Richard Ridyard and Daniel Reilly, LLB students
In defence of the LLB
Related images
We recently witnessed a widespread debate amongst Lawyer 2B readers, provoked by the blog, “In defence of the GDL” by Rajesh Vora. We would like to respond to this, providing a different perspective and putting into context the position of the LL.B in this modern debate.
In an attempt to provide an informative and relevant account, we believe the three universities we have chosen are a fair representation of the spectrum. According to the Guardians University guide for 2011; University of Warwick is currently third in the country overall, University of Manchester are fifty-first and Liverpool John Moores are one-hundred and ninth. Further, we have compared the number of modules taken during popular degree subjects by GDL graduates to the LL.B.
At University of Warwick the entry requirements for law are AAA at A level with an additional As level required at grade C or above, and includes five modules per year. At the same university entry for Sociology is BBB with an additional As level required at grade B or above, with four modules per year.
At University of Manchester the entry requirements for law are AAA at A level, with six modules per year. At the same university entry for Politics is ABB.
Liverpool John Moores University, the entry requirements for law are BBB at A level, with six to seven modules per year. At the same university entry for English is BCC, with four to five modules per year.
We believe the higher entry requirements indicate that an LL.B requires higher levels of intellect. This conclusion is only advocated as the entry requirements needed for Russell group universities are higher, indicating a better quality of education. The higher number of modules required for an LL.B suggests a heavier workload, proving it is of a higher intensity. As previously highlighted an LL.B can have eighteen or more modules. The GDL has just seven core modules and we question the depth of the legal knowledge gained during this course. This is compounded by the substandard entry requirements of a 2.2 for admission onto the GDL. Other professions such as medicine and architecture do not have an equivalent to the GDL as they take years of training, academic study and dedication which we assert GDL students do not have.
Another issue that cannot be ignored is if the GDL is such an academic and challenging course, then surly the finest institutions in the country would decide to run it, adding to their prestigious reputations and attracting more high calibre students. This is not the case, pointing to one conclusion; that the most esteemed universities in the country deem this diploma inferior and unable to produce graduates of the same calibre as those from an LL.B. It is no surprise then that the majority of providers of the GDL are ex-poly universities, providing what many academics perceive as substandard education.
To support our assertions, we have provided a link to an insightful article. In it, important statistics are cited; just 6.7 percent of law students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland graduate with a first, the lowest percentage on any degree programme. As previously highlighted, law already has amongst the highest entry requirements, attracting students of the highest calibre. Here is an interesting quote from the article in response to the low number of firsts awarded on an LL.B. “A good lawyer has to be a whole package — he or she has to be a linguist, a researcher and have scientific analysis skills. To be all-round excellent at very different things is very rare”.
We assert that an LL.B is designed around these views and aims for students to develop these skills, which are required to become a lawyer. We pose the question, how then can a degree programme unrelated to law combined with the GDL provide students with these skills at such a proficient level when a course specifically designed to do so has relatively low success rates? We suggest it cannot.
The entire debate relies on employment statistics as it is they who ultimately decide. During the previous debate it seemed that commentators were just plucking statements out of the air, so we took it upon ourselves to carry out firsthand research. In our findings, at Essex Court Chambers the proportion of GDL graduates is just 20 percent. At one of our local sets, Atlantic Chambers, the percentage of GDL graduates is just 35 percent. Even in solicitors firms as highlighted in another article the common ratio is 60:40 in favour of LL.B graduates.
During the Open University documentary ‘The Barristers’, at Lamb building chambers a GDL graduate was questioned by Bernard Richmond about their lack of dedication to a career in law. Pointing out that, “You have only completed two years of law…unfair as it is what sort of impression does that give?” In the previous debate Rajesh Vora stated, “…sadly we’re not afforded the luxury of doing electives related to our preferred practice areas”.
The main question we pose to Rajesh and every other GDL graduate is if you truly wanted to become a lawyer before choosing your degree subject and there was a specific area of law you wanted to study, then why did you not choose to study an LL.B?
The mature student argument advocated by many GDL graduates does not hold up either because the same can be commented at LL.B level. On our course 30 percent of students are mature, many, with numerous years work experience in the legal sector. Additionally, many LL.B students have part-time employment, it is not exclusive for those studying on the GDL, demanding the same levels of persistence and endurance many GDL students suggest. Another area overlooked in the previous debate was the fact that an increasing number of LL.B students are going on to complete an LL.M or even a PhD, providing them with superior legal knowledge, carefully honed analytical skills and more life experience.
Regarding the ‘top up’ LL.B argument, here is what the SRA has stated on this topic, “…the LL.B upgrades/top-ups to the Graduate Diploma in Law programmes offered by some institutions are not recognised by the SRA as Qualifying Law Degrees”.
Many academics have commented on the demise of the legal profession, including Peter Birks, placing a proportion of the blame with the GDL and we echo these sentiments. To assert that the GDL is more difficult than the LL.B, with no prior experience or dedication to the legal sector is nothing short of an insult to thousands of undergraduates, graduates and even awaiting students. We thank those who have taken the time to read this blog. We wish to merely offer our perspective and open an opportunity to debate.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (37)
Chris | 26-Oct-2010 2:45 pm
A well written article that shows what the GDL really is, inferior! We LLB graduates already knew that though.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard and Daniel | 26-Oct-2010 4:54 pm
Here are the links to the two articles we cited.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/student/article6872381.ece
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/student/article6193484.ece
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Thomas Baker | 26-Oct-2010 9:54 pm
Having read both articles i have to agree with a previous comment made.
a doctor cannot study basket weaving and then convert in a year to becoming a doctor.
this should be the same in the legal profession.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
D.G. | 27-Oct-2010 11:18 am
No article containing the quote below can be taken seriously:
"We believe the higher entry requirements indicate that an LL.B requires higher levels of intellect."
