Alan Mundy's solution to the training problem has three major flaws - the most significant of which was highlighted by the letter from C Travers in the same edition (see [2005] Gazette, 14 April, 16).

First, the law schools are churning out far more students than there are bona fide, proper training contracts. For all the talk about high costs preventing students from studying law, an ever increasing number are doing so.


Second, I surmise that Mr Mundy presupposes that all students are 18 and can follow his perfectly mapped-out academic programme.


That system makes it difficult for those who have already completed university (and higher education degrees). This is already the case, since law firms recruit from a pool of undergraduates.


A conversion course is necessary to enable mature people to switch careers.


Third, any system in which it is the law firms that decide who will qualify to be a solicitor - by deciding who gets the training contracts - will be inherently unfair to certain groups, particularly older students and disabled people.


The law schools should guarantee each student from whom they take tuition fees a robust work placement programme in law firms so that students can prove their merit.


Having had work placement and a top academic experience, all students who graduate with commendation or distinction, should automatically qualify. This would enable those graduates who are not taken on by law firms to find employment in other areas of law (for example, in-house, charity, government) as qualified solicitors.


Right now, too many law graduates have no chance to qualify or even work in the law, and no rights to a refund on their tuition fees.


Joyce Glasser, London