Mon, 20 May 2013
Exploit the power of digital with The Lawyer Acumen
The Lawyer Acumen is a comprehensive online resource giving everyone in the legal market real-time business intelligence on the sector.
15 June 2012 | By Laura Manning
19 June 2012
28 September 2012
2 January 2013
17 October 2012
30 November 2009
The College of Law (CoL) has been criticised for a mistake in one of its Legal Practice Course (LPC) exam papers given to students yesterday, according to information received by Lawyer 2B.
Students allege that the aspiring lawyers were supplied the wrong information in the Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR) paper which took place yesterday (14 June 2012) at the law school giant.
One disgruntled student tweeted: “Well done @CollegeofLaw for another mistake in today’s LPC CDR exam. 12k spent and still an utter shambles.”
It is understood that the exam paper, which is split into two halves looking at two different scenarios, made incorrect references to supporting documents.
The CoL is one of the few law schools that operate an open book policy for its exams, while fellow LPC giant BPP Law School only allows statute books in exams.
A CoL spokeperson said: “We are aware that there appears to have been an error with a Commercial Dispute Resolution LPC paper yesterday and we are now investigating what happened and why.
“A full report will be made to the examination board and external examiners, which will recommend any steps which may be necessary to ensure that no student will be prejudiced by it.”
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2012 3:17 pm
I to sat the Commercial Dispute Resolution (CDR) exam on Thursday 14th June 2012 at 2pm. I am full time LPC student attending the College of Law (London Bloomsbury). I am enraged that the CoL have much such an error on my exam paper considering they emphasis the need to pay attention to detail when training to be a lawyer. I can only assume a fully qualified lawyer wrote this paper and that it would have been proof read by additional before being issued for examination. Having self funded the LPC at the cost of £13,000.00 I am appalled to have read that this issue occurred back in 2010 involving CDR (again) and Employment Law and Tort. It is shocking that the CoL have the audacity to brand themselves as an establishment that promotes reputation for excellence.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2012 4:54 pm
"considering they emphasis the need to pay attention to detail"..that was an unfortunate mistake! I paid £16k for my BPTC and the BSB really cocked up the exams, an occasional error is unavoidable.
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2012 5:12 pm
I too sat the CDR exam, I feel as strongly as the person who commented above. Given the amount of money that we have paid and the emphasis on attention to detail, it is incredbibly unsettling that an institution such as the CoL would make such basic errors.After months of revision and practically having no summer so far, it is irritating that silly mistakes throw you off when you are sitting an exam.
Anonymous | 16-Jun-2012 12:18 pm
This is a massive overreaction, hardly news. It was pretty clear the document referenced was the wrong one, as just as clear which was intended. I doubt anyone will be affected
Anonymous | 17-Jun-2012 2:46 pm
Again, I sat the CDR exam on the 14th June. I was absolutely disgusted with the error. I use special facilities during exams for nerves, I can honestly say this exam did nothing at all to aid my anxiety issues and I feel it jeopardized my performance in the exams after the CDR.I was further angered to find out after the exam at the assessment office that they were fully aware of the mistake BEFORE the exam.Therefore they were happy to send us all into an exam hall for 3 hours having full knowledge of this error. Disgusting.As stated above, I have had to fund this course myself and have a training contract hanging on whether I pass..... I wonder whether the CoL will reimburse me for the loss of a training contract (if it is lost) due to their sheer incompetence!!!
Anonymous | 18-Jun-2012 6:22 pm
I sat this exam. This is a massive overreaction. It was patently obvious what the exam meant. People complaining are clearly lacking the common sense to be lawyers if this stumps them...
Anonymous | 19-Jun-2012 11:03 am
With regards to the above comment dated 18-June 6:22pm I wonder whether you are a member of staff? We are being tested on LAW here and not OBSERVANCY!!!!
Anonymous | 19-Jun-2012 2:01 pm
It wasnt the CDR exam that was the problem, it was the invigilators and their non-stop convos and complete disregard for the rules they advocated themselves that was the problem!!
Anonymous | 19-Jun-2012 2:12 pm
If anyone referred to Document B, and tried to answer the question based on that document, you probably aren't deserving to be in the legal profession. Heck, it was a disclosure question, why on earth would Document B be relevent in the given circumstances??Yes College of Law messed up, but if you couldn't comprehend that they meant Document E, and not Document B which referred to the previous question, go seek another job.
Anonymous | 22-Jun-2012 5:07 pm
Seeing as they meant document D rather than E it shows that it wasn't so bloody obvious!
10 per page | 20 per page
Subscribe to The Lawyer today and get all the latest news stories, both domestic and global, and analysis of the legal sector.
A subscription includes:
The latest legal news, opinion, analysis, jobs and events. Wherever you are, whenever you need it.
Let us help you with an integrated approach to mobile and online advertising.
Site powered by Webvision