So I suppose the fact that a BEng in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Manchester only requires ABB means that it's a doddle compared to the LLB? Or maybe the entry requirements better reflect the level of competition for places . . . .?
I should also point out that GDL grads usually already have a degree, not always in "basket weaving". Mine even required AAA!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Beth | 27-Oct-2010 4:44 pm
Entry requirements for courses are all about supply and demand, not about the difficutly of the course.
A number of years, I taught a non-law subject at a Russell Group university. My department was making a decision to raise the entry requirement from AAB to AAA. I asked whether people thought the students we were seeting with AAB were not up to the course. The reply was that there was no problem with the students, but we had too many applicants, so it would be easier to just raise the entry requirements.
There are far more applicants for the LLB than places, so it stands to reason that the entry requirements are correspondingly high. There are plenty of places on the GDL for anyone who will pay, so it stands to reason the entry requirements are relatively low. But neither of these facts has any bearing on the ease or difficulty of the course.
Laying my cards on the table, I am a mature student who studied the GDL part time while working full time. I could have done a senior status part-time LLB, but I didn't see the point when I could study the GDL and get to the same point faster. My course was being partially funded by my employer, so my funding was contingent on full time work. I did not have time to do a full-time course.
Most of the other students on my part-time GDL were also working full time. Others were raising small children. Many of us had spouses and/or children to support; most had mortgages and other financial responsibilities. We could not have undertaken the course on a full-time basis with a part-time job. A part-time course was the only viable option for us, which is why we were there.
For the record, about half my GDL classmates were lawyers fully qualified in non-common law jurisdictions. What would be the point for them of taking another LLB?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
james | 27-Oct-2010 9:22 pm
I feel compelled to write having read the article from Danny and Richard above. I am surprised by the strength of feeling expressed by two aspiring lawyers and their narrowed minded opinion. Surely allowing people from as wide a spectrum of society as possible into the legal profession will bring new skills, knowledge and experience.
Are you frightened of a little healthy competition?
I was particularly concerned about the apparent lack of willingness to allow artisans such as me to study law.
Yours sincerely James Riley, Member of the Worshipful Society of Basket Weavers !!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jonathan Pugh | 27-Oct-2010 10:24 pm
A well written article that identify s the issues that surrounded the GDL. It definitely shows that people should not be aloud to convert to law after doing a alternative degree first. As I could not do a degree in Management and then convert to a degree in medicine so why is it the same in law its not right! As a friend pointed out to me I might as well do a philosophy degree at Oxford what requires BBC then just convert to the GDL and still have a degree from one of the best university's in the world and still be able to become a lawyer by doing a GDL it just does not sound right to me that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Oct-2010 11:23 pm
The fact that you can't use the basic rules of grammar in an article suggests that your course may not be all you think it is.
The ultimate question you have to answer though is why top firms take on GDL students if they are so academically substandard? Many top firms take a roughly 50/50 basis. Chambers don't but that might be generally because they don't offer funding for the GDL. In contrast almost any firm of solicitors worth it's salt offers tuition fees and a maintenance grant.
Finally only ex-polys offer the GDL. Fine. Generally true. But which of your top universities offer the LPC or BPTC? Errr... about the same as offer the GDL. By your logic the LPC is offered by substandard institutions. As everyone in the legal profession will go to ex-poly/CoL/BPP everyone is therefore getting what 'academics perceive to be a substandard education.'
Quite frankly this whole argument is a bit bogus. If firms felt that one particular route was much more valuable than any other you would see ratio of lawyers to non-lawyers change substantially.
Disclaimer: 1st class honours AAAAA A-levels. Got a training contract with top firm. Chose law after university because I changed my mind about what I wanted to do. None of the firms I looked at wanted anything more than a GDL (nor would they pay for an LLB) so I've chosen that route.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lisa | 28-Oct-2010 1:18 am
To get the train to London I can go many routes but still end up in the same place... Sometimes the journey is longer, sometimes I stop off for coffee with friends and other times I get stuck in delays. So long as I get there why worry.
Surely the same principle should be applied here.
We should not be judged on the route we take but the competence and skills we demonstrate once qualified. Keep an open mind - you never know who you will end up working with so why be so narrow minded now?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Oct-2010 11:40 am
Jonathan Pugh - all subjects at Oxford require AAA these days. There are also fast track medical degrees you can do as second degree that are shorter than a standard medical degree.
The question that still needs an answer is if the GDL is so inferior then why do almost all top firms offer funding for it and take on a substantial people with GDLs. All the magic circle, silver circle and top American firms fund GDLers.
Funding the GDL is more expensive than only taking on undergrad law students (who only need one year of course fees and maintenance grants) yet they continue to do it.
The point about lawyers being on a more demanding course might be true but firms run their own psychometric testing or case studies. If the law prepared you much better than another undergraduate degree no students would make it through those hurdles. Law firms aren't simply looking for raw intelligence either. You can be academically brilliant but if you don't come across as professional, likeable and ambitious you won't get a place.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment