BSB aptitude test in doubt after OFT dig
Related images
The Bar Standard Board’s (BSB) plan to introduce a compulsory aptitude test for entry onto the BVC has been thrown into disarray after the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) dubbed the move anticompetitive.
The test, recommended in a July 2008 report by the BVC working party chaired by Derek Wood QC of Falcon Chambers, was intended to be rolled out as part of the BSB’s wider plans, which will see the BVC replaced by the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) in the autumn of 2010.
The aim of the test was to filter out students who do not have a realistic chance of passing the year-long course and thereby close the gap between the number of students undertaking the BVC and the number of pupillages.
But in its report the OFT said it favoured a voluntary aptitude test, as restricting pupils entering the BVC will ultimately lead to “decreased quality and availability and increased prices in the final market for advocacy services.”
The BSB said in a statement: “[The BSB is] currently developing the aptitude test. We have received comments from the Office of Fair Trading and will respond to the Ministry of Justice in due course. In developing the aptitude test, we are taking steps to consult extensively. The test will be piloted before it is put into use as an admission requirement for the Bar Course.”
The number of students enrolling on the BVC rose from 1,406 to 1,827 between 2003 and 2008, but the number of pupillages fell between 2004 and 2007 to fewer than 500 per year.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (15)
Anonymous | 30-Jul-2009 2:10 pm
This sounds like a good idea - it's saving people from themselves before they waste tens of thousands of pounds on a hopeless attempt to enter the profession. More needs to be done to even out the ratio of bar qualifiers to pupillages - at the moment the colleges and universities are running a scam by happily taking on people for the funds when they are well aware that a sizeable proportion will never get anywhere (entry minimum of a 2:2 is a joke - it should be at least a 2:1).
Perhaps a system where bvc entry can only be obtained if a pupillage has been offered might be an improvement (I've heard the Northern Irish system works something like this).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Jul-2009 4:01 pm
One of the simplest and easiest ways to cut back the numbers of dreamers and no-hopers is to resurrect the idea of deferred call to the Bar. People might not be so keen to fork out £14K if they faced the prospect of coming out with only half a qualification and no professional title at the end of the course. At the moment, I think too many applicants say to themselves "Oh, well, even if I don't get pupillage, I'll still be able to put 'Barrister' on my CV and business card, and that (a) looks pretty cool, and (b) will help me get a decent job elsewhere."
It seems the OFT consider, in pursuance of their rigid 'free-market' dogma, that it is acceptable for a profession to continue to train 5 or 6 times as many aspirants as there are places available to them. Que? Surely any fool can see that there ought to be some sort of pre-filtering process to, it would be hoped, hand out a few reality checks BEFORE the starry-eyed wannabe barrister (a) signs on the dotted line and (b) ends up going forth into society entitled as 'barrister' after only barely scraping through the BVC, and thereby devaluing the coinage or (c) trying in vain to gain pupillage and winding up with a huge chip on their shoulder.
And here's another thought. Has anybody at the OFT worked out why their mantra of "increased competition = lower prices" doesn't seem to apply to the BVC, where fees have gone up yet again?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31-Jul-2009 2:50 pm
I totally agree with Anonymous @ 4.01pm.
I know of one person, who did not finish the BVC, never did pupillage, and of course was never Called, who calls herself "Barrister non practicing".....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Aug-2009 8:45 pm
One different way of looking at this is to ask why the BSB or the Law Society for that matter, really consider it their duty to restrict the number of barristers or solicitors who qualify into the profession? This does not happen in most other countries, or indeed professions, - look at the US etc. Other jurisdictions allow people to qualify with in some cases just an LLB. People may qualify, but whether they get offered jobs is a totally different matter. There will always be more candidates applying than jobs, that's the nature of the economy. The lesser abled could always fill vacancies in less well paid positions. Under the current system, (and especially so in the last 15 years), one might argue that candidates jump through all the hoops, spend all the money and don't actually get to finish...I do not believe the current proposals are really about attempting to save candidates fees. It is this professional obsession with the supposed falling of standards, when in reality the opposite has happened and entry is harder than ever before. Perhaps we should concentrate more upon post qualification standards?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gladiatrix | 5-Aug-2010 4:36 pm
The OFT's any-Bar bias becomes more blatantly and embarrassingly obvious by the day. I don't know why it doesn't just rename itself as an outpost of the Law Society; its prejudice is so overt.
In addition to which this is not a trading matter but one of education and is therefore none of the OFT's business, which the BSB should tell it in direct and unmistakable language as publicly as possible. The DfE has a legitimate interest the OFT has none whatsoever.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment