claims........

I, perhaps, cynically wonder if the surge in applications is because either/both of these colleges are not quite so demanding as some other Universities regarding their entry requirements. They are private co's; no students = no course fees = no company! Huge revenue in course fees = happy company!

Didn't know you needed a law degree to work in McDonalds, call centre etc

I note the comments regarding the surge in applications,I will watch with greater interest the prospects of employment .A career in the co.op or Tesco beckons,perhaps the 2 year degrees are sponsored by these institutions on a day release basis,perhaps degrees could be offered to those who have collected sufficient tokens from there weekly shop.I trust the institutions that encourage these students to incur the debt make it clear in their prospectus what the future holds.After the degree and the LPC they have the pleasure of deciding if they wish to become a COLP or a COFA,,do they wish to obtain{for an annual fee] SQM ,LEXCEL or CQS.or any such other designation that our Governing body or regulator decide is a necessity going forward.If any of those aspiring lawyers want to provide a public service ,i suggest they do a one year degree before the legal aid system is removed completely ,it has been a pleasure to work in an area so undervalued that there have been no increase in rates of pay for a decade and actual cuts in rates in recent years,I close at this point as i need to do some file reviews and risk assessments,before organising my office Fire Drill and doing my online CPD[again for a fee}i hope to fit in 30 minutes of actual legal work before preparing for my 24 hour on call rota.
Call me cynical,i hesitate to offer career advice as i so clearly choose the wrong career myself but i would suggest train as an assessor ,a training provider ,or a Law society badge manufacturer.I will leave now before i require a Quality Mark to supervise my departure from the office.

What was that ….youngsters still believe that law is gold plated career…..After studying for a 2:1 grade in the LL.B, the LPC, a training contract and now 3 years PQE I am being exploited by a law firm and earning the grand salary of £18,000 pa….the total education cost me in excess of £30,000 and I will soon be bankrupt. I too thought it was a gold plated career when I was young …..Gold Plated Career my **** !

Isn't there an overarching truth here that what we are witnessing in our time is the financialisation of the professions, and with it, the diminishment of the 'public space'?

It used to be the case that our schools were selective and (at least in principle) admission to universities was on academic and intellectual merit alone. Our universities were research communities, independent of the state. Our university students received public assistance in the way of grants to finance their studies, with the result that they left university debt-free and in hock to no-one.

Our professions really were integrated professional communities. The legal profession was independent of the state and we guarded our independence zealously, for we knew how constitutionally important it was. This was about maintenance of the rule of law, a society governed (at least in theory) by rules, due process and fair-dealing, not by the transient interests of "investors" and grubby money men.

The law was open to graduates and non-graduates alike, and thus there was a degree of meritocracy. Those who entered the profession were schooled by wise, experienced men who knew their communities and cared for their clients, but who also were not afraid to give blunt, truthful advice and remind their clients about the facts of life.

Errant members of our profession were disciplined, but not permanently excluded. Restorations to the Roll were ordinary and commonplace thirty years ago, not the rarity they are now. This is because we saw ourselves as an integrated profession with a pastoral responsibility to one another as professional colleagues. There was always a chance for redemption and rehabilitation, no matter how serious the original offence.

Local law societies presided over legal communities in which one solicitor knew that - ordinarily - he could trust the other solicitor implicitly. He knew this because he would probably see him around town or at the golf club or wherever. There was a feeling that although everyone was competing with each other, we were still part of a community and would still look out for one another.

Sadly I do not know too much about the above. I am too young to have worked in the legal profession. I worked in something called the legal industry. I am painting a rosy picture perhaps of how things were, but I know it is a truthful picture because I have heard the testimony of older solicitors over the years as to how the profession once was. This was a respectable profession that looked after the public. It wasn't perfect, and reform was needed. The Glanville Davis affair, and other similar scandals, rightly promptly scrutiny, examination and introspection. The tragedy is that the politicians, with an eye for the main chance, grabbed hold of it and with the consumer advocates and marketeers they have eviscerated this profession and left solicitors meek and lacking in confidence. The final indignity is the ABS model, which places the interests of a profession beneath the baser interests of commerce.

