It seems to be the zeitgeist, so I may as well chip in a with a few thoughts of my own. I'm going to take a different approach to most and give my thoughts from the perspective of the students, those of use who have actually been through it all. I should of course stress that I in no way see my views as at all superior, natch. (I consider that disclaimer necessary following a number of internet-based altercations, but that's another story :p)
There's been a lot of comment (excellent comment, of course) in the blogsphere about the potential changes. Charon QC has had some interesting thoughts and things and it's always a pleasure to read what he has to say, after all he is very well qualified to comment on these things.
Richard Moorehead's recent post also proves an interesting read on the subject. There's alot more out there and there's no need for me to link to it as I'm sure you've probably come across it yourselves anyway.
[/bottom licking]
And onto my view. The review seems, to me, to take a top down approach. Any changes will be influenced by those who are observing the events, seeing the education in action, not those actually partaking in the education. I'm not suggesting that this is a problem per se, but I do think we need to hear a lot more from those of us who are going through or have been through the education because, as the old saying goes, we are the future.
Undergraduate
I'm not going to say much on the LL.b. I don't think it's in need of a huge amount of reform. As students we're still taught good skills at that level, even in the knowledge itself is academic and not that relevant to practice. As was commented recently, a student can go through a whole year of contract law without seeing a contract. However, we need to start somewhere, and I think the LL.b. is a good place to start. And, after all, no all Law Undergraduates actually want to go into practice. I think perhaps the best addition to the LL.b. would be some assessment of student's ability to monitor new laws, comment on them and understand them. In the digital age, it's never been easier to do that.
On a personal note, I didn't find my LL.b. to be much more than a longer and slightly wider (Oooh, matron) version of what I had studied at A Level.
Professional Qualification
The real problems seem to arise after this, when it comes to the BPTC and LPC and their resultant vocational elements. I think first and foremost places need to be cut drastically. The number of available jobs after the course is very small, and despite students being told over and over again that it's tough, it is very hard to appreciate this when it's so easy to get onto the vocational course. It's easy then to fall into the mindset of "Well, I got here, I must be able to get a training contract and pupillage." Without naming any names, one provider proudly proclaimed in their prospectus "We only ever take on students who we consider likely to get a pupillage." I've finished the course, and all that I can say is "Ha!" I think it's almost reckless to make such a statement., it deludes students and gives them a false sense of optimism.
If we cut down to number of places on the course to closer resemble the demand for jobs, I think we'll be on the right steps to a better system. I could, of course, be completely and utterly wrong, but on my basic analysis if it's so easy to get onto the course, and there's so few jobs available afterwards, the qualification itself becomes massively devalued. The courses themselves should, of course, be made MUCH tougher.
Perhaps a slightly radical proposition would be as follows: Merge the two course to make a more universal qualification. Students taking the course will then be able to select certain modules to tailor it towards their chosen profession - either solicitor or barrister - much like they can now tailor their course to their chosen area of practice. Upon qualification they are then at liberty to apply for training contract or pupillages.
The one major advantage of this would be that it would remove the need for cross qualification, and with the recent changes to the QLTT I think this would be a very welcome advantage. Very welcome indeed.
Applying for the vocational stage
I think OLPAS is fantastic, brilliant, but I think it's slightly weakened by being opt in. All pupillages should be advertised on it. All training contracts, likewise, should be listed on asimilar system. Ideally, if a universal qualification were introduced then both pupillages and training contracts would be listed on the same system.
I perhaps overstated how good OLPAS is. It does still leave a lot to be desired. For one it is still very departed from the individuals who are applying. Adding an obligatory video CV section would help massively in chambers and firms getting closer to their candidates. The paper based approach simply ins't fair and it's far from ideal. It leads to situations whereby providers will bin an application on the smallest thing such as a typo. This shouldn't be allowed to continue. Yes, the profession is one which demands thoroughness and the highest level of professionality, but we're all liable to make mistakes, and it may be that that binned application could have been made from a future Lord Denning.
