News Careers BPP caves in to pressure with fast-track LPC for all By The Lawyer 9 January 2011 00:00 17 December 2015 15:35 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Lady in House 10 January 2011 at 13:36 Requirement of a 2:1 degree in what? basketweaving, applied drama, needlework? Come on, everyone knows that a 2:1 these days is no guarantee of quality. Peter Crisp needs to wake up and realise that BPP know nothing about creating lawyers, only making money. Reply Link Anonymous 10 January 2011 at 14:50 well it’s about time – but just can’t understand how BPP can justify charging the same as the full length course – somebody is gaining something from this and it’s certainly not just the students. Reply Link Anonymous 10 January 2011 at 16:31 Great, that means all those LPC graduates without a Training Contract can get on the dole 2 months sooner. Reply Link Anonymouse 10 January 2011 at 17:03 Anonymous, not entirely sure why people getting the same qualification and the same about of teaching/materials/etc. ought to pay LESS just because they have shorter holidays! Reply Link Anonymous 10 January 2011 at 18:38 softies the lot of them … bring back the LSF – let’s have some exams worthy of the name; they’ll soon be giving away legal qualifications inside cereal boxes Reply Link Anonymous 10 January 2011 at 22:50 The point of the bespoke 6 month LPC was purely to reduce the time between future trainees leaving university and starting work i.e. a trainee could finish Uni in June 2010, start the LPC in August 2010 before beginning their training contract in March 2011 (rather than having to wait until September 2011 under the old 9 month LPC). So all the talk about the 6 month LPC being elitist is a bit off the mark really … it’s just catering to law firm’s (somewhat understandable) desire to cut the lag time between finishing uni and starting work. If I didn’t have a training contract lined up or my firm didn’t mind either way, I’d take the 9 month LPC everytime … way more relaxed. But it all comes down to personal choice I guess- if people want to do have a brutal 6 months, all power to them. Reply Link Rachel Browm 11 January 2011 at 16:34 Minimum entry a 2:1. So they are still being elitist by automatically closing the door on potential ILEX qualified applicants who are at the stage of being allowed to take the LPC? All the more absurd when one considers that the ILEX route to becoming a solicitor will be increasingly appealing to students who will be affected by the rise in tuition fees. Reply Link Anonymous 13 January 2011 at 12:30 As a student who was forced to endure the misery and stress of the accelerated LPC I find it mystifying why ANYONE who has a choice would elect to take the accelerated course. Come exam time those students who chose the accelerated course will wish they had an extra 2 months to revise. Reply Link Anonymous 15 January 2011 at 10:06 The SRA should stand firm and reject this, but it probably won’t/can’t because of the precedent already set. Education is more than about intensively cramming (often quickly outdated) information into students’ heads. The process should equip them to learn for themsleves into the future and that needs times time to allow ideas to be considered etc. Fast-track qualifications are like fast food, they appear to meet a need but only in the longer term are the pitfalls fully evident. Reply Link Anonymous 18 January 2011 at 00:02 I’ve been a lawyer for donkey’s years and it has never been courses that made lawyers, accelerated or otherwise. Neither do 2:1’s, expensive CPD or other hype. Great marketing though!… and that is what modern ‘lawyering’ is. Time to retire. Reply Link Anonymous 21 January 2011 at 10:21 So there will now be a two tier system in that the 2:1 calibre student will be able to demonstrate having done the condensed LPC and will therefore have a better shot at a job. As the LPC is largely a doddle and common sense, and great chunks of it are a waste of time unless you come out of university with absolutely no idea at all about the real world, why should it be necessary to have this division? It should all be cut down to the necessary which could easily be condensed into 6 months, and there should be an academic ability limit to entry to it. That’s life I’m afraid. If you can’t get the grade by the time you graduate unless there are extenuating circumstances, there are some doors that close to you. If you’re disappointed with your degree results, and determined to be a lawyer, go back and re-do your degree exams. The only ridiculously bad thing about these plans, apart from the fact they are limited to only one provider and not the norm, is that the unscupulous providers continue to charge more, for giving less. When will this situation be properly regulated? Reply Link NALP 21 January 2011 at 10:38 Why spend £12,500 on an LPC (accelerated or not) when there are few training contracts out there? The National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP) offer a nationally recognised Post Graduate Diploma in Paralegal Practice (PPC) which is the equivalent of an LPC but for Paralegals, at £1,199 by distance learning and under £2,000 for a 20 week class attendance course. This course has been successfully run for 12 years and several Universities have expressed an interest in doing so in the next academic year. It is also highly thought of by employers. Reply Link Anonymous 21 January 2011 at 11:05 Because paralegals are deemed to be failed lawyers. They are cheap and carry out unrewarding process driven crap. Because they are cheap they will never earn a wage to live well. Instead of spending money on paralegal courses why not simply have a few kids and get a free house. You would be much better off. A paralegal will never be able to buy a house or even afford to have kids etc Reply Link Anonymous 21 January 2011 at 14:04 NALP, I don’t see why anyone would spend 3 or 4 years at uni with aspirations of legal practice and then decide that they ‘want’ to become a paralegal. Paralegalling is rarely a career choice for Law graduates. It is something they do pre or post LPC when they can’t get a TC, or when they are a BVC graduate (aka failed barrister) looking to qualify as a Solicitor through the QLTT (although thankfully this door has now closed). The bigger firms love paralegals because in some areas of law they can do 90% of what a Solicitor does but at 40% of the wage. Furthermore, paralegals will work for peanuts in the hope that one day they will be handed the golden ticket of a training contract. Reply Link Anonymous 24 January 2011 at 14:34 The sad thing is how many law graduates are grateful to get a paralegal post. Why would a firm replace a cheap paralegal with a trainee? Because paralegals are desperate they work harder so firms have no incentive to give them a training contract. Why make someone more expensive to employ? Reply Link Anonymous 28 January 2011 at 16:36 I don’t understand why everyone is getting so annoyed at this. It doesn’t mean BPP are getting rid of the full-time LPC, just offering the fast track to those who would prefer it. Reply Link Pipps 3 February 2011 at 15:34 If you cannot understand the commercial issues raised by this debate then the LPC itself is probably not suitable for you. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.