What is happening in our universities is something similar. Back in the early 90s, the old polytechnics were granted university status and there was a movement to expand university places. I think it is indisputable these changes led to a drop in standards. There was a thirst for expansion in education, driven in part by an altruistic belief in mass education but also by simple ambition and greed. Our universities are no longer research communities. They are glorified comprehensives. They are run by placemen and our graduates are in hock to the money men. Academia is heavily politicised and no longer a vocation, but rather just a job in which business objectives have to be satisfied: chief among them, the need to provide increasing numbers of student-consumers.

This kind of perversion is seen elsewhere. It is difficult not to notice the sneering contempt that many politicians reserve for other institutions within the public space such as the NHS. It is a wonder the NHS still exists. It's not for want of trying, fort the fox has been in charge of the chicken coup for years and the right to services has been steadily eroded. Perhaps it will not be long before we hear a 'healthcare Charles Plant say: "Listen you lot: Stop this whining. I know we've been throwing sick people out on the street, but healthcare has to be paid for you know. So grow up, will you. All that stuff about public services, it's so 1945 anyway. And as for doctors...well....that's just a title, innit, and we've got vets supervising the elderly palliative care now, as part of our cost-cutting efficiency drive using a synergistic clinical business model. We're in the 21st. century now, you know, and as I said to those old-fogeys in the legal profession, you need to get real, commercialise, and understand your customers..er...while of course maintaining ethical standards".

I think a society that lacks the higher values of truth and integrity as its guiding light is a society heading for collapse. That is not meant to seem apocalyptic. The 'collapse' could be moral rather than institutional. A privatised society in which there is no longer any public space, a tyranny in other words, is not a society I wish to live in. Our opponents in this battle are of the kind who understand the price of everything and the value of nothing. We are solicitors. We should understand that there is something of value worth defending that is beyond any price.

There is a large over-supply of law graduates, compared with the needs of the profession. There are thousands of law graduates who have passed the LPC but can't get a training contract. There is nothing wrong with doing a law degree and I'm sure law is well taught at the private law schools, though their claim to concentrate on the practical element sits uneasily with the fact that most of their graduates won't be able to qualify as solicitors or (even if they do) earn a decent living. Consider the following from BPP:"Our teaching methods focus on equipping our students with practical skills and relevant knowledge. We combine the academic excellence of a university with the real-life focus of a professional firm, and we offer practice-facing degrees with a strong commercial flavour." Well you'd probably do better to take a law degree of the most academic kind and train your mind and then go and earn a living in some other field.

The real problem is that would-be students are not being warned in the clearest terms, any time from applying to do a law degree up to finishing the LPC, that there is this big over-supply of would-be lawyers and you probably won't be able to get a training contract or pupillage at the end of the road. That needs to be spelled out in very big letters. But the universities and law schools have a vested interest in keeping up the numbers they admit, so they don't and won't say this, The Law Society says on its website:"Many trainee solicitors finish their training with debts. Others are not able to finish their training because they cannot get a suitable job. There is no guarantee of getting a job either as a trainee or as a solicitor. However, some students are sponsored through part of their studies and the great majority of students who pass the Legal Practice Course qualify and enjoy successful careers." I think this is far too upbeat and the warning is not nearly strong enough.. The truth would say "Nearly all trainee solicitors have incurred substantial debts. This is even more true of those who start with the aim of becoming a trainee but can't find a training contract, Many students pass the exams but will never be able to obtain a training contract to finish their training as these are in short supply. A reducing number of students get sponsorship, but even if they do, that will only be for part of their studies. Many solicitors who pass the LPC and do manage to get a training contract will have a successful career. But there is an oversupply of newly qualified solicitors so even if you do qualify you may not easily get a job, especially if you belong to an ethnic minority. "

I have no problem with people wanting to study law at university. It is a fine discipline and may even be a bit useful in life. The problem is that students are being encouraged - i would even say lured - into doing the professional exam courses at huge cost with no real warning to them of the problems of getting a training contract. Following the principle of cigarette packets why not require a bold print warning to be given to every would be GDL and LPC applicant. "WARNING. You will not be able to qualify as a solicitor even if you pass this course, unless you can obtain a training contract with a firm of solicitors. Training contracts are in short supply, and many LPC graduates are unable to become solicitors for that reason, even though they may have incurred large debts for the course fees and maintenance." I am sure others can improve on this wording.

Of course an alternative is to abolish training contracts, a mediaeval relic. Let's copy the accountants. .

Poor saps