If we can bring providers closer to the applicants before the interview stage, the system will become a lot fairer. It is, after all, a human profession. This profession is all about relationships and connecting with people, and it's extremely hard to do that based on a piece of paper, or words on a screen.
As an applicant, it's very hard to come across as yourself on paper, and I'll admit that in aseveral applications I've felt like I've come across as, to put it bluntly, a massive dick. That's because there's so much emphasis on selling yourself and making it seem like the suns shines out your rectum. The system needs a massive shot of reality. It may be, and I don't hesitate to say that it is, the case that someone who comes across as fantastic on paper actually isn't someone who simply does not get on well in chambers, has a very abrasive personality, is very rude and short with the clerks and instructing solicitors and simply does not work well with clients. In comparison, poor old Joe Typo who got thrown in the bin because of a simple spelling mistake could be the complete opposite, fantastic at advocacy, excellent with clients (putting them at ease, explaining everything) and a delight to work with. To me, that doesn't seem to be a well balanced system, and certainly doesn't seem to be a good system at whittling out those who are best suited to the profession.
Conclusion
And that's my two cents. My opinions aren't the best thought out, and admittedly haven't been researched to any sufficient depth, but they are things which I consider are important to keep in mind, especially regarding the post-qualification application process. It may also be that I'm simply a little bitter at not having pupillage yet, but let's hope not :p
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this.
Al, Al AL!! Where HAVE you been?! Wherever it was, I hope you have had a thoroughly enjoyable time of it and that you are ready, once again to embrace the legal ether to its fullest.
ReplyDeleteYou make some excellent points, particularly with regard to the trials and tribulations of poor old joe typo, but I would take some umbridge with your views on OLPAS. The system is a shitty, lottery loaded in favour of the mystical'correct' candidate ( I shall not mention from whence said candidate springs, but I think you can take a guess) that brokers no opportunity to sell yourself effectively ( as you quite rightly note)leaving the rest of us having to jump through increasingly surreal hoops even to get a modest degree of scruitiny by pupillage committees who are general, rather than specific in their requirements and loathe, once the whole process is over with, to provide the hapless candidate with any form of feedback.
Having said all of this, which upon reading back appears astonishingly bitter, I must note that I knew what the risks were when I took all of this barrister business on, but I will not have it said that I have no one to blame but myself; with the numbers of BPTC providers increasing exponentially, and almost yearly, it seems, the bar continues to encourage vast numbers of applicants when it has only the intention of sifting a very few, and would do well to cut down on this money making machine to avoid general disappointment all round.
I dont have pupillage either. Let me buy you a nice cold virtual beer and we will drown our sorrows until the next application round!
LM! I have been about, just not blogging. I've been confining myself to Twitter, albeit not under the name AP. The welcome is, however, appreciated!
ReplyDeleteI do indeed know the type of candidate to which you refer, I think they come from somewhere near Umbridge actually...
The lack of feedback is most disconcerting. For a profession that prides itself on its people relations, you'd expect a slightly more personal approach to rejections* than "Thanks for you application, but we've had so many, better luck next time."
I do sometimes question if I'm even right for the profession sometimes. I have every confidence in my skills, abilities and dedication, but so often than no I see that all of the successful candidates are from you-know-where. I then question if I'm right to even apply to places that only seem to take one type of candidate.
And that raises another problem. How the hell do you choose who to apply? Most candidates only have 3 or so chambers where they would really like to be, and choosing the rest is a nightmare when the only contact you get is through the website. It's night on impossible to organise enough mini pupillages to get experience of a vast variety of chambers, either because they don't have spaces, or because the candidate can't afford that many minis....
* why oh why do they have to label it as rejection? I'm sure OLPAS could change it to simply say 'Unsuccessful,' it would certainly seem less harsh.
I really agree with the facts that you have shared on this post. An interesting topic like this really enhances reader's mind to have more effective decisions over a certain issue.
ReplyDeleteStudy In USA